User talk:Youngea

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page AstraZeneca do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection 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, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://experimentalchimp.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/astrazeneca-and-wikipedia-more-edits-uncovered/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, thank YOU, XLinkBot! Youngea (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AstraZeneca frustrations

Upon learning from reputable sources that AstraZeneca IPs were implicated in wikipedia self-editing, I created the following entry under the Controversies section in the AstraZeneca article:

AstraZeneca has been implicated along with numerous other firms for removing controversial or embarrassing information from its own Wikipedia entry.[1] Amongst other edits, evidence exists that someone using a computer registered to AstraZeneca deleted references to claims that Seroquel made teenagers “more likely to think about harming or killing themselves.” [2]

My reasons for including this is that 1) it is very clearly verifiable and independently sourced 2) it concerns the integrity of both wikipedia and the company 3) it is written in a way that does not stretch its source material, containing absolutely no slander or conjecture.

Since including this, several edits have been made specifically to delete this section, even though I have requested that folks come to the article discussion page first to talk through it. The first edits cite no reason, while the later few cite dubious reasons: from "this is rude" to "the company has a right to remove controversial info from its entry" etc etc.

You can view my notes about the lack of discussion, ironically enough, on the article's discussion page

Even ignoring the actual content, this is a very clear process issue. I would like advice/input on how to proceed from here. Also, does anyone know how to use Virgil's data miner to determine the location of the edit IP addresses in relation to the company's location and IP range? (in case curiosity trumphs good faith??). Lastly, any other suggestions that you have to clean up the article and make it more encyclopedia are welcome. Thanks! Youngea (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons stated aren't enough, keep reinserting it. If they delete it too much, cite WP:3RR...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try talking to them on their talk pages first, and if you don't get anywhere with that, you may want to consider dispute resolution. Also, be careful, since 3RR applies to you too.--Werdan7^{T @} 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]