:: I had read that policy, and while I understand the motivation behind it, I think it goes too far. (Moreover, it says they are "strongly discouraged," not that the links should be immediately deleted, nor that they are spam.) I think it is ridiculous to simply equate adding a lot of links to spam, and especially to vandalism. I have explored instances of both on Wikipedia, and they are nothing like my links.  

 ::Both spam and vandalism are done without regard to the quality of Wikipedia and in fact harm it. Spam is usually done by a bot, is related to a commerical site, and/or is done for search engine ranking purposes. None of those apply to me. I know that a link on Wikipedia makes no difference to the search engines because Wiki uses the ref=nofollow code. I make only cents per day on my ads, and traffic from Wikipedia makes little difference with respect to that. Given these facts, I have no reason to "spam" Wikipedia. I just thought my pages were a valuable reference, and so adding a link to work I've already done was a quick way to add some value to Wikipedia articles. 

 ::The idea that site owners have to wait for someone else to link to their is inefficient and unnecessary. It often takes a long time for "other Wikipedians" to find good resources, especially when a website is new, like mine. Why not allow the site owner to link to some relevant pages, and then let other Wikipedians decide if they would have linked to it themselves? If not, they can delete them, on a case-by-case basis. The great thing about Wikipedia is that all edits are peer reviewed, whether it be a new link or a new sentence. 

 ::In that light, I do appreciate your constructive treatment of my Lisbon link with regard to its quality. But if you look closer at the page, you'll see that it is the main page of an entire section devoted to Lisbon, which provides information on churches and other sites of interest, maps, getting there by train, and all sorts of information I believe someone reading about Lisbon on Wikipedia would find useful.  

 ::"High content" does not need to be all on one page, and in fact web-writing guidelines generally encourage breaking up long web pages into smaller pieces. As a Wikipedia user, I have frequently seen external links that have just as many ads as mine (often less relevant  ads) - About.com, whose level of ads personally annoys me, is a great example - and those are not simply reverted because of it, nor because of suspicions that the site owner might be adding the link. And they shouldn't be if they are valuable resources.  

 ::I would take this issue up at the Village Pump, but I simply don't have the time to devote to Wikipedia that you seem to. Perhaps I will in the future. For now, I just ask that if you (and Pavel) still insist on removing my links, please put a valid reason in the edit summary and try to avoid simply reverting, because I have often made other useful edits. You also might want to allow other Wikipedians to evaluate my edits from time to time.