User talk:Swamidivyatma

Welcome!

Hello, Swamidivyatma, 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) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, Swamidivyatma, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Rkmveri (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Muhandes,

It is true I had earlier started the account named "rkmveri". However, you and other Wikipedia editors (in reply to my question there) pointed out that the username violated wikipedia policy, since it had an institution name instead of a personal name, and implied the possibility of multiple users using that account. One of the suggestions given to me to resolve the issue was to create a personal account instead, which is what I have done. I am not using the rkmveri account anymore, since as mentioned it may violate Wikipedia policy and (in my understanding) could any day be deactivated. So why am I not even allowed to use a personal account on a personal name? Or should I follow some deletion process for the rkmveri account which is anyway under criticism and possibly on track for deactivation already?

There is a second point that my previous edit to the Wikipedia article on Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute was taken down because it was not presented from a neutral point of view, and did not refer to independent sources (other than the website of the Institute etc) while presenting new information which could be questioned. I believe I have addressed those issues, located references from newspapers, government websites etc and cited them in the article whenever presenting information that could be legitimately challenged. Therefore, I request you to reconsider undoing all my edits as a matter of default.

Swamidivyatma (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to use the other account any more it should be fine. With your permission I created a redirect from the other user page to your new one. You can ask an admin for a history merge of the talk page (use {{admin help}}) though you don't have to, it is only for your convenience since your previous talk page includes some important information you might want to keep close. You should probably mention in your new user page that you made some edits on User:Rkmveri. That will also be a good place to disclose your conflic of interest, I'll link some relevant information below.

As for your edits of Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute, most of them are still unsourced and you obviously have a conflict of interest so you should not edit the page anyway. I suggest that if you have well sourced facts you wish to add to the article, or some other changes, you can make change requests on the talk page using {{request edit}} and me or other editors will be happy to address these request. --Muhandes (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Yes, the redirect is fine (it seems like the rkmveri account has been closed/deactivated at this point anyway). I have gone through the Wikipedia entry on CoI and I do not believe I have one (except, perhaps, an apparent one), as I shall explain. Since you have already gone through the articles on RKMVERI, you may be already aware that it is a University/Institute that is administered by a charitable organization. In that context, I am currently volunteering my services for this Institute; however, I do not get paid salary/compensation, etc. for my services. Therefore, if my contribution to Wikipedia related to this page is accepted, I do not gain anything by it (except for a certain level of satisfaction), and if the contributions are rejected/deleted, I do not lose anything either. It is sort of like editing the Wiki entry of my favorite tennis player - my preference for the player does not debar me from editing the pages - though, of course, Wikipedia must ensure that the information entered is factually correct, presented in neutral language, doesn't portray rival tennis players in poor light, etc. etc. I gladly welcome this kind of scrutiny on the edits I make, by yourselves or other editors.

While I don't have a problem presenting my edits to other editors beforehand (using "change requests" etc), that doesn't seem to be a necessary or optimal approach in this case. In any event, it is not difficult for anyone to add upon any edits I make, remove sections that may seem biased, promotional, etc. Does this sound reasonable? I shall hold off any edits/further contributions until I get your opinion.

Also, specifically regarding my previous edit, the following is my justification (also to emphasize the argument that my actions do not imply a promotional intent): First part (before "History"): I did not add much to this section, and as far as I can see the new information added involves an in-line citation to an independent source (newspaper article). In any case, the name of the institution itself suggests the point I was making there, so it is more like an obvious connection I am pointing out, rather than a radically new thesis. History section: It contains similar (but a little more elaborate) information compared to the existing wiki page. Given it is a brief 3-4 sentence history of an institution, the reference would be the web page of the Institute itself, but it doesn't make sense to link that here. As far as references are concerned, my additional info is no more controversial than the existing info, and no more (or less) referenced than the existing info, for obvious reasons. Campuses, Schools and Departments Section: This section has substantial new information (for which, again, the reference is the institute webpage). My reasoning is that as long as we are speaking of an educational institution, it is relevant to say what areas of study are covered by the institution, and in what locations it conducts classes etc., for the sake of completeness of institutional info. I don't view it as promotional content, since I do not believe a mere listing of areas of study/courses in this institution is likely to woo prospective students of other institutions to join this one etc etc; there is no comparison with anyone else here, or claims about quality of coursework. If necessary, the information in this section can be reduced (by myself or other editors); but to completely do away with such a section I feel would keep the wiki page as a stub. Highlights Section: I mention two points, and both of them are referenced to external, independent webpages (a government website and an article in a reputed newspaper) Outreach Section: The three programs mentioned are factually existing (which you may or may not believe), and for two of them I have provided independent references supporting their existence, though not for every bit of new information provided (since I feel that level of referencing would be more appropriate for a research article than an encyclopedia entry). At the very least, I do not believe this content controversial or factually incorrect. But if further trimming is necessary, I don't mind doing that (or leave it for other editors to do if they care to).

Swamidivyatma (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. With all due respect, I don't agree. You are not bound by WP:PAID but I think you have a WP:COI since your secondary interest is always going to be that this organization, which you volunteer your services for, comes up looking good. This is unrelated to your edits, which may, or may not have been valid. I am saying that whatever contribution you make to the article, should be noted. I think you should WP:DISCLOSE your connection both at your user page and at the article's talk page. Follow the simple instructions on WP:DISCLOSE on how to do that.

Having said that, though edit requests are the preferred way to handle things, I don't see a reason to insist, as long as you don't do a huge edit of the page like you did. Your explanations above are probably valid, but you should not make them here - you should make smaller edits and the edit summary should explain what you did. If for example you move material from the lead to the history section, which is a good thing (see WP:LEAD, the lead should only summarize the sections, not be the source of the data), do an edit with just this and in the edit summary say "moved material from lead to history section". If you introduce new material, use secondary independet reliable sources. Be extremely careful about WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO, WP:BOOSTER and MOS:PUFF. And be willing to discuss changes in the article's talk page if another editor reverts your edits. If you stick with that, I don't think there should be a problem. And most importantly, have fun editing. It may all sound complicated and constraining, but once you get the hang of it, you might want to stay and help us make a better Wikipedia. There are many articles which I'm sure you can contribute to, without a WP:COI. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to give your inputs. You are right, it does sound complicated, but will try to work along the lines suggested here. Swamidivyatma (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Swamidivyatma. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Educational and Research Institute

Some pointers which might help you.

In general, information should not be added to the lead section. Per WP:LEAD this section only summarizes the article. In general, no sources are needed in that section either, since the information is sourced in the article body.
WP:UNIGUIDE lists what sections should be added. There is not "Highlights" section. In fact, WP:TRIVIA opposes such lists. I did not remove the list since I wanted to give you a chance to create proper sections where such information should be included. For example, it might be proper in a section about the relevant department.
I improved the citations you provided. You can learn by example from what I did or read more about it starting from WP:CITE.

Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regarding the contents in the Highlights section, I am wondering the best way to incorporate it into the page. I was considering making an "Outreach" section to include activities pursued by the institute that do not come under the university coursework, degrees, etc., but at the same time help promote education in a general way in the society (eg: providing supplementary online education to schoolkids from remote locations, teachers workshops) or is intimately connected to the academic work of some departments in the university (eg: running agricultural technology center established by the government) These cannot be included in the conventional university/college headings such as "course structure" or "academic organization" or "student life" or "research", etc. Does "Outreach" sound like a reasonable section to have? Clearly, it is not trivia since it would be a classification of some of the activities of the university (by virtue of their connection to the larger society beyond the student community) and not a random listing of facts. The Braille press would fit into this section. The UNESCO chair would perhaps fit into an "Academic Profile" section, but I would have to think more about making such a section.

Regards. Swamidivyatma (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The chair definitely belongs in the Academics section. You can mention the Braille press and ISL dictionary in the context of the department, which can itself be discussed either in the Organization section or in the Academics section, wherever it seems more appropriate. The problem with "Outreach" sections is that they tend to give undue weight to favourable actions, and end up being promotional in nature. There is no explicit rule against it though, so if you can come up with a neutral way to discuss it, you can give it a go. --Muhandes (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Shall work on coming up with a good way of organizing the info. Best regards, Swamidivyatma (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]