User talk:Deedstar
Welcome!
Hi Deedstar! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Dreadstar † 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
ESADE
Before editing ESADE, you should review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia articles are not venues for advertising, per WP:SOAP. Dreadstar † 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- You need find a reliable source for the information you keep trying to add. Read this first: WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). "www.solofaltaeldirectordeesade.com" is clearly a self-published site with no editorial oversight or fact checking. Secondly, the information is clearly not the official "Mission" of ESADE. It's criticism and should go in a criticism or controversy section. If you can find third party sources that cover the i nformation in solofaltaeldirectordeesade.com, then we can add it - but site just looks like a self-published non-notable site. Are there news reports from non-tabloid papers? Are there any other sources? Find even one solid source and we're good to go! Dreadstar † 09:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Self published"
It may be a self-published site but it happens to feature the link to "e-noticies" - a business media channel featuring an interview with two spokesmen for the 70-plus ESADE alumni who have publicized their opposition to Losada's acceptance of the Clickair appointment. Listen carefully to the interview in Catalan and you should grasp the importance of this debate. The controversy has also been extensively covered in other Catalan media. I appreciate that many Wiki editors will find it too challenging to read either the Spanish or Catalan sources but that is hardly a good reason for cutting the information out. Rather, it is an argument for editors who are conversant with the subject and languages in question. I have therefore reverted but omitted the site.
By the way, here is an editorial from the e-notices site as a sampler of the media debate:
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.75.24 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Links contained on a self-published site do not increase a site's status when it's being used as a source for Wikipedia content. Per WP:CITE and WP:V, you need to find a reliable source for the content, not merely provide a link that provides links to other sites - we want our readers to be able to quickly and easily verify for themselves what a source says. Since this is the English Wikipedia, English language sites are preferred. Read over WP:EL-English language content and WP:MOS-English language sites for more infomation.
- Find and use reliable sources for the content you wish to add. Dreadstar † 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
English sources
I would give English sources but since there are none I have given Spanish and Catalan ones. The alternative is to give none but that seems to make very little sense - after all, an encyclopedia should cast the net wide when it comes to knowledge, not restrict it to a linguistic island (no matter how large). Besides which, anyone can use Babel Fish to get the gist of the content. If the source is "reliable" - Le Monde, El País, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung etc., then that should be enough. We all know that Wikipedia is an American-spawned initiative but that is no excuse not to foster this kind of multi-lingualism. It's time to think outside the box.
- I'd suggest you read the source language links I provided above. You need to find acceptable sources and put them in the article, you have not done so. The burden of evidice is on the editor who wants to add the content. That's you. And it must be added per WP:CITE. Dreadstar † 08:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let me be very clear, my reversion has absolutely nothing to do with the language of the source. I've reverted because the sources you've provided do not contain information that backs up the content you've been adding. In order to say "Mr. XX" has joined "Company Y", you must provide a reliable source that says so, providing a link to the webpage of "Company Y" that says nothing about "Mr. XX" joining the company is not an appropriate citatation.
- As far as non-English language sources, I'll quote the relevant information on that:
- "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."