User talk:Travel-Stories

You sent me an email after I removed the external link from allergy. I have had another look at http://www.allergy-details.com/, and I feel again that it is an unsuitable site. This is determined by our external links policy. My problem with the site is not that it is making money, but the relatively unauthoritative of the content. For instance, it confuses terminology between "allergy" (which scientifically is a very narrowly described subject) and "intolerance". Where is your evidence that food causes "allergy symptoms" through food proteins in the bloodstream? When you refer to "wheat and barley allergy", is this a reference to coeliac disease or perhaps a different type of intolerance?

I agree the AllerJeez site is unsuitable too, and I've removed it. But that is because it is effectively a blog; I'm more impressed by the way that site treats the subject.

Let me know what you think. The Wikipedia allergy article is presently very poor, and I'm trying to find other editors to improve it. JFW | T@lk  06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

--- Thanks for your comments, Dr. Wolff.

I have read the our external links policy and realize that the link should have been submitted to the discussion page to let others decide.

Anyhow, maybe now is not the time to add Allergy Details as a link to the allergy entry.

I am just in the process of looking for my own panel of experts to fix existing content and add new and authoritative content to the site. Once that process is well under way, I will suggest the link be added on the discussion page.

If you know of anyone who wants to help out, they can contact me via http://www.allergy-details.com/contact.

As for contributing to the Wikipedia entry, I am happy to have material borrowed from allergy-details, provided the source is credited. At some point in the future I may have some pithy sections of my own to add to the allergy entry.

Does that sound reasonable?