CAFETY

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!--WillMak050389 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

Please see Wikipedia's policy on external links before you add the link to your web site to any more articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and any links must directly expand on the article they are part of. Cheers -- Kevin 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you haven't stopped, perhaps you could explain why you think your links are relevant to the articles they are in. Without some convincing reasoning I'm going to remove them all again. Kevin 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia policy, they state that links which should be cited, in part, are: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." - In what way do you not concur that this is being done? In what way would citing news articles on Mission Mountain School, Mental Health professionals working with alumni from this facility and youth working towards protection of youth on that basis be irrelevant in your opinion. Without convincing reasoning I take you're position as well. In what way do this links not expand upon the article? The facts are that their are reports of mistreatment and questionable methods used, all of which are of great concern given the absence of regulation in MT. User:CAFETY:CAFETY 07:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that your links would be relevant if the articles showed a direct link between the article subject and your organisation. For example if a reliable source had mentioned Mission Mountain and CAFETY in a newspaper or journal article.

If I were convinced that CAFETY were a notable organisation in relation to this opposition point of view then I think there would be more latitude for including details of this opposition in the body of the article, and then a link would be appropriate.

If there are reliable reports on mistreatment and questionable methods then the a link/citation should go directly to the source of that report, i.e the newspaper or journal article.

Kevin 03:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your first point is debateable, as noted in Wikipedia policy, populartiy of a person or group does not necessarily establish relevacy and to your second point, noteriety may also be irrelevant for that same reason- assuming that's what you mean. If instead you mean credibility, facutal, given the site is informational and provides acccess to a collection of news article and resources, credibility is not necessary to establish because nothing that hasn't been said before it being stated there.

That said, if you still feel you need some type of credibility for a site that simply regurgitates, independent of the news articles provided on the site, references provided & cited, I suppose this may provide relevancy to you- Several core group memebers who formed CAFETY attended Mision Mountain School (as well as numerous other behavior modification camps). Several members are also part of ASTART (colloaborative working group from Univ. of South Florida and Bazelon Center for Law and Policy), including Dr.Huffine, and have been interviewed in news articles, presenting at conferences (ie. APA) and, we as a group, have been covered by an article written in The Technical Assistance Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health (TA Partnership- see youth & resources) which operates under contract with the federal Center for Mental Health Services advocating systems of care- a collaboration b/w The American Institutes for Research and Federation of Families for Childresn Mental Health, as well as are expected to are to be cited in one journal coming out shortly (Orthopsychiatry) and one publication for Columbia Univ. We're new (formed 1/06- noteriety has yet to come, but as I mentioned, not seeing the relevancy there.

CAFETY 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on your argument. I can see your point and seeing as the article is heavily biased toward MMS I guess that an opposition viewpoint is useful. I would still like to see the ASTART link explain it's relevance to the article, something like "ASTART is an organisation that (insert your position with respect to MMS here) etc". That said, if you put the same links into more than a couple of articles then soemone else is likely to come along and tag is as spam again. Kevin 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Academy at Ivy Ridge

I removed some of the unrealed stuff from Academy at Ivy Ridge. You could start pages on those topics if you want.--Rayc 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

YRThis user supports youth rights.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-uname|the name is that of an organization}} --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)