User talk:TBAmes

User talk:TBAmes/Archive

Image copyright problem with Image:MICU_final.jpg

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)[reply]

Inappropriate adding of link to multiple pages

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)[reply]

[1]

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)[reply]

Approval of other editors is not only criteria and which "other editors" and what "approval" - by and large yours were the most recent edits to the articles and no other editors had yet seemed to comment. In essence external links are for information which is more extensive than that which wikipedia articles should have at featured article level. However, if the external information is something that the wikipedia article should have, but has currently missing, then that information should be added into the article rather than merely adding external off-site links.

External links are not there merely to duplicate information already given in the article and are not there to support & verify the information given (that is the role of Reference and Footnote sections).

I did not think that the links provided more information than WP's articles should have and so I removed the links (see WP:EL for guidelines).

You are of course free to re-edit the articles, but I note Hu12 also seems to have agreed with my assessment, so may I suggest considering first discussing in the various articles' talk pages your proposed additional external link before so adding ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. TBAmes is a newbie, so unfamiliar with WP process/policies. I can't claim to be an expert myself. I'm also not a medic and am aware that you are, so forgive me if I display ignorance on any/all of this. As I understand it, the external links he's providing are designed to inform parents about the specific pediatric implications of medical conditions. As such, they're too specialised for our articles and this is exactly the type of external link WP should welcome. If I imagine myself as a parent finding out that my child has, say Anemia, I would find the WP article, which deals beautifully with the topic and then welcome information that came from an external link that specifically addressed the subject vis a vis children. I don't think it would count as spam, given that the website is free and that as a UK resident I'm unlikely to buy my anemia services from an American hospital. Happy to debate this further here, if TBAmes doesn't mind us congesting his talk page. --Dweller 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, hope TBAmes you don't mind us discussing issues here on your talk page :-), a few points:

I agree that we need to take care not to WP:BITE, so I hope TBAmes I have come across as courteous, but feel free to raise any questions you have re policies or wiki editing/citing and I will see if I can try and help out.
The use of the St. Louis Children's Hospital site to externally link on multiple pages was discussed at length at User talk:St. Louis Children's Hospital in December. Query: TBAmes was this you back in December before what would have been a sensible change from a username that might be misconstrued as the official voice for the hospital, or an unrelated editor interested in adding the same links ? Anyway, TBAmes blanked that discussion 3 times on 21st December #1, #2 and #3, so will have been well aware of the discussion; with its newbie welcome threads and pointers of spam & external links and thoughts from ImmortalGoddezz, GateBridge & Fan-1967 from almost 3 weeks ago specifically on the insertion of these links. See also discussion held at User talk:Budgiekiller/Archive 6#Comment from User: St. Louis Children's Hospital
I don't personally feel that the site, by and large, provides information which is that specific for paediatric disease management. As an example Lung transplantation, the information is all nicely presented, but it is as applicable to adult lung transplantation as for children. Only the use of "child" rather than a more generic "patient" really distinguishes the article as coming from a Children’s Hospital vs. an Adult service. The descriptions of conditions likely to require lung transplantation are not so detailed as not to be in WP's article, obtaining & allocating of donor organs is at a level that should be in WP's own articles on transplantation/donation, likewise "The lung transplant team" summary would seem appropriate within organ transplantation article, details on rejection are/should be already under organ rejection.
The posting of the link is spamming, not so much in that it advertises this one hospital (the information pages I agree do not make any particular claims for the service provided at the hospital compared to anywhere else, although having multiple links to wikipedia will result in a higher Google ranking), but the multiple linking to one resource in multiple wikipedia article does seem to consitute being described or viewed as a type of "multi-spam" - see WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer which observes "Sometimes, people come to Wikipedia with the intention of spamming -- creating articles which are mere advertisements or self-promotion, or spewing external links to a Web site over many articles.", so spamming need not be only if for advertising, and subsequent point "5 Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar" offers further advice.
I see Dweller that you too participated in the discussion at User talk:St. Louis Children's Hospital back in December and so you will have been aware that those 3 other editors thought inserting the links multiple times was either spamming or at least not helpful. My recent reverts therefore places me as the 4th editor to have expressed this view, and Hu12's later posting makes 5 opinions in all; does this not seem like a rough consensus ?
TBAmes, there are a large number of policies cited in all of the above discussions, please do ask any of us for further help on these if required - we might not always be able to give a firm answer, but you can but ask :-) If you really feel that the pages really do add additional medical information, then you may wish to seek a wider opinion of editors interested in medical topics at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. David Ruben ^Talk 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

I'll take a look and get back to you asap. --Dweller 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracefully Disagree

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)[reply]

"Children`s Hospital (Saint Louis)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]