User talk:Niklas.Andersson.95
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Niklas.Andersson.95, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Theoria (sociology journal)
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Theoria (sociology journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/theoria/theoria-overview.xml?tab_body=about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright, notability and conflict of interest
[edit]Thank you for your contributions. It appears that you have created or edited an article about a company or organization. However, the following problems exist with your submission:
- You cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia - even if you are the copyright holder, or have the copyright holder's permission - unless the material has been released for use by the verified copyright owner into the public domain or under a license compatible with Wikipedia. These licenses allow anyone — not just Wikipedia — to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, free of charge and in perpetuity, provided that you are attributed as the author. Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. Releasing the material is both permanent and irrevocable.
- Wikipedia requires that organizations meet its notability criteria to be deemed worthy of inclusion. It means this organization must have already been the subject of significant coverage by multiple sources that are both reliable and independent of the organization itself. Company-authored sources (such as press releases, interviews and social media) are defined as self-published and therefore not reliable. Wikipedia:Perennial sources is a good place to find out which sources are deemed reliable and which are not.
- If you have a personal or professional involvement with the organization you are writing about, then you have a conflict of interest (COI). COI editors are not prohibited from contributing, but are highly discouraged to do so, due to the inherent difficulty of writing from the required neutral point of view. Please note that writing with the intention to promote or publicize anything or anyone is strictly prohibited. In addition, if you are being compensated directly or indirectly (such as an internship, as you have stated) to write about a subject on Wikipedia, then you must disclose this information per Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing policy.
I'm sorry that this message was not more favourable. If you require more assistance, please consult the Help Desk or the Teahouse for new editors. Thank you for your cooperation, and best of luck with your future edits. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. It is no problem that it was not favorable, as I strive to make this content a good entry on Wikipedia I gladly accept feedback.
- If I am understanding correctly, the material that I wish to display on the entry has to already be free for use by anyone? And if it is not, as apparently was the case with the texts and images, how do I go about obtaining these free use-licenses? I will have to consult with the journal's management about this because I'm not sure how copyright works in this case.
- Regarding the second point of notability, I have to appeal to Theoria being an international journal. I am not sure if that is enough, but compared to other academic journal entries on Wikipedia of the same caliber and scope, in my opinion, I would believe it meets the notability criteria. But that is not for me to say, so I leave it at that for now.
- The last point regarding my conflict of interest is obvious, as I am an intern at the journal but I am unpaid. This internship will last for six months, and part of it involves creating an entry for the journal, as they previously had none. Regarding the biases that I have, I try to mitigate them as much as possible when writing by being conscious of them, but that is no guarantee, so I welcome any feedback on that. This is also a learning experience for me as I try to meet Wikipedia's standards.
- Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Niklas, I looked at your draft (which has been lingering--there's a lot of submissions and not a lot of us), and I think it has promise but it also has some issues. I am going to call on my resident expert, User:Randykitty. Randykitty, it seems to me that if this article were pruned seriously and brought in line with other articles on similar topics, it has a chance--but you are the expert. Niklas, if you want this accepted you will have to edit/cut. First of all, don't make wikilinks to articles like "Left-leaning" or whatever there was: see WP:OVERLINK. Second, "History" should probably come first, and it needs to be rewritten in a much more economical way. Like 50% leaner. And the question is to which extent such content can be based on the journal's own articles. But the real thing for notability is this--how much coverage is there of the journal in secondary sources, and how notable are its academic indices? The first question is kind of hard to answer because the draft is so dense; the second is for experts like Randykitty who, I hope, has time to weight in (thx Randykitty; I appreciate it). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for you feedback! I will do the editing and pruning as necessary, as I, of course, want this entry to be accepted. I've had trouble finding secondary sources the entire time because most of the sources are first-person accounts, but I'll make another effort to find collaborating sources as I too understand the need for them. And when you mention coverage, what does that specifically mean? Also, I noticed you removed the list of notable articles; what should I do to have the list back on? Regards, Niklas Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Niklas and Drmies, I've had this on my watchlist for a while (I regularly trawl the new article feed for journals), but didn't yet get around to do much. Main reason is that I fear that the journal isn't notable yet. I don't see the necessary in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG (actually quite rare for an academic journal to meet GNG) and at this point I don't see the indexing needed to meet WP:NJournals (Miar lists quite a few databases, but none that meet NJournals). Judging notability is made more difficult because the draft contains a lot of stuff that only tangentially relates to the journal. Have a look at Genes, Brain and Behavior. It's rated "good article" and shows that you don't need reams of text to get this qualification. Have a look at our journal article writing guide, to see what kind of stuff should be included and what should be excluded. Niklas, why don't you give me the three most important references discussing this journal, so that we can see whether this meets GNG. If we can't get it past GNG, we may need to wait until it gets included in, for example, Scopus. I'd expect that the publisher has already applied for inclusion there and don't see why this would not be accepted in that database and that would get us past NJournals. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for this reply; it is very helpful! So the main problems are the text being too big, needing better secondary sources, needing to fix the language (I will use help for this as I am not a native English speaker), and notability? I will pass this on to the journal's management regarding the problem of notability. I have raised the issue with them before, but they point out that other journals of similar nature and stature are on Wikipedia. I will look into this as soon as I am available. Is there some kind of deadline I have to adhere to, as I really want this to be accepted but I have a lot on my plate right now. Regards, Niklas Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Niklas and Drmies, I've had this on my watchlist for a while (I regularly trawl the new article feed for journals), but didn't yet get around to do much. Main reason is that I fear that the journal isn't notable yet. I don't see the necessary in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG (actually quite rare for an academic journal to meet GNG) and at this point I don't see the indexing needed to meet WP:NJournals (Miar lists quite a few databases, but none that meet NJournals). Judging notability is made more difficult because the draft contains a lot of stuff that only tangentially relates to the journal. Have a look at Genes, Brain and Behavior. It's rated "good article" and shows that you don't need reams of text to get this qualification. Have a look at our journal article writing guide, to see what kind of stuff should be included and what should be excluded. Niklas, why don't you give me the three most important references discussing this journal, so that we can see whether this meets GNG. If we can't get it past GNG, we may need to wait until it gets included in, for example, Scopus. I'd expect that the publisher has already applied for inclusion there and don't see why this would not be accepted in that database and that would get us past NJournals. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Theoria (sociology journal) (February 24)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Theoria (sociology journal) 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.
|
Hello, Niklas.Andersson.95!
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! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
|
Your draft article, Draft:Theoria (sociology journal)
[edit]
Hello, Niklas.Andersson.95. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Theoria".
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. ✗plicit 23:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Theoria (sociology journal)
[edit]Hello, Niklas.Andersson.95. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Theoria".
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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)