User talk:Kelseyferrell
| This user is a student editor in UC_Berkeley/Global_Poverty_and_Practice_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Kelseyferrell, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Santa Cruz, California. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
I've explained my removal completely with links to applicable policies in my edit summaries. You have yet to proffer any argument answering them. I'm only here to create an encyclopedia. It's not my problem you don't understand how Wikipedia works. You have an instructor that is getting paid to help you do that. Since myself and the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are volunteering here to create an encyclopedia, I choose not to waste my time on someone who is not just here just to create an encyclopedia, but also to obtain a grade, and has someone who is paid to instruct them. Make an argument for inclusion (WP:OSE is not an argument) and I'll be happy to rebut it. Keep in mind the article you are editing is on a community, not a social issue, and make no mistake, it is on you to make a convincing argument that addresses my stated reasons for removal. Content is decided on consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Kelsey, I don't know if you know what Wikipedia is or not. Many if not most people have misconceptions. Wikipedia is a completely volunteer project to construct a general interest tertiary encyclopedia. There are multiple problems with what you are adding:
- Style - your writing is more consistent with a term paper.
- Verifiability - your addition is sourced to only two sources, one of which you cannot use. The article from the journal is ok as one source amongst several. The other source is an unvetted paper. You cannot use it. Encyclopedias are tertiary. Secondary sources are required. A paper is primary. A published paper (and this depends on the journal) is an acceptable secondary source.
- Neutrality - you are saying everything you are saying in Wikipedia's voice. If you had dozens of sources that said roughly the same thing, and no one objected, that would be acceptable. That isn't the case, and you can't do it.
- Undue - this relates to the emphasis you give an individual source. Simply put, you need much better sources to say what you are saying, no matter how you say it....which leads directly to the next
- Weight - this relates to the amount of real estate in the article (word count) and emphasis (separate heading vs part of an existing section) related to the amount and strength of your sourcing for it. You have one source only, and a source that by its nature is controversial. Also, WP:RECENT applies.
- I find your claim that SC has the highest rate of homelessness in the country to be absolutely incredible with the sourcing you've provided. I'd want to see the McCauley-Vento point in time count data in a comparative form. You should be able to access that from HUD. Also, without time framing, that claim is useless.
- I'll tell you what the average Wikipedia reader's take away from what you added would be: The Grateful Dead are the cause of the local homeless issue. Since that came from the paper, we won't be talking about it. Thank God. BTW, I'm a community activist specializing in issues involving food stresses. I'm very active in homeless issues. I'll reach out to one of my mentors to see if I can find you that stat source I mentioned. Keep in mind this is an article on a settlement, not on homeless issues. Good luck. Just be aware that the people here are volunteers, and you'll get along much better. Sorry for going off on you above. John from Idegon (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)