User talk:Rkmveri

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rkmveri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Muhandes (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I would be much obliged if you could kindly go through my numbered questions and give answers (short answers are sufficient) to them.

Regarding my previous edit of the page "Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute", for most of the information provided on the (edited) wiki page, I have provided in-line citations referring to the appropriate page of the institution (RKMVERI) itself or its subcampuses (For factual information regarding the institution, its academic structure, outreach, vision, etc, I don't know what other reference can be more authentic or authoritative than the webpage of the institution itself). There is also no original research involved in any of the material included.

(a) I can only think of one place where the factual information provided may be "challenged", which is in the section "Outlook and Distinctive Features", before the beginning of the subsection "Thrust Areas". Here I refer to Swami Vivekananda's ideas on education as provided in the university website (which is cited), while someone may ask for the original source of the ideas/quotations. It is easy enough to link this section to the existing Wikipedia page on Swami Vivekananda's teachings and philosophy [1], which is very much consistent with the content in my edit (and also the content in the RKMVERI website) and even repeats some of the quotes as well. Would this change make the edit acceptable? If so, I would be glad to do so. If necessary, I could also go exhaustively through Swami Vivekananda's works and locate every single quote and provide inline citations to them, but I don't know if that level of detail is particularly useful given the different statements and quotes are consistent with each other and also with the Teachings_and_Philosophy page itself. Please let me know if that is necessary.

(b) If there is a criticism about the tone of statements in "Outlook an Distinctive Features", I would be glad to work on that section to present it in a different tone. Please advise if this is the case. However, in my opinion, the information itself from that section is important in providing a wholesome picture of what the institute stands for. Without this information, the Institute, with such a name, run by such an organization, with its specific choice of thrust areas, lacks contextual information for a reader to get a meaningful picture from the encyclopedia entry.

(c) The content in all sections except "Outlook and Distinctive Features" is factual, so it seems to me there should be no argument about their contents. I realized that I had not provided a citation for the academic organization of the Institute into five schools, which I can provide from the website link. http://www.rkmvu.ac.in/drupal7/?q=content/departments The rest of the information has inline citations as far as I can see, which can answer to any challenges if at all.

(d) If there is criticism that there are too many external links in the last section, I would be glad to remove some of them as directed. The intent is not to promote or advertise but to give sufficient detailed information about the institute and its academic activities to an interested reader, with provision for further reading. If I have taken it too far and have somehow contradicted Wikipedia policies, I would be glad to change them. Please let me know if something requires to be changed here.

(e) If there are any other issues that need to be corrected, please point me the correct direction, so that I can work on an edit to the article that is acceptable. However, the present entry as it stands is well and truly a stub and requires expansion - wikipedia itself states so; what I am trying to do here is to address that problem meaningfully.

Rkmveri (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkmveri:, before I can address the questions above there are two more-fundamental issues that need to be cleared up. Your user name is apparently against policy (see the message below) and your user name also indicates a possible conflict of interest. Your user name is the same as the abbreviation you used for the organization you are editing about. The Wikimedia Foundation (owner of this website) has strict rules on conflict of interest editing and you agreed to follow these rules when you created your account. Please read the guide to conflict of interest editing immediately before you find yourself in difficulty. The remainder of your questions can be answered by directing you to the Core Content Policies and the page on notability. There is also a page on what are acceptable external links. Put more simply, Wikipedia is not for promotion and you edits were very promotional of the institution. The links above provide more information about acceptable additions and what support they require (generally reliable secondary sources are preferred). I hope these links help. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There seems to be a general misunderstanding on how Wikipedia content should be written: It should be a summary of what reliable sources that are independent of the subject have reported about it. Thus:

(a) The university website is not an independent source. It should be avoided, particularly for content that may well be considered promotional (e.g. " the university conducts academic activities in a diverse variety of fields", "devotes special effort into study and research in certain subjects which are usually under-emphasized in educational institutions in India" and so on). Swami Vivekananda's ideas on education belong in the article on Swami Vivekananda; they'd be relevant to the university article only if an independent source draws the connection between Vivekananda's ideas and the university. We cannot draw that connection ourselves; that would be original synthesis, something Wikipedia does not accept.

(b) The "outlook" section seems to be about how they view themselves. Wikipedia should summarize what others have reported about them, not their self-image. In particular, we're much more interested in factual accomplishments, as reported by newspapers or reputable magazines, than in grandiose visions, goals and aims that they declare themselves.

(c) Even entirely factual content may seem promotional if it's based on what the subject says about itself. If independent sources don't consider those details worthy of note, then the details likely aren't significant enugh to be listed on Wikipedia either.

(d) I don't think more links than the one to the official website is needed. The others you added seemed to be sub-pages of that website or the websites of closely affiliated organizations such as the separate campuses; those should be linked from their website, and we don't need to also link to them. See WP:ELNO for more on links to avoid.

(e) As I said at the very beginning, Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have reported about the subject. So the first step towards expansion should be to find such sources, the second to summarize what those sources report and to cite those sources so our readers can verify on their own that the summary is accurate.

I hope this helps. Please also note what Eggishorn said above. Huon (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Rkmveri", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because the user name implies shared use. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]