User talk:Tania Peitzker

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tania Peitzker. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 08:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Velmai (December 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 Hell in a Bucket was:

formatting issues, remove inline refs and source correctly. please see WP:MOS

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:Velmai and 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.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Tania Peitzker, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Velmai concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Velmai, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Velmai[edit]

Hello, Tania Peitzker. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Velmai".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Velmai}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Velmai has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Velmai. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you are ready to submit, please add the text {{subst:submit}} to the draft, exactly as presented here, and right at the top. Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Velmai has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Velmai. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 10:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Velmai has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Velmai. Thanks! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Velmai (July 22)[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 Sulfurboy was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Velmai and 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.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Timtrent, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Tania Peitzker. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Draft:Velmai, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Velmai (July 23)[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 Timtrent was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing 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 Draft:Velmai and 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.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Draft:Velmai,. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Tania Peitzker, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tania Peitzker for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tania Peitzker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tania Peitzker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Tania Peitzker. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is a response to Tim and ColinFine - I realise, both as an academic and a journalist, that neutral sources are independent of me. That is why I pointed out the media articles about me and my company in Artificial Intelligence, velmai.

You cannot say these newspapers and online news platforms are then "connected" to me because I was simply the subject of their interviews and media coverage ie. it also evidence of my notability.

The same goes for the Bloomberg and Standard & Poors reference and discussion of me as CEO of velmai - that is independent of me and you can't get more global, serious approval, recognition and discussion of being a Creative Professional of note than Bloomberg and S&P.

I have asked 4MBS and the IFUW in Geneva - now named Graduate Women International - to independently of me confirm about the work I did for the radio station, the concert etc and also the Australia Award through the IFUW/GWI archives of international fellowships.

I have a work reference from 4MBS and documentation about the IFUW award is in the Fryer Library archive collection about me. Again, a university library only collects the papers of notable people... and that was decided independently of me.

I just dropped by in a brief interval in my schedule to say I am sorry I cannot help you further at present. You are, however receiving a wealth of good and relevant advice. Remember, a reference must be about you, almost never by you. There is no intended bias against any demographic. If folk pass WP:GNG then they pass and get an article. I hope yo pass. I ave not been able to investigate. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken some time to investigate. As presented on Wikipedia, with or without the faux references which you judge to have been deleted inappropriately, you fail to qualify for an article here in my view. I have said so on the deletion discussion. I have also marked your submission of someone else's copyright picture on Commons for discussion about its status and licencing. You may wish to contribute there. Pleas note that Commons is a wholly separate entity, with very strict rules.

You have a major WP:COI and also seem unable to hear what people are saying to you over referencing. Please do not use Wikipedia to publicise yourself, your business or your farm shop. While you may, for a time, succeed, failure is inevitable in the end. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the citations required - here they are again and more...[edit]

for the Wiki editors

1. on the Cusack dissertation, the citation I provided was correct. Here are a few more that show I am the author of the work

https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/12

http://www.worldcat.org/title/dymphna-cusack-1902-1981-a-feminist-analysis-of-gender-in-her-romantic-realistic-texts/oclc/76212826

2. on the 4MBS radio show, ILWC archive and concert, I can provide a reference if you can pls give me an email address to send it to

3. I will ask the IFUW now the GWI to verify my Australia Award for the Cusack dissertation

4. I will ask the Metro Arts and Cement Box theatre in Brisbane to confirm the production of the play Life With Marion - this will be in their archives

5. as stated the above citations have evidence contained in the Tania Peitzker Collection at the Fryer Library. If you wish, I can ask the librarians to confirm the relevent documentation about the above - the collection includes recordings of the radio show for example, the concert programme and also the IFUW award certificate. It also has the programmes for the two productions of my play.

Tania Peitzker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. We're not looking for personal testimonials. We're looking for substantial coverage published about you in reliable, third-party sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my last comment on this proposed deletion[edit]

As just sent to Colin:

The reason third parties could provide evidence is that the "coverage" (including citations of my academic writing and also media reviews of my plays) is held in the archived collection.

As you must be aware, pre-Internet times ie when a lot of newspapers were not online in the 1990s and of course even earlier, are very hard to document with regard to historic "coverage" online today. Thus I suggest people consult the INDEX or Contents Page of the Tania Peitzker collection at the Fryer Library - all the claims and evidence can be found listed in that re. the plays, writing, academic work.

On the matter of substantial 3rd party coverage, it is the quality of the coverage not the quantity. If you and other Wikipedia editors consider that 1000 tweets about someone or 1 million likes for a YouTuber is more "notable" than being listed in Bloomberg, having your plays performed & reviewed, your writing published and cited for years after, or having a university collect your papers, then go ahead and delete the entry. Would simply rather not be in it.

I also find the definition of being interviewed and therefore connected to the article or publisher nonsensical. I thought Wikipedia was about the niche, small players, not just the people who are already in the limelight which then generates more mainstream media attention for them, rather conveniently. How disappointing with regards to your Quality Standards and definitions. A lot of important, valuable knowledge will go missing as a result.

Tania Peitzker (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia's content tend to favor current, Western, male oriented, techie subjects. that is in part due to the content criteria for having a stand alone article. However, those same criteria are what prevent Wikipedia from becoming a slushpool of advertorial promotion and self publication of personal analysis and commentary. It is the trade off the Wikipedia community has chosen to make. You can go to the village pump and suggest changes that you think would help keep Wikipedia a vital encyclopedia and accommodate topics outside of the current selection bias. (But until the consensus has changed, we follow the current consensus.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here are the Wikipedia standard citations that were in the original entry then wrongly deleted, plus some extra ones[edit]

Dear ColinFine

Let's just get this fixed accurately and efficiently. Here are doctoral dissertation citations that show my work was widely acknowledged at the time of first publication. If you are a professional academic you will understand that this is the Holy Grail for writing a PhD - that even one national library collects your doctorate. This is more important for "notability" than if the work was reviewed in a newspaper or journal (which it also was, see the link below).

In my case, as I substantiated way back in 2007, 3 national libraries acknowledge ie. cited as well my work by collecting the dissertation (Germany, France and Australia). This was documented through the web citations of several research associations & the national libraries:

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1878099

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/33960074_Dymphna_Cusack_Elektronische_Ressource__%281902-1981%29__a_feminist_analysis_of_gender_in_her_romantic_realistic_texts_

http://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/A7947?mainTabTemplate=agentWorksBy

http://www.abstrakt.lib-ebook.com/abs-philosophy/758263-47-dissertation-von-tania-peitzker-eingereicht-000-der-philosophis.php

You already have the citation for the Oxford University review of my Cusack work. Here is an additional one from the prestigious, independent, peer-reviewed literary journal SOUTHERLY. Note this was in the Wiki entry originally and your colleagues have wrongly deleted it! http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=607132030901075;res=IELLCC

They have also unfairly deleted a 3rd party German article written by Potsdam University on my first business EU PR in Berlin.

http://www.uni-potsdam.de/portal-alumni/06-08/alumni%20insight/peitzker.html

On the extra sources required for my work for the Wall Street Journal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1031773609302637635

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1031761227807290475

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1031768866516719195

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1031765669314218075

http://careerjournaleurope.com/jobhunting/usingnet/index2.html

and the citations for my Times Higher reporting and contributions to the World Rankings of universities

https://www.naric.org.uk/naric/documents/contributions/Comparative-Study-of-New-Bachelor-and-Masters-degrees-Germany-Italy-and-UK.pdf

http://www.readabstracts.com/Education/Equality-but-not-for-poor-Swiss-to-balance-gender-scales.html

www.math.utah.edu/~davar/ps-pdf-files/Ranking.pdf

cited in academic work by Professor Hess in Switzerland http://www.germanistik.unibe.ch/personen/hess/pdf/schriftenverz.pdf

50 2003 "Swiss log on to lobby for change" (Hintergrundgespräch mit Tania Peitzker am 5.9.2003 für den Artikel von Tania Peitzker), in: The Times Higher Education Supplement v. 14.11.2003

And most recently, my book published only 2 weeks ago has had the following international attention already (am going on a speaking tour for it in 2016)

http://akimion.space/b/artificial-intelligence-21st-century-english.html

https://www.facebook.com/224944327547104/photos/pb.224944327547104.-2207520000.1442485640./957105817664281/?type=1&theater

best wishes Tania Peitzker (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You dont seem to be getting this at all. For example, the reliably published content in the Wall Street Journal is by you, not about you. facebook lacks any of the editorial oversight required to be a reliable source.

Where are the 1) reliably published sources 2) not related to you that have 3) discussed you/your work in a detailed manner? (it is a 3 pronged criteria and a source must meet all three points before it can be used as a basis for having a stand alone article.) Wikipedia editors are volunteers and when you over and over flood the discussion with obviously non relevant materials, you increase the likelihood that people will either ignore or not be able to find anything that might substantiate your position/claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Velmai[edit]

Draft:Velmai, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Velmai and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Velmai during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

final contribution - am lodging a complaint with Wikipedia and requesting the deletion of the entry about me[edit]

Dear All (about 3 of you volunteering to "purge" this article or delete it)

I have given you all repeatedly the "1) reliably published sources 2) not related to you that have 3) discussed you/your work in a detailed manner?" as one of you writes. Now this is getting silly and a complete waste of my time.

You don't seem to be willing or able to actually check those sources. I am lodging a formal complaint about this to the Wikipedia management.

One final comment: the photos you are now trying to challenge were commissioned by me from the professional photographer cited, John Webber, and earlier, an artist Jun Chen. I have the right to reprint them here and I also paid the artists the courtesy of getting their final permission over the publication.

I ask you now to stop slandering me re. copyright infringement, lack of valid citations and "self-publicising" against Wikipedia rules.

Good luck with your amateur editing skills in future,

best wishes Tania Peitzker (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is handling the pictures. The onward licencing is challenged there. You will need to comment there. Please do not make comments about slander. Doing so is tantamount to making a legal threat, and will get you blocked if it is considered so by an admin here. Please see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS.

What you need to do is to lower your hackles and learn how Wikipedia works. I'm willing to teach you, but you have to walk towards me if you truly want to learn.

Wikipedia management is a myth in the case of content disputes. Wikipedia content is managed by you, by me, and by everyone else. Quit starting battles you will never win and start to work with people. Whatever your complaint to the putative management is, it will fail because you are complaining to the wrong people.

If you are, one day, notable, let someone else write that article.

If your company is, one day, notable, let someone else write the article.

You may or may not be a big hitter in your own sphere. Here you are just another editor. No-one cares about anyone's real life status here.

As for the article about you, it will continue to be present until someone closes the discussion. Yours is but one opinion. We might find you to be notable after all (0.1 probability), and we decide what stays and what goes, not you. Fiddle Faddle 12:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]