User talk:LiziObolensky

Welcome.

Hello, LiziObolensky, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some pages that you might find helpful in developing your contributions:

There are also a number of important policies and guidelines with which every editor should be familiar. Please sign your name whenever you leave a comment by using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. You may also be interested in Wikipedia's adopt-a-user scheme. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and find it a rewarding experience. Adrian M. H. 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to challenge that. TheHamptons.com web site was there BEFORE your wiki page on the hamptons. I would like to answer you so what's the best way?

That means nothing here. As our external links guideline explains, links are only included if they are written by an authoritative source (official websites etc.), which does not include community websites (as you could see previously, there are countless sites attempting to get web traffic by being linked from the WP article. I would like to draw your attention to the advertising and spam section of the guideline, which explicitly states that: "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines."

As both myself and another editor have removed your links, it is clear that others do not agree with the link's inclusion. If you continue to add the link against consensus, you will most likely be blocked from editing, as your contributions show that you are a single purpose account here soley to link to your website. – Toon 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to answer without being rude i.e. "that means nothing here". I am in favor of abiding by your rules but I want to be sure too that you are not excluding my web site and allowing others like Newsday, Hamptons.com and the others who keep wiping out my link and posting themselves in place of it. I still feel that it "is" history to be the first web presence for so many community pillars and purposely registered the domain for "The Hamptons" way back in 1995 and way before wiki was ever around. I as the owner feel you are redirecting MY traffic. So I feel there is a fairer solution then exluding our web site altogether for the historical information about "the hamptons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiziObolensky (talk • contribs)

Just a note - adding your website again without being logged in won't prevent it from being removed nor prevent me from warning YOU. If you see another person adding their website outside the bounds of WP:EL, feel free to either remove it yourself or ask me / Toon05 / whoever to do it. Fairness, history, etc has nothing to do with it. Syrthiss (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lizi: I apologise if I was being rude, but my point remains the same - the rules governing external links are what we use to govern inclusion, rather than the length of time a website has been active. I'm sure that your website has been useful to the people who use it, but the fact is that there are many, many community websites and the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to provide an endless list of external links. It can be tempting to post links to your site here given the profile and web traffic that Wikipedia gets, but our commitment is to building an encyclopedic article. And as Syrthiss states, we are not singling out your website, in this edit I removed six such websites that did not meet our guidelines.

On a side note, considering the fact that you do run a community website, you are probably in a good position to improve the actual The Hamptons article itself. If you did fancy helping, this, this and this are useful links to how to go about it. If you do need any help, do feel free to contact me on my talk page or as they have indicated, Syrthiss. Regards, – Toon 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Syrthiss for your thoughtful reply. I did make one edit last week re/ a club I grew up at - what we always referred to as "the beach club" but more properly known as The Bathing Corporation - I see someone has already changed it to the Soutahmpton Bathing Corporation! I think it might be the Bathing Corporation of Southampton but I'll check first. If I have time I'll try to help you out with factual info. just wish you'd sink back below MY google position!!! it just doesn't seem fair. best to you...wiki is a good/cool thing.

Why is it OK for our competitor who is the local newspaper allowed to REMOVE us and put themselves there? look at all the media that is on the list and have blacklisted the FIRST web portal for The Hamptons. not right. I put ours back because everyone else had put theirs back. If we are to be blacklisted then blacklist everybody who is trying to covet our position as both the first and #1. humbly...LiziLiziObolensky 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: thehamptons.com

Hi. I sympathise with your situation - I imagine that it must be quite disheartening for you, having been around so long. What it comes down to is Wikipedia's guidelines; specifically our guideline on external links. The issue is links normally to be avoided #11 - "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" The local newspapers' websites are acceptable because they are exactly that - local newspapers, whose raison d'etre is to cover local issues. While I'm sure your website is very useful, the issue remains that unless you can prove that you are a "recognized authority" who meets our notability criteria for biographies, it is unlikely that your website can be linked. If you wish for another assessment of your website, you can post at the External links noticeboard - you should set out exactly why your website is as good a resource as those newspapers (in terms of content rather than amount of time, or who was here first), and why your website meets the external links guideline. But remember, as that guideline states: Some external links are welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. – Toon 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toon!! it's nice to find you there ; ) I will have a look at the guidelines - and wiki should also look at making sure the guidelines are FAIR to all since responsibility lies w/them - they are not written in stone. It just kills me that the giants can get away w/it r e m o v i n g ME - a local who has provided QUALITY content consistently since way before they arrived on the web. We have been a platform for the indians, artists, writers, local orgs, events...everything. It's rivalry basically. thanks though... LiziObolensky 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)