User talk:GanFox

This is GanFox's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 4)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Cites only primary sources, mostly close to the subject.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:GanFox/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Comment: I would have moved this into the draft space before declining, but don't know what title to move it to. Is the official name really Interdisciplinary Research Center of the University of Warsaw „Identity – Dialogue – Security”? That would make a remarkably long and clumsy article title. Also, the German-style 'lower–upper' quotation marks are not used in English, what should be done about them? DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

2. Comment: Cites only primary sources, mostly close to the subject. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi I am responding to your comments which I have copied above.

1. That is the name of this unit. This is confirmed by the many references I have posted. Changing the name or abbreviating it would not be truthful. Besides, I think the comment is not fair. In addition, I do not understand what "the German-style 'lower–upper' quotation marks are not used in English" means. The refereed style is almost identical to the articles you normally publish. Except that most of the links refer to Polish sites, because it is a Polish organisation. This should not come as a surprise.

2. I have used all possible and existing sources. There is a reference to a piece of legislation, to independent websites and to the organisation's official website. I do not know what the problem is. There have been no scientific articles on the journal because they are not usually the subject of research, nor should they be. Besides, it is a young organisation.

Thanks, hoping for a quick response. GanFox (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding the name, I wanted to clarify not just whether that is the official name of the unit, but also whether you wanted that to be the article title, which isn't necessarily the same thing. Compare for example 'Fédération internationale de football association' being the full name of an organisation commonly known as FIFA, but its article is at FIFA, not at Fédération internationale de football association. You may wish to take a look at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE before deciding.

Regarding the quotation marks, as explained in Quotation mark and Quotation marks in English, while the Polish convention is to use the 'lower-upper' „…” quotation marks, in English the 'upper-upper' “…” ones are used instead. Also, in English such a use of quotation marks would be rather unorthodox. Depending on your answer to the my previous point, we may therefore need to consider how to render the quotation marks in the title, or indeed whether to leave them out altogether. (I'm also not sure whether the lower-upper style is technically possible in Wikipedia article titles.)

The somewhat bigger problem is that primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. We need to see significant coverage, directly of this unit, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and fully independent of the subject. If such sources cannot be found, as you seem to suggest, then it is not possible to have an article on this subject. (In this context it may be useful to note that while universities usually are notable, individual faculties, colleges, and other sub-units usually are not, so in that sense that wouldn't be at all an unusual outcome, quite the opposite.)

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GanFox! Having an article draft 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:GanFox[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:GanFox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --GanFox (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to comment on this. However, there are no allegations! I do not see any content to which I can refer. If there is and I have overlooked it, I apologise. But please send it here instead, then I will respond to these unfair opinions.

The reason why this was proposed for deletion (and deleted) is that you had posted content on your user page which does not comply with the WP:UP guidelines. Basically, your user page is the place for you to tell about yourself, within the confines of what is relevant to the Wikipedia project. Posting a copy of your draft there is not that. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 4)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Resubmitted without improvement, cites the same insufficient sources as before. Please do not keep resubmitting without addressing the issue, or the draft may be rejected outright with no option to resubmit.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:GanFox/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. They are now understandable to me. However, I would like to pursue the question of sources. I have found a page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Mathematics_of_the_Polish_Academy_of_Sciences' in which I can only see the main sources and it is published on your website. Thanks. GanFox (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are well over 6.5m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, and some of them inevitably will not be in line with our policies and guidelines. (If you find such an article, you're welcome to improve it, or propose deletion.) That does not mean we should create more such problems; all new articles must comply with our current policies. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, GanFox. 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. This is regarding Interdisciplinary Research Center of the University of Warsaw „Identity – Dialogue – Security”. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:GanFox/sandbox[edit]

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]