User talk:Kyried

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded to your comment on my talk page. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
Kiried, I don't suppose that you happen to work for the government agency whose website and name you keep adding to all these articles? Perhaps you'd like to review the conflict of interest rules. Generally, with external links, if you have any connection to a website at all, then you should not add the link yourself. Instead, you should leave a note on the talk page (click the 'discussion' tab) and explain to the other editors why the link you suggest is improtant/valuable/great/whatever. Then impartial editors can make a decision about whether or not to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (By the way, I'm watching this page, so if you want to discuss this, you can leave a message here.)


 * I am a graduate student studying special education. This organization (NICHCY) is a gov't funded non-profit, but not a gov't agency.  It does provide good info which is less biased than a lot of stuff out there on special education or disabilities, and its info has already been vetted by the US gov't, so I know the info they are providing on US education laws is accurate.  I find it easier to just change a bunch of stuff related to the same org at once, and started with this one since I like their info. Is that a problem?  User:Kyried
 * Possibly -- that is, even if you follow the guidelines perfectly (which is hard), you might make some editors suspect that you're a spammer because you don't seem to do anything except add external links, which is both the least helpful thing to do with an article and the most likely to make people think that you're just trying to promote a specific website (possibly at the expense of other, equally good websites/organizations) without any regard for the goals of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia gets a lot of traffic, and, as you can imagine, it gets a lot of people adding their own websites in an effort to use Wikipedia as an advertising opportunity.  The goal in a Wikipedia article is to have lots of information in the article, and perhaps a few external links at the end, for things that can't go into the article itself (e.g., a calculator on an article about mortgage interest).  Your personal contributions history shows that nearly every edit you've made since creating your account promotes NICHCY, and that usually suggests an editor with an agenda.


 * Here are a few more considerations for you:


 * The links you've added recently aren't uniformly on topic. To comply with the spirit of WP:NOT, external links are supposed to be very tightly related to the subject of the article, not just sort of in the general field.  So, for example, a link to NICHCY's main page probably belongs only in an article about the organization itself.
 * You've also been adding multiple pages of the same organization into a single article, which is strongly deprecated, or the same website to many articles, which is discouraged.
 * Remember that this is a worldwide encyclopedia. Adding country-specific websites to a worldwide-article (say, Special education) can be a problem.  (For US-specific articles, then it makes sense to have US-specific websites.)
 * Also, the value of a link is determined by its interest to the general reader (that is, the audience is always a reader that does not have an immediate real-world need for this information: in context, links that you want to include because they would provide practical advice to people with disabilities, their families, their teachers, or other professionals in the field are not generally accepted).
 * Finally, if you add a link, and someone else removes it, there's probably a reason for that. I'd suggest leaving a note on the talk page (click the discussion tab) and ask why it was removed instead of just putting it back in.  (Don't forget to "sign" your note:  four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your note will do it automatically, or you can click the signature-looking button on the toolbar.


 * You probably had no idea that adding external links to Wikipedia was so highly "regulated". ;-)
 * While adding external links can on occasion be a useful thing to do, could I interest you in fixing up the articles, using the NICHCY website as a proper reference, instead of just listing the external link at the end? It's not much harder to write a sentence about some relevant fact than it is to add a link.  For example, you might write something like, "All of a child's teachers are required to attend an IEP team meeting, unless excused in writing by the parents. "  It would make our articles better, and none of these "rules" apply to references for normal content.
 * Cheers, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)