User talk:Ankababel


 * If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
 * If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ankababel. 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:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to 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, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I daresay you mean well, but I don't think your comments belong on the Cranfield main site. Perhaps they would be better placed on the specific areas investigated by Cranfield which may need a new topic or on the site (or a linked site) of the particular aircraft affected. It's clearly an important topic. However, I have no doubt that there are many aspects of all universities research that draw criticism. I just don't think that a university's main site is the right place for this content - the site should be non-controversial. Cj1340 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia page about a university is not the university's "main site" and is not immune from controversy if appropriate. ... However, I have deleted this user's contributions on this matter on a couple of other related pages about the university, primarily because they seem disproportionate and have a fair bit of original research involved.  See Talk:Cargo cult science and Talk:Academic integrity for additional discussion.  If this was indeed an academic integrity issue that received wide reporting as such, then it may merit inclusion as an example.  But I'm not convinced by what I've seen.  Ankababel, this is an invitation to discuss on the talk pages, if you like. --Lquilter (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OCLC numbers
Sorry, but you're absolutely incorrect about this. Each and every journal has an OCLC number (sometimes a few for different editions). That is exactly the reason why we have an OCLC parameter in the journal infobox. Thousands of journal articles have the OCLC number indicated in their infobox as well as many articles on magazines (the magazine infobox also has an OCLC parameter). If you want to change all that, you'll have to provide better evidence than "contact WorldCat if you don't believe me": the onus here is on you to provide evidence for your position flying into the face of established practice. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, but be careful
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are: These comments are relevant to removal of your well intentioned contribution to tricresyl phosphate. Dont be offended - it happens to all of us. Many editors here can offer advice. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.  When the theme is biomedical, the standards are far stricter, we call them WP:MEDRS.
 * Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest.  Many new editors cite themselves mainly and write about topics where they have a vested interest.  Such behavior is inappropriate.

Multiple issues tags
Please refrain from placing "Multiple issues" tags on multiple academic journal articles. It would be best to discuss your views on the talk page of the Academic Journals project before placing these templates on articles.

This type of editing is probably not considered acceptable use for these templates and might be construed as disruptive editing. Please see: WP:POINT. An editor can be blocked for this type of behavior, so please stop doing this. Thanks for your cooperation. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * I am one of those posters, but I second Lawsonstu: don't worry about making errors, we won't hold it against you because the only people that don't make errors are those that... Exactly, those that don't do anything! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. Yes, I do feel I'm on a learning curve -- hopefully making progress! Ankababel (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are adding unencyclopedic phrases like "There is an interesting debate" and source them to primary references from a non-notable journal; or adding references to same journal where they are not needed. Your doi links are either broken or directly ask to buy those articles. Please stop. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

- there will be no further warning. Materialscientist (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Materialscientist. (1) You should have started a new section -- nothing to do with OER. (2) I fail to see what is promotional in my edits. (3) I did not check dois, anyway they are unnecessary if the full, exact citation is given -- you could have simply edited them out. I checked the one you stated "ask to buy those articles" but it is just the abstract, which is what one expects. Full text with most journals is only available to subscribers.Ankababel (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but no respectable publisher would add "purchase individual article" into the abstract. Please use better sources. Your activity does look like promotion of said publisher and will result in a block from editing if not amended. Materialscientist (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot amend that & anyway I find that nearly all publishers have such a provision. Please name an exception.Ankababel (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 10:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ankababel/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry
Hi: I notice that you haven't started a deletion review yet, and it's been almost a week. I am planning on deleting the temporarily userfied article at User:Ankababel/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry soon, because leaving it in place in userspace indefinitely goes against the grain of the consensus that occurred at Articles for deletion/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry and also WP:NOTWEBHOST. If you need it for reference to start a deletion review, I recommend that you save a copy to your computer. Please respond at your convenience. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi: no, I have not started a deletion review yet. I was wondering whether there is a COI in doing so because I was the original creator of the article. Is there any time limit for starting such a review? If there is, and it expires, presumably one could simply create the page again? Another issue emerged from discussion with another user about orphans—as far as I can gauge that was the only substantive criticism to have been made against the article. That user mentioned that articles s/he has created often have numerous incoming links even before they are actually created. It would seem sensible to create such links before reviewing deletion/recreating the article. In any case I have made a copy now. Ankababel (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit for initiating a deletion review that I am aware of. Please don't create the page again, because consensus at the deletion discussion was for deletion, and the article would be speedy deleted per CSD G4 ("Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"). I have deleted the userfied version since you have made a copy, per all of the above. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Journal of Biomedical Semantics (2nd nomination)
Greetings,

This deletion nomination wasn't made properly--the afdx was fine, but the discussion page should have been created using the afd2 template (which adds several important links for people who wish to evaluate the article, including a link to the article itself and link to the previous AfD discussion) and then transcluded on to a daily log page. As a result, a month has gone by without anybody really noticing that anything happened. (I ran across it via a page created by a bot which scans for stale nominations like this)

The discussion is now listed at Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10‎, where it can be easily found by those editors who regularly evaluate such things. No harm done--it's just that the official "clock" for the discussion starts now.

If you decide to nominate other pages for deletion, please check out WP:AFDHOWTO to get a listing of the necessary steps. Thanks, and let me know at my talk page if you have further questions. -- Finngall  talk  15:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)