|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Need Assistance with External Link Policy
I am trying to understand why an external link that I posed is considered SPAM while a similar link, SurgiCare, on the external links section of this article is not?
The page I linked to had very detailed information on the process both positive and negative and includes risks. I do feel that the link is relevant and informative.
I would like to make sure I follow the guidelines and stay within the boundaries in future actions, and respect the intentions of the community and Wiki overall.
Srikarna 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there, I was the editor that reverted out your changes. All your edits to-date have been advertising the one website, again and again. This is against our policy regarding spam. Here are the relevant policies to do with spam and external links. WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and not simply a collection of links, nor is it a vehicle for advertising your services, as you have. I strongly suspect surgicare probably shouldn't be in there either, unless there's extreme justification. Wikipedia is not a marketeer's battleground, neither. If you've any further questions, just ask on my talk page - Alison ☺ 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Links to commercial website
File:Abdominoplasty.ogv Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Abdominoplasty.ogv, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.|
I have removed recently-added material that seems promotional in nature and/or is not backed by reliable medical sources. I have made similar edits to Trans-umbilical breast augmentation and Buttock augmentation. In order to avoid redundancy, please discuss these changes to all three articles here.--Taylornate (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- the content is not promotional and it is backed by reliable sources, The doctors listed are board certified and have the authority to back the claims made on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fblan001 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- MD ≠ Medical Deity. Okay, that was a bit snarky. Think about this way: Would those references be acceptable in an article submitted to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery? No. As a rule of thumb, if a leading plastic surgery journal would not accept a reference as being sufficiently reliable and authoritative, then neither will Wikipedia. No, I'm not trying to equate the two, this is an online encyclopedia, not a peer-reviewed surgery journal. I simply offer it as a rule of thumb to perhaps prevent all your additions being deleted over and over again.
- It's too bad really because the article is well-written and informative--that's how I ended up here--I searched Google for "abdominoplasty" and landed on this article! And I learned what I needed to know. All you need to do is add some references to well-respected cosmetic/plastic surgery textbooks and/or peer-reviewed journal articles and this Wikipedia article will be even better. But believe me, cheap affiliate landing pages and links to commercial sites will always get deleted quickly. At the very least, it's not worth your time and energy. Mark D Worthen PsyD 05:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)