I have (tried) to add some quite relevant links to a number of wikipedia articles today only to have the links repeatedly 'reversed'/'deleted'. Each time the other person has quoted the same links regarding spam or external links as the reason for the change, however the site to which I have linked is - if anything - far more useful than some of the links already in place.
Does WebMD or emedicine own shares in Wikipedia? the bahaviour of some of the admins on this site would indicate a vested commercial interest is being protected, rather than the betterment of professional knowledge or access to more in depth study resources?
- I am sorry if you are disappointed by your experiences. I hope you will stay long enough to get to grips with Wikipedia's conventions and ways of working, and find yourself able to add useful content (not a bunch of links) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is under siege from spammers, especially on the medical pages, so people may be a bit quick on the draw. You should however familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:External links and it would be as well not to start accusing people of anything, as Wikipedia is supposed to assume editors are acting in good faith (but can make mistakes, especially if unfamiliar with WIkipedia policies). A number of independent users, not administrators, without consulting each other, each decided your links were inappropriate and removed them, especially because you seem to have done little article editing except to add links to just one site. If you think they are appropriate, please discuss each proposal on the talk page for each article. I would recommend adding a few hundred edits with good factual content before considering suggesting any mass addition of links, however. Idontthinkso 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)