User talk:Julian Vigo

Your submission at Articles for creation: Savage Minds (magazine) (December 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer 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:Savage Minds (magazine) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Savage Minds (magazine), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Savage_Minds_(magazine) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curb_Safe_Charmer&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Savage_Minds_(magazine) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a publication. Other media does not tend to write in depth about other media as that is usually relegated to scandals which we have not had. There are many publications on Wikipedia without articles written about them. This is a magazine with a large readership. Surely, Wikipedia does not discriminate against independent journalism! 79.25.7.64 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read Notability (web) to understand the criteria that the Wikipedia editor community uses to judge which web content should and shouldn't have an article written about it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have been more than civil--I've been shocked by the aggression. I noted it, requested that it stop. End of subject. I refer to the major media references in the wiki entry under "Public Reception". I have serious eye problems these days and just returned from hospital so if you could see the references in the footnotes, that would be helpful. Thanks!
 * I haven't checked all three sources (having adblock issues), but the Spectator article isn't about the magazine, so it doesn't contribute to establishing notability. What you need isn't an article reprinted from the magazine in another publication, but rather a source that goes into some detail about the magazine - its history, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If we are cited be other sources the Spectator and NCS, then this does count for notoriety. Citing unreliable sources is frowned upon in publishing--our publishing standards as a magazine also prohibit it. These standards you will find across the media industry to include at the Spectator and NBC. The Spectator counts because within publishing standards for the NUJ in the UK as well as their in-house standards, you cannot cite souls that are not reliable. That one of our pieces was reprinted, that we have been cited in two major media cites are evidence that we are an established name and a reliable source.

Keep in mind that "reliable" is a throwaway term today with much of the media you have listed from the issues of the infamous Biden Jr laptop, misrepresentation around Russiagate, and WMD--all these issues were intentionally misreported by major media, to include the NYTimes, among many others. It was the NY Times reporting by Judith Miller which led to the invasion of Iraq. So when you look at reliability, you need to see the names affiliated with each publication's brand and ours is loaded with award-winning journalists and writers (eg. John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad, etc) and we have editorial ethics that would not result in the serious misreporting of other major media outlets. We also don't rely on any sources that are not journalistic, investigative or scientific. We have been noted by publishers and referenced in many other media publications and by the eminent physicist Alan Sokal:

https://www.eye-books.com/books/the-end-of-the-world-is-flat https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/08/covid-and-the-new-class-divides/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/who-is-keira-bell-parents-warn-against-trans-medicalization.html https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/09/the-agender-of-the-abc/ https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/09/why-should-women-tolerate-the-big-swinging-dicks-of-the-transgender-movement-part-ii/ https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html

Julian Vigo (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're talking about what establishes notoriety in the publishing industry, but the issue here is notability as defined by Wikipedia. Put simply, the rules you're used to about what matters in publishing aren't the same as the rules that Wikipedia has in place to decide what subjects are eligible for articles. I can only suggest that you read Notability closely and consider whether your magazine meets the criteria set out there. If it doesn't, there's no way that the draft will be accepted - whether you agree with Wikipedia's rules or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will have a read through on the weekend when I have time and get back here. Thanks!

Julian Vigo (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello Julian Vigo. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Savage Minds (magazine), gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. 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. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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, broadly construed, 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:Julian Vigo. 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. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you make up your excuses for censorship as you go along? Where is your proof that I am a paid advocate? This is libellous. I also went through a series of tick boxes and declared that I am not. Please stop detailing the inclusion of our publications with fictional pretexts. This is a serious publication and what you are doing here is most flimsy and unprofessional.

You need to step away from this project as you show bias and are not rational or honest. I don’t know if to laugh or to cry at this statement: “The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Savage Minds (magazine), gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.”  79.25.7.64 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to User talk:Julian Vigo while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am feeling harassed by you at this point. You make one ridiculous accusation after another. You clearly have a load of time and money to harass people--I don't. I responded to you from the email that was sent. I don't know if logged on or off, little does it matter that I am responded. I have asked you to step away because your behaviour is aggressive, defamatory and condescending at this point. I have a job, a family and I certainly don't have time for these games. In every single communication you have made here you have set out to censor a legitimate publication with a wide readership. Your comments need to address my entry and stay away from your "Murder She Wrote" conjectures. It's deeply disrespectful to those of us who are cobbling together a livelihood getting one email after another with your petty grievances that I responded to this thread THROUGH THE WIKIPEDIA EMAIL LINK THAT THE SYSTEM SENT ME! Please stop. This is unprofessional and harassing. I have added major media coverage of the magazine.

Update: I have gone through Wikipedia today and as a journalist I have referred to it at times--you have COPIOUS amounts of on professional blogs here that are merely referenced lightly by media, some not at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core77 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crooked_Timber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cute_Overload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Porch_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Political_Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopText https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popjustice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QT%27s_Diary

Ours is a serious news publication with esteemed contributors to include the editor of The Nation.

So, to recap: I spent hours making the information to put into this page. I sent it in and then I am: 1. accused of being a paid agent with zero reason for this, despite the fact that I am known person who has published in about fifty different publications internationally, 2. I was told "The references are all to the magazine itself. Have any independent publications written in depth about the magzine?" I have updated the entry to include three major media references to the magazine. But again, see above, to many Wikipedia entries without much merit by this same criteria. 3. I am chastised for clicking on the link sent to me by email in response to the first comment accusing me falsely of being a paid agent--this because I clicked on the link from the email YOU sent me and I responded. If I get a link sent to me, I open it and I have access to respond without signing in--I obviously think I am already signed in! This is an oversight of your engineering because I presume nobody else can access this page, no?

I am seriously concerned by the backhanded handling of my entry and there seems to be a targeting of me and/or this publication. I would appreciate someone who works in media to handle this case at this point because I work for free--my labour on this is unpaid and I deserve at the very least an honest exchange and not some cherry-picking of IP addresses (I work from my mobile and my computer, so yeah, there will be differing IP addresses, not to mention my home internet changes IP all the time due to my Internet provider). I also reject the use of defamatory comments which seem to be a thinly veiled attempt to bully journalists and editors from adding their work to this platform.

Julian Vigo (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Savage Minds (magazine)
Hello, Julian Vigo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Savage Minds (magazine), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Savage Minds (magazine)


Hello, Julian Vigo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Savage Minds".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am pretty underwhelmed what I see here with Wikipedia censorship. I am a known writer, I don't have copious amounts of time as the bro-dudes here, one of whom harassed me when I first worked on this. I am a journalist, I provided you with copious material--my CV alone for my pubications is over 30 pages, 8pt font. So I really don't appreciate the climate here which is super mmisogynist much of the time and which now is trying to keep writers who are well-known in their fields for having a page up. I have requested the undeletion of my text but I would like women to work on my page at this point. I have had only negative experiences with wikipedia staff such that I have nicknamed it dcickipedia. the offenses date back for some time, but I have to say the abuse is common as I have spoken with other women who have had copy/paste experiences as my own. I don't really understand that the magazine and podcast I edit is not up already. One of your volunteers said "It's only a Substack". This is so uninformed. Substack is merely a computer codign term, also a name of a platform to hose publications. that's it. It's not a blog or anythign other than a magazine. We havea bout forty different writers. I would appreciate some clarity and honesty in getting our magazine up. I left it for six months because I felt harassed from the beginning. Thanks. 5.171.213.184 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Savage Minds (magazine)


Hello, Julian Vigo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Savage Minds".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)