User talk:Damionscott

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! nonsense ferret  01:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damion K. Scott 2 concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damion K. Scott 2, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 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) 02:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damion K. Scott 2


Hello Damionscott. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Damion K. Scott 2".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Damion Kareem Scott


A tag has been placed on Damion Kareem Scott, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It 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. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bazj (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Damion Kareem Scott. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. You may also want to check WP:NACADEMICS and WP:RS. Bazj (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your message in the talkpage. It's not suggested that the article is untrue, or that it wrongly presents your credentials as an academic. It's that it doesn't contain an assertion of notability sufficient to meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please don't see this as in any way a personal reflection on you or your work. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Bazj (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I have no other Wikipedia accounts. I tried to enter my own bio on the Africana Philosophy page (as I felt that my work as a Lecturer and multiple talks that I have given ought to have qualified me) but it was deleted. Then I see now that my name has also been deleted and I am being accused of 'sock-puppetry'. I did not make a second attempt although I did tell several people that I was disappointed that my short bio was rejected. I do not even know how to answer this charge properly on the Wikepedia platform. I really don't understand why I am being targeted by this editor. Isn't it fairly easy for engineers at Wikipedia to track IP addresses? I did not do that. Thank You.
 * Resolved; it wasn't him. DS (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was deleted from the page again. I have no idea why. I presented evidence that I was never involved any sock puppetry and I also provided extensive evidence of my credentials. I feel as I am being unfairly targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damionscott (talk • contribs)
 * The link was correctly removed because there is no corresponding article. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was up for 3 years without a corresponding article. I am an adjunct professor and not as popular as some of my colleagues. That should not matter in terms of my objective contributions to the field of Africana Philosophy. I have given talks in the field at many institutions and universities around the world for nearly two decades. There are many lists of contributors to fields on wikipedia pages which feature people without corresponding articles. This is unfair and it the deletion after several years, brought to my attention just yesterday, is especially embarrassing. It diminishes the article as a whole to 'demote' someone simply due to lack of popularity. If anyone does there research they would know that I have helped to advance the field of Africana Philosophy here in the United States. I would like to request an appeal please. Thank You.Damionscott (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was up incorrectly for three years. Do you think that when editors find inappropriate content or vandalism in an article that was missed for years we just shrug and say "oh well, it's been there too long to remove now"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some sort of LinkedIn hub, and the inclusion of articles is based on specific notability criteria, in this case WP:ACADEMIC, not vague notions of popularity as you attest. You have misused Wikipedia to promote yourself and your career for years contrary to our policies and guidelines. Please find another platform.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This response is patently unfair and factually incorrect. Let me be clear, I have no problem with my name being deleted from this article if a community feels that I do not match objective standards for inclusion. However the accusation that I have "misused Wikipedia to promote yourself and your career for years contrary to our policies and guidelines" Is demonstably false and mean-spirited. I will start generally and then give some specific rebuttals: Of all philosophers employed in Departments of Philosophy in the US, Canada, the UK or Australia less than 2.5 percent are of recent African Descent or self-identify as 'Black'. http://www.mapforthegap.com/resources.html Now, of these philosophers, the majority do not list research focus, teach or publish specifically in Africana Philosophy. There are less than a few dozen of us. For much of my early academic career the very idea of Africana Philosophy was denied. I was specific cited in 1997 (then an undergraduate) in Oxford University Press's Philosophical Gourmet Report as being credited as persuading the editor to include the first section on ranking of philosophy departments that offered "Critical Race Theory'. What we were specifically arguing for was recognition of Africana Philosophy as African-American and/or African Philosophy. The claim that I have misused this site for pure self-promotion would be true if I profited from being included on this list, which I do not and also if I have not in fact contributed substantially to the field which is not for myself alone to judge but it seems as if the moderator here has taken it upon themselves to judge individually. I have and continue to contribute to a broader field that goes beyond myself, my personal interest or my individual teaching and precisely because I do not have a personal wiki page yet, I could not be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. If anyone ever search me after reading the list of this site they would be directed to teaching and research that includes one of literally around five scholars in the entire US who focus on Afro-Futurism from a distinctly philosophical perspective and only one using both modal logical and phenomenologically methods. Now more specifically, the moderator initially replied that I was deleted only due to not having a linked wiki article. Nothing about the "specific notability criteria, in this case [[WP:ACADEMIC]"Now that I have been educated about this set of non-arbitrary community standards, again, I can accept that I do NOT meet many of the criteria. Yet the moderator felt the need to associate me with 'vandalism' and 'abuse' in their own words. How is that a fair judgment? After reviewing the criteria which includes these qualifications: "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline" and "Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable".

The first two criteria listed are

1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Here are publicly verifiable facts about my original contributions specific to the field of Africana Philosophy (which again are discoverable on many other institutions webpages and not only on my CV, which would put me in extremely serious jeopardy if anything were shown to be false)

I have taught these courses at the City University of New York, publicly verifiable from the class schedule sites: Philosophy and Afrofuturism Perspectives on Justice in the Africana Diaspora Race and Ethnicity in America Justice, The Individual and Struggle in the African-American Experience Introduction to Africana Studies

I was the first person ever to teach Philosophy and Afrofuturism at any of the senior colleges of the City University of New York much less at my current institution, the City College of New York.

Publications: Under Review- “Afrofuturism and Black Futurism: Some Ontological and Semantic Considerations” in The Black Speculative Arts Movement Lexington

Honors and Awards: SUNY- New York State Turner Fellowship Columbia University African-American Studies Departmental Scholarship CUNY - John Jay College Department of Africana Studies-Excellence in Teaching Award United Kingdom Home Office- Department of Education - Hugh Gaitskell Grant Recipient

Invited Speaker- Brooklyn Public Library and the Cultural Services of the French Embassy- A Night of Philosophy and Ideas, February 2019 Discussion on Jury Duty and Justice Reform

Panel Discussant- American Philosophical Association: Radical Philosophy Association: Author Meets Critics- Clinical Trials and the African Person: A Quest to Re-conceptualize Responsibility by Professor Ike Valentine Iyioke, January 2019

Invited Speaker- Philosophy and Religion in the Africana Traditions 5th Annual Conference, October 2018 Paper Title: ‘Cachinnate Yourself about Mental Slavery: A Freudian Approach to the Horrific Humor in Get Out’

Invited Speaker-The City College of New York Philosophy Club, October 2017 Paper Title: ‘Relativistic Subject Naturalism’

City College of New York WHCR Radio, September 2016 Discussion of Afrofuturistic Music Invited Speaker- Society for the Study of Africana Philosophy, November 2015 Paper Title: ‘Nietzsche, Martin Delany, Malcolm X and The Power of Violence’

Philosophy and Religion in Africana Traditions Annual 3rd Annual Conference. October 2015 Paper Title: ‘The Importance of Pluralistic Naturalism for Black Humanity'

Invited Speaker- AfroFutures UK Annual Conference 2015- Manchester, United Kingdom, October 2015 Paper Title: ‘Sonic Realism, Sonic Actualism, and Dark Music’

Invited Speaker- Emancipation: Challenges at the Intersection of American and European Philosophy Conference-The Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, The Central European Pragmatist Forum, and the New York Pragmatist Forum, February 2015 Paper Title: ‘The Ironic Liberational Value of Military Technology’

Panel Speaker- John Jay College of Criminal Justice, African Studies Department Black History Month Panel Discussion, ‘Do We Need a New Civil Rights Movement?’, February 2015 Title: ‘On Uncivil Rights’

Invited Presenter- 6th Annual Student Philosophy Conference: A Colloquium on Race- Philosophy Department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, April 2014 Paper Title: ‘Plural Worlds and Visible Black Futurism’

Invited Speaker- Pennsylvania State University Graduate Philosophy Conference, March 2014 Paper Title: ‘Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Genocide’

Invited Speaker- Society for the Study of Africana Philosophy, February 2014 Multimedia Presentation Title: “What Exactly is ‘Black’ about Black Futurism?” Dark Electronic Music, Black Sci Fi Film and Possible Worlds’

Invited Panel Discussion- Caribbean Philosophical Association meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, November 2013 Black Science Fiction Panel Presentation Title: “A Dark Ontology: Black Futurism and Possible Worlds”

Invited Participant- Novartis Foundation Discussion Meeting, ‘Making Sense of Brain Images: Philosophy of Mind, Phenomenology and Schizophrenia’, November 1999

Invited Speaker on Graduate Students Panel- Rutgers University, New Jersey, Summer Institute for Diversity in Philosophy, July 1999 So I would like so ask again, how is this in any way purely self-promotion tantamount to 'vandalism' and 'abuse'? The moderator was the only one that took an abusive and aggressive tone in the above exchange. I was accused of 'sock-puppetry' in 2015 which was proven false.Now I would like the community to judge my research and original contribution to the field in exactly how the criteria are phrased according to wikipedia's non-arbitrary standards. I was absolutely excited to see this page in 2015. We have collectively fought for recognition and everyone that is indeed listed on this article deserves to be listed. If my colleagues listed in the article (nearly a quarter) were polled about my work in the field I would feel very confident about the outcome. Instead one moderator has taken int upon themself to demean and insult me without thinking through the exact criteria listed that was provided much less with any specialized knowledge of the field of Afrofuturism. I care about what WE do and not about what I do and no single wiki moderator making an insulting snap judgement should diminish what we have produced nor should they be allowed to distort clear objective criteria of community standards that are actually listed. I am absolutely certain that I am not the only academic who is eager to highlight or promote a field of research who has edited a page to include themselves. I admit that. Yet I meet the criteria especially given the initial qualifications and I again would like to simply know how I can dispute the such a judgement by this moderator and ask other moderators in the community what they think of this.Damionscott (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)