User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 10

List of publications in biology
Guillaume2303, so far I have been impressed by your judgement on Wikipedia issues, but I think you may be new to the debates over deletion of lists like this. There have been several recently, all of which have been decided in favor of keeping the list, and there is one going on now that is also likely to result in a keep. This discussion also has links to the previous debates, and I would highly recommend that you look through some of these debates. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not too much interested in chemistry, so I don't intend to participate in that debate. But I am a biologist and I think this list is OR and unencyclopedic. And whatever the discussions on the other lists may have concluded, my personal opinion is probably going to be the same for those, too. Staying with the biology list, several papers that I find very important are missing. Some others that I personally haven't even ever heard off (even though these are fields I am knowledgeable about) are included. Note the use of "I" in the previous sentences. This list is a very personal selection and I don't really see how it could be otherwise. Hence it is OR, hence it is unencyclopedic. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that you'll have a very hard time convincing me otherwise. If consensus is going to determine that these things are going to stay, fine. But I never adjust my opinion based on what other people are thinking, only based on the quality of the arguments that they present. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But how can you assess the quality of the arguments unless you know what they are? Look at the draft of WikiProject for Bibliographies, at least. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I didn't read the arguments, I did. I just didn't feel compelled to participate in that particular debate. I did also have a look at tthat WikiProject proposal and, while I appreciate the hard work and all the effort that MikeCline put into it, I think (not surprisingly) that this is a bad idea and, if implemented, will lead to a lot of OR/SYNTH-inspired articles with lots of people fighting about what should or should not be included. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And how will that be different from the current situation? ;) Some people just don't like bibliographies, and I don't think this project will change that. I support the project because it clearly states the Wikipedia policies and brings together all the examples of a particular kind of list. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life
Could you have a look at that? It's some EU project. Title suggests a nanotech Panopticon or zerg overlord. (Who comes up with these??) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the EU has some official PR machine ("we're doing stuff") going on. See COINAPO as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some more tasty mörsels of Eurospamcruft... I've prodded COINAPO (I'm a member of a COST action myself, but I cannot imagine one ever becoming notable), and will now have a look at the other one. These things are a pain... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I hope the editors who wrote those won't feel bitten too badly, but the first article was hilariously "pie in the sky" advert, and the other one seemed like an informal workshop series which is seldom of interest to people who don't already know about it. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's difficult to avoid "biting" with these things. on the other hand, looking at other projects, these editors never stay anyway, they just come, create their article, and then never come back (only sometimes during/after deletion). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

COINAPO was de-prodded, if that's a verb. Uʔ (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. Sigh... These Euro articles are a pain. This one will again be a problem at AfD, because it lists references. Even though hardly pertinent, many people just give a knee-jerk "keep" !vote in such situations without bothering to actually look at the references... At the moment, I'm a bit tired of it, so I won't take it to AfD right now, but feel free to do so yourself if you're in the spirit :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a knee-jerk reaction to oppose an intellectually bankrupt argument. Many of your arguments to delete various articles, Cruiso, are intellectually bankrupt. Stop pushing for random deletions and start making Wikipedia a better place. Otherwise, I suspect a ban will soon be coming your way. 174.0.47.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Thank you for the warning. Emulating the Euro, I'll try to find a support fund for my intellect to avoid bankruptcy. Meanwhile, please go ahead and propose a ban for me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Queueing Systems (journal) edit
Thanks for the heads up on the journal infobox fields. Gareth Jones (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Neurogenetics editing
Hi Guillaume2303. You recently read and critiqued my groups page on Neurogenetics and made a comment about the difference between behavioral genetics and neurogenetics. Would you mind expanding on that a little bit for me so that we can de-clutter the page. It was my understanding, from the stub and from studies that we read, that the two are not exclusive and have some overlap. I could be very wrong and would really value your opinion on the subject. --Gallagcw (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely some overlap, but the two fields are not identical. Most of human behavior genetics does not deal with anything "neuro" at all. Even psychiatric genetics does not always look too much at the brain (except for looking at certain transporters, transmitters, etc). Nowadays a lot of animal behavior genetics includes neuro stuff, though and you could probably say that the fields are converging. The fields also developed more or less independently, although some of the early behavior geneticists were also active in neurogenetics (Dick and Cynthia Wimer also looked at behavior and John Fuller studied the inheritance of brain weight). But even nowadays, a lot of human stuff is purely statistical genetics of behavior, without any neuroscience aspects (see the annual meeting programs of the Behavior Genetics Association). Personally, I always call myself a "behavioral neurogeneticist"... :-) Unfortunatly, I won't have too much time to help, because I'm pretty much busy the next few days and next week I first have a 2-day site visit in Germany and then leave for SFN in Washington. And after that I spent a few days with my in-laws in Boston, so before the end of November, I'll be pretty much out of action. I'll try to look in from time to time and give some advice if I can, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I hope you have a fantastic time on your trips and travels, but I just have one more question. Is it your opinion that we should remove all the topics that involve behavior and the genetic factors that lead to differences in personality and such, or just the ones like alcoholism. Once again, thanks for all your help. --Gallagcw (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As to your question, that's not easy. Making this article "complete" is basically impossible. I would definitely remove the purely behavioral stuff (including the MAO-A and DAT aggression /impulsivity stuff). No need to waste the effort, though, I'm sure that text can be merged elsewhere. The same goes for a lot of the methods stuff. Explanations of QTL methods/effects of mutations/etc are better at their place elsewhere. I would concentrate this article on where the field came from (some history) and then go into a little bit more detail (but leave the very detailed stuff for separate articles). Neuroscience is a good example, I think. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Redirect to: Pagename"
I noticed you correctly redirected pages from. He's a quacking sockpuppet of.

If you ever see a user create pages with "Redirect to: Pagename", chances are he's a sock, and should be reported to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Saihimesh. Thanks. → Σ  τ  c. 05:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Foreign Relations
Hi Guillaume2303. Just to let you know, I declined the Speedy request on this article. The last AfD at Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Foreign_Relations was closed as a speedy delete as a copyright violation. Since the current version is not a copyright violation and the AfD ws closed under speedy, I don't think this article qualifies under G4. Hope that's okay. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The second AfD was closed as "delete", see your talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted myself and added a link to the Second AfD on the talk page and the Speedy notice. Sparthorse (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Another EU research project
Appears at SEEMPubS (EU Project). I've flagged for notability and am tempted to go further: Prod or even CSD. But in the absence of a consistent approach, these continue to pop up and to get dealt with in a fragmentary way. AllyD (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've prodded it together with another article from the same author. There are still a lot of these Eurospamcruft things around when you look at all the articles linking to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development... I wish we had a CSD criterion for this stuff... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And (as might have been expected) the article creator de-PRODded, os they are now at AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Academic Journals in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Academic Journals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

SFN Meeting in D.C.
Hi Guillaume2303, thank you for your help with our Boston College Neuroscience Wikipedia project this semester. I see that you will be in D.C. for the SFN meeting, I will be be briefly discussing our project during the "Teaching Neuroscience" panel in Room 146C from 9-12 am on Monday morning. If you are free it would be nice to meet you in person and give you and the other Wikipedian neuroscientists your due credit for helping us out over the last 3 years. Hope to see you there NeuroJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I really didn't do much, I think. If I remember, I might hop by, although I normally spend all my time at the poster sessions. Have a great session! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Hi Guillaume2303.

I'm writing in regards to updates we (at ACOG) made to the ACOG wiki page on 11/2. Our edits were reverted and then we were blocked from further comments. I understand (now), that Wikipedia prefers updates be made by non-affiliated sources. We were just trying to correct inaccuracies that exist in the current iteration of the page.

Specifically, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is NOT "formerly" The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), is a 501(c)(6) organization, while The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), a 501(c)(3) organization. ACOG and The College are COMPANION organizations. Fellows of ACOG (FACOGs) receive dual membership to both organizations. Additionally, the membership number is incorrectly listed at 52,000. Our current membership of 55,000 is listed on the "About ACOG" page on our website: http://www.acog.org/from_home/acoginfo.cfm. If we are not able to correct these inaccuracies, then how would you suggest that the correct information be submitted/presented? If making Wikipedia a public AND credible source of information is a top priority to those actively involved in its maintenance (such as yourself), there must be a way to provide quality control and guarantee that true information is presented, right? I'm happy to make these edits myself, however, but I'm afraid I'd be edited and blocked again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stizzleb (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that you tried to correct some info, but that you did using promotional language. Articles in WP should be in neutral, non-promotional language. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative Intelligence
I’m a newcomer to Wikipedia. I joined because I’m completing a PhD on Collaborative Intelligence, saw that the article was poor and wanted to put in place a framework so others could contribute. Since joining in September, my main contribution is a new Wiki bio page on Israeli physicist Eshel Ben-Jacob (whose work is relevant for Collaborative Intelligence). That page is now a Wiki Israel project. My objective was to continue to add short articles relevant to Collaborative Intelligence, some of which might be stubs for awhile. Proposed Method – If the Collaborative Intelligence article is viewed as a process of engaging the collaborative intelligence of Wikipedia contributors (and others who may not be Wikipedians but who are doing relevant research), i.e. itself an experiment in Collaborative Intelligence, then it should start with a framework to which others can contribute, i.e. not completely loaded with content at the start.

eg. I attended CrowdConf 2011 on November 2 where many spoke about the next generation of crowd-sourcing platforms that can enable effective aggregation and collaborative intelligence. I aimed to engage leaders in the crowdsourcing community to contribute to the section of the Wikipedia Collaborative Intelligence article entitled Crowdsourcing – Precursor Platform for Collaborative Intelligence

Background info
 * 1) Crowdsourcing. There were few publications in 2008, nearly 4000 last year. At CrowdConf 2011 last week, several speakers mentioned Wikipedia as a crowdsourcing pioneer. Crowdsourcing is expected to grow exponentially next year. That community is inspired by Wikipedia.
 * 2) Collaborative Intelligence is a few years behind crowdsourcing, since it needs more sophisticated crowdsourcing platforms, now being developed.
 * 3) Microbes-Mind Forum & Zann Gill – both stub articles in this knowledge cluster; could you make a decision and either leave them with stub tags to grow gradually (my preference) or delete them, since it’s been seven days?
 * 4) Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia itself is an ideal example of effective crowd-sourcing and collaborative intelligence, there could be more information on research about, and lessons learned from, Wikipedia itself. As part of developing the article on Collaborative Intelligence, I’d like to link to research on how Wikipedia is an example of collaborative intelligence.

Let me know on above. I'm a novice user and still trying to figure out the ropes/ rules etc so I hope you can have a little patience. Also this knowledge web needs to evolve over time. Okay? Ark2 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from putting an "expert needed" tag on that article a while ago (because it didn't look very good to me and a bit one-sided), I have not edited this article as it is not really within my interests. So i don't really understand why you are posting this here. I welcome your contributions to Wikipedia and urge you to read our style manual and other important guidelines, as they will help you contribute high-quality content. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

HighBeam Research
I am a relatively new user of Wikipedia and I'm frustrated that Wikipedia won't allow an official response by HighBeam Research to the third party criticism (which Wikipedia allows) of its billing practices. See entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HighBeam_Research

Please explain again why Wikipedia won't allow an official response by HighBeam Research to the anonymous criticism that Wikipeida links to here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/internet-marketing-companies/highbeam-research/highbeam-research-free-trial-n-cfp72.htm

All that is attempted at being inserted is a link that goes to the HighBeam Research billing practices web page here: http://www.highbeam.com/billing-questions

It would provide inestimable value to the reader to know that HighBeam has a page devoted to answering questions about their billing practices. Just leaving this anonymous third party criticism is completely unfair.

--Bluesunday (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP is not a discussion site. So there is no room here for "official responses". The material you added to the article was promotional in tone and was therefore removed. I just removed it again, but also looked in more detail at the stuff that you are objecting about and it is indeed not well sourced, so I removed that also. It would have been more helpful if you had explained your concerns about the criticism section on the article's talk page. (I realize you are rather new, so this is not a reproach, just advice for the future). That way another editor could have looked into it and remove any improper stuff. WP may not be for posting official responses, it is not for posting anonymous criticisms sourced to a blog-type site, either. Hope this has solved the problem. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative and fair response. --Bluesunday (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

active again
Watch this ... --Blechlegierung (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot recall ever having interacted with that editor or having edited any of the articles on her history. Why are you posting this here? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a sock. --Blechlegierung (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything I recognize. A sock of whom? And, again, why tell me? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry about  the typos -  need some sleep :)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM
You have mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Journals
FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Again
Saw your post on "university users" page...He's still posting notability tags on articles that don't warrant it, and has done so on Confluence (journal). What to do?Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the mass tagging is that some are bound to be not completely inappropriate. I see from the article history that I myself tagged it for notability in the past and, looking at the article, there still is nothing that shows notability. I check most of the tags that UU places and remove those that are clearly inappropriate (journals with an impact factor or listed in major databases). But this one would, in fact, have been one that I would have left in place.... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the same could be said with throwing stuff against a wall and claiming at least some things stick. Don't think that's a good argument for placing notability tags randomly on articles. It's disruptive, and in no way is he stopping despite warnings. I mean, the British Dental Journal? Really? In terms of your response regarding Confluence and notability, it's kind of surprising. You may have forgot we went through this awhile back, and in fact you suggested enlisting DCG the retired academic librarian who had good arguments to keep the article about the journal (and which you agreed). Oh well. I know you are into lots of journals so that may have slipped your mind. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It did, but also, the article still does not really show any evidence for notability, so at least in this case, we can't really blame UU for putting that tag. From their contribution history it seems they have now moved on to tagging articles on books (including one by Newt Gingrich - what are the odds that that one did not receive in-depth coverage....) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Annals of Anatomy
Hi Guillaume2303: why is this journal notable? This has not been made clear. --Universityuser (talk) 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The journal has an impact factor, meaning that it is covered by the Science Citation Index and the Journal Citation Reports. See WP:NJOURNALS. If you doubt the journal's notability, feel free to take it to WP:AfD (but don't be surprised if people would "trout" you for that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please help
Dear Guillaume2303, thank you for watching my journal contribution (International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science). Instead of "mainly", can I put "among others"? The journal is indexed in some other databases, obviously less prominent, but I thought it would not hurt to mention that somehow. Also, I would like to upload the journal cover - how can I do it best without any copyright "issues"? Regards, Jagusia75 (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If those databases are notable, you should include them. If they are not, then "among others" is hardly important either, I'd say. In any case, "mainly" is not very grammatical, "among others" is. To upload a journal cover, see File:G2Bcover.jpg for an example that takes care of all copyright issues. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Family therapy journals
Thanks so much for rating and correcting categories for the Family Therapy Journals! It's so nice that it's ensured it's being done right!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thanks for your additions of these journals! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'm not sure to what extent the information on the [SCImago site is helpful.  Would this be helpful info for the WP articles?--[[User:CaroleHenson|CaroleHenson]] (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at this point, I think. The SCImago stuff is much less widely accepted than the impact factor, so for the moment, we don't list it in journal articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Elsevier
Hi Guillaume2303,

Je devrais dire Bonjour, étant moi même originaire de Bordeaux ou j'ai aussi fait mes études.

I would like to understand why you have removed the inclusion of Reaxys on the list of flagship products for Elsevier. Reaxys is a very important chemistry database and is owned by Elsevier.

Thank you for clarifying and letting me know how we can get this entry in a way that both suits us.

Cordialement

Fabienne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flair-marketing (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Until it was just changed (by you), Reaxys was a redirect, so apparently not a "flagship" product. Even now that the article is restored and not a redirect any more, I'm not sure at all that a database product started in 2009, just 2 years ago, has already become a "flagship" product of a huge company like Elsevier. In addition, you added "See also" links at several palces where this clearly was not relevant (for example, this really does not belong in the Scopus article), so your additions looked more like spammy promotional stuff. The article on Reaxys itself was also rather promotional in tone, I have to say (and although it has been toned down, it still does not read like a neutral encyclopedic entry, as if it has been copied directly from the publisher's site). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing feedback. It is all very useful. I am a very new contributor and trying to follow the Wikipedia rules as best I can. This was my very first contribution. I had added links to Elsevier, Scopus and Science Direct, simply because there is some interactivity between these databases and thought it would be relevant to cross reference. I also realise that my choice of username works against me and have placed a request to change it. 109.236.166.155 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Fischbach
Thank you for your suggestion to review the Wikipedia MOS and MOS for biographies. I removed the title of Dr. throughout the article to fit within these guidelines and was wondering whether there were any other specific areas you thought I should change to better fit the MOS. Thanks for your help. Kierak33 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks pretty good, but several issues need to be addressed, some minor (you should refer to "Fischbach", not "Gerald Fischbach" - except at the very beginning, or when you need to distinguish between him and his wife), some more important: you definitely need more sources, for example. I have made some minor edits myself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok thank you for the suggestions. I will go through the article and change where he is referred to as Gerald Fischbach.  I am having trouble finding more sources other than his publications. Would you advise including more information from his publications?  Also just a small question- should I reference the publications in the selected publications that are not currently referenced? Thank you for all your help! Kierak33 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the warm welcome! The links you have given are very useful and I hope to make my share of contributions to articles in my field of expertise. Have a great day! Greenfernglade (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Frequency in Infobox:Journal
There isn't anything listed in Template:Infobox_journal about the style for frequency. Should it be Annual, Monthly, Semiannual, Semi-annual, 2/year, Two times a year ... is this style somewhere else? --Gugek (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC) thanks Guillaume. that is helpful. --Gugek (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed there isn't. What is usual though (as done in several thousand of these boxes) is to use a word (Biannually, Triannually, Quarterly, Monthly, etc) if one exists and x/year if none exists (like 8:Year, 10/year, etc). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

CHU
Sorry, I think I missed your question. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Successful, congratulations! Perhaps you want to archive this and references to your name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a bot will have taken care of this in a few days. Regular Wikipedians almost never go so far as to harass another editor off-wiki and the newbies that do are generally too "wiki-illiterate" to be able to dig deep enough to find out my real-life identity. It's not people like you that I'm worried about! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks for the polishing of Annals of Science, always good to have you keeping an eye on these articles! I saw a redlink in the latest Signpost and thought I'd try to turn it blue. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. That was indeed a nice addition. Thanks for creating it! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What's in a name?
I LOVED your old name! And what happened to the photo on your user page? There was a smile, a nice casual yet sophisticated white shirt, and the promise of Bordeaux radiating from the background... I'm going to have to take a moment to get used to this. *snif* Drmies (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I got harassed off-wiki several times. The worst was where somebody was unhappy with me arguing for deletion of his (it's almost always guys) and started emailing colleagues (especially those perceived to be my superiors). Of course, everybody ignored those emails (and I don't really have any direct superiors, that's not the way it works here), but things like this are awkward anyway. And there was this EU project that I PRODded and then AfDed, which led to a flurry of emails and to phone calls from other colleagues who had been asked to intervene... So unfortunately (I do prefer to edit int he open under my own name), I have decided that for the moment I'll edit under an alias. My friends here will recognize me easily enough (like you did). Perhaps I'll change back after I retire, but that's still a long time off... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy moly. I'm sorry to hear that. Here we are, trying to be open and helpful, and we get taken advantage of by invisibles. I got a call too, a couple of years ago, from a failed politician, here at work. Anyway, I'm glad I found you again. Hey, I've done a Dutch thing: check out W.R. van Hoëvell. Let me see you nominate that for deletion! And I had a funny Dutch moment--I see the guy's from Deventer, and think to myself, "Oh, he must be Dutch Reformed." And he was--a minister even. Ah, the world used to be so simple! Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At least that one won't call you any more. At least no on the phone... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Prod2
I have to admit that I never encountered the Prod2 template until you used it on that Kate Fitzgerald article. Useful! ScottyBerg (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cybaris page
Hi Guillame,

I'm a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia. I created the Cybaris page, and I noticed you took down some of the content. Could you direct me towards some sort of guideline for what content is permissible? Also, I'm not sure what the guidelines are for notability - this journal seems no less notable than, even if it is younger than, a variety of other intellectual property law journals with stable wikis. Thanks!

Best regards,

Univremonster Univremonster (talk)
 * I think I explained in the edit summaries why I took out the content that I did. Notability guidelines for journals can be found here. The fact that other articles exist is not really a good argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I hadn't seen the article on notability specific to academic journals.  I'm not sure how to prove these elements on the wiki such that notability challenges do not recur.  Perhaps the notability requirement could be satisfied by making some reference to the fact that Patently-O and and the Bar and Bench are sources considered "influential in the area," the first requirement?  Or I could include a reference to the sources where Cybaris articles are published (Westlaw etc.) to show the second requirement?  Or a citing-references tally?  These things don't seem like wiki-appropriate material, but if that's what's necessary I'd be happy to post it.  Of course, your advice is appreciated.  Also, as a side note, I didn't mean to claim that Cybaris should be notable because other wikis are weak - I was just trying to explain my confusion over what is notable and is not, since I could not distinguish how Cybaris' wiki was worse than the others.  Univremonster (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, the comment about the other stuff basically means that similar articles around doesn't mean that yours is fine, just that those other ones may be lacking in notability, too, but haven't been tagged (yet). Anyway, the best way to show notability for an academic journal is to show that it is included in major selective databases. I'm not sure that the references to Patenly-O and the Bar and Bench are sufficient. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood with the other articles - I must not be explaining myself well, but it's not important. I added 2 selective databases in Westlaw that include Cybaris.  There are actually 13 such databases, but I'm not sure whether this is really something that should be included in the article.  What is your advice on this?  Univremonster (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Told you I'm new at this, the links apparently don't work here the way I was doing it. Anyway, if you go to directory.westlaw.com and search "Cybaris" you'll find all 13 selective databases that Cybaris is included in.  Univremonster (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ISHM
Hello, I edited the ISHM article  adding the important fact that it is a peer reviewed congress system. I refer it  twice. Both to the Globe Foundations, and the Brief of International organizations. It can be checked if necessary. Cleaning is accepted, reorganizing as well. Bur removing information,  that you don't know about, cause you left the references I indicated,  but you removed the   information they were referring to, the peer review system. They are third sources, world recognized,  on an article that  has little written on. It is an important and distinctive aspect of the ISHM. Thats why I undo your edition. I think we can come to  a  balanced  solution, after a proper discussion, on why you removed that information, before  appealing for an administrator. Maybe it was a mistake. I have no problems with the other  stuff, cleaning etc. Thank you.--Meilthorn (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, re-reading the article i have realized you did include the peer review fact. I had not noticed. So, ok, I think your edition is ok. I have to communicate you that I am going to write several lines  ( like 1  or  2) on the  congress section. It is about that those events are held by  an organizing committee,  an executive  committee and a scientific committee  formed by the  members of the ISHM, and that this last one committee is in charge of the peer review. It is additional information. Do you agree? Thanks.--Meilthorn (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of that seems to be trivial, for example, every conference will have an organizing committee. You should concentrate on the most important features. If there is a page on the organizations' website that lists all the meetings, it might also be better to reference that, instead of having a (rather boring) "laundry list". You should not list the people on those committees, as that would go against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not going to list the people of the committees. I agree the list of congresses can be a little boring. I will edit it in less than a week, after adding more information in the beginning of the article, specially on history, and the scientific journal associated to the ISHM, Vesalius, from several books I own. Thank you.--Meilthorn (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
I don't know if you're aware of this, but your correct reinstatement of an AfD comment by me, was raised in an ongoing AN/I by the editor who deleted the comment. See. Evidently he thought I reinstated it. Cheers, ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did think that at first yes, but my removal was conform WP:RPA. I have used not Guillaumes edit, but the one where you added the AN/I reference to make it even more insulting. Night of the Big Wind  talk  04:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your (Guillaume's) edit has just been reverted by this user. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Journal of Technology and Information Education, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Informatics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Be gentle it's my first time
Hi, I was unaware of several of this issues raised by my submission of the JHD page on Wikipedia. I agree that I clearly had a conflict of interest and it was not appropriate for me to submit this page. Culpa mea. I have asked an independent editor with wikipedia experience to revise the page. Hopefully this new version will be acceptable. Sorry about the errors. Cheers, Blair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.26.13 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, COI editing is not forbidden, you just have to be careful. I have done it myself, but only after I had several thousand of edits here and knew what should or should not be done. In the case of the JHD, it's just too soon. The journal is just too young: not (yet) included in MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, etc, and that will take 1 year at a minimum (and given that this is not a large publisher with lots of experience with applications for these databases, probably a few years). Until then, and until it is clear that the journal will actually survive (not a given in today's competitive market), an article is premature. I have "PRODded" the article. You can, of course, remove that tag, but then the article will go to WP:AFD and if deleted after that, re-creation at a future point in time will be more difficult. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Neurogenetics
Hey Guillaume2303,

First off, let me say thank you for all the help, advice, and constructive criticism that you have given to my fellow group members and myself while we try and update the Neurogenetics page. The project is now officially over, so what is up now is what we have submitted to our professor for a grade, but seeing as this page will possibly be used as a resource for real people in the world, I was wondering if you had any last suggestions. We did our best to address the issues you brought up before, but it would be great if you could just take a last look and let me know what you think. All the best, and once again, thank you! Gallagcw (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My created articles
Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made of those new stubs :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CURATOR
Before issuing CoI warnings to newbies who are museum curators, please be aware of WP:CURATOR. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even curators can be biased and I don't see anything wrong with encouraging people to "exercise great caution" when they edit an article with which they have a COI. In the present case, it looked (and looks) to me that this person was creating an article on a sub-collection of the museum that, given the sparse references, could easily be merged into the main article on the museum. Not enough to do something about it, enough to post a note about our COI policy. I don't see how WP:CURATOR exempts surators from our COI policies. Thank you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Current Research on Astasis
We need to include a current research section on our page to get the full points on our project. How should we address current research if we can't say that there is none we could find? --Liepa (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you tell your professor this directly, because it's not something you can put into the article. You can show him the diff where I removed your "no current research" section. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Good luck with all your articles! --Liepa (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly use common sense
re: Taggings here... This is fictional universe. If you don't like such articles, fine try to nom for deletion. BUT DON'T try to apply cites criteria to a popular fiction or any other socially relevant content in this project. You people waste more time, so please stop it. Use your brain. // Fra nkB 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, try at least to remain civil. This humongous list has not a single reference. It's absolutely non-encyclopedic. It does not comply with most guidelines and policies. Don't try to use WP as a fansite, move this stuff to the appropriate place: the Honorverse wiki. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not my page, but disagree that any information is unwelcome on WP. Anyone censoring this project need look in a mirror and compare their behavior to the Nazi Party of the '30s. Until we adopt a quorum and minimum vote standard, the key POLICY is IAR... further, in fiction, you have to be AWFULLY STUPID to not be able to follow the links to the articles covering the specific works. They are self-references by definition. Do you really mean to infer that hundreds of editors familiar with said series are going to let errors in the series go unchallenged or unfixed? You people are pissing up a stick unnecessarily. Academic standards are not necessary, nor should they ever be applied. The topic, like a band or entertainer is part of CULTURE... so intrinsically belongs in an information provider's bag of tricks. Heck, I'm no fan of that page either, BUT UNLIKE DELTIONISTS I'm happy to follow our founders lead and let the work output and devotion of contributors stand. On my part, updates to such are an overt attempt by old farts like me to turn kids into readers... A GOOD THING. People that disrespect others contributions are a bad thing. Those tags are nearly always a bad thing. A small unsupervised self-appointed cabal proposes and disposes them, outlasting any opposition in forums nearly no one continues to keep up with, save for the self-appointed ASSHOLES that think they should have things this way or that. We need to introduce such persons to being rode out of town on a rail... after tarring and feathering them. Our forefathers had succinct and clear messaging down pat! Happy Christmas and Merry New Year. // Fra nkB  20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give you this, some of the articles in this set are certainly written in fan style vice our MOS. e.g. At All Costs. As usual, now that I've looked in on this, I'll see what more I can do to make fixups. On the foregoing topic (page), how would you suggest listing characters to back link them to source material? I'll grant you it isn't strictly necessary, but it saves a lot of writing on the article side if you can link to an place which tells readers who someone is. But then, I find long synopsis to be encyclopedic, you probably don't.  // Fra nkB 20:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but after your previous post, I somehow don't feel like interacting with you any more. Kindly stay away from my talk page, this goes to ANI. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comedic journalism
I reverted your userfication of Comedic journalism. Unlike many of the other articles from teh same class, a little bit of editing enabled me to preserve it as a non-OR, functional article. Note that I already declined a speedy deletion on the article, and had been conversing with both the student and TA about the article. If you want to delete/userfy it, please take it to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While we're at it--did you userfy any other articles that were not under CSD? Userfying articles out of process is a bit worrisome to me.  I understand that you were trying to work in the best interest of the program (trying to be less bitey), but I just want to know if there are any others we want to consider editing and bringing back into mainspace.  It is, of course, entirely possible that there are none, and the one I saw was an outlier.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I userfied it, because someone deprodded it referring to the ANI discussion. I appreciate the work you did on this one, but I nevertheless think that it has not yet become encyclopedic enough and still is way too essay-like. Having said this, there are now enough people aware of this situation, so I'll leave it up to others to edit it or take to AfD (I only stumbled upon it during new page patrol and am not really interested in journalism, comedic or otherwise). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding MAKE to the literary journals page
Guillaume2303, I noticed you removed my entry onto the literary journals page. Wondering why, we are an existing journal online (http://makemag.com/reviews-online/) and in print. Established authors such as Tomaž Šalamun, James Tate, etc have published with us..?

Let me know if we can't remain up there somehow, would like to be included in that company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmolloy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have a conflict of interest here. If the magazine meets our inclusion guidelines, an article can be created. Once that has been done, it can be added to the list. However, you should only create an article if you know WPs policies and guidelines very well, because otherwise the article might wind up deleted. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Corrections to Archivaria Page
The Australian Research Council did not use a plus sign in their materials (A+), they used an asterisk * (A*), which is what I used. Should you be altering their system? Archivisticus (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A typo, sorry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

More on Archivaria
Thanks! A speedy reply. Another question: I had taken the editor out because I wasn't sure I would remember to keep up with the fairly frequent turnover. Should I assume that I need to be responsible for keeping this part up to date?Archivisticus (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We usually list the EIC (or whatever job title is used for the "head honcho") in articles on journals. According to WP:PROF, such people are notable and should have a bio here. Updating info that often changes is indeed a concern (we also list impact factors, and they change every year), but that is unavoidable. Updating is nobody's responsibility, unless someone takes this up voluntarily. One solution is to use a template: John Doe is editor-in-chief . This will produce a "hidden category" (articles with potentially outdated statements) that may alert other editors that the info should be checked from time to time. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Message on restarted old talk page
Dear Guillaume2303,

I'm writting about the page COMET Project that you proposed to be deleted in November, 24. I'm really sorry that i couldn't contact you earlier.

I would like to know why this article was deleted. I don't think that any copyrighted material was used, neither was any objection about the validity of the article.

I really looking for you reply soon,

Best regards, Chris

Mech5107 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved here by --Shirt58 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume2303,

Hi again!

There are a lot of publications about the project, in various online and physical magazines and portals. There are also more than 5 scientific papers presented in conferences about the project results and intermidiate achievements.

I could make you a list and post it either here or sent it to you via any other mean.

Would this be enough to justify that the project deserves to have its own page on Wikipedia?

Best regards, Chris

Mech5107 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That participants in the project published scientific articles is nothing out of the ordinary (if they hadn't, now that would be exceptional... :-). I have done projects just by myself that have resulted in many more than just 5 publications, let alone cnference presentations. As people here on WP are wont to say: "publishing is what academics do". Similarly, we don't think that a composer is notable for composing 5 symphonies. He's notable if people have actually listened to them and then written about them (and him). If other people have written scientific articles about COMET, that would be a different matter, but I don't think that is what you meant. As for "online magazines and portals", that would really depend on three things: 1/ that these are not blogs or such but really reliable sources, 2/ that they are truly independent sources, and 3/ that they just don't mention the project in-passing (such as when they are about one of the participants and as an aside it is mentioned "Dr. John Doe is also a member of COMET". If you have sources that comply with these criteria, yes, let's have a look at it. But if they don't comply, let's forget the matter and save everyone's time... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Content of Archivaria
I just wanted to say that you'll see from the original version I posted of Archivaria to the version you changed that I had added a bunch of stuff. Quite a bit came from the Association (the promotional stuff) after they read my first go round that I tried to keep out as much as possible but obviously didn't succeed entirely. The extra content about the prizes (what ACA calls the awards)came because I was a bit worried when I read the content for the American Archivist that it is considered a "stub." But since Archivaria hasn't been listed as a stub I'm assuming that's okay. Also, I saw a list of editors on one of the other learned journals which is why I added a link to the ACA's website page that lists them. I figured that could take the place of the editor in the box. But I guess one can't necessarily count on the Association's website being up to date either. But don't you think it could be useful? Knowing who the editors are can tell you a lot about what the journal looked like over the years. And I did have one other question. You've changed the subtitle of the notice about the A* rating by the Australian Research Council to "indexing." But their rating system isn't an indexer. There is no content indexed. Any thoughts?Archivisticus (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's a lot of different points. In order:
 * Stub: ranking something as a stub is not disparaging. It just indicates the state of the article and whether it is reasonably complete or not. Most journal articles are Stubs or Start-class.
 * Editors: if it can be sourced, it's perfectly acceptable to list previous editors-in-chief. They are indeed the people who determined the editorial policies and directions of the journal over the years. However, as an aside, we don't list subordinate editors (whether managing, section, or associate editor) or editorial board members (unless in very exceptional cases where there are reliable sources outlining what these people did for/to the journal).
 * Indexing: I did this kind of out of habit, I'm afraid. Usually, we include ranking info at the end of a section called "abstracting and indexing", which first contains a list of the (selective) major databases that index a journal (so not Google Scholar, for example, as that is rather trivial). My preferred solution would be to do that here, too, but I haven't found any abstracting/indexing info for this journal. In the absence of that, we could name the section "ranking".
 * Australian ratings: I'm not a great admirer of including those ratings in journal articles, but must admit being in the minority here. So I never add these rankings to articles, but I don't remove them if they are present. As far as I know, the Aussies have (wisely, I think) abandoned the ratings in the latest version of their evaluation exercise. Fortunately, not too many other countries have done similar things, imagine the maintenance we would have to do with all journal articles to keep ratings given by several different countries updated...
 * Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Fischbach Article
Hi

Im sorry I changed your Web of Science reference, but our GA reviewer said:

Ref #22. Please find a new source. It is invalid to cite another wikipedia page as a reference. It is okay to use internal links or to make footnotes that link to another Wikipedia article, but do not cite it as a source reference.

So I'm unsure of what to do now. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kierak33 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. I'll change the reference to make the reviewer happy, it was not a reference to a WP page... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note to the GA reviewer. Kierak33 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for your comments at User talk:Ggg phew. There's no getting through to that guy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, doesn't seem like this is someone willing to listen to reason (I had run-ins elsewhere, too), but I thought I'd give it a last-ditch try. My bet is he'll be back under another name soon... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AFC / Journal
Here's another then: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Five Points: A Journal of Literature and Art.

I've declined it as "not notable". Of course if you disagree, or want to rescue it, feel free. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 10:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Literary journals are not easy to evaluate, but given that all awards and such are sourced from their own homepage, I'm inclined to agree with your decision, until independent confirmation can be added. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Surgical positions
Hi. I've expanded this article and I noticed in the article history that you removed a ref that linked to medicalopedia.org as linkspam. Can you just give me a little more detail about why this is spam? I had thought I removed it when I expanded the article and I restored it before I noticed you removed it and I'd just like to know why it was removed.--v/r - TP 18:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry being slow, I've bad Internet access currently. There was a discussion on some board about this site a while ago (SPAM or COPYVIO). A single-purpose account was seeding WP with references to Medicalopedia. Ironically, much of that site is a copyvio of WP itself (even though WP is poublished under CC, copying it has to be acknowledged, which Medicalopedia doesn't do). I might be able to find the discussion once I have better Internet access (and some time), but perhaps this allows you to find it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

B. Genetics
Hi, I'm not entirely sure why you removed those links since eugenics and counseling are certainly linked to B.G. If you are just going to remove links maybe you should be more specific in your reasons for doing so. The article does mention eugenics and counseling and these areas should be expanded not removed. I'd like to hear your opinion and I wouldn't touch your revision until I do. Thank you Zzaffuto118 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed these links from the "see also" section because eugenics is already linked in the text (and therefore does not belong in this section, see WP:ALSO) and because the article on genetic counseling does not contain anything related to behavior genetics (as it should, because at the current state of our knowledge, offering genetic counseling for behavior-related issues is not really feasible). Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Diversity and Distributions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Samuel Sears
Dear Guillaume, can I ask you to weigh in at this AfD, specifically on the mention of the h-index? Also, I ran into Bodo Sandberg, now also at AfD--I'd appreciate your opinion there. Thanks, and happy new year, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Letters in Mathematical Physics
Dear Guillaume, At LMP, the "managing editor" is de facto de "editor-in-chief". The meaning of "managing editor" varies from journal to journal, and your definition does not correspond to LMP. Best regards, Giuseppe Dito

PS By the way, who created the LMP's page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.157.10.1 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Guiseppe, the Springer homepage of the journal only lists the "editors", not including the "managing editor", who only appears after the editors on the editorial board listing. If LMP does things differently, they should change their website: if I were an author, I would interpret that site as the managing editor being the person who handles day to day business, but the "editors" as the people who make the decisions. As for who created the article, according to the page history that was User:G2kdoe. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Global Health - Ekorakakis
Hi Guillaume. Thank you for your comments on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekorakakis (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope that this does not discourage you to continue to contribute to WP. I know that in the beginning, things may appear daunting, but the community is nicer than it seems at first sight. I will place an extended "welcome template" on your talk page, which includes links to the most important guidelines and policies. You should read some of it, but you certainly don't need all to be able to contribute here. If you need help, you are always welcome to post a query here (I don't know everything, but generally know to find the people that can solve a specific problem). As an aside, for a first article your contribution was not bad at all :-) And as a new editor here, it is completely understandable that you are not (yet) aware of WP's inclusion criteria. Anyway, as we say here: Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Guillaume. I have added a comment in the talk page of the Journal of Global Health. Since the newly proposed article is about the "The Journal of Global Health" based in New York I believe that it should be renamed to reflect that and not to be confused with the "Journal of Global Health" which is based in the UK. What do you think? It would be easier if people didn't use the same names! :) --Ekorakakis (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed quite a coincidence that two universities simultaneously start a journal with the same title. In addition, both are student-edited, which is common for law journals, but highly exceptional for journals in the health sciences. In any case, neither journal is notable and I have proposed both for deletion, so the problem should be solved soon. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Poetry Life and Times
Dear Guillaume,

I am trying to improve the contents of page Poetry Life and Times, on an international literary magazine. Problem is, i added a paragraph containing only the names of the published poets, and today the whole paragraph has been erased. Is this due to prevention against publicity? Yet a couple of these names belong to poets who also have their own page on Wikipedia, and anyway how to add this kind of contents without infringing any rule?

Thank you very much.

--Anarchyrises (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Inserting such lists is discouraged (see WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:JWG) and does not contribute to show that a publication is notable either (see WP:NOTINHERITED). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Taddle Creek (magazine)
I agree that Taddle Creek is a mess. Thanks for the vigorous prune. There's a couple sources on the talk page, but probably only the first two are useful. I've started to hit the newspaper databases for more sources but I probably won't get very far until tomorrow. Cloveapple (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'm curious to see what you come up with. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty rough but at least it has more references now (and I'm in the process of running down two more). Any suggestions are welcome. Cloveapple (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia cabal join request
We are proud to tell you that you match the criteria to become a member of the Uncyclopedia cabal please contact our page with you answer Deezy.D. (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

e-International Relations
+ thanks for all your work on the e-International Relations listing. I am a very dedicated reader of the site and I think your work has really strengthened the entry for it. Iro008 (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. However, while doing this, I became more convinced than ever that this magazine is currently not notable and I'll take it back to AfD in a month or so. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir for your comments
Dear Sir, It was my first effort to creat article for Wikipedia. I am glad to recieve your comments for the improvements. Sir. I made this article 'Vineet Soni' as he is voluntarily working to conserve the threatened plant species and running 'Save Gugul Movement'. His work got wide appriciation because he is working at grassroot level for conservation. Soni serves as an inspiration to the youth because evenafter completing the doctorate and post doctorate, he is working at the surface level to protect the plant species. UNESCO france published a special interview in different language in A World of Scinece. I did my best to remove the unreferenced contents from the article. I kindly request you to edit the article and prevent it from the deletion. If you still think that its not good, then remove it sir. With regards(NehaIndia (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Hi NehaIndia, creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do here, so you made your start not easy... I hope that you will not be discouraged by the fact that I proposed this article for deletion. From the looks of it, Soni is certainly a worthy person with lofty goals ans as someone with a keen interest in botany, I certainly sympathize with his conservationist aims. However, for an article to be "notable" in the WP sense, this is immaterial. Whether something or somebody is good or bad does not matter. What matters is whether there are independent, reliable sources about the subject of an article. The article on Soni has a few references, but they are just to a few newletters. At this point, I don't think this meets our guidelines (see WP:GNG and WP:BIO). As a scientist, he's too junior to meet WP:PROF, but who knows what the future will bring... I would recommend that to get used to WP and its rules, you first start editing and trying to improve already existing articles on subjects that you are perhaps familiar with. Once you have a good feel for how things work here, it should be easier to contribute new articles. Don't hesitate to post a query here if you have any problems, I don't know everything, but I may be able to find the people that can help you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your comments for improvement of the article on Vineet Soni. It was my first article and feeling good to recieve the comments. Sir, in this article, I included 4 authentic references ( 3 from IUCN and 1 from UNESCO). Both (IUCN and UNESCO) are world renowned organizations. SOni works at ground level for plant conservation. He is a source of inspiration for yourh because this type of initiative is highly required in developing countries like India, which are facing the threat of biodiversity loss. Now I have also added two lines with references. Soni`s conservation work in running in entire Rajasthan state( the largest state of India). Please suggest more to improve the article and please remove the tag 'Article for Deletion'. With warm regards(NehaIndia (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry, but once an article is at AFD, the discussion takes place there and will last for 7 days, during which you have time to improve the article. It is out of my hands now and whether the article is deleted or kept will depend on the outcome of the community debate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Capuchin Annual
I'm not really happy with this being called a "magazine". It was quite a bulky annual publication, illustrated with good-quality photos and graphics. I'd prefer to refer to it as a "publication" or "annual", but at the time could not find adequate categories, so accepted "magazine" until I could come across something better, but of course I never got back to it. Any ideas? Hohenloh + 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. And unless you want to argue that it was a book series, I think "magazine" is quite appropriate (and there's nothing pejorative in that classification, as far as I can see). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

First article
Hi Guillaume. I spent some time reading on how Wikipedia works and I have created a new article as a subpage here: User:Ekorakakis/Sirikari. I have discussed my various concerns in the talk page here: User_talk:Ekorakakis/Sirikari. Could you please review this and let me know what you think? Do you think I could make some edits and add it in Wikipedia? e-korax (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made a few minor (mainly layout) changes. Looks good to me and I think you can move it into mainspace without any problem (use the "move" function on top of the page). As far as I know, any village is considered to be notable, even if it is small. I'm not very familiar with articles on geographical locations (I'm not sure about the appropriateness of the inclusion of the external link, for example), but I don't think there are any major issues that could cause problems. Nice addition! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits - it looks a lot nicer. I just moved it to the mainspace. e-korax (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Venue advice
Hi Guillaume2303, FYI, the comment that you added to the RfC should probably be removed. That RfC is from 2007, and is no longer active. However, if you have concerns about incivility, there is a Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence page that is active right now, where such comments might be more useful. See especially Risker's section. --Elonka 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sjeez! I looked at the dates... but not the year... So it looked quite recent! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sjeez again: I just had a better look, and I just don't see how I could ever have had the impression that this was current... I need a break, I think... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DID Article
Hello Sir. I read your page and you appear brilliant and wise. Your last comment to the DID talk page, however, I do question. The problem, as I see it is that no matter what the editors on that page do,(other than Dreamguy) WLU is going to argue all points he does not want on the DID article and not just argue it - but refuse for any content to be added he does not approve of and of course demand he keep any material he does want included on the DID page - no matter what the rest of the editors agree on. Contrary to what WLU says, but has demonstrated, he does not really care much about appropriate references unless they support his view which seems to be that of False Memory proponents. Your proposal, how I see it after dealing with WLU, will only result in helping WLU to get his way. I understand how he is using the system and I am sure you do as well, but is there not a better solution than having to run each edit through the talk page for his approval or not. This will only work for his benefit. This method still gives him all the power on the page, which is ultimately his goal of course in addition to running off those who do not support the false memory claims as they relate to DID. It is also not the way that WP suggest for working with new editors. Thank you for listening. I am sure you have heard this sort of thing so many times on WP, but this is really an important subject to me and to a lot of people in the world that cannot stand up to those like WLU. All this said, I do hope you come to the page more often and help resolve this matter. ~ty (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are mechanisms to handle things if WLU is indeed acting as you say. But at this point, all people are going to see on the talk page is flying accusations. If you try to do things one at a time, it will become clear very rapidly to anybody not directly involved who is being reasonable and who is not. At this point, you would ask uninvolved editors to wade through a couple hundred thousand of bytes of text, which few people are going to do. I hope people on the DID talk page will accept my proposal and try it out. The best solution would be if everybody could cool down and start collaborating assuming good faith. If that is not possible, the next step will be conflict resolution through mediation or something like that, and for that it will be handy to have clear evidence either way. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of us expect this behavior from the False Memory types. I will consider your proposal and of course come to an agreement with the other editors on the page, but I think given WLU's intense desire (shown by past actions) to run off anyone that does not agree with his ideas, this will be another exercise in frustration. Nothing will sway the thinking of someone with this mindset, imho. Thank you for your reply. Have a wonderful weekend! :) ~ty (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How to report abusive user?
Hi, you added some hello thing to my page. Thanks for that, it is really helpful.

Anyways, being new here, I came across a user who is very abuse, is there a formal way to report abusive users or how do you go about dealing with it? Juice Leskinen (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first step is to try to reason with the other editor. If that doesn't work, there are all kinds of mechanisms for conflict resolution, such as a request for comment or a request for a third opinion. If what you are talking about is not a content dispute but an editor who violates WP:CIVIL or such, you can report it to one of the administrator noticeboards. In the latter case, make sure your complaint is justified, because otherwise you might find yourself into trouble... Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Navarasa by lotus
Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Navarasa by lotus to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. It's created by the author of the collection and rather promotional in tone, even if no link is provided. But a PROD is fine for me, too. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was marginal - undoubtedly promotional intent, but that's not the same as promotional language. It's gone, anyway, because the author sent me a link to prove it had bbeen published, which showed the article was a copyvio! JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was the exclamation marks that made me go over to the "promotional side", but in fact the language was not that much promotional. Anyway, it's gone now. Thanks for keeping me posted! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Calicut Medical Journal
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Calicut Medical Journal, as it was discussed at AfD in 2009 and per policy is permanently ineligible for proposed deletion. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to nominate it at AfD, but I recommend looking over the arguments made in the previous deletion discussion (linked on the talk page) before doing so. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops... Should have checked for that. I think I'll go to AfD again, our ideas about notability for journals have evolved a bit since 2009. Thanks for catching this! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Had second thoughts and (re-)added the sources found during the first AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brothers Hildebrandt related artist deletion
Guillaume2303, The listing of illustrators/artists that you deleted in the Hildebrant article are directly related. These artists are all notable for their movie poster art - Such as Tom Jung.

Perhaps the best way to look at this is if a reader is at the Hildebrandt article how can they easily expand their search out to related artists? For example Tom Jung and the Brothers Hildebrandt both worked on the iconic Star Wars style A movie poster - The Brothers Hildebrandt in fact were given Tom Jung's original artwork and were told to give it more of a comic book feel per George Lucas's suggestion/request/demand - Lawsuits ensued.

I would consider the linked listing of directly related artists to be a typical encyclopedia entry that enhances the readers knowledge. In fact there are numerous other examples of related artists listed in Wikipedia articles - I always try to determine standards before I add data.

Could you please undelete? Thank you. Jobrjobr (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I came to that article via this discussion, where editors expressed some concern about your addition of this kind of lists to articles. I agree with what is said there: you are trying to use the "see also" section as a list article or a category, which both do the job much better. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This user also added the same section to a number of other articles, not just Brothers Hildebrandt. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So log in and fix it! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hold on here Guillaume2303 - I read the brief discussion you noted - I do understand the use of categories.

These artists were the most notable illustrators/movie poster artists of their time - They were the "go to" people by the film industry. I have this first person by numerous sources. It is not clear to me that a category for them would be helpful but to create controversy as to who should be in the category - Similar to a category for the greatest sports teams in history - "Notable Move Poster Artists" as a category?

As editors come in and look at articles they can add or delete and discuss the merits of each artist as they relate. My contribution was to allow readers/researchers to make easy cross references to other notable illustrators/movie poster artists.

Comments? Jobrjobr (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a list-type article would be the better choice, with clearly defined inclusion criteria specified in the lead. However, you'll need reliable sources for this. If with "first person" above you mean that someone said this to you (whoever that someone may be), then that would not be an acceptable source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Guillaume2303 - I took some time to think through whether a list article would work for these notable movie poster artists - Unfortunately it would be difficult to define the list and reliable sources as to whether a movie poster artist is notable or not would be problematic at best.

If you have any further suggestions it would be appreciated. The goal is to inform the reader of related artists that made significant contributions to the film industry with their movie poster art. Jobrjobr (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
Thanks for the cleanup at the Academic journal article. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Eurozine
Good morning Guillaume2303 On 15 January 2012 you reverted an addition of mine in Eurozine (non-encyclopedic laundry list, see als WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

The "problem" is: 1) that this list was used to appear for quite some time 2)other wiki pages, such as Intellectum appear as orphans.

That was the reason why I made the addition. Since you seem a much more experienced wikipedia contributor than myself, any ideas would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnostosgnostos (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good morning to you, too. That the list was there for some time does not mean that it is appropriate, only that nobody got around to cleaning the aticle... And the fact that another article is now an orphan does not justify including this list, either. Perhaps Intellectum can be cited in another wikiarticle (or perhaps Intellectum is just not notable...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, both points you make seem valid! However, because Eurozine is a network of European journals, I think it is unfair only a handful of them to be mentioned in the article....to present an analogy, if the article concerned a Royal Family it would not be right to mention only some members of the family; one should mention all of them (or none, but it would be odd indeed).--Agnostosgnostos 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Science Diplomats Club
Hi Guillaume2303, [I don't know how to link to your changes, but you will find out]

Indeed I am the present secretary of the Science Diplomats Club (SDC) of Washington. But most of the material was brought to me by other members of the SDC, from their own archives (mostly old emails). The SDC has been around in Washington since 1965, and it has always been in strong -though informal- connection with the Department of State, OSTP, and most agencies (National Science Foundation, NIH, etc.). The problem is that "we" (SDC) don't publish in reviews, and "we" don't give interviews in newspapers. But the SDC "Science Breakfast" longevity speaks by itself: almost all agencies are eager to speak in front of the SDC because they have a high ranked international scientific audience AT ONCE, and they like that. This is the strength of the SDC. I am disappointed that, because of deletion of that list, the evidences of the important role of the SDC has gone too. I am afraid that the next step in cleaning would be: hey! why not to delete the article itself?

I would love to have more people not linked to the SDC editing the article (most of the contributions, I received them in my email from old members). By the way, you did edit the article, and I am grateful for your interest and -certainly- your will for improving the information that it delivers. You spent an extensive time to delete almost 2/3 of what "we" wrote. Are you sure that you are preserving Wikipedia "quality standards"?

I do agree with some, and I do understand that Wikipedia intent is not to warehouse primary sources (though I personally think that it could help under this "patrimonial" aspect). Your general action was very rude, and you spent about 3 hours deleting information that I really trust in, because I do trust the archives proving it (mostly paper archives at the Dutch Embassy, and I am not related to that Embassy).

I won't try to undo any of your undoings, but I want to understand the fundamental reasons, which should be more powerful than mine. This is quite discouraging to try contributing -fully honestly, believe me- to the encyclopedia. [I would rather continue by personal email, if you don't mind] - Robert Jeansoulin (Jeansoulin (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)).
 * Sorry, after some unpleasant experiences, I don't correspond about WP by email any more (and these discussions should be in the open, not offline anyway). I am sorry, but not too surprised, that you didn't like my edits and I indeed considered proposing the article for deletion. Please understand that this is nothing personal and nothing against this club (I think the amount of time and effort that I put into this shows that clearly). WP is an encyclopedia and as such, topics are included because they are notable, not because they are "good", "bad", "worthy", etc. To show notability, one needs reliable sources. This cannot be personal communications (such as phone calls or emails), but have to be written sources (either printed or online or both) that are independent of the subject. Regarding the breakfasts, I don(t doubt that the government officials listed participated in these events, but if there are no sources about these sessions, WP cannot write about it. In addition, just providing a list goes against the spirit of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. I hope this explains my edits. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[Ok no email, anybody can Google me]. In deleting the science breakfast list, you deleted the few (web) sources that were mentioning them: NSF, NIEHS, OSTP, SfN (aren't you member of SfN?). You barred the SDC from being a scientific association, and you removed the link to Science diplomacy, though SDC is probably the largest most international association in this field. Also, you removed "field trips" e.g. Research Triangle Park, NC, that was reported in the local press; and older meetings with people such as John Marburger; ... making the SDC even less "notable".

Is your (almost?) final and consistent conclusion a deletion? Rude. Wikipedia is also based on consensus. Other readers accepted the publication. Who is right, who is wrong?

Anyway, allow me some time to save the version with the lists, for the Dutch Embassy people who did most of the archival research. (Jeansoulin (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).
 * The "breakfast sources" that were deleted were just lists of contributions/talks by people from those institutes/institutions. They did not provide any meaningful info except the bare fact that these people had given a presentation at these breakfasts. A scientific association/society is quite something different than this self-described "social club". The field trips were removed (listing every trivial activity is decidedly unencyclopedic), but the references were kept (in fact, it was exactly those references that made me decide against proposing this article for deletion. I'm sorry that you think I have been rude, you can report me if you like at the appropriate noticeboard, but I really don't see any place where I could conceivably be interpreted as having been rude. The fact that I edited "your" article was to be expected, Wikipedia makes it very clear to all contributors that other people can and will edit their contributions. Concerning your request to save the version with the lists, all previous versions of the article are and remain available through the article history (accessible through one of the tabs on top of the page). Finally, the "other people" that you refer to are the person who reviewed this at "articles for creation", I guess. The people there are chronically overburdened. They will deal with major problems (copyvio, lack of notability), but rarely with less important content matters like this. Hope this explains and will help you navigate Wikipedia. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for tidying the journal officially cited as: Rev Econ Household. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC))
 * My pleasure. The ISO abbreviation was taken from the National Library of Medicine: here. I've no time at this moment to look up the ISO rules and check whether this is perhaps erroneous, but as far as I recall, a word with multiple syllables such as "Household" should somehow be abbreviated. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the nice NLM source. To indulge in nit-picking etc I see there it says the abrev of "Review of Economics of the Household" is "Rev Econ Househ" while we use "Rev. Econ. Househ." with periods, and on the journal's website it says it is officially cited as "Rev Econ Household". Every little thing is always so intricate! Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Some journals (and this is apparently one of them) recommend non-standard abbreviations (some just recommend the acronym). Nevertheless, most other publications will use the ISO ones. Although NLM often doesn't include the periods, the ISO style includes them. Personally, I feel that the periods are indispensable, as some abbreviations might be seen as the wole word if there's no period indicating that it is actually an abbreviation (I recently saw an example of that, but for the life of me can't remember what it was...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)