User talk:SeeACure

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. High on a tree 15:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. it seemed like the remaining links under Ocular Oncology and Uveal Melanoma were, under the guidelines, inapproapriate, too, yet they remained untouched - Please don't contrue my edits as an explicit endorsement of the other links that I left standing. (This seems to be a common misunderstanding for newbies not yet familiar with Wikipedia's collaborative way of editing: Very frequently, one is just working on a small part of an article - a sinle section, a particular stamements or just one external link - and not concerned with the rest of it.) So if you are seeing other web links which are not consistent with External links, feel free to remove them.

I am not sure if you read the following in External links:
 * You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.

For the moment, I am not going to judge if "See A Cure" satisfies Reliable sources. My main issue was that you added the same pages to several different articles. Please always make sure that the linked page contains information specifically about the article's subject. For example, you added to Proton therapy, although there is nothing about proton therapy on the main page there! Perhaps you have a sub-page which actually contains valuable content for a reader searching information about proton therapy, then maybe a deep link could be appropriate. But discussions about the political situation in the U.S. regarding cancer research or a review of a novel mentioning eye cancer are not helpful to this reader.

You seem to be very knowledgeable in this field and I would really like to see you adding actual content (or correcting mistakes, etc.) in this field on Wikipedia, instead of just adding web links.

Regards, High on a tree 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)