Why did you remove the link on Pneumatic page?
Why did you remove the link on Pneumatic page?
I believe the link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatics linking to http://www.e-pneumatic.com/blog/basic-information-on-pneumatic-systems/ is informative and add's value to the visitor because it's on kinda same topic and add's additionall informations and that's why External Links is there for right? Can you explain to me why it's been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pneumaticshop (talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Pneumaticshop: Since every one of your edits thus far has been to add links to that website, it appears that you likely have a conflict of interest and are affiliated with this site. In this case, you should not add this link to articles yourself and instead should only discuss it on articles' talk pages. Otherwise, it appears to be nothing more than WP:LINKSPAM. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 12:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Apparition11: If you have knowledge on that topic please read the article on the blog I linked to and re-think if it should stay there or not, but if you don't then let it stay or give to someone who do have knowledge on the topic. The link was more than relevant to the topic on wiki page(informations on pneumatic systems basics linking from pneumatics in general).. shame that by your very own judge people won't get to know more, oh well.. that's where Google come's right?
- @Pneumaticshop: That's not how Wikipedia works. The burden is on you to make the case for including the link. Nearly every manufacturer and distributor have these kinds of blogs and many are constantly added. Wikipedia is not a directory for external links. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free encyclopedia, not a collection of web links. If you want to add content backed by reliable, third party sources, then that is great and is exactly what Wikipedia needs. However, if your goal is to get this link included as often as possible, then not so much. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Adnan Khan Niazi Shahbazkhail
please make my wikipedia account.i am student of university of sargodha pakistan and i am the player of kabbadi sports in university.i also study in Bsc(Hons)Agriculture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan Khan Shahbazkhail (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Adnan Khan Shahbazkhail: I'm afraid that you may be confused about what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't. You actually already do have an account. You do not have an article. To have an article, the subject must meet WP:N. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 11:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
please do not revert my edits
PLEASE DO NOT REVERT my contributions to this encyclopedia. If you have an issue with my edits, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you, have a nice day. ForkliftOperator (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ForkliftOperator: Please do not treat Wikipedia as if it were a joke. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 00:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Apparition11: I never treat Wikipedia like a joke. Wikipedia is serious, and I am serious. What makes you think I am treating it like a joke? ForkliftOperator (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @ForkliftOperator: What children do with forklifts—or any other vehicles—is not of any relevance to any related articles. As such, all your edits essentially inserted nonsense. Amaury (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Since I help out a lot of times here (which I hope is okay), if you're not already watching my user space, you're more than welcome to answer queries on my talk page if you have some time and think you can answer them, especially after some drama a while back here (it was more than just that, obviously), where having an uninvolved voice could really come in handy. Amaury (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Of course it's okay, all input is welcome here :) Yep, I still have it watchlisted and do check it from time-to-time. Much of the time, especially when it's TV related, I can't add much to the conversation. It's out of my realm of expertise, both the actual subject matter and how WP handles it (at least in the past, I know that policies and guidelines were often overlooked in that area to say the least). I might try to chime in when there is something that I can add though :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, In reviewing the various External Links I noted that other sites are allowed their links. We are a legitimate resource as all of the other 3rd party sites. Why is my link inappropriate, while the others are accepted? Thanks for your time. Spring5409 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring5409 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Spring5409: Hello. Up to this point, every one of your edits has been to add that link. This edit seems to confirm that you are here to add that link instead of being here to build an encyclopedia. The external links in those articles do appear to need more scrutiny, and many should likely be removed as well. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
" The external links in those articles do appear to need more scrutiny, and many should likely be removed as well" Fair enough. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring5409 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Spring5409: No problem. Unfortunately, Wikipedia attracts a lot of unwanted external links and, especially on articles that have few editors watching, a lot slip through the cracks and stick around for a long time. When I get home, I will try to go through a couple of those articles. Thanks for understanding. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries. ICD-10 is an interesting topic. It's "hot" right now, because all clinicians in USA have to transition from ICD-9 code set (approx 16k codes) to ICD-10 code set (approx 60k codes) as of Oct 1 2015. I will say all of those 3rd party links, as well as ours, do provide a needed resource to the doctors. Most of us added value to the official (CMS) provided files to help the doctors codify their diagnosis for billing purposes. That's why we see ourselves as useful links that add to the wiki. You can use our tool to lookup and see the official coding rules for diagnosis such as diabetes, as a simple example. The doctors have their hands full this month (launch is Oct 1) to use totally different codes with different definitions and rules. We help with that. Hope this info helps as you review the value of the external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring5409 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)