User talk:110.33.188.54

March 2021
Hello, I'm Arllaw. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Underwriting have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is a topic on retrospective underwriting inappropriate for a topic on underwriting? Why is the link (secondary source that Wiki seems to rely on instead of primary source that established academia favours) that explains retrospective underwriting for fully inappropriate? Seems like censorship for a genuine information provided on an encyclopedia, explaining a topic within that encyclopedia, and using a citation backing up that information?
 * Please take the time to read the guidelines about links, and about what constitutes reliable sourcing. For certain subjects, such as legal subjects there are additional sourcing guidelines. Please also learn about when it is and is not appropriate to use inline links. We understand that when people write articles they can become very excited to promote them, but please also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)