User talk:Catchamackerel

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Graves' disease do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Graves' disease. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Graves' disease. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to your email

You emailed me the following at 11:31AM EDT on July 25, 2011:

I would like to know why an external link to a source I provided, Elaine Moore Graves’ Disease Education -- a source that meets the highest educational standard for health and medical topics as demonstrated by its approval from Honor Code (see http://www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html) would be removed from External Links, i.e. Elaine Moore Graves' Disease Education.

Please be aware that this source is one of the most preeminent and authoritative sources on the topic of Graves' disease, with many articles and books to this author's credit on multiple health topics, including Graves' disease, thyroid eye disease, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's disease, etc., with collaborations with researchers and physicians who are experts in this field.

I have reviewed the links for External Links under the topic of Graves' Disease and feel that you are being biased, especially in light of keeping external links to sources that are self-serving to their organizations, who use the Wikipedia material to promote their own books (see for example Notes: 1. ^ a b c Patterson, Nancy Ruth; Jake George (2002). Graves' Disease In Our Own Words. Blue Note Pubns. ISBN 1-878398-20-2.)

Furthermore, I have read the materials under this topic area, and some of it is outdated, incorrect, or biased towards specific treatment options which misleads the reader and presents certain medical risks by not presenting a more balanced view of such options. The source I've provided reviews these options in far greater length than what Wikipedia can possibly cover. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information that is factual and unbiased, objective and not in the pocket for certain source providers, then there should be no reason to remove an external link that has provided a wealth of information on a topic well beyond the confines of Wikipedia.

Also, I would need to know if you yourself have any biases or prejudices, what your understanding is of medical topics, and what the basis was for your decision as editor to remove a link.

Please reply immediately, preferably by end of day (about as quickly as it took you to edit out this external link), so that I can present it to Wikipedia at a higher level.

Thank you.

Cathamackerel

In the comment (above), I directed you to read Wikipedia's guidelines on External Links (WP:EL). There you will see that following links to be avoided (I have picked out the ones that I believe apply to your link):

• Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.

Based on your contribution history, the only edits you have made to Wikipedia have been adding links to two sites to a few articles over and over again. This seems to me to be an attempt to promote these two websites wherever and whenever possible. This is known as external link spamming, and is frowned upon.

• Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

In looking at the Elaine Moore page you linked to, I see a prominent list of Elaine Moore's books down the right side of the page, as well as numerous links to Elaine's books in the top menu. This seems like too much overt, personal promotion and advertising to me.

• Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

I see little on the Elaine Moore page to make me think it's anything more than a personal web page designed to promote Elaine Moore and sell her books. The site is comprised of her blog, her products, and some of her articles. I don't see why her personal web page on this topic is deserving of a link here, or what it brings to the table for anyone other than Elaine herself.

These are the reasons I deleted your links.

You also noted that the article on Graves' disease is factually inaccurate and/or missing information. If that is how you feel, then I encourage you to improve the article directly by adding sourced information from reliable sources. In addition, since this is an article about a medical condition, you should review the guidelines for acceptable sources for medical articles as well.

The link you provided to the Nancy Patterson book is not an external link -- it is a reference for the article. Linking the ISBN is standard practice for references when it is possible to do so. As such, I don't see any relevance in this particular comment.

I have no biases that I am aware of when it comes to Graves' disease. My qualifications with regard to medical topics is not relevant -- my edits should be judged on a case-by-case basis on the merits of the edits, and not on what you deem my expertise is in general. In addition, the edits in question have less to do with medical knowledge and more to do with Wikipedia's guidelines on external links and spam.

I would ask that you review the guidelines on conflicts of interest. I am not saying that you have a conflict, but the fact that all of your edits are adding links to two sites to Wikipedia makes me think that perhaps you might. Please review those guidelines, and act accordingly.

In addition, please note that I prefer to conduct discussions on articles on Wikipedia and not via email whenever possible. I would ask that, if you would like to continue this discussion, you do so here. Please also note that while I was able to accommodate your request for a speedy reply this time, that won't always be the case (with me, or with other editors). Thank you. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to your email

To Transity:

First of all, I do not personally benefit from any external links I've provided, including the latest one on Dr. Cooper's paper on Anti-thyroid drugs. Wikipedia is designed to educate readers with objective and unbiased information across a variety of topics. Any sources I submit, whatever your guesses, assumption, or suspicions, are of the highest standard.

You make a claim that it could be SPAM, which is untrue. You claim that it’s suspicious that a link would be submitted to several locations. How is it suspicious that a resource has credibility in several related topic areas? As for SPAM, I think you misunderstand what SPAM is – it is unsolicited or unwanted messages that have no value other than to be self-serving in some way. Please refer to Wikipedia’s definition for SPAM. In your opinion, a site dedicated to the education of those who have Graves’ and other thyroid diseases has to be SPAM. This is so wrong on so many levels, from misunderstanding what SPAM is to devaluing a reliable source. If you are uncertain as to how many people have educationally benefited from the information that the Graves' disease education site provides, or equally uncertain as to the professional resources used for such information, please feel free to provide me with a clear and accessible means of contact so that experts and those who've benefited can contact you directly or contact Wikipedia directly as to its overall educational value.

As for the issue of revenues, you would be hard-pressed to find all of the annotated references or external links currently provided to meet the standard you cite. I see sites “allowed” that have all kinds of revenue-building venues. If you would like to go through each reference and resource under this topic to identify who might be profiting from a link provided under either references or resources, I’ll be happy to do that with you. Your response also suggests that external links need to be held to a higher standard than references, in spite of the fact that some references flagrantly may be profiting as a citation.

It's not Wikipedia editors' job (I have no idea if you are employed by Wikipedia or not) to deprive the reader of valuable resources based on guesses, suspicions, and "maybe's". I've already stated to you that the information I provided is approved by HONcode certification which is not so distant from Wikipedia's intention. It follows very tight tenets in the area of health and medicine online, such as: Authoritative: Indicate the qualifications of the authors. Attribution: Cite the source(s) of published information, date medical and health pages Justifiability: Site must back up claims relating to benefits and performance. Transparency: Accessible presentation Contact: Clear and accessible Financial disclosure: Identify funding sources

You have not proved to me your case that this particular external link benefits or doesn't benefit more than any other external link or reference. Therefore, any sources I submit will stand until such a time that you can prove a lack of efficacy. This is an open source project that relies on the honesty, integrity, and passion of those who choose to participate in it. Your voracity against a legitimate resource strikes me as suspicious, to use your words.

Thank you.

Catchamackerel (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Catchamackerel

It is not SPAM -- stop removing my links and warning me about SPAM. I will take this to arbitration, because I think you are being a bully.

I am sorry you feel that way. I have made my position clear, and provided links to the guidelines and policies that are shaping my opinion. I have tried to explain what I think is wrong with the link, and why I believe it to be an inappropriate addition. You need to do what you feel is right, as do I. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for input on the article's talk page. Let's see if that helps. If not, I would recommend looking at dispute resolution procedures. Arbitration may be too high to start -- I would humbly suggest that if discussion on the talk page doesn't resolve anything, perhaps you could ask for editor assistance from a neutral party. Or you could ask for a slightly more formal third opinion on the issue. Barring that, you might look at a request for comment on the validity of the link, which is more formal still. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Listen. You don't have to answer me when I ask this question, but you should have an answer for yourself. Why are your contributions to Wikipedia over 3 1/2 years solely limited to adding links to Elaine Moore's two websites? You deny having a conflict of interest, and that's all well and good, but I urge you to think through your motivations before you continue. Take some time away from all things Elaine Moore. Edit some articles that have nothing to do with her or her web site. Make some contributions elsewhere, and then come back here after you're gotten your feet wet and take a fresh look at this issue. You might find that your position has changed -- that editing for a while sheds some new light on this situation. Trust me when I say that it's not worth banging your head against the wall of Wikipedia policy and arguing every edit you make. Even if you "win," what fun is that? Someone gave me similar advice early in my involvement with Wikipedia, and it is still some of the best advice I have received around here. Think about it. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. Starvee44's opinion is in no way vague. I quote: "I stand by Transity's decision on this." and "I do doubt she belongs in the external link section of the Wikipedia article on Graves disease.". The consensus is against you right now, and it's not at all ambiguous. I also urge you once again to read the archives of the Graves' disease talk page. I linked to an extensive discussion on external links that took place some time ago. You might find that discussion beneficial as at least a half dozen editors were involved, and a number of links were removed from the article. Please reconsider your next steps. I know you think I have lost my cool. I have not -- you are just reading my comments that way. You truly need to step back and get more perspective on this instead of charging ahead. Calling me a bully, and comparing my actions to Soviet-era censorship isn't the way to go. Take a moment, re-read my comment immediately above, and think about taking my advice. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)