Thanks for uploading Image:MICU_final.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory listings, nor a site to provide an indexed portal into other data sources (e.g. we don't provide a link on each topic to the corresponding article in Enycopaedica Britanica). In general add content rather than external links, the aim is to improve articles here in wikipedia to featured article quality. Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. David Ruben Talk 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your ip address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Hu12 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look and get back to you asap. -- Dweller 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I gracefully disagree. What I did is not post links to one website over many articles. Rather, I posted external links on different articles to relevant articles on a website. I interpret those spamming rules as saying, "Don't link to yahoo.com on five pages all concerning search engines." In this case, I merely linked an anemia article to anemia. As I said, and you agreed, nothing about the articles refers to any service or hospital. It's merely purchased content. The articles, and I looked over them before posting, do not in any way mimic or merely overlay already present information. Rather, the information in the articles linked is meant to expand on the information specifically for children. Many of the articles I linked to (although not all) did not include an adequate forum for implications to children. And that's fine. But I would think that purchased, approved, and unbiased links to more information concerning this could not be called spam in any case.
Further, while many moderators have expressed concern over past links, and I admit that, these links were approved not only by one moderator but all three of the previous. From what I understand, and I agree, there was a problem with linking to pages that provided services or content that could be seen as biased. These same moderators that exposed those concerns agreed that links to external content that was wholly informational was appropriate and permissible. That is what I have done in this case, and now yet another moderator has a problem. The rough consensus here, then, is that the previous situation was impermissible, but this new one is permissible. And yet the links were still taken down.
Thanks for looking over this information, as it can benefit not only the parents and patients looking for information, but Wikipedia because of these articles' accuracy.
Also, I don't mind one bit this being the discussion page. Better than trying to go around to three pages! :) TBAmes 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Children`s Hospital (Saint Louis) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 15#Children`s Hospital (Saint Louis) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1234qwer
1234qwer
4
15:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MICU_final.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory listings, nor a site to provide an indexed portal into other data sources (e.g. we don't provide a link on each topic to the corresponding article in Enycopaedica Britanica). In general add content rather than external links, the aim is to improve articles here in wikipedia to featured article quality. Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. David Ruben Talk 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your ip address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Hu12 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look and get back to you asap. -- Dweller 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I gracefully disagree. What I did is not post links to one website over many articles. Rather, I posted external links on different articles to relevant articles on a website. I interpret those spamming rules as saying, "Don't link to yahoo.com on five pages all concerning search engines." In this case, I merely linked an anemia article to anemia. As I said, and you agreed, nothing about the articles refers to any service or hospital. It's merely purchased content. The articles, and I looked over them before posting, do not in any way mimic or merely overlay already present information. Rather, the information in the articles linked is meant to expand on the information specifically for children. Many of the articles I linked to (although not all) did not include an adequate forum for implications to children. And that's fine. But I would think that purchased, approved, and unbiased links to more information concerning this could not be called spam in any case.
Further, while many moderators have expressed concern over past links, and I admit that, these links were approved not only by one moderator but all three of the previous. From what I understand, and I agree, there was a problem with linking to pages that provided services or content that could be seen as biased. These same moderators that exposed those concerns agreed that links to external content that was wholly informational was appropriate and permissible. That is what I have done in this case, and now yet another moderator has a problem. The rough consensus here, then, is that the previous situation was impermissible, but this new one is permissible. And yet the links were still taken down.
Thanks for looking over this information, as it can benefit not only the parents and patients looking for information, but Wikipedia because of these articles' accuracy.
Also, I don't mind one bit this being the discussion page. Better than trying to go around to three pages! :) TBAmes 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Children`s Hospital (Saint Louis) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 15#Children`s Hospital (Saint Louis) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1234qwer
1234qwer
4
15:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)