User talk:EpsilonRed

Welcome...

Hello, EpsilonRed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! AlexiusHoratius 01:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's up

The above links are some stuff for beginners to read, although if you have a question you can always ask me too, obviously. I'll dig around and put some links here to the past deletion discussions - they may be of assistance in knowing what is needed for inclusion. AlexiusHoratius 01:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past deletion discussions

Notability

Wikipedia has notability guidelines for what is and isn't "notable" (that is, what deserves an article and what doesn't). "Articles for deletion" is where border-line stuff goes to be discussed. The main thing is if the journal has been discussed (best case scenario is having an article about it, not just mentioning or citing it) by third party sources, like other journals, then it may be notable enough for an article here. AlexiusHoratius 01:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (the general page)
Wikipedia:Notability (books) (a bit more specific)

Follow-Up

In reading through the discussions posted concerning the previous deletions coupled with the guidelines that you have provided me, I am confused as to what needs to occur from this point forward. As stated in the discussions, it is a new e-journal; however, it has authors from across the spectrum and has had articles published on a multitude of different websites. Lastly, individuals have used the information put out by the Journal as a reference in their writings.

I want to begin by stating that I do acknowledge the issue of having the individual who manages the Journal attempt to establish a Wiki page as it is complete violation of the concern over page bias.

However, from my understanding from the individuals that have voted the page down in the past, it seems that the rationale is that the Journal is too new to be on Wikipedia. It’s been functioning for one year, so what is Wikipedia’s guidelines as to what defines ‘new’?

The second area of criticism is (if I understand it correctly) that there are no reviews of the Journal that focuses on what the Journal is, the content it provides, and its legitimacy. I completely understand the importance of this, but if the Journal has notable authors, material published on different sites, and is cited by many other organizations, then what will a review assist in validating?

The problem that I have is that looking through the commentary and concerns: how is an individual to move forward in developing this page?

EpsilonRed (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do, at this point I think, is just to wait on it to be honest. If/when a couple of third party sources write something with the journal as the subject, there should be little problem in getting and maintaining an article. Until that time, it probably will be difficult, as the previous deletion discussions show. To answer your question as to what third party reviews would be validating, they'd be validating its notability. Imagine you are in a band and have done a private recording of what will turn out to be a hugely successful and discussed album. Until third parties write about it, Wikipedia editors have no way of knowing whether it is in fact a great new album or just another demo from someone who wants to be a musician.

The authors and content of the journal itself has little to do with its notablity - third party articles are the main thing. AlexiusHoratius 17:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Policy Digest.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! j⚛e decker ^talk 18:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

International Policy Digest, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste move from late April

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:PTE804/International Policy Digest a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into International Policy Digest. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

Note: You did this copy-and-paste back in April but I waited until the "newer" copy was accepted through AFC before asking an administrator to merge the histories. No further action is required by you (nor could you do the required action, only administrators can). See Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests (diff) for details.

Please be careful not to copy-and-paste in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EpsilonRed. You have new messages at Randykitty's talk page.
Message added 09:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:International Policy Digest Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:International Policy Digest Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]