Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/chris1979

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: content dispute

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: none

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Just want to understand better

Summary:
I added an external link to the Neuro-linguistic programming page and it was removed by somebody (who was not logged in) because they viewed it as spam.

The link was to www.nlpconnections.com. It's a free resource -- a web community where anybody who is interested in NLP can find out more, discuss their experiences and share ideas. The site also hosts free articles, interviews and user-contributed reviews of training courses and books.

Members include some of the people who created NLP, as well as top NLP trainers, authors, coaches and teachers. It's a unique and very useful site for people who are into that sort of thing.

For people researching NLP on wikipedia, I believe it will be a very useful link and save them lots of time. Everything on the site is free.

The person who removed the link was not logged in and appears not to have a history on wikipedia. Because of that, I am asking for guidance on whether my addition was indeed 'spam' or not. If it was, I apologise and will not re-add it. If it's ok for me to re-add it though, I think that would be useful and a good thing for people researching NLP on your site. It is at least as relevant as any other external link on that page; in many cases, much more relevant.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: open

Advocate Status:
 * Trebor