SouthernNights

I try to be extremely careful in my writing and edits. If you have any issues with any work I have done on an article, please let me know.

External links

It's a kinda gray area, but those don't really seem appropriate to me either. Besides the points you mention (fairly general compared to the specific articles they were added to, as well as appearing to be self-promotion), the site seems to be mostly links to other sites (sometimes referred to as a 'link farm', and generally not considered worth linking to), and commentary which seems to fall under the definition of 'original research', which is also frowned upon. The fact that those three edits are the only ones that user has made on Wikipedia, the user's intentions/motives seem a bit suspect, altho' Wikipedia policy is to 'assume good faith' whenever possible. The not particularly high Alexa rank seems to indicate his site's not a 'leading journal' in its field. Also, with Medicare (United States), since many piperreport.com links go to kff.org, it is arguably redundant with the direct kff.org link above it.

Anyway, some policy/guidelines that are documented related to all this include "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." from Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to, Wikipedia:Autobiography (which I consider to include people's own websites and other works in principle, tho' I don't know how widespread that interpretation is), Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, items 5 and 6. Wikipedia:No original research (although again this is a bit open to interpretation, since it only specifically talks about contributed text--but it seems to me that since Wikipedia's mission is not to disseminate original research, linking to it is about as bad). While the Edit window doesn't mention it, clicking any redlink to start a new article very specifically states "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).", which again addresses the issue more in principle than specifically with external links.

So, in this type of situation, I would remove the link(s), with clear but concise edit summaries of what's being done, and the main reason(s) why (EG "Removing overly general, self-promotional external links"). Then, either pre-emptively go to the articles' Talk pages and give a more detailed explanation, including links to any guideline/policy articles you're citing, or just add the articles to your watchlist and wait until if/when he tries to add the links again, and make the case on the Talk page then. If he persists, it would be best to get input from more Wikipedians by putting a summary of the issue, and links to the article(s) and discussion(s), at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Niteowlneils 19:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and excellent guidance! Alabamaboy

You are welcome. Welcome to the wonderful world of wikidom.Andycjp Some day in May 2004

Cleanup tag

Hi there, Do you have any specific suggestions for the salt of the earth article? Thanks, Nathan Larson 04:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

African American literature

Thank you for your message. Good work! Article now looks great! I think that African American literature is very important issue in American history. All your edits will be cheerfully welcomed. Thank you! - Darwinek 20:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I think it's headed the right direction. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

Sorry for the delayed response (you posted the comment on my talk page a week ago). If somebody continues to vandalize despite warnings, report it at Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress, or you can ask an administrator to help you out. Also, check out Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. Again, sorry for my tardiness, as you probably have found this out by now. Keep up the good work and happy editing! ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 05:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)