User talk:Guymadison

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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Panic links

Hi Jamie.You removed my external link on Panic Attacks. My site is not for any profit but has a talk community of over 250 people and we focus solely on panic attacks. There is a constant stream of information occurring there. Spam is FOR profit or FOR an agenda. This site is free information and aims to helps people suffering from panic attacks and give them detailed explanations from those that have had panic attacks. Thanks, Jeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guymadison (talk • contribs).

Hi Jeff. I took a closer look at your site. It seems to be non-profit. I reverted the links because it appeared that you immediately added the links to more than numerous articles (which made it appear to be a spamming campaign). If you re-add them to Panic disorder and Panic attack, I won't object, but those are probably the only articles that are highly relevant to the content. You could also post a query to the talk pages to those article asking others if they think the links are worth adding. Articles related to anxiety and depression can quickly accumlate way too many links, so we try to limit them to highly relevant and/or notable sources. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

April 2008

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Panic attack. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the link is to a for-profit or a not-for-profit site. The issue is whether the article is improved by having the link. The only purpose of external links is to improve the aricle. I don't see how this link counts against that criterion. Gwernol 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But the website Panicend.com has everything to do with information about panic attacks because it has a constant stream of discussion without bias. Someone seeking information about their panic attacks can have an immediate live interaction with many people also suffering. Why do you say it does not provide information relative to the concept? You have allowed another site that asks the reader to take a quiz on whether or not they have panic attacks. Yet that site is constantly bombarding the reader with advertisements for therapy and the results of the "quiz" lead one to resources for paid services! There are sites that aim to help inform panic sufferers about the meaning of panic and what to do about it and there are sites trying to make money OFF of people with panic attacks. People who come to wikipedia looking for information about panic attacks ARE suffering from panic attacks and not just curious about the defintion. They need ALL the information they can get. Guymadison (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)guymadison