User talk:196.189.63.150

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Presenteeism has been reverted. Your edit here to Presenteeism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://highereducationleadershipandqualityassurance.wordpress.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Cultural psychiatry, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Response to the 'revert' suggestions

Thank you for your editorial messages. Firstly, English language is not my mother tongue but I have perfected my skill as much as I can over the years. I do not wish to stretch myself anymore since I am proud of my roots, dialect and way of communicating which serves well. The English language is one of the global languages and diversity is reflected in it. We need to encourage this since downplaying will not help. Secondly, it is important to understand guidelines without compromising the need to add references even when they are websites, the motive being knowledge transfer and promoting Open Access. Last but not least, Open Research can not always be applicable to outputs of Twitter when Twitter itself offers analytics in it's service. It is worth noting that journal articles and others support social media aided social change campaigns. Moreover, participatory action research for practitioners as well as others take place in social media. Assertions as policy making and pledges take place in social media too. We do not need to write policy implementation agenda by citing resources, nor to abandon social media outcomes should we have them.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 02:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 02:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. We cite sources for research not for facts and missions of organizations, although pinpointing the names of the organizations as well as their website is relevant. Editors need to indicate what is controversial since culture is a human right. I have retracted the previous document which I can always present in conferences since the meaning of reporting social media output has been misunderstood as research, not practice. The second document has focused on human rights only and advocacy does not need references especially when it takes place as organizational missiology and social media. The next entry will be my last one. If line by line and substantive comment with academic caliber is amiss, I will find it hard and demoralising to compete with paid watchers of knowledge who are not being clear about their specific comments on the document, time wise.
 * Thank you for your attempts at editing Wikipedia, but you seem to have the wrong idea of what content is supported here. Abelmoschus Esculentus has tried to guide you to write encyclopedic content backed up by reliable sources. Please take time to read this information and stop edit warring. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to take your time to create an article, you may create your article at Draft:Cultural psychiatry. But that essay-style writing is not suitable (see WP:NOTESSAY) and please cite reliable sources, as guided below. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

Thank you for your message. There was an effort to rewrite to a larger audience and not only academics or practitioners working with them. Open Access forum can therefore be challenging. I am new to Wikipedia and the talk aspect should have been part and parcel of my welcome pack. Thus, my move has been perceived as an editorial war but hardly is the case. I have never been dubbed that way during my several years of collaborative writing. Referring to sources is vital but when we refer to organizational achievements and mission, I strongly contend, that to be the case. Wikipedia is encouraged to enhance knowledge by indicating which statements need to be substantiated for validity and reliability from such an angle since I have done my background work on all aspects, indeed leaving room for human error which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If these points are clearly pointed out, addressing the issue will be easy. I will find such an approach welcoming and not demoralizing at all. During my academic life, we used Microsoft word to track changes, suggest comments and critiques line by line. I did flourish and thrive. Peer to peer citation is mainly the domain of academics even if practitioners do refer to academic resources as well despite the fact that they tend to highlight their own good practice, directive and much more. The question is to create a balance without losing one's professional identity. I am no longer an academic but believe in creating validity and reliability. Constructive criticisms need therefore to covey what exactly needs correction. In conferences and seminars we work from such angle valuing the good intentions of the contributor, not to mention attempting to understand professional and cultural perimeters. The same principle applies for the contributor who will indeed welcome the profile, not personal profile of editors so that to create a strong stakeholder forum. In academia, anonymous review is the norm, yet the network is defined.

Social media has now packages for analytics and journal articles are dedicated for it. We can not deny the fact that it is where campaigns and participatory action research takes place. Henceforth, if it can not be classified as a reliable source, depending on what has been enacted, it is very challenging to move forward in this Open Access encyclopedia. More so, if policy making thinktanks and organizations with charters that create or have created impact exist, they, I believe, can be sources to cite as well. They do not have to be big per se, grand mission being a notion that needs to defined by accounting for standpoint epistemology anyway. I hereby refrain from editing the definition of source but will watch the ongoing forum.

Herein, Google is indicated to be a gateway for reliable sources but we need to sift through search engine outputs so that to create knowledge. Culture is an ethnocentric dictum that needs protection. Hence, capitalist corporations can not always be the gatekeepers for cultural psychiatry to be a non contestable human right mandate.Other bodies may rise to the challenges including civil societies that do create pledges. The meaning of reliable resource has therefore need to be expanded and I am overseeing the forum quietly although I will be participating in other forums. The bottom line is that knowledge is defined by reliable sources and I feel that the horizon in this Open Access forum needs to incorporate the voices of many for me to contribute the draft as suggested earlier on today.

Useful Sources

Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. Website Address is at https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/afr/the-sage-handbook-of-social-media-research-methods/book245370

Participatory Action Research in the age of social media: litrecies, affinity spaces and learning. Website addresses is at https://emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03074801211282939?journalCode=nlw

UN Civil Society Website address is at https://outreach.un.org/ngorelations/

UNESCO World Heritage Center. Website address is at http://whc.unesco.org/?cid=174&l=en&allallall&msg=noDB&registrationcode=&rememberme=true

Sincerely,

Professor Lul Admasachew,

Website address Higher Education Excellence 07:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)07:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

About reliable sources
Hello. Here are some information about reliable sources. For information on referencing citations in Wikipedia articles, see Help:Footnotes, Inline citation, and Help:Referencing for beginners.

What are reliable sources?
Reliable sources are sources that provide factual and neutral information that you can rely on when writing your article. Independent, secondary professional-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources are considered as reliable sources. Several newspapers, magazines and other news organisations host blogs which may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

Examples:


 * BBC
 * The New England Journal of Medicine
 * Billboard

If you have questions or want to discuss the reliability of a specific source, you may visit the reliable sources noticeboard.

What are non-reliable sources?
Non-reliable sources are sources that provides biased or questionable information. These should be generally avoided to use in your article. Sources that have poor reputation for checking the facts, lacking meaningful editorial oversight or have an apparent conflict of interest are considered non-reliable sources. Moreover, sources that are self-published or can be edited by the general public are not reliable. Because of this, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and you should never cite any Wikipedia articles.

Examples:


 * Facebook
 * Youtube
 * Famous Birthdays

Why we need to provide reliable sources?

 * All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and will not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
 * Citing non-reliable sources such as fan pages or self-published pages which may be biased violates our neutral point of view policy.
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced material may damage the reputation of living people or existing groups.
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

How can I find reliable sources?
Google is your friend. Don't cite the search page, cite the address for specific results. Google Books, Google scholar, and Google News are especially useful, just make sure that the publisher is reputable.

We try to avoid a definitive list of what sources always are good because it can vary based on the situation. Still, the community is quite clear that some select sources are usually good and some sources are almost always bad.

Hope you have a more comprehensive and deeper understanding about reliable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse, Help Desk or on my talk page. Happy editing!

Regards,

― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 02:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cultural psychiatry. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 02:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)