User talk:Scipilot

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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 to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Guidance on if my website can be included

Hi, i'm asking if adding my website www.ableize.com would be okay, i was shortlisted in 2011 as disabled entrepreneur of the year see https://www.leonardcheshire.org/what-we-do/stelios-award-disabled-entrepreneurs/past-winners/2011-sh... does this qualify my site to be added?

Scipilot (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to add to articles under points points 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of WP:ELNO. Being included on a list doesn't really change that, nor does it qualify the website as notable enough for an article. Please do not add it to any part of the site any more. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: Guidance on if my website can be included

Please help me with... Hi

As a wheelchair user that created an established site that offers by far the most up to date resources for disabled people in the UK I am very disapointed at the reply when asking for guidance, I see sites that also are directories such as Best Of The Web are included and they are gereral in their approach and offer no assistance such as ABLEize does, especially to people with disabilities, ABLEize was chosen and hand picked by the Virtual Library, a site that hand picks the best of the best and conceived and run by Tim Berners-Lee so dismissing my request with a "go away and never return" type of attitude was rather surprising to say the least.

ABLEize serves as the UK's largest and longest established disability resource, please relook at my request to include an article about how www.ableize.com was founded, its background and how it assists disabled people etc.

Scipilot (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTTHEM. We are not a repository of links, nor a directory, nor a webhosting service.

We require all of our articles to be based on multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with it (see WP:Notability). The burden of proof rests on the individual who makes claims. So it is your job to present evidence that the website is notable by our standards. However, I strongly recommend you also read WP:COI (as you have a conflict of interest regarding this topic) and WP:NOTHERE (since your activity seems rather dedicated on promoting your site rather than contributing to the encyclopedia). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, as it is your website, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy kicks in which prohibits you from directly editing anything in connection with any organisation with which you are involved (and applies regardless of how worthy your organisation is). All you can do is propose edits on the talk page of any article where you wish to include material that uses your website as a reference, and even then third party sources are required in support.

Whilst I have no doubt that your website fulfills a valuable role, I trust that you will appreciate that Wikipedia has this policy otherwise it would fill up in no time with self promotional articles for companies pedling various types of snake oil. Good luck with your venture. --Elektrik Fanne 15:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...

Sorry to go on but I do feel strongly about this and wish to address your references, also be aware that it is not me that would be writing the article, nor me submitting it, I am mearly asking if it would be accepted, I was contacted by a carer of a disabled child that wanted to add ABLEize to Wikipedia and I offered to enquire before she interviewed me.

Addressing you points, you said "It is not appropriate to add to articles under points points 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of WP:ELNO."

4:Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming. ABLEize is a reference library, 90% of the site offers details of help, support and social groups for the disabled as well as sports, the arts and much more. You do list Best of the Web and that is 100% promotional where as ABLEize is only partially with the main aim of support and advice resources.

10: Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. ABLEize is none of these in whole, it is a disability resource, the same way as Disabled Go is.

11: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) Again, ABLEize is a disability resource controlled by disabled people that jointly have full knowledge of all disabilities.

13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects. This as the others refers to links, not article subjects etc.

14: • Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. Yes ABLEize does have commercial customers as explained previously, these offer products, services and advice to disabled people so are relevant to the site, again I quote Best of the Web, this is 100% link established but listed in Wikipedia.

Hoping we can resolve this at this stage.

Scipilot (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to resolve. I think the editors above have explained the policies in a thorough manner, but let me try one last time.

• If there are verifiable, reliable sources about this website of yours, giving secondary coverage, then it's possible an article about it could survive deletion.
• If not, it will likely be deleted.

It doesn't matter what kind of valuable resource it is to whatever group – we're not here to be an advocate for disability.

I may sound like I'm dismissing this out of hand and being cruel or unfeeling. That's not my intention, but I am trying to explain in plain language that there are policies here that have been hashed out over many years. The links have been provided to you for you to read. If this site of yours meets those requirements, by all means start the article. If not, don't. Simple as. Katie^talk 16:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. The replies you are getting seem to be addressing two different questions: whether or not links to your website can be included as external links in existing articles about disability topics, and whether a standalone article about your website can exist on Wikipedia. Can you clarify which one of these questions you're asking? Or is it both? --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You might like to return to here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...Dweller asked the question................The replies you are getting seem to be addressing two different questions: whether or not links to your website can be included as external links in existing articles about disability topics, and whether a standalone article about your website can exist on Wikipedia. Can you clarify which one of these questions you're asking? Or is it both? ............

Simple answer is yes it is a "standalone article about ableize" I was asking about, it was not a question concerning adding links in exsisting articles, I did in the past and now realise that's a no, no.

Thank you for raising this, I did feel it was getting confused between the two so thank you for spotting that and replying.

Does this alter things?

Scipilot (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. See my answer at the reference desk (I've linked to it just above this), where I assumed you were asking about creating a new article. NB It wasn't me who asked that question, but that's fine :0) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Asking the question again and again in a different way is not going to change the response. A stand alone article is likely to be deleted as an orphan article and/or for lack of notability. --Elektrik Fanne 11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...Elektrik Fanne reason i asked several times is the conflicting answers!

Scipilot (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I was actually the one who asked you whether you were looking to add links to articles, or write a standalone article about Ableize. Okay, since you've clarified that you want to write a standalone article, the WP:ELNO reply is unrelated to that question. The question about whether or not a standalone article can exist about Ableize is actually pretty simple: has Ableize been the subject of significant coverage in sources that are both reliable and totally independent of Ableize itself. The sources need to discuss Ableize in detail, not simply passing mentions. They can't be sources affiliated with Ableize itself, or simple publications of press releases put out by Ableize. If that type of coverage exists, then generally speaking an article can exist. If not, then any article written will be deleted. You can see WP:42 for a very simplified explanation of this. If the person who wants to write the article feels that it meets this criteria, I'd strongly recommend that they use the article wizard to draft an article for review. The benefit to writing a draft is that if it is lacking in one way or another, rather than being subject to immediate deletion, it would simply be declined and the author still has the opportunity to improve the content. However, and this bit is important, if that level of coverage does not (yet) exist, then no article can exist, so no draft should be started. I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time having them write a draft if the subject is not yet notable enough. I hope this helps. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)