User talk:Travisinstitute

ACC
Hello. I've reverted your addition to the ACC article; the meat of the page which you attempted to link into the article would serve the article much better as a copy add to the article itself, with citation references to your external link. I don't see any copyright issue preventing this from occurring. Please consider improving Wikipedia, as opposed to the quicker fix of advertising your web site. If you'd like to respond to this, i will be watching this page. Quaeler (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * hello! I believe i understand your comment as saying that the content of the site I was attempting to add to external links would better be added to the actual content of the article.  I have no problem putting in the work to do this, though I am curious to know why this link would be any more "advertising" (which wasn't the point) then other schools placed in external links, such as UCSF.  As a new editor I would appreciate your further comments on this issue.  Travisinstitute (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Howdy - external links seem destined to be one of the perma-sticky-wickets of Wikipedia; WRT the ACC article in particular, i see a worthy case being made that, for example, the UCSF link is just as removable as your institute's link, and should you choose to take an ownership of the article i would suggest you clean out the external links as you see fit, and as guided by WP:ELNO. Had i been watching the article when someone added the UCSF link, i would have likely reverted that as well (despite my bias for all things San Francisco :- ) ); this devolves into the notion that there are (at least) two sorts of Wikipedia editors WRT policing articles: those who prevent further 'damage' to articles, and those that re-work article content. For me, on this article, i'm just in the former category. Let me know if i can be of more assistance... Quaeler (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying! Travisinstitute (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)