User talk:Natataek

January 2012
Hello, Natataek. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gili Islands, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, I familiarised myself with the guidelines prior to editing and only began work on the article this week, having noticed that the contents were meagre, and for the most part poorly worded and structured. Endeavouring to be bold, I decided to merge the islands' articles into one page and add a brief history and other sections that I plan to expand during the course of the rest of this week. In the process it seems that some of my edits may have been misconstrued as advertising due to two links placed in the article, one of which was already present long before my involvement. Discovering whole sections deleted today, I was disappointed that such actions were not first discussed with me. I undid them and am now working to improve the article conform the guidelines. I notice that you have deleted the only remaining external link, and perhaps I am missing something but it seems to me to be appropriate as it is relevant to an important recent development on the islands regarding eco-conservation. Seeing as it links out to an organisation (with which I am not affiliated by the way) that is non-profit, I fail to see it as representing a breach of guidelines. However, as I didn't add the link it doesn't bother me very much that it is gone, I'm just curious as to why. Being new to Wikipedia, I hope that editors such as yourself will afford me some patience as I attempt to expand the article until it meets the standard. I especially hope that I will be notified if anyone decides to indiscriminately delete entire sections, as happened earlier today by Merbabu. Natataek (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try to clarify some of the points you have raised. I hope my attempt will be helpful to you.


 * This edit, in which you stated that you were "in contact with local government leaders", gave the impression that you might be connected to the subjects you were writing about.


 * You say "Discovering whole sections deleted today, I was disappointed that such actions were not first discussed with me." Perhaps you may like to consider the fact that you had made sweeping changes, and you too had not consulted or informed the editors whose work you were undoing. You also go on to say "I undid them and am now working to improve the article...". I assume that by "I undid them", you mean you undid the changes which other editors had made, with which you disagreed. So, you evidently consider it acceptable for you to undo work by others without consulting them, yet you object to others undoing your work without consulting you. You refer to being "bold", which is fine, but you need to realise that, when an editor has been "bold", others may disagree, and if so they may revert those bold edits. You evidently feel annoyed by the fact that others have undone your work, which you feel was helpful work, but are willing to undo the work of others, who no doubt also thought they were making helpful changes. That is how Wikipedia works: others may disagree with your actions. There is an essay called BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which describes what is generally considered to be the best way to proceed in the case of disagreements. Note that it is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, discuss, and only if the bold editor agrees revert", nor even "bold, revert, revert again and object to the fact that someone else reverted first". Another important point in this connection is that, when two or more editors disagree, it is unhelpful for individual editors to keep repeating their changes, presumably in the hope that others will eventually give up. Doing so, known as edit warring, is considered disruptive, and can lead to being blocked from editing. By all means be "bold", but if you find your bold edits are reverted, do not repeat them, but discuss them, with a view to trying to reach agreement.


 * You say, in connection with removal of a link, "Seeing as it links out to an organisation ... that is non-profit, I fail to see it as representing a breach of guidelines." However, whether it is non-profit or not is irrelevant. (1) The link is to a web page which clearly exists to promote a cause. *("Participate in the 'Clean-Up' day to get a FREE DIVE !" etc etc.) (2) The link provides information which is not about the Gili Islands as such, but rather about an organisation which is related to them. External links are normally acceptable only if they are directly about the subject of the article, rather than a step away. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for replying and clarifying. Its a learning curve, and I think I'm slowly getting the hang of it, so your interventions have been helpful in that they have forced me to delve further into the guidelines. I have since noticed the internal link to the article on the eco trust in wikipedia, which of course more than suffices. Your point about me undoing past edits is certainly valid in part, though in my defense I think you accuse me of too much, seeing as I did not delete swathes of text from the article prior to my involvement, but rather expanded on them and re arranged them. At that point, I was under the (somewhat naive, perhaps) impression that because it was a stub article with so little information, that consulting previous editors whose main contributions occurred a considerable time ago was not necessary. If my plan was to delete a large amount of text from recent work, I would have made the effort to contact the editor. Regarding my contact with the local village leader, this was purely to establish a reliable figure as to demographics of the islands and some tips regarding where to look for sources regarding its history.

I apologise for any misunderstanding or poor editorial behaviour on my part, and hope you and others will attribute it to my being new here. I hope to improve work on the article to get it to a level that fits the criteria, before moving on to other (random) pages in the future. That way I can learn the ropes here without being like a bull in a china shop on other, more important articles. Natataek (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that I was probably wrong in suggesting that your initial edits undid a lot of work by others. When I saw your note on my talk page asking me to comment here, I did not remember much about the case, and only glanced at the history fairly briefly. I thought I remembered that you had removed a lot of content, but if I was wrong then I apologise for commenting without checking more thoroughly. However, I think my other points stand. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I fully understand your point about being new to editing Wikipedia. All of us make mistakes when we start, some of us far more serious mistakes than anything you may be accused of. Also, looking back, I think that in my earlier comments I was probably too negative. Even if some of your edits have been questioned, I think you have basically done some good work in improving an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, any further advice or help is always appreciated! I'm planning to do some more work on it today, so if you do have the chance at any point in the next week or so to take another look at the page and give tips (especially on citing good sources - I'm finding that quite a challenge!) or help edit that would be great. Cheers! Natataek (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gili Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mataram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Apeldoorn
Hi Natataek, I noticed you made some contributions to the Apeldoorn article. It it is good to contribute this way. I also noted that you changed the order of certain headings, please note that in some cases they are ordered and named in a certain way for a reason. In part to maintain consistency among other Wikipedia articles as well. For this reason I have changed one of the section headers again. Have fun improving Wikipedia further. 131.180.32.105 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cirrha Niva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skyclad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alvenrad
Hello, Natataek,

Thank you for creating Alvenrad.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Thanks for the article! Though, how does this pass the band notability guideline WP:NBAND or the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which decide what articles are suitable for Wikipedia? Other than the obvious unreliable/trivial refs- including Discogs and Youtube, see the album sources list WP:A/S, one of its albums appears to have been reviewed in three magazines. However, do these three magazines also discuss the band specifically in depth? If not, I'm unsure how this meets any of the notability guidelines, nor could I find much other than mostly routine releases from this possibly unreliable ref with no editorial policies. If it is possible, could you explain how it passes the band notability guidelines or 2-3 best refs that in your opinion demonstrate general notability per WP:THREE? Many thanks!"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 VickKiang  (talk)  10:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)