User talk:Randykitty/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manuscript Press merged with Rick Norwood

You merged Manuscript Press with Rick Norwood. The article about me, Rick Norwood, was also proposed for deletion at the same time as the article Manuscript Press. Now, the proposal for the deletion of the article Rick Norwood has been relisted. The outcome, if the relisted proposal for deletion is successful, would be the deletion of both the article about me and the Manuscript Press article. I have two questions. First, if an article is proposed for deletion, and not deleted, can the proposal for deletion be relisted indefinitely? Second, is there any way to see the final decision and reasoning after an article is deleted? (As far as I can tell, a deleted article and its proposed for deletion page just vanish.) Thank you in advance for your replies. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I realized when I closed the AfD that the outcome might be that both articles would in the end be deleted. The AfD page is not deleted at all, but remains available (only in very rare cases -like contentious discussions about living persons- are they courtesy blanked, but even in those cases the contents remain visible in the history). Usually, a link to the AfD is given in the deletion log (see Sofia Chaudry for example). Relistings are routine if a discussion is still ongoing and there is no clear consensus. Second relistings also happen quite frequently, keeping a discussion open for 3 weeks. In rare cases there are even third relistings. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That was exactly the information I needed. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

accused of "peddling clear falsehoods"

I am no longer going to think the editor who accuses me of peddling falsehoods is worth any more time on my part. The "Hijacked Journal" misuse is his personal property, it appears, and I am outta there. Thank you for your comments, but I find reasoning with brick walls hurts me, and does little damage to the bricks. Collect (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The "Hijacked Journal" misuse is his personal property, it appears. Again, it is not. Those are words from some other editor back from 2014, and the use of "hijacked journal" to designed the victims of hijacking is found in sources. I fully recognize that other sources use the term to apply to the perpetrators, possibly even a majority of these sources, but that's why the move request was made in the first place: to have an unambiguous title to refer to the concept of journal hijacking, so we can use a yet-to-be-determined, but nonetheless clear and unambiguous terms to refer to a) the fraud journals usurping the identities of real journal, and b) the real journals. However, one thing the proposal is most clearly not about is "to place the dysphemism aiming at the real journals". You are assuming an extreme amount of bad faith here, and an extreme amount of battleground mentality, with an extreme level of word twisting. And that, frankly, is getting rather annoying. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I commmented on the talk page of that article, where this discussion was taking place. Why is this now spilling over on my talk page? This whole issue is silly. You BOTH have good points, now we need to find an acceptable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Journal hijacking

Dear Randykitty, Can you please explain why you consider the amendment related to the Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle is "unsourced" and "off-topic". Sources are provided to French media. If you consider it off-topic then please constructively give examples of what is on-topic and suggest a better Wikipedia page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaohscigar (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • You're right, there are sources, I went a bit too fast. However, if you read the article on journal hijacking, you'll see that something completely different is meant there. What you describe is not the same thing. I have no good suggestion for another WP page where this might fit. One possibility is to write an article specifically about this journal (see WP:JWG for tips). I don't know whether this passes our journal inclusion criteria, but with the two references that you gave, it probably squeeks by our general criteria. Off topic: is your user name a reference to the Tintin album Les Cigares du Pharaon? --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • PS: I just checked. The journal is indexed in Scopus, so it also meets WP:NJOURNALS. Writing a stand-alone article on the journal therefore would be the best solution. Let me know when you do this and I'll help where necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Randykitty, for your response. I understand that a stand-alone article may be suitable. However, I think the concept of hijacking-by-purchase needs to be highlighted. What happens when an airliner is hijacked? One or more passengers purchase a flight ticket and then divert the aircraft from its destination or intended use. They also neglect the objectives of the people onboard, whether crew or passengers. Furthermore, there often is a an underlying geopolitical agenda. This is what happens in the case of a journal that is, if you accept this neologism, hijacked-by-purchase. The journal is redirected towards different authors in a different language and a different readership. In some cases, such as that of the Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle (RIA), there is complete disregard for the original language of the journal. It is clear that in this context the journal's readership will be close to nil and the journal will therefore not live for long. It is very probably a destructive hijack with the intended aim of damaging a country's media in a key field of technology. According to the cited articles, in the case of RIA, France has recognized scientists in the field of Artificial Intelligence and China is looking for further publishing outlets for its scientists, at the expense of French scientists. Note that in China, scientists are paid according to the number of articles they publish.

I therefore ask you to reconsider your deletion and carefully evaluate again whether the scope of the "Hijacked journal" page can be broadened a bit compared to its current scope. I think the comparison of the word "hijacking" with its use in geopolitics (aircraft hijacking) has some merit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaohscigar (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • To the best of my knowledge, there are no sources discussing how buying a journal constitutes hijacking. Hijacking is an illegal act. What happened here, howver undesirable some may find it, was completely legal. It reminds me of the sale of Pulsus Group to OMICS Publishing Group... Distasteful, but not illegal... --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cape May Brewing Company

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cape May Brewing Company. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Flixtey. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ayisha Fuseini, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Flixtey (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Flixtey, what's the use fo this? You unreviewed it and then marked it as reviewed in the very same minute? --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Randykitty, sorry this was a mistake I noticed I unreviewed it in an attempt to mark it for reviewed and this is why I reverted it again.--Flixtey (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's fine, we all make mistakes, but next time don't leave a template on my talk, please :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Oscar van Hemel

On 11 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oscar van Hemel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar van Hemel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Oscar van Hemel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for a nice one, which I added to the DYK archives of project opera. Extra praise for having started with an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion Discussion Relist for Damon J. Smith

Hi @Randykitty I am reaching out to you because you relisted the AfD for the above mentioned article (which I authored many years ago) just about a week ago, and the discussion has only received one other comment, yet still no other votes. After reading your user page, you seem to at least strive to be unbiased (which you acknowledge is humanly impossible) in your evaluation of Wikipedia articles, so I thought I would ask you to please review my latest comment on the AfD and, if you don't mind, provide me with any feedback you may have on the issue. My understanding was that AfD's typically last approximately 7-10 days before reaching a concensus, so now that we are approaching 14 days with very few editors weighing in, I thought I would reach out for some guidance. I understand there are likely many other AfD pages that must be reviewed and perhaps there are a small number of editors who review them, so if my expectations are out of line, feel free to correct me on that. I appreciate any assistance you may provide. The AfD in question can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon J. Smith

  • Yes, this is a weird one, lots of comments, no !votes. In cases like this, it's quite common to relist the discussion, often even two times (for a total duration of 3 weeks). In exceptional cases, a debate can even be relisted a third time, so: patience! --Randykitty (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the response. We shall see what happens. Taryndejesus (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

About Frontiers in Psych talk

Hi Randykitty, when you have a moment please see my last message in the talk page for Frontiers in Psychology. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your deletion of White Frame

Dear Randykitty! You have deleted the article White Frame but the article has been translated to German Wikipedia. With your deletion the article history is not readable any more but we need it because of copyright violation concerning the attribute BY of CC BY-SA 3.0 License. Please restore temporarily the article to user:Doc Taxon/White Frame with all revisions of the article history so that I am able to proceed the transfer to German Wikipedia. Thank you Doc Taxon (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Information to DerHexer: This happens if you do not transfer the authors of the article to prevent copyright violation in case of the source article has been deleted
  • Done. Let me know when you have done the transfer and I'll delete it again per AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you very much, push the button! Doc Taxon (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Lois Murphy

Hello, would you be willing to add the content of Lois Murphy to my sandbox. If at such time that additional sources are found, I would run it by AfC first. Thanks --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Enos733 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Article notability

Randykitty, Hi, as far as I'm concerned, I have done my best to improve the article Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr by adding significant independent sources for the author notability. please check, I hope it satisfies you now. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • At first sight, it looks like all you added are wikilinks and three books by Windfuhr himself. However, on closer examination, Iranian Languages and Culture: Essays in Honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr is not edited or written by Windfuhr (you should correct the reference, it's not published by Google and according to Amazon there are at least two editors). Mazda Publishers seems to be a decent publishing house, so to have a volume of essays published in his honor indicates notability. I'll remove the tag. --Randykitty (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear Randy, Hi, Thanks for your effort of corrections and guidelines you provided me, it helped me to learn a lot. I hope we can continue our cooperation and friendship -MA Javadi (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fanya Ismail

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fanya Ismail. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KaisaL (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

KaisaL, could you please apologize to Randykitty for not giving them due notice before going to DRV. You can do that here, there or any way you like but this needs to be done to avoid problems at the DRV. See WP:DELREVD #1 which while not mandatory is expected, more often than not it avoids the need for a DRV and dragging the closer through difficult proceedings. -- GreenC 03:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of International Arena Football League

Yeah, thanks... for nothing! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Close of Articles for deletion/Pattie W. Van Hook

Hi Randykitty, I was working on this article a few hours before you closed it. I don't know what I was thinking of - or not thinking of - in not commenting or voting in the AfD discussion - I did mean to. I am not sure that it would be enough to show notability, but I have added more information and references, including one from 1999 that describes preventive health work that she did, and awards to her and in her memory. There is more info that I could add. Would it be possible to reopen the AfD, so that I could mention these additions? Regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, this is the first time I get a request like this and I am a bit undecided about how to handle this. The AfD as it stood when I closed was very clear. There was one "keep" !vote, but "It looks OK to me" is a rather weak rationale, so I ignored it. That leaves 5 "delete" !votes thar are reasonably well policy-based. Above you say that you are not sure whether your additions would be enough to show notability, that doesn't sound like a strong "keep" !vote either, so to me it looks like the decision would still have been "delete", even if you had !voted. If you feel very strongly about this, I can re-open this, but all previous participants should be pinged (I guess that most people are like myself and remove AfDs from their watchlists once closed). Alternatively, I could userfy this for you, that would give you some more time to work on it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Natani Notah close

I think this was intelligently and perfectly done, thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • If your concern about keeping it in a sandbox was the loss of the article history, it would have been much more helpful to have moved the page with its history to either the placeholder I had created in my sandbox, or better, to one for JVadera who expressed continued interest as part of the ongoing discussion. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Where'd it go? Happy to keep editing and revisit, but where is the latest version? JVadera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I have draftified the article to Draft:Natani Notah. Please do not move it back to article space without addressing the problems noted in the AfD. Ideally, you should ask an admin to do this. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

list of ohio wineries

Hey, RandyKitty! Would you be willing to userfy that List of Ohio wineries for me so I can use the info to expand Ohio wine without having to reresearch? I would have grabbed the info myself but I'd only chimed in minutes before it was closed. --valereee (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done It's at User:Valereee/List of wineries in Ohio. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, and whoops, sorry, just read the instructions at the top of the page asking me to go to refund instead! --valereee (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Scientific African

Another editor deleted Draft:Scientific African ISSN 2468-2276 for being promotional. I didn't create the article, but my initial reaction was that the article wasn't unduly promotional and that the journal might be notable. The draft claimed that the journal is indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals but didn't mention any other service that indexed it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, I agree that it was perhaps only borderline promotional (but in my opinion at the wrong side of the border and the deleting admin apparently agreed). In any case, if a non-promotional article were created, I'd take it to AfD, as it most certainly isn't notable at this point: no independent sources and not indexed anywhere, not even in Elsevier's own Scopus. Listing in DOAJ only means that a journal is open access and probably not predatory. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Indexes of Modern Stochastics: Theory and Applications

Dear Randykitty, thank you for reviewing the article Draft:Modern Stochastics: Theory and Applications. After reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide I understand that Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, or Directory of Open Access Journals are not selective databases. But what about MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH? Are they also not selective or topical? By the way, Open Science in Ukraine lists Modern Stochastics: Theory and Applications journal as indexed in the international scientometric databases Scopus and / or the Web of Science. At the Notes section there is an interesting information: "The ESCI - Emerging Sources Citation Index database contains scientific journals included in 2015-2018. For such journals, IF (Impact-factor) is not yet calculated. The SCIE - Science Citation Index Expanded database contains scientific journals included earlier than 2015. For them IF (Impact-factor) is calculated. All Ukrainian journals, which are displayed in the table, were included in SCIE earlier than 2013." Maybe this can help. And the last point, it looks like the journal Modern Stochastics: Theory and Applications meets at least Criterion 2 (C2) according to WP:NJournals. Or this does not help either?--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty, could you please react on my message above? Thanks!--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Stanislav Lohvinenko, sorry for the slow response. I was busy and then this got on the backburner. MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH are only selective in that they are topical (that is, they don't index, say, genetics journals), but within their topical area they try to be inclusive. The journal is indeed in the Web of Science, but that is not a database but a platform giving access to different databases. Some of these, such as the Science Citation Index are (highly) selective, but this particular journal is in WoS because it is included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which is not very selective at all. Searching the source index of Scopus for the journal's ISSN shows that it is not included in this database. Finally, for NJournals C2, a journal needs more than the expected smattering of citations. So in short, I don't think that this journal meets any of the criteria of NJournals (and WP:GNG even less). Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, for example if Clarivate Analytics would decide to move this journal from ESCI to the Science Citation Index Expanded, or if Scopus would decide to include this journal, that would make it notable and an article could be created. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regional Studies (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birmingham Business School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophal Ear (2nd nomination)

Hi Randykitty, could you please elaborate on your reasons for relisting the Sophal Ear AFD for the third time? WP:RELIST says: Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. However, if adding comments within {{relist}}, please keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia administration template, and should not be used to give priority to one's own desired outcome. Your explanation "One more relist. I would like to note that the current "keep" !votes are exceedingly weak and don't appear to be policy-based" does not seem to explain why you consider the debate to be insufficient. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • It's only the second relist and theer's nothing exceptional to that. And as I said, up till now the discussion has been weak, so I don't see what the harm is in seeing whether some better-argumented !votes can be found. --Randykitty (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right. For some reason, I thought this was a third re-list. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises because the subject has been listed for deletion three times, and therefore only been relisted for deletion twice. There is only one post recommending the article be deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Want to review my latest draft?

Dear Randykitty, I was wondering if you'd want to review my newest draft. I think it will fall squarely within your editing interest/expertise. Thanks in advance. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Scholarscentral socks

Thanks for blocking Gowtham pothuraju (u t c m l b p d). I was preparing to file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral, at least one account with similar editing pattern remains unblocked, Chiruracha (u t c m l b p d), and as that account was a sleeper created in 2018, a CU might be warranted. But what do you think? Sam Sailor 07:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • No need to waste time on a CU, I've indeffed them. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Geek Studies

Hi there Randykitty! You deleted a section of the Journal of Geek Studies article and I understand your reasons. I had plans to expand the content, with brief descriptive text on the contents of each article on that list. Would that have fixed the situation, or would it still be unsuitable for WP? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but, yes, that would also be completely unsuitable for WP. If you want to describe content, you'll need secondary sources independent of the magazine (which are unlikely to exist, I fear). --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's okay =)! Thank you for the info. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Randykitty! I figured the article itself would be deleted soon after. Well, just to clarify things, I did not copy any previous version of it (heck I would never know where to find the previous versions to begin with). I wrote that stub down, but some of the text was modified from the magazine's website, hence the similarity. Also, I used a different kind of infobox this time (for magazines, not journals). Nevertheless, Is there any way to submit a draft or something to be evaluated before creation? I just felt awful to have wasted your time.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find that hard to believe. You "modified" the text from their website in exactly the same way as was done before, up to the last comma? Quite unlikely. And if you have no access to the previous version, then how can you know that the infobox is different? Anyway, as to your question, you can create articles in draft space, work on them, and then submit them for evaluation and possible creation in article space. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I know about the infobox because I wrote the last version and I remember what I did... I also could have saved the previous text to use it in a second try, but I did not. This situation is very weird, and I am sorry if I offended you or the other editors in any way, but would it be too much if asked you to give me some credit? I know this is not personal (I hope), but even though I am not as active as I was in the past, I have dedicated a lot of my time to improve the content here at En Wikipedia. And I've done so diligently and with no self-interest in mind. I don't know how I could prove this to you, but I typed every character in this last version aside from the text I copied and modified from the magazine's website (its cc by 4.0 nc, and I made it not entirely verbatim). And now I am really curious about this situation. Would you be so kind as to provide me with na URL to the 2015 version of the article? I honestly do not know where to find it. Anyway, thanks for the draft space suggestion! It will be very useful =) --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
So you changed usernames? Because the old version was created by RodrigoSalvador (who is still active, by the way). Anyway, only admins can see deleted contributions, so there's no URL that I can give you where you can see the 2015 version. That's why I was surprised to see an editor with a different name reproducing verbatim an article deleted in 2015. As the new article was identical to that one, which had been deleted after a community discussion, it was eligible for speedy deletion under criterium G4. --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It is true, now that you mention it, Rodrigo created the article. That I didn't remember! But I believe I've contributed with it to some extent? Because I do remember it was deleted because the magazine lacked notability and all. Geez I -am- getting old. Very well, I understand and I am sorry for the confusion. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

talk:Gerhard Meisenberg

Can you give some advice about how to proceed with addressing the problems on this article? Based on my analysis of the article's sources on this talk page, I think that this person probably is not notable enough to deserve his own article, and that that's why it's been impossible to make an article about him of acceptable quality. But I don't know whether the solution is to post about the article at the BLP noticeboard, or to create an AFD discussion for the article, or how one goes about doing the second option. 2600:1004:B12A:CD0D:D06A:9024:AD05:56A5 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • If you think that he doesn't meet our inclusion guideliens, then AfD is the way to go. If you feel that he's being treated unjustly, then the noticeboard is more appropriate. Personally, I don't intend to get involved here. I obtained a copy of his book at the time, but that's a long time ago and I don't remember much beyond some sniggering and head shaking and laying it aside never to look at again. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Grayfell also suggested to post at the BLP noticeboard, so I've done that now.
I have one question about the BLP noticeboard: I notice some posts at that noticeboard never receive a response by anyone, and mine has thus far been more than 24 hours without a response. Is there any way to make it more likely that a post at the BLP noticeboard will receive a response? Atsme and DGG both helped to address the similar issues on the Gottfredson article, so I would like their help with the current issue also, but Grayfell implied that it's bad etiquette to request involvement from specific people in these discussions. 2600:1004:B16D:5C56:A176:D64A:299B:2E4A (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Star

The Admin's Barnstar
Keep up the good work. My apologies. We have had differences of opinion in the past. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks and don't worry about differences of opinion. People are passionate about WP, so tempers sometimes get a bit heated, that's all part of it. I have a short memory for this kind of things, so frankly I don't remember any differences with you, honestly. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty,

You have deleted this paid article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atul_Srivastava 23rd September 2015 Just see how he and his partners pushed the same WP article after 4 years (12 February 2019) through back door. Please see his userpages .... These paid writers are passed out of Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts and write for filmy people who wants to make their career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:User:Dharmadhyaksha/Atul_Srivastava

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dharmadhyaksha/Atul_Srivastava&action=edit&redlink=1

There are other two paid articles created by the same group of writers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Awana

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagat_Rawat

Regards

Swami Pundit SwamiPundit (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing the Atul Srivastava article to my attention. It was identical to the version deleted after an AfD, so I have deleted it as a recreation. As for the other two, I'm not into Indian cinema, so I can't evaluate their significance. I recommend that you take them to AfD or post about them on WP:COIN. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

ACS journal names

Hi Randykitty! I just see on the ACS website that only three journals there has "The" as part of their names. The Journal of Organic Chemistry, The Journal of Physical Chemistry, and The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. I am trying to make changes to reflect this fact. --Taweetham (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • But you don't have to remove "the" at the start of each sentence. It's not bolded, so clearly not part of the official name. If "the" is part of the official name, it needs to be included in the infobox and the article moved. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will check the three journals and move them if needed. --Taweetham (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you please kindly do the move from "Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters" to "The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters"? The page exists already. --Taweetham (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The infobox in some articles does not have title. Do you recommend that we add them in or leave it to take the default from the article name? --Taweetham (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
See WP:JWG#Title. If 'The' is part of the name, then everything relevant should have the 'The' in it. Article title, infobox, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Thank you. I've added |title= to the infobox and requested a page move. --Taweetham (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Close of Articles for deletion/Pattie W. Van Hook

Thanks for your reply to my query: User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_24#Close_of_Articles_for_deletion/Pattie_W._Van_Hook. This is not a priority for me (as you can gather from my delay in replying), but if you could userfy it for me, I can see if I find more about her. I had just found some sources from some years after her death, which gave more info and a wider perspective, so it's possible there is notability there. Many thanks, RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done It's at User:RebeccaGreen/Pattie W. Van Hook. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Want to create a Article of Manan Shah

Hello Dear, Please unprotect the page Manan Shah which you protected on 10 November 2015. I can create the same in a good way as I am an experienced Wikipedian. Radadiyageet (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, the best way of doing this is creating a draft (at Draft:Manan Shah) and place {{AFC submission|T}} at the top of the article. On the talk page you place an {{Oldafd}} template, indicating that the article has previously been deleted. When you feel that the article is ready, you submit if for creation. Another editor will then evaluate the article and if it is judged good enough, it will be moved to article space by an admin. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article for resubmission: Netrality

Hi RandyKitty, you performed the deletion of the Netrality article recently as it was found to not meet Notability guidelines after discussion. I wanted to check with you to see if it was appropriate for me to now resubmit the article for review, as Netrality has been featured in additional non-trade publications due to a recent announcement since deletion. Thank you for your consideration! --Mikiepc (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, I have for you the same advice as for the query just above this one, only you should create your article at Draft:Netrality. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Want to create a Article of Anish Luitel

Hello Dear, Please unprotect the page Anish Luitel which you protected on 19 May 2019. I can create the same in a good way as I am an experienced Wikipedian. I need to publish his article as I am fully aware about policies of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram khadka010 (talk • contribs)

I see 1 edit [[1]],, is it possible you've attempted to create this page before? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, somebody attempted to create this page and unfortunately they got blocked. Now, i want to create this article but Anish Luitel page is protected. So, i request you to unprotect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram khadka010 (talk • contribs)
So someone was blocked today and the article was protected? I'm curious how are you familiar with this, with one edit it would be a far more likely assumption is that you are that editor who has simply created a new account? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That editor is my friend, he made a mistake and get the page protected. Now,I am here to create that page because i want to publish it as i am a good wikipedian. So, i request you to uprotect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram khadka010 (talk • contribs)
Based on the facts of the situation that is unlikely to happen, the original editor was being paid to create the article. I highly doubt that you are his friend and even if you are, as an experienced wikipedian, you'd understand the policies in regards to paid contributions and WP:MEATPUPPETRY. I would recommend and support full protection at this time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ram khadka010, you are apparently so experienced, that you don't even know how to sign your posts. I am going to block you as a sockpuppet, WP:DUCK is more than met. Also, while Draft:Anish Luitel is protected after 3 promotional creations in less than 3 hours, Anish Luitel was not protected, which I'm going to do now, per the suggestion by Hell in a Bucket. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for the time and efforts you give towards making Wikipedia a better place. Your willingness to make tough, but policy baed, decisions to find and implement consensus in Articles for Deletion discussions is much appreciated by me. The fact that you accompany this with efforts to bring new editors into the fold and welcome them shows commitment to the community as well. Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Why, thank you so much for your kind words! --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Lee unsalt?

Dear Randykitty, You salted this page a while ago. I have reviewed Draft:Nathan Lee and deem it suitable for article space. However, I am unable to accept the article as the article space page is salted. I am writing to ask if it is possible for you to remove the protection from the page - Thank you so much. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Unprotect the title: Anish Luitel

Hi RandyKitty, you have protected the title Anish Luitel from creation. The page has also been deleted which is due to recreation and unambiguous advertising or promotion. I wanted to check with you to see if it was appropriate for me to now resubmit the article for review, as the article has been written in a better way with proper reliable sources and advertising or promotion has also been removed. Thank you for your consideration! --Harikatwal

Permission to create title: Anish Luitel

Dear RandyKitty, Can you please unprotect the title Anish Luitel? I request you to review proposed new content for the page.Thank you. --Roshanstha6565

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOPCAT (software)

As the closer for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOPCAT (software) with result delete I hereby inform you I am attempting to create an alternate article with different references indicating its study on University level course per WP:NSOFTWARE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Undo deletion request for Panther (owarai)

There is not enough evidence to warrant a deletion, see deletion discussion for this page, all claims for deletion have little to no substantial reason for deletion while all claims to keep have given more reason for non-deletion —FreshUdon (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed the AfD and don't see any reason to change my close. If you disagree or if new information has become available, you should go to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you believe is missing for the article to be undeleted? I can improve upon the article so it meets your expectations for undeletion. If necessary I can add a filmography or media category detailing every single television appearance they have made. Please let me know. FreshUdon (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • None of that would help. The only thing that would allow re-creation of the article would be if you could find reliable sources independent of the subject, that discuss the subject in-depth and were not yet present during the AfD discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)::::*Why are the source provided for them by Natalie (website) not considered a reliable source independent of the subject? Natalie is one of Japan's largest entertainment website and company and details the subject in depth with their profile, news and television appearances. This was posted in AfD discussion which I believe is reliable evidence for notability. There are many other Japanese entertainment and news sites with details on the subject, some example links are here:[2] - All Night Nippon, [3] - GQ Japan, [4] - Oricon News, [5] - Abema Times. Just a few examples out of the numerous articles that I believe is enough evidence to show notability for the entertainer. - FreshUdon (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I really don't know. It is not the function of the closer to evaluate sources, but to determine consensus. Again, if you disagree with the close or have new sources, take this to DRV. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Art-Language

Dear Randykitty, nowadays the art-Language journal is very rare, and there are only 4 or 5 complete sets existing. They are all part of museums collections. The history of this seminal group is highly dependant on its contributors, this list gives a clear indication on yearly basis about who wrote for the journal, reason for this list of contributors to be encyclopedic. The same reasons go for the distributors, I invite you to check their wikipedia articles. Given that to know who did what in the group is almost impossible, I think that this first indications about who wrote for the journal and who was a distributor is of vital importance for the article. I could maybe built a wikitable with the number, the names and the dates if you think it is more convenient or clear? All my very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, without independent reliable sources, this is all original research and/or synthesis. A table wouldn't be any better... --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I am now understanding the problem. I didn't cite independent reliable sources because all the names of all the contributors are written on the journal covers (see [6]) and the names of the distributors are on the back cover. You are right, I should have mentionned this fact in the article. What do you think of a short sentence like: "Given the desire for anonymity attached to the members of the group, it is difficult to know who did what in Art & Language. Nevertheless, the journal mentions the names of its contributors and distributors". Best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the problem, what you describe is original research and synthesis, a no-no on the English WP. If you have a source for that phrase it can be inserted. If it is something that you conclude from your sources, it's SYNTH/OR and cannot be included. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That first source looks good, both reliable and independent as far as I can see. FOr the second one I have the impression that it is more a personal reminiscence, which can be used to document the ideas of the author, but not much else. BTW, I think that merging the article on the magazine with that on the movement would avoid a lot of the duplication that we now have and make for a more consequential article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your time. All my very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Art & Language

  • Thank you very much for your intervention on Art & Language, I am also thinking that it is a shame for wikipedia that such important artists have a poor article. I would be very pleased to help if you are considering to improve it. By the way, I don't think it would be accurate to merge Art-Language in Art & Language as I took great care building the article on Art-Language and think it is much better than the article Art & Language. Do you think it would be relevant to bring to discussion the status of Charles Harrison on the talk page of the article? As he was both a reknown academic and a member of Art & Language, his writings are both primary and secondary sources. This would be of great help for the article once sorted out what to use and when. Best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't intend to spend a lot of time on these two articles, as art is not really my subject (journals and magazines are). But merging the two articles makes a lot of sense to me, as there is some duplication already now. Merging the magazine into the article on the group does not mean that this material has to descend to the level of the rest of the article and may inspire other editors to ,improve the rest (if you don't want to do this yourself). --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I will answer about both Art & Language and Art-Language here. Many artworks of Art & Language would deserve their own article on english wikipedia as they are already existing on other wikis (french, spanish, english), and at some point I could check and translate them into english. Art-Language is one of them even if I understand that for a journal specialist it sounds weird to consider it as an artwork, but for an art specialist it is often the case that a book become an artwork. Incidently, you removed the informations about museum exhibitions dedicated to the journal or including it and the list of museum collections where the journal can be found. It took me a lot of time to gather all of these informations and I would be very pleased you could give me a solution as I have noticed you also removed the list of artworks on the Art & Language article. Should I do separate list articles (List of Artworks by Art & Language, List of Art-Language journals). Best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Please note that different language WPs have different inclusion standards. The English WP is much more stringent than many others with regard to sourcing and notability. That articles exist in other WPs is therefore completely irrelevant here. No, please don't do separate list articles. WP is not for indiscriminate lists of information. If artworks have been the subject of independent reliable sources, then they could appear within the existing articles in "selected works" sections. You write that the lists I removed from the magazine article were about the journal. That was not clear to me, but I'll have a second look tomorrow (no time right now). It does illustrate that the existence of two separate articles is confusing. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Vivacious (drag queen)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vivacious (drag queen). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A major problem

I don't like perpetually saying "he or she", or using "they" as a singular, or any of the other clumsy ways of avoiding the issue. So I like to check before referring to editors by a personal pronoun. "Hmm", I think, "I seem to remember Randykitty is "she", but I'll just have a look and make sure". I find you haven't set the answer in your Wikipedia preferences, so I look at your user page instead, to see if you give the information there. "No." ... "Oh, wait a minute, yes, she's in the category Female Wikipedians, so I was right." So, back to the talk page post I am writing and in goes "she". Then for some reason or other I have another look at the user page. He's in the category Male Wikipedians too. Miranda = female? Yes, but that's not his real name. Jeffrey = male? Yes, but she refuses to confirm or deny that apparent outing. Grrr. Anger. Here am I trying to do the right thing, and being messed about. What am I to do? What am I to do? (Buries head in hand and sobs.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi James, I sympathize, really. In an ideal world, we'd all edit using our real names. But the world is not ideal and as a result I don't give any personal info, not even my gender of lack thereof. Miranda was a female cat, but of course that doesn't say anything about me... So I'm happy with "he", "she", or singular "they", (in alphabetical order) whatever you prefer. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Randykitty is obviously the Wikipedian embodiment of Generation 1's Galvatron: "Powerful and intelligent, although with questionable sanity". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the "intelligent" and definitely don't make any claims about my sanity! :-DD --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Message from Tannim101

Hello,

I noticed that Tannim101 left a message for you on a closed AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of paramedic practice). I have reverted (as it is closed) and have placed the message below for you:

What evidence would you like to support the assertion that this is the central UK paramedic peer-reviewed journal? Tannim101 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

They have currently submitted a draft to AfC for this article (Draft:Journal of paramedic practice). Pinging @Tannim101: to include them in this discussion. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dreamy Jazz for bringing this to my attention (once an AfD is over, I take it from my watch list, so I would never have seen it otherwise). Nothing has changed since the previous AfD, this still misses WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. I recommend Tannim101 to familiarize themselves with those. If this draft would be moved to main article space, either G4 would apply or I would take it to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Page for Journal of Paramedic Practice now contains multiple citations showing the journal is significant in relation to UK prehospital care education and practice. Page now contains more external citations than similar academic/clinical journals Tannim101 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Please see my comments on Dreamy's talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sameera Aziz

You have closed it as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameera Aziz (2nd nomination) but the article Sameera Aziz has not been deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • That's weird, the script did remove backlinks. I'll fix this now, thanks for bringing this to my attention! --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Undo deletion request for Sriyog

Sorry for the user of first person language, of the article Sriyog. I mistakenly used first person grammatical as it should be in third person. Can you undo the task, please? Give me a chance to correct my doings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haribanshnp (talk • contribs)

 Not done Changing the article to third person would not make it less promotional. it's spam and I don't see how it could be improved. Better to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Undo deletion request for Laila Alawa

Thank you for considering my request to un-delete Laila Alawa. While I recognize the issues that were brought up with regards to strengthening sources, the article was that of a businesswoman who has also published significant research & worked with the DHS on nationwide efforts. There is not enough evidence to warrant a deletion, see deletion discussion for this page. All claims for deletion provided little reason for deletion, while all claims to keep gave links, resources & information that warranted a non-deletion. While I recognize your reason, I'm requesting that the chance for being able to rewrite the page be given. --Decolonizingyourmind (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I have looked at this again and see no reason to change my close. If you feel that I did not evaluate consensus correctly, you can take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Critical Care, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical care (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SIGGRAPH

Hi Randykitty. Want to ask for your understanding re: the SIGGRAPH Conference page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGGRAPH ) You'll notice that multiple users including myself find the information you've deleted very important and relevant. I represent the SIGGRAPH community and care deeply about the people who volunteer to make the Conference happen. I am grateful to editors like yourself for your interest and hope you understand the opinions of the rest of us. I've heard about "edit wars" and don't want to be part of one. Will take this to dispute resolution if you think that is best. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencewiki (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • You're of course free to take this to dispute resolution. Make sure you read WP:COI before you do so. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Outline of natural language processing

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Outline of natural language processing. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 20:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation of sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who, on Draft talk:Indigo (Chris Brown album), are you telling to read WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK? I hope you just meant "Teambreezybreezy" and are not implying you believe I set that account up (despite them having first edited four days ago and only joining said discussion hours ago) to back my point of view up. I've been here since 2006 and have made over 360,000 edits. I have never created another account for anything else, and I'm not about to start over a Chris Brown article. Chris Brown articles are a frequent topic of sockpuppets but I don't know how you would be aware of this given it doesn't seem to be a topic you frequent. I really hope you don't just throw out random accusations at people because they happen to join a discussion and agree with someone else. Ss112 00:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Given how long you've been around, I guess we can agree that a new user popping up on a talk page of a draft article is highly unusual. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Are you actually accusing me of sockpuppetry now because you think the circumstances are unlikely? Unbelievable. As I already pointed out, "Teambreezybreezy" already edited the article twice four days ago. What did I do, create another account for some unknown reason to make a couple of pointless edits four days ago with a cringe Chris Brown nickname as my username to make an edit then log back in with it to back myself up? That makes a lot of sense. Looks like you just throw out little petty "quack, quack" edit summaries and accuse editors of being sockpuppets when someone insults you for being an admin and making a poor decision. Obviously the user noticed the article had been drafted and went to the talk page after seeing this. I encourage you, ask Bbb23 or a CheckUser to check any accounts I have connected to me. Or open an SPI on me. I have nothing to hide, because if I was going to create another account to back myself up—which I wouldn't, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't be choosing a Chris Brown article to be doing it on and certainly not naming my account Team damn Breezy. I don't even particularly like Chris Brown that much, I just think it's ridiculous a mainstream release is having its article kept in draftspace. Also, have you taken the actual time to look at the edit history of said article? Do I look like I have a vested interest in the topic? Because I haven't even edited it that much. Or Chris Brown topics very much for that matter. In future, don't go around accusing established editors, who've been here longer than you and with more edits than you, of sockpuppetry just because a new account commented agreeing with them on a draft talk page. It's not a good look, and it looks really petty on your part. The article is going to be moved back to mainspace, so you're just delaying the inevitable. Thanks for being a totally pointless roadblock. Ss112 10:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I expressed surprise/doubts about Teambreezybreezy. That you take this personal is not my problem. If all you have to offer is ranting, please stay away from my talk page. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless I am completely misunderstanding, you are implying that I created that account because they agreed with me, are you not? How could one not take that personally? Ss112 10:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion review for Indigo (Chris Brown album)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Indigo (Chris Brown album). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. You intended this message for "Teambreezybreezy", but I decided to go ahead and open it instead. Ss112 01:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Undo Deletion of Journal of Fungi

Hi Randykitty, Journal of Fungi which you deleted previously is now live in Scopus, which you can check at: Journal of Fungi on Scopus. Please undo delete so that we can edit it further. Thank you. The previous page is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Fungi MiCocx —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • MiCocx, I had a look at the deleted article, but that is very brief. It's probably much simpler to start from scratch (WP:JWG gives lots of tips on how to create a good journal article). You can just edit the current redirect (Journal of Fungi). --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

JRTDD

This is not fair. We are valuable international jounrnal. Why you reject JRTDD inclusion into Wikipedia? How is possible Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences to be included and we are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladotra (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NJOURNALS and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide#Getting_started. In particular "This makes it hard for newly established journals to get an article on Wikipedia, as they usually have not had time to become influential journals."
The scholarship going on at JRTDD may indeed be of value to the world. But we don't care about that. What we care about is if anyone took note of this journal, and if it is considered to have influence in academia, good, or bad. For all we know, JRTDD will be dead in a year because no one reads it. Or maybe it will become a great journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
As Headbomb says, the journal is too young to know already what it will become. The Macedonian journal is older and included in Scopus, a selective database meeting the requirements of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Vladotra: I see that we have no article on ReAttach therapy or Reattach therapy (nor on the ReAttach Therapy Institute who publish the journal). It might be useful to create an article on this topic first. Get some reliable published independent sources which discuss the topic, and write that article. The journal might even be worth a mention within that article, if it is the key publication in the field, in which case you could redirect the journal title to that section of the article. I see that although the draft article on the journal says it publishes work "from all the fields of reattach therapy, psychology, special education, rehabilitation, social policy, and the related sciences", the journal's own "Editorial and publishing policies" page says "The mission of Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities is to facilitate the equitable global dissemination of high-quality disability and diversity research; to promote international dialogue and collaboration on health issues; to improve special education; and to expand and deepen the understanding of rehabilitation sciences." and the "About this journal" page specifies "Covers Psychology, Special Education and Rehabilitation sciences, Disability Studies, Medical Aspects of Disability, Pedagogy, Social Work and Social Policy." without explicitly mentioning ReAttach Therapy, which seems slightly strange, though presumably it's included in one or more of those categories. PamD 07:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Vladotra: See also WP:COI. Your editor name and use of "we" suggest that you might be the editor in chief (note the email address) of the journal. If so you should not be writing an article about the journal: Wikipedia is not for promoting your journal. PamD 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: I've changed the ReAttach therapy and insert at journal page. I am the editor-in-chief of the journal. Is it conflict of interests for Wikipedia? Yes, we are aware that Wikipedia is not for promoting our journal. There are lot of journals on Wikipedia. Is that a promotion or not?

Recreating Article: Sarvesh Shashi

Hi @Randykitty,

I understand that you have protected the article (Sarvesh Shashi) on 19 May 2018. I wanted to bring it to your notice that the subject has earned sufficient credibility and media acknowledgement. I have submitted my final draft on 9 April 2019 with updated more appropriate content.

Requesting you to do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarshah28 (talk • contribs)

  • The problem with this article and draft is not directly a question of notability (I have no firm opinion about that), but of promotionalism. I was severely tempted to propose the draft for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11, but decided to let other people handle this. In any case, I see no reason as yet to remove the protection. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Randykitty for pointing out about the promotionalism. I started this article in January and was not aware that it was deleted earlier was also marked as spam as it was repeatedly recreated. I wrote this article from the scratch and tried to maintain the neutral point of view. Also my first draft of the article was asked to be rewritten as my writing style seemed to be biased which I did. I think since this article is protected by you, it is under the pool to be reviewed for a long time now. I would appreciate if you can guide me how can I proceed further with this. Or, should I forget this article altogether? Thanks, Sagar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarshah28 (talk • contribs)

  • Your draft has now been rejected twice, both reviewers have remarked on the unencyclopedic and promotional style of writing, as I also noted above. You need to re-write the draft in neutral language, making sure that everything you write is based on reliable sources and that enough of these sources are independent of the subject, so that our inclusion criteria are met. If that can be done, the article may eventually be moved to main article space. If it cannot be done, than you would indeed better abandon the effort. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is my second contribution. I have acknowledged the changes and have rewritten and submitted the article for review 3rd time about 2 months ago. In the last two time the article was reviewed in matter of weeks. I hope the fact that article is in protected mode and also the subject was marked as spam. is not the reason for the delay in the review pool. Also Randykitty, are you advising me to rewrite the article 4th time as it still doesn't comply with the insertion criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarshah28 (talk • contribs)

  • Yes, as explained above, the article is not ready yet. That it is protected or deleted as spam has nothing to do with it being reviewed, as reviewers normally only see that when they accept the article, not before. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). --Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for the right direction, Randykitty. Sagar Shah 08:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Metal Injection

Don't forget to put {{oldafd}} at Talk:Metal Injection. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • That's usually the task for those who undelete an article, because there's no way I could know that it had been undeleted and needed an oldafd tag, unless somebody tells me that it has been undeleted (as you just did). In any case, I've added the latest AfD and notified the editor who previously took it to AfD. They're free to take it immediately to AfD again, of course, as this AfD, closed as "soft delete", basically counts like a PROD. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_24&oldid=1211813639"