Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Insomnia . Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Insomnia 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because 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 constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Insomnia . It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. "Materialscientist,"
Before I begin, let me thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. It's certainly a valuable resource and at the best available price for what it is. With regard to the link I'm posting, I'm afraid we have a difference of perspective and interpretation of what is appropriate for Wikipedia. As a material scientist (and I'm sure a smart guy, my father was a metallurgical engineer) I'm sure if I appeal to reason that it will resonate with you. Similarly, as a fellow fan of wikipedia, I'm sure referencing wikipedia itself is a reasonable method to start such an appeal. First, the link I'm attempting to place arguably falls within the realm of permissible according to Wikipedia's own rules. According to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links" the link I'm providing is permissible based on the facts that it's not copyrighted material. Additionally (now in reference to "Links Normally to be Avoided") it does provide a unique perspective and information and treatment well beyond what Wikipedia has or could allow for. The information is factually accurate and backed up by pubmed, peer-reviewed references throughout. The site contains no malware to date, is accessible in any country, has no ads on it, no affiliate tracking, requires no specific applications or software, and addresses the topic at hand (insomnia).
Item #4-6 I would like to address on their own as I'm sure they are the basis for the counter arguments as to why my site might be objectionable to link in Wikipedia.
#4 Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.
- 5 Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
- 6 Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[5] See below.
- 4 & #5 seem in direct conflict with my website. I am trying to promote my website. But this is a consequence of double effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect).
That is, it is in my attempt to help the people who read about insomnia (who are mostly insomnia patients) that I am also promoting my website. I would argue this is still in their best interest. #6 also seems in direct conflict. That said, this is the cheapest possible way to get this information and accordingly is still in the best interest of the readers (and patients) who visit Wikipedia's site on insomnia.
The most important point, however, is found within the "External Links" page, the recommend things that SHOULD be posted. They include (1) accessibility (my site has a translation tool, all material is presented in both auditory as well as written language for both the blind and deaf, and is written at a 7th grade level for those with minimal schooling or reading abilities), (2) site content that is proper in context (i.e. useful, tasteful, informative, factual) (my site has references through to pubmed abstracts back up each and every claim I make on the site and is actual insomnia treatment instead of just listing the types of treatment available (i.e. useful beyond what Wikipedia is unto itself). The link is, of course, functional and online insomnia treatment (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia(has recently been shown to be effective and even the Wikipedia article appropriately references that it's better than medications for insomnia). Moreover the website itself is of considerable value to people who want to more about insomnia and be treated for it (I would argue these are largely the same population). Its value is not just in the quality of the material and references, but is considerably less expensive than the opportunity cost. That is, the same information is not otherwise available from a physician unless they participate in at 4-8 CBT sessions over the span of 1-2 months. Each session is often charged in the realm of $500 here in the U.S. (in fact the session I put on are charged $550 each). The amounts to a total of $2,000 to $4,000 for insomnia treatment. I offer it online for less than $30. I challenge you to find a less expensive and equally qualified source. None such exists. Beyond the actual financial cost, the number of doctors (MDs, DOs, and psychologists) trained-in and practicing CBT for insomnia are very few. As of 2009, only 75 existed in the entire United States (http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/ask-the-expert/choosing-cbt-insomnia-specialist). Accordingly, most patients don't have access 1st hand to the single best method of treating insomnia. You sir, manage the rights of these patients to at least potentially be exposed to the option of this therapy with little reason to now allow it to be so. I don't know if you've ever not been able to sleep, but its among the most frustrating diseases I, as a physician, am aware of.
Public Health Medicine PhD's argue "doctors are the guys who jump in the river to save a drowning person [one at a time], but public health officials are the guys who go upstream to find out how people keep falling the in river and to keep them out." This is my attempt as a physician to go up river and at least offer a rescue net, that is something larger than myself and better equipt to effective treat the masses of patients that go untreated.
So in the same vein that I started this e-mail, I would like to think, like Wikipedia, the website I've tried to create is a valuable resource and is at the best available price for what it is. So I ask that you take your position and responsibility seriously and look out for the best interest of the patrons (and patients) that visit the wikipedia insomnia website.
Cabrooker1 (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Craig Brooker, M.D.