User talk:Enniferj

Greetings...

Hello, Enniferj, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! Aramova (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Housing theory

I have nominated Housing theory, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housing theory. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Aramova (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enniferj, I've closed the debate on this article as Delete, since that appeared to be the consensus. However, I agree that there is good material here, and I'd like to give you the chance to work on it some more, without the pressure of having it deleted right away. So I've copied that article's text to User:Enniferj/Housing theory. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Housing theory

A tag has been placed on Housing theory, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Malcolma (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Metro Theater (New York) (June 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by A.A Prinon were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Enniferj/Metro Theater (New York) 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 User:Enniferj/Metro Theater (New York), 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Enniferj! 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! — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Metro Theater (New York) (June 19)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

Needs more to show notbailty

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 User:Enniferj/Metro Theater (New York) 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 User:Enniferj/Metro Theater (New York), 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Metro Theater (New York) (June 19)

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:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

blogs and YouTube are not normally considered reliable sources

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 User:Enniferj/Metro Theater (New York) 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 User:Enniferj/Metro Theater (New York), 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello, Enniferj,

Are you being paid to edit the article about the Metro Theater, either freelance or as a part of your employment or an internship? If so, you can create and develop the draft but it should be reviewed and approved by Articles for Creation. After it is moved into main space you should only make suggestions of the article talk page and not edit the article directly.

If you have questions, please ask the AFC reviewers who have reviewed your draft. Please try not to be impatient with the process, it can take a while as we are all volunteers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

Liz, Thanks. No, I am not being paid. I am just a volunteer. Please bear with me. I am new to this:~)

--enniferj

Oh, I'm patient! We even have an essay called Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The point I try to get across to new editors is to take advantage of Draft space. It's more forgiving, you're allowed to develop articles, they don't have to be perfect. Once an article is moved into the main space of the project we have editors called New Page Patrollers who can tag articles for deletion if they don't meet Wikipedia standards for referencing and notability. So, even though it seems like AFC reviewers can be tough to please, they are trying to get articles in the best shape so they don't get deleted. Once you get approved in AFC, you're almost sure to survive in the main space.

If you'd rather not contact draft reviewers directly on their user talk page, you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to ask for help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Theater (New York)

Hello! I came across your draft at the Teahouse. I added numerous sources and cleaned it up, and have moved it to article space. So it is now live at Metro Theater (New York).

I see you have declared a conflict of interest. The general rule with COI editors is that we prefer them to request changes to articles via the article talk page. If you have very small non-controversial factual changes that you want to make, that is fine to do directly. For most edits though, we prefer that you ask on the talk page.

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. Are you part of a group trying to resurrect the theater? Reading the sources, I could not believe that the interior got gutted! So sad. --- Possibly ☎ 04:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P., Thank you so much! You are a rockstar! Yes. I live in the neighborhood and started a petition to reimagine, rebuild and reopen the theater. That petition campaign has led to the formation of “Friends of Metro Theater”. Taking a page from the “Friends of The High Line” playbook. Can’t thank you enough for cleaning the page up helping to get to article stage. I’ll try to get a good wide shot of the theater from across the street as you suggested. Enniferj (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medallion2021.jpg

Hi Enniferj. I believe you're the same person who uploaded File:Medallion2021.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. I'm wondering if you can possibly provide a little more information about the sign such as when, for example, the sign was first installed. There may be copyright issues associated with the sign/medallions imagery that go beyond those of the photo you took as explained here, here, here and even possibly here. In other words, there might be two copyrights that need to be considered in order for that file to be OK to be hosted by Commons. Buidlings as a whole are generally OK to photograph in the United States without having to worry about infringing upon anyone's copyright; however, photos that focus in on a particular part of a building (like a sign or other artistic element) might not be OK depending on a certain number of factors. I'm assuming from the file's name that the photo was taken in 2021, but perhaps you can find out some more about provenance of the medallion to help clarify its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes I uploaded the photo of the medallion. It did not occur to me that it was copyrighted. The medallion is part of the facade of the Metro Theater which was completed in 1933. Boak one of the architects who designed the theater died in 1981. So, yeah. Maybe it is copyrighted? Enniferj (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Facade with the medallion appears on the cover of the book about Boak and Paris by Annice Alt. That photograph is courtesy of Friends of Terra Cotta (FoTC). The image also appears on FoTC website. http://www.preserve.org/fotc/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enniferj (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the medallion was bascially there from the beginning, then there's actually a good chance that it's no longer eligible for copyright protection. In that case, the only thing that might be needed is a separate license for the mediallion in addition to the one you provided for the photo. I've asked someone else about this and advised him of my post here; so, perhaps he will further clarify. FWIW, I don't think you were trying to pull a fast one and sneak something by Commons. It seems quite natural to be able to walk down the street and photograph something without out giving much thought to it's copyright status; after all, it's right there out in public. People are constantly uploading photos of statues, billboards, signs and other things they see because they think there's a way to make use of such a photo in a Wikipedia article. It's just that c:Commons:Licensing requires that all content be licensed in a certain way to make it much more easier to use by anyone who wants to, and this is something that those taking such photos might not be aware of. When a photo is uploaded to Commons, the uploader is not only making it available to use on Wikipedia, but is also making it available for anyone anywhere in the world to use at anytime and in anyway. So, Commons tries to be a sure as it possibly can be that the content it hosts can be used as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining:~) It would be great if we could use a photo of the medallion or the full facade with the medallion in the article. But now I understand why the Commons licensing is special.