User talk:M2wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sci Phi Journal (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv 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:Sci Phi Journal 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:Sci Phi Journal, 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, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, M2wiki! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Bilorv (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, M2wiki. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Bilorv (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bilorv, thank you for getting in touch. May I request that the above decision be reviewed?

In all fairness,

(a) I complied with the Conflict of Interest disclosure in full, by both posting the appropriate tag on my user page as well as in the edit summary, and

(b) the content of the proposed wiki entry in a barebone factual entry, compliant with the template established for journals, and comparable in scope and detail to analogous entries, e.g. Daily Science Fiction.

As for notability, SPJ is an established publication with multiple Hugo and Locus award nominations, but I tried to avoid any language that could be seen as "promotion". Is there anything specific you'd like me to change in the article? Or otherwise, what would be the proper procedure? Ask a third party unconnected to the journal to submit the entry? (An ISFDB editor, for instance?)

Thanks in advance for any advice, kudos for looking after Wikipedia. — M2wiki (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll start by saying sorry for the unfriendliness of the automated messages! We have thousands of drafts in our backlog and not a huge number of volunteers so sometimes everything is very hurried. I just saw your initial edit summary on the draft and thought the conflict of interest notice was something you should read, but I must have made a mistake somehow in not seeing that your userpage already has the right disclosure notice. The declining of the draft was not related to this, but because the draft does not make it clear how the subject meets our notability guidelines. Your comments here go some way to addressing this.

The article at present has three references, of which only one is a secondary source, and database entries don't generally count as substantial coverage. You mention Hugo and Locus awards—I see now why you thought we might not want to see this in the article, but it's actually something that should be mentioned! Being nominated for awards like this is a claim to notability, and its needs to show in the prose of an article how notability is met. If you can mention any award nominations or any other aspects which make the publication reputable (with references), that's a good next step. Still written neutrally, e.g. The magazine was nominated in X year for X award. Then you can resubmit the article, where another editor might come to a decision independently, or if you ping me again (mention my username with a link and sign your message on this talk, as you did above) then I might be able to take another look at it.

And I'll end on one other note just to try to address a common question we get: "how is this case different from X article?" The answer is that this is a site with millions of articles and though we try our best to enforce our standards, Wikipedia is a work in progress! Almost all of our articles can be drastically improved, like in the case you mention of Daily Science Fiction. — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Bilorv, I certainly did not expect such a swift and helpful reply. Many thanks!! Being an editor myself, I understand the pressure you folks must be under. Apologies if I added to it! I'll insert the suggested award nomination reference straight away. Draft:Sci Phi Journal Once again, many thanks for your kind advice. — M2wiki (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sci Phi Journal (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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:Sci Phi Journal 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:Sci Phi Journal, 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, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi M2wiki again, just in response to this, I think we're making progress but more award nominations would be helpful. Additionally, do you know of any more mainstream sources which regularly cite Sci Phi Journal, or have reported about it? You can read Wikipedia:Notability (magazines) for more information about what might be useful. — Bilorv (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bilorv and Theroadislong, thank you for taking the time to again review and engage with the draft wiki entry. I understand that wiki editors are busy and I appreciate your time. Without wanting to become a nuisance, may I point out that the draft article has been revised in line with the previous instructions? I've had a quick look at analogous entries in the field of speculative fiction, and do not see how the draft entry is inferior or less factual/neutral, e.g. Daily Science Fiction, Midnight Street, The Future Fire, Postscripts, Not One of Us (internal wiki link broken, but entry exists), Space and Time (magazine), etc. As a long-term Wikipedia-supporter, and in the interest of fairness, may I kindly request equal treatment? (Apologies if in US English that's a loaded term. I just mean to be measured by the same yardstick.) That said, I will look into adding more sources over time, but I thought the idea was to avoid promotion. I would humbly argue that at least a barebone wiki entry should exist for every active literary publication, interlinked with wiki lists, to be then enriched by the community with the passage of time. In any case, I appreciate all your help and advice, thanks again, all the best in these challenging times - M2wiki (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I've already addressed some of these ideas; the articles you list are not in line with policy and some may even need to be deleted. We have notability requirements which has been established over many years by the hard work of many editors, and so there are good reasons why we wish to avoid having articles for every active literary publication. The Hugo and Locus award references are good, but we need to see more of this. — Bilorv (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilorv, understood. I've reworked the draft article accordingly, with more references, clarifications, additional info on Hugo nominations. Thanks for your patience, putting up with curmudgeonly luddites such as me. Strict editing is the crucible from whence better articles are born. Much appreciated! M2wiki (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sci Phi Journal has been accepted

Sci Phi Journal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion and improvements—I think the draft now has enough claims to notability, so I've accepted it (some reasoning here). I will warn you that my opinion is just one of many, so all our articles can be deleted if a deletion discussion concludes that the subject is not notable, and they're also subject to editing by others, of course. Please make sure you remain conformant to our conflict of interest guidelines, particularly what they say about editing articles directly (you may find {{Request edit}} useful). — Bilorv (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilorv, for engaging so deeply with this editing process over the past few days, your attention to detail and the guidance provided. I really appreciate it! Indeed, I will make sure to stick to the straight and narrow in upholding Wikipedia standards. All the best, regards, M2wiki (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)