User talk:Sapiensalus36

Nomination of Georgetown Security Studies Review for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgetown Security Studies Review is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Georgetown Security Studies Review until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TJH2018 talk  00:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the three important principles above.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Response to Critiques/Block
To: Vanjagenije   (talk)

Thanks for asking! In fact, I do understand all and acknowledge all of the questions that you just asked. I have changed the username in question because it did seem to be related to a group that I am affiliated with; hence the name-change to signify that this account is not tied to an organization but an individual. As for having COI, yes—I do have a COI with regards to the article I recently edited/created. As for violating the three principles you stated above and the critiques that are on the page itself, please allow me to address them in turn:


 * (1) COI: Yes, editor/contributor does have COI; however, I attempted to write the page to avoid an "exclusively promotional" (G11) point of view. If I failed to appropriately maintain neutrality in the editing of this article, I’d appreciate help in editing the page or specific suggestions for where the article fails to maintain neutrality.
 * (2) Promotion: Are there specific examples of how the content of the page advocates a particular position or is written in a biased/subjective style? All of the statements on the page seem to be generally fact-driven and avoid language that is promotional or otherwise advocates a specific position/viewpoint/activity.
 * (3) Lead Section Rewrite: Are there specific suggestions as to what should be rewritten in the lead section to bring it into conformity with the Manual of Style? In writing, I tried to include appropriate elements of the lead, citations, emphasis, and length.
 * (4) Reliable Sourcing: I can happily provide additional external sources related to projects for the topic at hand. All of the following links include references, academic mentions, and uses of material generated/published by the Georgetown Security Studies Review.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (5) Systemic Bias: I’d appreciate some help in understanding how this criticism is relevant to the article in question. As per the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, the focus of the project is on remedying omissions as opposed to (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions or (2) trying to remedy how material is presented. As such, I'm unsure how to respond to this criticism. Any further detail from moderators would be appreciated.
 * In response to critique of standard of WP:JOURNALCRIT: I believe the Georgetown Security Studies Review meets at least one of the three criteria for notability. Criteria #2 of being "frequently cited by other reliable sources" is fulfilled as per the responses to critique response #4 (see above)