User talk:122Manor

Speedy deletion nomination of Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture


A tag has been placed on Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. Please note that it's considered poor practice on Wikipedia to use capitals to SHOUT at people. I deleted your article because Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the journal, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the journal claims or interviewing its management. Apart from possibly two paper-only publications which I cannot access, your "references" are to your own pages, YouTube, articles by your editor, or don't mention the journal at all (NYT page). Furthermore, your readership figures suggest that you would not meet the criteria in any case, 200 a day is negligible.
 * Interviewing notable people does not make you notable, notability is not transferable.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. You make much of the fact that your publication is free. As an academic, you should be aware that promotion does not need to involve the transfer of money. If I said "Vote for Trump", that would be promotion even if I was not being paid to say it. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include:  Antennae challenges the traditional academic approaches... creatively engage a wide readership...' has substantially contributed to the scholarly discussion... becoming an esteemed reference point of international reference... reached beyond the boundaries of academic knowledge for the purpose of enabling new sensitivities and minor voices to engage in discussion, thus enriching the scope of purely academic enquiry...&mdash; and so on, fact-free spam
 * the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. I note that all your images were deleted as copyright violations and the links removed by a bot
 * You mention October (journal), but that's irrelevant, your articles are judged on what you write, not on what else is out there
 * You have a conflict of interest when editing this article, and you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your journal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
 * If you are directly or indirectly recompensed by the journal, that is paid advocacy. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.

I've moved your further comments here to keep it all together: Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1) "the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references" this is not true: there were more than 10 references in the article and they were not all from the site of the journal. The article was created in a single edit because I wrote it on a word document and then pasted the whole thing into the Sandbox--I don't think there's anything wrong in this and the piece should be penalized for this reason as it does not say anything about its quality.
 * I accept that the initial article was referenced, my error. There is nothing wrong with writing a draft off-line, but you will appreciate that copyright infringements are invariably single edits. It's certainly not a reason for deletion as such, but an indicator of other potential problems in an article which did have other copyright infringements. I am happy to accept that the text is your own work

2) "It did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines": Why not point this out in a message so that things could be rectified rather than take the whole article down?
 * Another experience editor nominated because he felt that the article's problems met the speedy deletion criteria, I agreed.

3) "Furthermore, your readership figures suggest that you would not meet the criteria in any case, 200 a day is negligible". In academic terms 200 viewers a day is actually very notable and Wikipedia indeed includes profiles for other journals or scholars whose sites have less than 200 hits a day. If you multiply the 200 daily views by 365, you can quickly see that Antennae is viewed by at least 73000 people a year--this is not negligible, as you claim, and it is much more than the sales of some pop songs listed in Wikipedia....
 * If notability was the only concern, I would have nominated for a deletion discussion since it's arguable that the topic does meet the notability criteria I linked above. However, the article was nominated and speedied for promotion, not lack of notability.

4) "it was written in a promotional tone": why not provide feedback so that the text could be modified instead of taking it down?
 * The text was too promotional. the nominator and I both considered that there wasn't a quick fix. Note that text can be restored to a user subpage for further work (although you presumably have a Word version), but major rewrites are not appropriate in article space

5) "the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source": this is not true and actually quite offensive. Have you googled the text and found it elsewhere online? Why would you draw some conclusions without actually having any evidence. Just because you think so? The images uploaded were covers of the journal and posters that were used to advertise events, do I have to contact them to ask if I can use them? In that case would I not become involved in "operating for them" for the making of this article?
 * I've accepted that the text is not copyright, although you have no reason to be offended, copyright text is often posted by inexperienced users in good faith, not realising that we can't accept it. You do have to get the publishers to release the images, although I suspect that they will be unwilling to effectively make them public domain. The procedure is in the link for releasing copyright above. You could probably have one image of the journal cover under a WP:Fair use claim

6) "You mention October (journal), but that's irrelevant, your articles are judged on what you write, not on what else is out there": I strongly disagree with this statement, it shows that Wikipedia does not have a standard approach to content. October is a very good comparison for this case and I do not see on what grounds you can simply claim that I should not draw comparisons. For instance, in October's article it says "As well as in-depth articles and reviews of 20th century and contemporary art, the journal features critical interpretations of cinema and popular culture from a progressive viewpoint". This is not referenced. Where's the evidence of this "progressive viewpoint" they claim to have? Furthermore there only are 4 references in their page and 3 are from MIT press which is the publishers of this Journal--I don't see how October has been represented differently from Antennae in this case and this is important. The only way I have to know if my article is being treated unfairly is to compare with other articles already on Wikipedia.
 * See WP:Other stuff exists. The October page isn't perfect, but nothing like as promotional as yours

7) I am not directly recompensed by the journal, nor am I connected with it. I have used the journal extensively in my MA and PhD and have researched in a community where this journal is very much esteemed. It deserves to be on Wikipedia for other students to find it and use it as a free research tool.
 * Fine, I have to ask the question

8) I don't need a compensation--I'd rather be given the opportunity to rectify the article and have it back up.
 * You can always recreate an article. If you do so here, it will be out of the line of fire, and I'd be happy to comment if you wish.

9) Could you tell me how to ask via Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created?
 * follow the link above

Ultimately I am concerned that you just took down a contribution about a free/open access education/research source that is useful for students/researchers around the world, not a record, a book, or designer's clothes--there's something ethical to consider here in terms of what Wikipedia is meant to stand for.
 * Useful of not, you have to write an encyclopaedia article, not a highly promotional page, to meet our criteria

Thanks for your help (122Manor (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Feel free to ask if you have any further queries Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/October (journal)
 * The article was read by the nominator (also an admin as it happens), and me. that's two opinions on whether your article is acceptable
 * I'm not in an academic post, but as I pointed out, the article was deleted for tone not notability


 * Please don't modify your comments (other than typos etc) once you have made them, it makes it very hard to keep track. Add new material as further comments Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Jimfbleak. Much appreciated--it really helps. I will attempt to remove the 'promotional tone' and obtain permission to use at least one image. (122Manor (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC))


 * You can use one image without permission as fair use as long as you provide the appropriate rationale, follow the link above. If you ask for permission, we will need an OTRS release, which I suspect will not be forthcoming. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Antennae.png
Thanks for uploading File:Antennae.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 05:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Antennae (journal) (August 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RileyBugz was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Antennae (journal) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Antennae.png


A tag has been placed on File:Antennae.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Antennae (journal) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Antennae (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Antennae (journal) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Antennae (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Antennae (journal)


Hello, 122Manor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Antennae".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)