Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your help so far. As for your Allergy edit: I do not believe it is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and the External links section should be filled sparingly. The idea is to not use external linkage as a substitute for having information in the article itself; if the external link has credible information that isn't in the article, it should be added to the article, not linked. I recommend reading over WP:EL for a more thorough discussion. ~ Booya Bazooka 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Shortshire. I removed your link mostly because it does not really add anything to the Asthma article. Wikipedia's guideline on External links clearly states that links which do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains should be avoided. The Asthma article is very comprehensive—in fact, it is a Featured Article, meaning it provides some of the best content on Wikipedia—and already has quite a few external links. If you read the article you will see it already presents nearly everything contained in the website you added. "Asthma Signs & Symptoms" is also supported by ads, and most ad-supported websites are considered inappropriate for inclusion here. I would recommend that you read our guidelines on linking to external websites and spamming if you'd like any more information. Regards, Fvasconcellos 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You obviously read this, in fact I know you have spoken about the subject on several occations. But it is very obvious to the wikipedia community what you are trying to do.
Just to reiterate the policy:
Remembering these points will help you to enjoy a long and happy career as a wikipedia editor. Agathoclea 09:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your help so far. As for your Allergy edit: I do not believe it is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and the External links section should be filled sparingly. The idea is to not use external linkage as a substitute for having information in the article itself; if the external link has credible information that isn't in the article, it should be added to the article, not linked. I recommend reading over WP:EL for a more thorough discussion. ~ Booya Bazooka 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Shortshire. I removed your link mostly because it does not really add anything to the Asthma article. Wikipedia's guideline on External links clearly states that links which do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains should be avoided. The Asthma article is very comprehensive—in fact, it is a Featured Article, meaning it provides some of the best content on Wikipedia—and already has quite a few external links. If you read the article you will see it already presents nearly everything contained in the website you added. "Asthma Signs & Symptoms" is also supported by ads, and most ad-supported websites are considered inappropriate for inclusion here. I would recommend that you read our guidelines on linking to external websites and spamming if you'd like any more information. Regards, Fvasconcellos 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You obviously read this, in fact I know you have spoken about the subject on several occations. But it is very obvious to the wikipedia community what you are trying to do.
Just to reiterate the policy:
Remembering these points will help you to enjoy a long and happy career as a wikipedia editor. Agathoclea 09:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)