|WikiProject Universities / Student Affairs||(Rated Start-class)|
My name is Brandon, and I operate a free, non-commercial, college entertainment website. I am also a resident assistant at the State University of New York at Potsdam, and have been on the job as an RA for two years. I recently started to post entries from my required RA log on my site, and offered my opinions on the events as well as the factual information of each event. My goal in doing so is to show prospective RAs some of what they may encounter while on the job, and to show current RAs that other RAs "feel their pain." I attempted to add a link on the Resident Assistant page here to the log, but was denied because a user felt the site was commercial.
- Again, I want to point out that TBS is a student created website that is not for profit, our website has no advertising (we accept donations like Wikipedia to continue operating), and our motive in posting this link was to share important information with our fellow Resident Assistants, not to promote our project. I feel the link to this page should be allowed to exist on the Resident Assistant page. Regardless of what an individual user may feel about how "well written" the log is, the content in question constitutes, in our opinion, a unique resource that is not provided by this page.
Thebrandonshow 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Brandon J. Mendelson
The link in question: http://www.thebrandonshow.com/?cat=92
Links normally to be avoided
Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
- In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
- Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
- A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
- Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming.
- Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community, such as sites that only work with a specific brand of browser.
- Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about those media (see Rich media below).
- Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)
- Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
- Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.
- Since you clearly own and maintain the website, and it's not a particularly well-written or informative piece, I would vote not to allow this link. Lordwow 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify the statement above, "I attempted to add a link on the Resident Assistant page here to the log, but was denied because a user felt the site was commercial." I reverted the change, with the reasoning that it was "shameless self-promotion," not a commercial website. As stated above, Wikipedia users should not link to "A website you own or maintain..." Lordwow 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Since a Resident Assistant is a job title rather than the name of a normal resident who assists with other residents, I suggest moving this article to Resident Assistant, which already redirects to Resident assistant. -- Noetic Sage 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I disagree. The term is a generic term for the type of position. For instance, I would say, "I work as a resident assistant at XYZ University." Saying, "I work as a Resident Assistant at XYZ University," doesn't look right. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Titles can be used in both ways. For example, George W. Bush could say he is a president or the President. This follows for many positions which are generic: Vice-presidents, CEOs, and RAs. I have found, upon reviewing these other articles, that there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia standard for position titles. CEO is used in lowercase while Secretary of State is capitalized, and both refer not to one specific position (such as President of the United States), but rather a generic position held by many people. Upon searching through WP:NAME I can't come across anything that addresses this concern. I have posted about this on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions page. -- Noetic Sage 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just to add another view-point on this. Outside of the US (here in NZ and elsewhere in the Commonwealth) we seem to use the phrase 'Residential' followed by 'Assistant' or 'Advisor'. With this one would tend to say "I am a Residential Assistant at XYZ University". With that, to make the article more worldly I suggest adding "residential assistant/advisor" to the alternative names in the introduction. OuterLegsRace (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Sheryl Crow was actually not an RA, but instead she was a Summer Welcome Leader or something like that. Can anyone verify that she was actually an RA? -- Hunter00047 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You just came in at the right time when someone was vandalizing the list. All fixed now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I tagged this piece for NPOV problems because of the tone of the introduction and job benefits section. It seems a bit like we're reading a brochure for RA recruitment. Can we come up with a way to make this more encyclopedic? Noble-savage (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've swapped out the neutrality tag for the tone tag, since it sounds like it's in an inappropriate tone rather than NPOV. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)