User talk:Malky800

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

External Link about Auto Recycling
Hi Malky800. Since the site is one that solicits car donations I don't think its information on car recycling can be considered reliable, so it fails the external links guidelines (also, it doesn't mention how the figures were calculated or by whom). If we can find the information from a site that doesn't have a vested interest in people donating their cars it might make a useful addition. Though even then, without published research that people donate because of environmental concerns, or that some authoritative voices considered car donation a way to mitigate some environmental concerns, it's a bit of a stretch on the car donation article - could be good on the automobile article though. That's my reasoning. I've been a bit of a hawk against spamlinks on the article of late, so I may be looking for excuses. Let me know if you disagree. --Siobhan Hansa 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the reference to Geico on the webpage, but without a publication that makes the methodology and the degree of rigour applied in ascertaining the information clear, it's difficult to know if that would be a reliable source either. I even had a brief search for the figures on the web after your first message, but couldn't find them.  To be a reliable source ideally it would be in a peer reviewed journal or subject to some other sort of fact checking.  On the point of recycling information being relevent because "when people call [your] charity they often ask", that would count as original research.  We're building an encyclopedia, which implies a degree of academic rigour.  The current article content is unverified, adding links to more unverified information isn't really building an encyclopedia.   As to the donation solicitation bit being problematic, that could be solved by it not being on a car donation website.  I doubt anything else would really make it seem like it wasn't about getting that website infront of readers of the article.


 * Like I said, I'm a bit of a hawk on this (and several other nonprofit related articles) for groups trying to promote their websites on Wikipedia. As volunteers on Wikipedia we're obliged to promote Wikipedia's mission not the individual agendas of other nonprofits we're associated with.  When it comes to external links that, means we should be providing links to authoritative, neutral point of view sites that add encyclopedic value that can't otherwise be included in Wikipedia.  See the external links guidelines for more on this.  --Siobhan Hansa 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)