User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 12

Speedy deletion declined: Frontiers (Academic Publishing)
Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Frontiers (Academic Publishing), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No indication that author has requested deletion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Centre d’Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MAFB (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) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Thomas Alexander, A barnstar for you!
I apologise for deleting the notification earlier, I do not know the proper protocol. Accordingly, I added the website where the dissertation is available. The manuscript is derived from the dissertation. Hopefully this falls under the scope of "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

Environment and Urbanization
I do not understand why you edited down the page on Environment and Urbanization, including removing the section on the Contents and the list of contributors that have wiki pages Rhino209 (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Some explanations are in the edit summaries (see article history). For others, have a look at our writing guide for journal articles. If you have any questions left after that, let me know and I'll explain some more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For editing the page of JAIM. If I am not wrong, I had seen this article before, but I guess it was deleted. Anyways, thanks again! :) Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was deleted for lack of notability. It is now apparently included in Scopus, which meets WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

RS Butola
You tagged RS Butola for speedy deletion as non-notable. Butola is the chairman of Indian Oil Corporation, the largest corporation in India. How is that not notable? Admittedly, the article is a mess, but notability is not among its problems. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you can read that as a claim to notability (I didn't). If you want to deal with the mess in a different way, be my guest :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And if I may be pedantic: converting it into a redirect is not that much different from CSD... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship
I was wondering if you'd allow me to nominate you for adminship? When replying, leave on my talk page. Thanks. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your trust and confidence in me! However, becoming an admin is not something I aspire to at this point. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, remember, I'm always around if you want to be nominated! ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate all the tips. Have I violated any Wikipedia conventions yet? Vandemark (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see yet, but careful, Guillaume is a strict old Calvinist. Welcome to WP, BTW, and TY for your edits. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like that is called projection. Drmies is perhaps a Calvinist, but I was raised a Catholic! (And I am not old, I'm an elderly youth!) However, I admit that one of my German friends habitually calls me a "tüpflescheisser" (don't ask...), so while I have not seen any breeches of WP policy yet, I noticed that you placed a warning about removing speedy deletion templates on an article talk page. Although the warning was (more than) justified, it should be placed on the user's talk page. So Drmies is right that I can find fault anywhere :-D (Don't worry about it, I've already warned the user, judging from his behavior, he'll be blocked within the hour). Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, did I hear you call yourself an "oudere jongere"?? Haven't heard that in forever. (I am originally Catholic irreversibly deformed in a Calvinist high school.) Drmies (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. When you recently edited Trois couleurs magazine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinema (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) 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem
Sure, Guillaume. Actually I was asked to do one by the people who administer a page at IEEE, but it isn't a big issue for me. Someone else can do it if they really care. Am I allowed to just have a URL there to my personal home page? Right now the page is empty (I deleted the content I had put on it) Ken Birman (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not forbidden to create an autobiography, just strongly discouraged. The reason is that new editors often don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia arcania and also that it is very difficult to make one's own bio neutral. Your bio was not too bad (from an encyclopedic point of view) and as far as I can see you certainly fulfill the criteria of WP:PROF, so as far as I am concerned, you could leave the page that you created (its currently tagged for speedy deletion as "author blanked"). Put the URL to your own page in it and then I'll go over it to check compliance with WP policies and then there should not be a problem. In future, if there are edits you'd like to have made to the article, it's best to post a note on its talk page and let someone else do it. My note on your user page was more intended to warn you that you might get into trouble, there are many editors here that will attack perceived self-promotion relentlessly (I don't think this was self-promotion, but some people here seem to think that any autobio is self-promotion...). Hope you'll contribute also in your field of expertise when you have the chance. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to offend anyone, so perhaps I'll leave it blank. But if you have the time and would be open to looking at it, the deleted page is accessible and my URL is http://www.cs.cornell.edu/ken.  If you don't have time, no problem.  I'm not really trying to grandstand and in fact I think Wikipedia works best when it follows its policies.


 * In fact I've run into such issues myself -- if you look at the Talk:Paxos Protocol page, you'll see that someone anonymous has totally slammed me for putting in what I believe to be historically accurate, verifiable material about the origins of the Paxos protocol, drawn directly from a paper by a guy named Leslie Lamport (a published paper) who wrote the Paxos protocols. And the language is quite emotional too (the language of this anonymous person).  Reverse IP lookup reveals it to be someone at my University -- probably an angry student.  So I totally understand where Wikipedia is coming from; you don't want the thing to become a massive mud-slinging match.


 * I mention the Paxos thing because I wrote quite a bit of the original Paxos page as a favor for Leslie; that actually is my area of expertise. So that's what it got me... a face full of rather nasty smelling mud! Ken Birman (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you mean... there's a bio of me on WP, too, and every time someone finds out who I am (I used to edit under my real name, then did a rename, so it is actually not that difficult to figure out...) and is unhappy with something I did to "their" article, it gets vandalized. It still has some nasty comments on the talk page. fortunately, I've a pretty thick hide... I've asked the admin who deleted your bio to "userfy" it for me (i.e., to move it into my userspace). I'll make a short bio of it when I have a spare moment and then move it back into main space. Should be fine then. I'll keep it on my watchlist, so next time an unhappy student vandalizes it, that should get corrected pretty fast. (And, by the way, nobody will blast you for reverting vandalism, even if it is to your own bio). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Guillaume. So is there some flag I am suppose to put on the Paxos talk page to object to this guy getting nasty and personal?  Or does one just turn the other cheek?  For now I responded in a pretty academic way: I explained my reasoning and cited sources.  (Seems to have been ignored by the individual, but I bet he/she read what I wrote...).  But how do people in the main Wiki community respond to such things? Ken Birman (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

reply and help
Dear Guillaume, I received your editing message for the Nick Courtright article. I replied on the talk page, contesting the deletion. If possible, could you help me make it pass the standards if there is something I did incorrectly. I cannot think of a reason why this poet would not qualify as he is as valid as any of the poets who have published at least one book on this website. Additionally, he has more name recognition than many of the 3rd string athletes that have wikipedia pages. Thanks for your time. Vcczar (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded there, the article has to have reliable sources so that the information in it is verifiable. In addition, there should be independent sources, so that notability can be established. The relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR. As for all those jocks, I agree with you, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies to that (pardon my French :-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I will add more independent sources, such as interviews and award nominations, etc. I hope to have the new page up in less than a week. Vcczar (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Speedy deletion declined: Spider Rico
Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Spider Rico, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: kept at AFD so not speedy-eligible. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

remake of speedily deleted page and request of review
Hello. I was wondering if you had time to review the updated Nick Courtright page. I have worked hard to make it pass the guidelines this time, so as to not have it deleted again. I was wondering if you could peruse it. As suggested, it includes independent and verifiable sources and also establishes the poet's importance. Here is the link to my sandbox version for you to peruse: User:Vcczar/Nick Courtright Thank you! Vcczar (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and it certainly is no A7 any more. However, this is not really my field, so I cannot judge whether the book reviews that you added are enough to establish notability (they are if the sources are reliable sources, but I'm not familiar with them, so I don't know). You can either take the risk and move it into mainspace to see what happens or (better) ask somebody more knowledgeable in this are for their opinion (perhaps someone from the WikiProject Poetry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome message
Thank you, Guillaume, for your welcome message. It's important for a newcomer not to feel arriving in a virtual and impersonal world. — Papier K (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; as we say here: happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of pages I have added to Wikipedia
Hi there,

I have received a message from you about possible page deletion of pages I am setting up. I really don't see what the problem is with the page I have added to and would like an explanation about this. All the material I have added is objective and factual and I really am finding it frustrating now with this and the rules wiki are using are making it very difficult from people to put up pages that are factual and objective.

Thank

Ricky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky Toner (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, I proposed an article created by you for speedy deletion (and it was indeed deleted, but later re-created). I cannot see deleted content, but given that I gave "A7" as the reason and that the reviewing admin apparently agreed and deleted your article, it must have failed to have significant sources and to state clearly why this person is notable. When creating a new article, it is often better to first start in your own userspace (in a so-called sandbox - but don't use the general one, create one in your own userspace) and only move it out to mainspace once it is properly sourced and such. Being factual and objective is not enough, statements must be verifiable using reliable sources. The "welcome template" at the top of your talk page as well as the links in the foregoing contain useful reading that should make it easier for you to navigate the (sometimes choppy) waters of WP. Hope this helps and explains. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Vedat Akman
Dear Guillaume2303 - I am a bit concerned about our Afd for Vedat Akman. It seems clear there has been lots of COI type editing and contributions to the debate and article but what is your view of the coverage in the media that is listed here:. It is not clear to me that this is not substantial coverage in multiple independent sources, and just becuase they are pdfs on his site and I can't find them elsewhere doesn't mean they are not there. I also wanted to ask for a view about the journals. The University Library System - E-Journal Publishing, University of Pittsburgh seem to be offering a system where "anyone" can set up an e-journal and they will help. Does this seem to be undermining UoP as a reliable publisher? Any way I hope it is OK to ask here and just ignore this if you are just fed up with this one! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Yes, I share your concern. It's too bad that the SPAs are just shouting "he's a wonderful guy", without trying to understand our policies better, because they have a better knowledge of the sources and what they mean, than we have. My feeling is that the sources on Akman's own website are not admissible in and of themselves, but if we can find the same articles on their original websites, then they would be admissible. Problem left: to decide whether those are independent reliable sources... As for UoP's ULS, I think that it is reliable in the sense that it shows a journal exists. Given that anyone can start a journal, I don't think, though, that this confers any notability at all. This is different from a very respectable publisher or learned society starting a journal, where some people (DGG for example) argue that this makes a journal notable from the start. I don't agree with that, but admit that the reasoning is logical: those respectable publishers/societies will not start just any journal, but exert some selective control on what they will publish and what not. Pittsburgh does not seem to do that, so having a journal with them does not confer any notability at all. I'll put a link to the Akman AfD on the page of the WikiProject Turkey (if it isn't there already), hoping to get some input from people better aware of the situation in Turkey than us and Wiki-literate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Msrasnw (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

Teenage survival handbook
Thanks for proofreading and fixing Teenage survival handbook. More suggestions are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick helps (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Article of Ravindra Ghooi
Hi. Good Morning. I have given many references in the talk page of article. Should i remove the deletion tag on the article? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, a PROD tag can be removed by anyone wh thinks that an article should not be deleted. However, I must tell you that in my opinion, Dr. Ghooi is very far removed from meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG, so if the PROD tag would be removed, I would open a deletion discussion (where, of course, you could give your opinion on this matter). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont you think so that a person who has publications in Lancet is not notable? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if those publications have had some impact. Publishing is what academics do, so having publications, even in prestigious journals like the Lancet, is nothing out of the ordinary. In the present case, at least one of these "publications" is a simple letter to the editor, the other one is also aa very brief piece. Neither of them have garnered more than a smattering of citations. At deletion discussion, researchers in the life sciences are generally deemed notable when they have some articles cited more than 100 times each, or a total number of citations over 1000, and an h-index above 18. Of course, as stated in WP:PROF, persons that do not fulfil these requirements can still be notable if they meet WP:GNG, but I don't see any evidence for that here either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Morphine is not allowed for pain relief in India, for the fear of its misuse. Dr. Ghooi had filed a PIL to fight for this. I dont know what impact this thing had but i will try to find the work which has major impact. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page stalker at User_talk:MarkBurberry32
Hi Guillaume2303 - I just came on about 10 minutes ago, and found that you'd answered a post directed at me on my talk page, claiming you were a talk page stalker. Now I don't know why you're stalking my talk page, but I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't, and if you'd give me a chance to reply to posts myself. I have a keyboard and I'm not scared to use it! MarkBurberry32  talk  10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, don't want to harass you! A "talk page stalker" (rather tongue-in-cheek) is just somebody who butts in on a discussion on someone else's talk page. As you can see above, I have been discussing with Duke English myself, too, and when I got to the article on Psomiades, I noticed your involvement. My response to Duke English was, in fact, also directed to you: I don't think that the placement of a COI template was justified here, as the article was worded quite neutrally. The fact that I posted my remarks does not prevent you from adding your own and from the existence of a "tps" template you can infer that what I did is not something extraordinary at all, but actually quite common. Just as we don't own articles, we don't own our talk pages. Hope this explains. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is something "not extraordinary" doesn't mean it's welcomed. I would appreciate it if you would not stalk my talk page again, or reply to posts there, unless they're intended for you. Thank you.  MarkBurberry32   talk  10:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read the article linked in the tps template (and also WP:AGF), that might help. "Stalk" is used completely ironical. Participating in discussions on other users' talk pages is not against any rule, often helpful, nothing hostile, etc. I'll try to avoid your talk page, but I edit a lot here and cannot guarantee that I'll remember this discussion if I bump into your talk page again in a few months from now (that is, if you're still around by then, because if you keep getting so offended by simple things like this, you may be in for a difficult time here, I'm afraid...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention anyway - I will still be here, regardless of getting offended or not, but for the record, I've popped a little note at the top of my talk page now so that if any TPSers do arrive in the future, they will know what to do. Sorry, but I just see it as moderatly rude to post in a conversation on a talk page where nothing was directed to you.  I will also stay off your talk page now, since I don't wish to cross any respectable lines of what is civil and what isn't. Thank you again.  MarkBurberry32   talk  11:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are currently almost 100 people watching this page and several of them often chime in on discussions here. They are welcome to do this, as are you, because this does not cross any boundaries at all. If you want a talk page where only you can post, you should go to Facebook... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: TPS
Hi again Guillaume. I'd like to apologise for my conduct on here yesterday. I'm not usually that unpleasant, but clearly what I did and how I did it goes against the spirit of what a Wiki should be. I have taken the note off my talk page, feel free to say anything you like on there. I can't believe I've only been here three and a half days, and I'm already telling people not to talk to me. I should be asking for help, not refusing it. MarkBurberry32 &#124; talk 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, apologies accepted. Getting used to the WP environment is not an easy thing, I remember well my own start here. Having a skin like an elephant also helps! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. I think I'd look a little silly being grey from head to foot and covered in patches of mud! MarkBurberry32 &#124; talk  11:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. But then, you wouldn't be bothered by any pesky mosquitoes any more... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ALEC category
You have observed the problem I am having. I believe I'm doing it correctly on the articles side but have a problem with how to format the category side. If you understand this level of wikiformatting, your assistance is welcome. Trackinfo (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, what you are trying to do is not possible. What I would do is create two new categories as subcats under "ALEC members": "Current ALEC members" and "Former Alec members", with "ALEC members" as a "topcat" that should remain empty. Then do away with the sortkeys and I think you'd have the result that you want. Let me know if you need help with this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. When you recently edited Journal of Plantation Crops, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa (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) 10:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: your interest in Novel: A Forum on Fiction
Guillaume2303,

I am grateful that you have paid such close attention to a journal of literary criticism and theory, especially given that you appear to belong to the sciences. Your edits to this page, however, have been a source of some frustration to those of us interested in communicating information about Novel to undergraduate students of English and the general public.

To lay out the problems edit by edit:

1. Linking the word "essay" to the wikipedia page devoted to the general category of writing that gets called essays is a distraction and misleading. The kind of specialized writing exercise that is the critical article is not represented on wikipedia's "essay" page. The essay as that page depicts it is typical of a high-school or undergraduate paper, rather than a critical study that advances an argument that re-thinks cultural assumptions and situates itself within an ongoing critical conversation. The articles published in Novel, or in any peer-reviewed journal in the humanities, do not fit into the categories the wikipedia "essay" page sets up. I am not interested in correcting the deficiencies of that page -- although the section on the dialectic is so simplistic as to be false -- so I would ask that you do not continue to link these two pages together. They do not belong in any kind of association.

2. If you think that the "Abstracting and Indexing" section is at all edifying to non-experts, then by all means let's leave it in. Since you are affiliated with wikipedia's academic journal project no doubt you know better than I what the general public knows about academic journals. However, I should point out that scholars interested in writing for Novel do not and should not use the wikipedia page as a resource, and the information you include in this section seems useful only for such people. For someone interested in understanding in layman's terms what the journal focuses on and what standing it has in its field (which is how I conceptualize the average viewer of Novel's wikipedia page), the effect of this section is essentially to speak gobbledegook.

3. I had written, "The Modern Language Association reports that it is one of the most highly selective journals in the humanities and is circulated to over 1,700 subscribers and subscribing institutions." You removed this sentence in the name of removing "puffery not supported by the source." The statement I had written is not only common knowledge among scholars of the 18th- and 19th-century global novel, it is supported -- to the letter -- by the MLA directory of periodicals, which I cite as a reference. It is also information that is very helpful for students beginning research to know which journals publish the most sought-after articles. I am very confused as to your evident prohibition of this information. If you would, please either let me know your objection or assure me that my time in restoring the information to the page will not be wasted by another bout of your edits.

4. You put Novel in the category "literary magazines." That is a mis-categorization, although a very common misunderstanding of what academic English is about. (It is therefore all the more important not to propagate that misunderstanding here.) A literary magazine is either a periodical that publishes literature, or a journal where authors, poets and newspaper reviewers discuss the aesthetic dimensions and commercial success of recent literature. Literary criticism and theory is another creature altogether. Novel and other journals in the English discipline use literature to game out the problems that plague philosophy, science, gender theory, history, ethics, law, etc. Novel is particularly interested these days in how fiction can be said to work on historically specific problems, like 19th-century theories of polygenesis, that scientific discourses were also anxious about. One of the goals is to challenge entrenched assumptions about what texts count as literature and how literature creates the categories that appear to us as natural and sacrosanct (such as "human" and "animal," or "self" and "other"). Associating Novel with the label "literary magazine" would mislead your reader and would reproduce the wildly false assumption that academic English is about writing literature -- that would be like saying a sports car calendar and a users manual for a car are really not so different!

With best wishes,

Duke English (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your post. My responses are numbered in the same way as yours.
 * 1/ Wikipedia is a work in progress. The fact that our article on "essay" is not very good is not a reason not to link to it (that's a lot of negatives there... :-) Suppose we follow your suggestion and wait with linking "essay" until the article is good enough. There are currently several thousand articles linking to "essay". As a first step, we should check all those where the link should be removed until the essay article gets good enough. Then, once that has happened, we'd have to go back and put those links all back again. I hope you can see how impractical that would be. It's too bad that you are not inclined to improve this article yourself, as you seem to be well-placed to do so.
 * 2/ For the inclusion of this section (which is present on thousands of articles on academic journals in WP), please see our guide for writing journal articles.
 * 3/ Actually, all that the MLA reference confirms is the circulation figure, not the claim that this is "one of the most highly selective journals in the humanities". The MLA info is provided by the publisher and therefore not independent information. For claims on circulation figures and such, you need an independent source. The fact that this is "common knowledge among scholars of the 18th- and 19th-century global novel" is not enough, as I am sure you can appreciate that a serious encyclopedia can only include such statements if there are independent reliable sources for it (i.e., somebody's blog would not be enough, either).
 * 4/ WP is not the place "to challenge entrenched assumptions". You can find our categories for academic journals at Category:Academic journals by subject area and are welcome to suggest a better one. We originally had a category "Literary journals", but it proved very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between periodicals publishing fiction, those publishing literary criticism, and those publishing both fiction and criticism. After a formal discussion, the two categories were merged, but perhaps it is time to revisit this and, as suggested in that discussion, create a category "literature studies journals" (or "literary criticism journals").
 * One final remark: your username suggests that you are editing on behalf of the English Dept. at Duke. If that is correct, please read WP:COI.
 * I hope this explains the edits I made. Thank you for your contributions to WP. As people here say: Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your replies and for removing the COI tag on Psomiades' page, Guillaume2303.

I think your comments raise a point that I hope I successfully made to MarkBurberry32, namely that verification works somewhat differently in humanities academia from fora on celebrities, world events, or figures in the public eye. Much (nearly all!) of the scholarship in the field is never summarized or commented on except in book reviews (which are on the whole a more mediated, less reliable, and often severely reductionist version of an academic argument). If information about this discipline is to be made available on wikipedia, then the publications must count as their own evidence. The publications, after all, are peer-reviewed and summarize themselves in their opening paragraphs: skepticism about primary sources seems misplaced and would be better directed at something like a political campaign, in which a candidate has a vested interest in misrepresenting himself or herself. An academic publication has no incentive to misrepresent itself since that would only make it confusing, internally incoherent and therefore less successful in its field.


 * Unfortunately, you and I don't determine policy here. Publishing is what academics do, hence having published does not establish notability for an academic, whether in the life sciences or the humanities. It is indeed unfortunate that any football player who has been on the field in a major match for half an hour will have more coverage in newspapers and magazines than a serious scholar who has labored a lifetime. That is why we have WP:PROF, to make it easier to show notability for academics, by using things like citation rates (and the nowadays omnipresent h-index) as a proxy. The humanities are indeed problematic, because citation rates there are very low. Book reviews are fine, though, because they may make an academic in the humanities meet WP:AUTHOR. That articles have been peer-reviewed is good, but certainly not enough. There are nowadays a lot of trashy online journals that for a couple of bucks will publish anything (and still claim to be peer reviewed). And besides that, it's a fact of life that even in the life sciences, many articles are never heard of again, not even being cited by their own authors... Publications, therefore, only contribute to the notability of an academic if they have been noted (by citations or book reviews). Primary sources are admissible as sources for some things, but they won't be useful to show notability.

As to the notability of publications -- you raise a good point that is actually one hiring committees have to think about too -- the publishing house, the frequency with which experts in the field come across citations of the work, and the number of book reviews published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals offer a clear, if mosaic, picture of a scholar's notability. I will add the GoogleScholar citation count for Psomiades' book and articles (they are well-cited) and will also list the journals in which her book and essay collection have been reviewed. I had refrained from doing so at first because it appeared too congratulatory of Psomiades, but if you think that is called for, then I will make the changes.


 * At this point, I would not do this. The citation rates are only modest (one book cited 96 times is pretty good, I don't know whether that would help survive an AfD).

In regard to the MLA source on the Novel page: again, if information provided by the journal is not sufficient, then we will never be able to provide information about the journal! I mean to say, who else would possibly report on how many manuscripts are published out of manuscripts received, or how many subscription requests they receive, if not the journal itself? MLA does in fact report that for each edition of the journal there area approximately 340 manuscripts for 12 spots. If one compares this figure to MLA figures for other journals in the humanities -- including the very biggest names in the field like Critical Inquiry -- then it is evident that Novel is very highly selective indeed.


 * Unfortunately, what you describe here is original research (i.e., you go out and collect the information and come to a conclusion). That is not admissible here. Hey, and I started a new journal yesterday that received today 500 manuscripts and we're only going to publish 2, so that's notable, too, right? OK, I know, that's a silly example, but I mean, it would not be the first time that a journal or publisher would exaggerate for marketing purposes. Anybody can make claims, they need to be confirmed independently before you can include them in an article here.

The wikipedia article on essays is absolutely fine for many contexts in my humble opinion; indeed, I think it accurately reflects the general public's experience with writing papers for high school or university. But, there are uses of the word "essay" that don't have anything to do with that page, and I think the specialized writing of an academic article is one of them. That said, after thinking it over, it occurs to me that if the essay page were linked to Novel's page, then perhaps people familiar with academic journals would take it upon themselves to improve the "essay" page. So, if it is common WP practice to link two pages such as these, I can at least see some logical basis for it on reflection.


 * It would be great if you could add a section to that article on the kind of essays that you are talking about. If it is very different, a separate article could be split-off (say: "Essay (literary criticism)"). However, that would again depend on the availability of sources...

And, finally, just to clarify, challenging "entrenched assumptions" is not the goal of Novel's wikipedia page, but rather of the journal itself. My point in saying that was to point out that a literary magazine is one of the institutions that contributes to our definition of 'what is literature?' while Novel positions itself outside that system of production and, ideally, takes a skeptical look at the rules by which some texts get labeled graffiti, marginalia or "low culture" and others get labeled "high culture" or art.


 * Ah, I see.

Again, we do appreciate your guidance on these points. I await your confirmation that 1) academic publications count as their own evidence; 2) the MLA statistics will have to do and bear out the suggestion that Novel is highly selective and widely circulated; and 3) that we need not call Novel a literary magazine.


 * Perhaps you can have a look at the journals/magazines that currently are in the Category:Literary magazines and see whether it would be easy to split off peer-reviewed academic journals from those publishing fiction. If that is the case, we could make a new category for the academic journals. What do you suggest as name for that cat (have a look at the existing names to see how the naming goes).

Best wishes,

Duke English (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, this time, I have put my responses in between your comments, preceded by a bullet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ADC article, Conflict of Interest
I understand the rules on conflicts of interest and made sure i had referenced the information about the editor correctly from a reliable source because of this, my reference may have been wrong however as i realise i am quite new to this.

Also regarding the unviability of an article about the editor, i understand the previous editor Howard Bauchner has a wikipedia page of his own containg only the fact that he was editor, this information is now outdated, but still exists.

I know anecdotally that ADC and R.M Beattie, who happens to be my father which obviously brings up a very large conflict of interest, are commonly googled things and information on this site should be true and give proper recognition.

It has been 8 months since the editor changed and i changed the information personally as i didnt know how to ask a third, unbiased, party to change it. The information i provided was still neutral.

Thanks for your advice it is very much appreciated and I understand that conflicts of interest are an important thing to be monitored. Kind regards Tom Beattie Thomas Beattie (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC) As a further question. i don't quite understand the process of adding pictures to wikipedia, it says type the file name, is this the file name on my computer or on the webpage i found the picture on? Thanks Thomas Beattie (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the template I put on your talk page was only a notice about our COI policies, not a warning that you had done anything wrong. Keeping articles up-to-date is a continuing headache and making neutral changes to an article is not a problem, even if you have a COI. (In general, COI does not prohibit you from editing, it only means you have to be very careful as we are prone to subconsciously be less objective with subjects that we are attached to). I updated the Bauchner article, which is indeed the barest of stubs and could use some work. As for your remark about "unviability", probably you misunderstood me. One of the criteria for "notability" in the appropriate guideline ("WP:PROF") is being editor-in-chief of a major journal, so your father definitely qualifies for a biography here. I just changed the way you had phrased the link, because that is not the way we create titles here (see WP:MOSTITLE). At this point, there is not an article on anybody with the same name, so there is no need to put anything else in the title than his name. And even if other people with the same name would have articles, we would distinguish them by adding an occupation between parentheses ("(pediatrician)" or "(scientist)"), not adding an academic title before their names or putting a job title ("Professor of XXXX") after their names. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-read what i wrote and realised the that it had a tone of annoyance. i wrote it really quick and did not mean this. thanks for your help it was very useful and i will keep to the COI rules in my future editing.
 * You upload it from your own computer, so this should be the file name on your hard drive. When using an image downloaded from a website, make sure that there are no copyright problems, otherwise the image will be deleted. If it is a journal cover, see File:G2Bcover.jpg for an example on how to handle the licensing. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Article on GDACS
Hi Guillaume,

I saw your comments on the GDACS page I just modified and I'm surprised to find that all my edits have been deleted. I have indeed an interest in GDACS and wanted to correct the wrong information in the current article. The edits I made were very neutral. In any case much more neutral than the original text. If the owners of a system are not allowed to make edits, should we then allow the article to remain incomplete and incorrect? This seems very odd to me.

Could you please have a look at the edits I made and see for yourself if they were biased? If not, can you please republish them?

Thanks,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degroeve (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Tom, your edits were deleted for not being neutral: they were simply copied from the GDACS website. This is a big no-no here a it is a violation of copyright (and even in the cases where such texts are published under a CC license, they are generally written in a promotional way). Having a COI doe not forbid you to maje errors, however, it is often very difficult then to do so in a neutral tone. If information in the current article is incorrect, then post a comment on its talk page (including, if you like, suggested text) and somebody else will review it and make the desired changes. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Degroeve (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Guillaume, I kind of understand, but still... I checked the box related to the copyright, so as an author I have the right to put a text that I know if copyright free, right? Even if it is the same as a text on another site. But if I can't change and add the text, can I then please ask you to delete the article all together? The fact is that GDACS is a collaboration between many partners. As the text is written now, it seems like it is created by me only. This is absolutly false and an offence to all the other people contributing. I feel really bad about this.
 * Copyright-free text can be copied if the website explicitly mentions that there is no copyright. Even then, this usually does not result in an encyclopedic article. In any case, I have made a few small edits and removed the suggestion that you started this single-handedly :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Green Capital Award 2012
Why have you delete it? I think that is something appart from the general award and it just for the 2012 year's winner. I don't think that it has anything to do with the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OI-10-x.aia (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, it took me a while to figure out what this is about... There's an article on the European Green Capital Award (not very good, I admit) and given that the notability of the whole award is doubtful to say the least, I don't think it is justified to create separate articles for every single year the award is run. In addition, the GCA2012 article was written as a newspaper article (see WP:NOTNEWS) and also highly promotional (see WP:NPOV). Together, the best solution for the moment seems to be to redirect it to the main article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal notability
I tend to feel that all publications with editorial boards are notable, but what I wanted to do was provide a place for journals which did not have articles without creating a list-article or adding them to the text of the category. I was erring on the side of "marginally notable" for those things which do not yet have articles here .. a poor choice, perhaps, but the intent was good, that being to provide a linking target for citations which arise from the journals. Yes, I could have created stubs myself; but I, like everyone else here, have a limited time for editing and I felt that the addition of content around the topic I was contributing to at the time trumped addition of related content. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all my apologies for not responding earlier. In fact, after undoing some of your edits, I wanted to talk to you about this first, but I was on a business trip the last few days and the hotel was charging my Internet access by the hour, so I limited myself to the most urgent things. Being back home now, I finally found some time to respond. I have several problems with what you write above. 1/ Definitely not all journals with an editorial board are notable. Nowadays there exist a good deal of so-called "predatory" journals that try to make a quick buck riding on the back of the open access movement (some of those journals may be notable because of that, but most just pop up and then disappear again after a while without letting much traces). Even before we had this phenomenon, there would be journals that started, published one or two issues, and then disappeared again. 2/ Calling a journal "marginally notable" does not sound very friendly to me and suggests that it is perhaps not of good quality. In addition, if this concerns a journal with a sizeable impact factor, then it is absolutely incorrect. 3/ The edits you made to the publisher's article cannot have cost you much less time than it would have cost to create an acceptable stub. 4/ I sometimes don't like redlinks (in lists, for example), but what you were doing just hides the fact that we need articles for these journals. Finally, a very minor point: some articles on publishers have a "see also" section with a link to the category listing their journals. I appreciate your argument that lists and categories are different things. That is how, ideally, things should be. Unfortunately, almost all lists in the academic journals project are nothing else than bare lists of links to journals and are indistinguishable from categories. But, more to the point, I think that for most of our readers (as opposed to WP editors), the distinction between a list and a category is (even less) clear. Directing them to a "category academic journal published by XYZ" may be confusing them, directing them to a "list" is clearer, even if technically speaking it is a category. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Animal behaviour
sorry for deleting animal behaviour post new to wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.89.33 (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted, starting always is hard. If you want to try things out though, better not to do it in "real" articles, but to use the sandbox instead. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

SCAPE project - why not accepted?
Hi, I have tried and a colleague has tried to post an article about an EU project - SCAPE (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project). SCAPE project is a project about digital preservation. It is funded by EU and national libraries and archives. We tried to add references and links according to comments. One of our references is the European Commission and we will keep adding references as the project develops. Could you please let me know why a redirect to a mentioning of the project on another page is better than having a lot of information about the project on a separate page, and please let me know what I can do to make the article appear on Wikipedia. We consider Wikipedia an important platform for telling about digital preservation issues. Gryel (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There just is not enough independent coverage (in reliable sources) to make the project "notable" in the WP sense (which is not a judgement on the quality or soundness of a project, see WP:GNG). As almost all such projects, SCAPE does not meet these inclusion criteria. (And, really, all that is worth telling about this project is in the Frameworks article). I understand that things might look different for those directly involved with the project (which is why WP:COI advises those persons not to edit an article on "their" subject themselves). In addition to the foregoing: your article was rejected at "Articles for Creation", not just once, but twice, and by two different editors. Yet you went ahead and created an article anyway. Now there's a third editor (me) telling you that this not adheres to our guidelines. Please take "no" for an answer this time. Perhaps things will change in the future and we can revisit the matter then. But at this point, please be aware that is not a crystal ball and although I am sure that everybody here wishes you all possible success in your endeavour, at this point an article is not warranted. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why removal of 'Entomologisk tidskrift'?
Why did you remove my entry of the entomological journal Entomologisk tidskrift? It is a valid, old and respected journal (with ISSN), on par with other journals included on the list. When you remove stuff please enter a reason for the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fileunderwater (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did give a reason in the edit summary: you added a redlink. Please see WP:Write the article first. If the journal is indeed this old and respected, that should not be a problem. For tips on how to write a good article on an academic journal, see this guide. Also note that having an ISSN is certainly not enough to meet WP's inclusion criteria, see WP:NJournals. Hope this explains/helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, half of the table is red, so no difference there. But I can add a proper article, or maybe just add an entry without link. Since the page is just a summary of journals to be used as a reference this should suffice for many entries, at least as a starting point.Fileunderwater (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the fact that an article is bad does not justify making it even worse. If I find some time in the near future I'll clean up that list and remove the redlinks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

American Sociological Society
Dear Guillaume2303, Thank you for your prompt feedback. We are in the process of editing the page right now to include independent sources and remove some extra detail. We tried to follow the format of other Social Science Association wikipedia pages (specifically the American Psychological Association), which is why it was longer. In addition, after reading through the page, it is still unclear to us how our infobox is being used incorrectly. Thanks again for your help.--Barbprince (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.236.222 (talk)

Thanks
Thanks for your contribution for this article. :)Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Academic Journals Database
I came here as we are just killing the talk page (There is more content on the talk page than in the main article). :) I am not sure what you think of keeping the article at this point. I think it is worthy of keeping for the time being to allow others to improve. However, I don't understand why the original editor wasn't happy with your Rfc after asking for it.  --Morning277 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I haven't made up my mind yet as to what to do with it, otherwise I'd already have taken it to AfD (and I am reasonably certain that it would not survive). For the moment, none of the arguments for notability are policy based (or even somewhat convincing). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, it looks like it will be going back and forth for a while unless others are willing to chip in and find sources. However, I am going to spend my time elsewhere as I have lost my interest in the article itself. Also, while I have you, can you check on THIS for me? I have had the request there for several days and also sent a message to another admin but have not received a response. Your help would be appreciated. --Morning277 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at that spam thing, seems like a good catch. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no experience with this stuff. Perhaps you can contact one of the admins who contributes on that page or ask at the village pump. Sorry! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Hopefully I will leave you alone for a while now. :) --Morning277 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of articles
Dear Guillaume, thanks for your input and after reading through 'conflict of interest' and other policies I fully understand the standpoint and the objections. I should have read it upfront but didnt't come across these prior to submitting an article, my mistake. I am an external resource partially helping INTERACT Programme on some small communications projects, however, if I read the policy correctly, being acquainted with the program means I should restrain from posting on the subject. What would be the best way to get this info up on WP? Submit source materials to 'Requested article' section and wait if someone picks it up or re-work the text to feature solely verifiable facts and ask someone like you to proofread it to ensure a neutral point of view? I will take your guidance on this... Not being eurocrat myself I believe that the basic information and facts on European Territorial Cooperation and INTERACT Programme should be part of WP content as they are part of our 'European reality' (just like info on Interreg and other EU programs is featured on WP) but I'm not sure that someone completely not related to the topic will pick it up to write about it. Please give me your thoughts on how to proceed, it will be much appreciated. Eva — Preceding unsigned comment added by INTERACT Communication Assistant (talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will respond on your talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of images
Hi, I have responded to your question on my talk page. JRyanCSP (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: InfoBox changes
I really appreciate your help in cleaning up the info box I added to the John F. Ashton page. I borrowed it from the Bill Ayers page and just changed the words, but I wasn't sure what to put since Ashton is relatively sparsely detailed. Again, thanks a bunch! DrPhen (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Glad I could help, that is not an easy page to edit... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions of History
Hi! I agree with as the reason for your cancelling my revision. But in this case we are to remove the Category:Russian academic journals, I think. Besides, I substituted it for the Category:Russian-language journals. After undoing my revision, this category is to be added again. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It’s a pleasure to edit the en-WP under your supervision, so that I have even created a stub on your topic (i.e. about a publishing company).
 * The RAJ category will automatically be deleted if it stays empty for a while. Thanks for bringing to my attention that the R-lj cat was now missing, I have corrected this, should have seen that myself when I removed the other cat, sorry! And I also enjoy editing in such good collaborative spirits with you, too! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Egon Balas
Hello, can I ask you to help me? I wrote an article: Egon Balas and got the following message:


 * This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Egon Balas, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://public.tepper.cmu.edu/facultydirectory/FacultyDirectoryPrintable.aspx?id=39.


 * It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.


 * If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, help me in improving my English if the article is OK, or remove it otherwise. Wikizoli (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Wikizoli (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Academics
I replied to your comments on the talk page of WP:PROF. NJ Wine (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

References & Sources
+Hello there, I was wondering, if there is no source in the English language; is it okay to use a source in a foreign language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpens Spraypaint (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources are sources. The English WP is an international encyclopedia, sources in any language are welcome. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleuze Studies
Hello, and thank you for editing the Deleuze Studies' article and creating a talk page for me, by the way. I had indeed not given any reason for the merge proposal, which I still am inclined to find accurate, following for instance WP:WHYN. The journal focuses entirely on GD’s work and therefore, whatever its quality is or may be, derives all the notability you mentioned, from (or through) the philosopher, doesn’t it ? I didn’t put the merger back, but I really hope you will agree to do so, be it only to know other contributors’ opinion on that proposal. Best, -- Hérisson de Cloche (click for a ring)   13:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Category:University of Belgrade publications
Thank you. Fully agree. The category should be definately listed as journals. --Comparativist1 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Journal Pages
I edit a scientific journal that has a page on Wikipedia (Journal of Biomedical Informatics) and recently made some edits/corrections to the journal page, which had terminology errors and other problems. Within an hour I note that you reversed most of my changes, and I am trying to understand the rationale. I know the field well and do not believe that my changes violated any journal page guidelines. For example, I changed the name of the discipline that we cover to "biomedical informatics and translational bioinformatics" and you changed it back to "health informatics and bioinformatics". The latter is inaccurate. They are not the same. I would welcome a chance to discuss this either here or offline by email: ted@shortliffe.net. --Shortliffe (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, I noticed that biomedical informatics redirects to health informatics, but those pages are not accurate and require major revisions. I would hope that in the meantime I can at least get the journal page accurate before attacking the larger problem. And there is an important distinction between generic bioinformatics and translational bioinformatics. JBI will not publish bioinformatics papers unless they focus on translational topics, and there are meetings that deal solely with translational bioinformatics. The greater question is why you would not accept changes from the editor of the journal. I made several other edits that you reversed, and they were all made for important reasons related to accuracy. The differences will be well understood and appreciated by those in the field. Shouldn't you defer to the editor's expertise in a case like this? --Shortliffe (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) The challenge here is a simple desire for the Wikipedia site to be both accurate and to be helpful to potential authors who may be using the journal descriptions in Wikipedia to help them decide where to submit their work. The changes I made resulted from my detailed knowledge of the field, the kinds of papers that JBI receives that need to be rejected as noncompliant with editorial policy, and a desire to be as accurate as possible in the use of the field's terminology. I have been editing this journal since 2001 and I know what questions people ask and what confusions exist regarding the field and how it relates to other disciplines. I would not expect you to be familiar with these nuances, but that is precisely why I think you need to be more accepting of changes on these pages if they are accurate, noncommercial, and consistent with your COI guidelines. Regarding the specific changes you made: (1)  biomedical informatics versus health informatics: the latter is an applied subfield of the former; there are other subfields such as bioinformatics, imaging informatics, public health informatics, clinical informatics, etc. JBI publishes papers that are relevant to all these subfields. Therefore it is inaccurate to refer solely to health informatics. You may verify my credentials as an expert in this area: Edward Shortliffe. (2) bioinformatics versus translational bioinformatics: bioinformatics is basically the application of informatics methods in the biological and life sciences. There is no focus on human disease, and genetic studies in fruit flies would qualify as bioinformatics articles if there were computational substance. But JBI doesn't publish such papers. We publish only papers in which the relevance to human disease is explicit in the article. That is translational bioinformatics, and anyone in the bioinformatics field would understand that distinction. (3) removing a listing of what we do not publish:  But it is important to convey what a journal doesn't publish as well as what it does! That's the whole reason for making the edits that I did. I would rather that people not assume that we publish every paper that includes the word "informatics" in it. The purpose of my edits was to help people to understand whether their own work might be suitable for publication in JBI. (4) Removing the 5-year IF:  Although you say that other journal pages do not include this statistic, it is commonly cited elsewhere and in some fields, with longer windows on the relevance of articles, is viewed as a more useful reflection on the influence of a journal's articles. I see no problem with including it, even if other journals have not chosen to do so. In our field, at least, this will be useful information for people coming to the page. (5) Addition of an additional IF reference: That's fine. I had no problems with additions so long as they were accurate. My biggest concern, accordingly, is that you would make stylistic or content changes unilaterally without at least entering into a discussion with a journal's editor who had made those adjustmetns. I can understand why there might be concerns about changes made by random individuals, but I would think that a journal's editor would be offered a little more credibility before changes were reversed. There was a rationale for all of them, and I believe these would be understood by anyone who is solidly entrenched in our discipline. --Shortliffe (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I appreciate your response and don't doubt that I'm learning some subtleties about WP through these interactions. Thanks for making the 'translational' correction. As further evidence that TBI is a real distinction, I offer the following web site: http://www.amia.org/jointsummits2012. I don't feel strongly about the 5-year IF, although I would stress that Elsevier provides 2 and 5 year IF's for all journals on their web pages. I am well aware of the other metrics that the bibliometric community uses, but was simply trying to be consistent with the way this information was provided on the journal web site. I am less convinced by your point about "who you are doesn't matter", since when changes are being made that override what someone has said, there needs to be some sense of authority. Otherwise I could imagine articles never stabilizing as those with different opinions on a topic kept changing one another's entries/edits. As you know, I did try to provide credentials only after I found that changes were being made that did not jibe with my understanding of a field that I know well -- e.g., the removal of "translational" as being "unnecessary". You have pointed out that "biomedical informatics" currently simply redirects to the article on "health informatics" in WP. I am tempted to try to fix this problem, but am concerned that the time I would spent would later be overriden, or rejected by whomever wrote the current (erroneous) pages. You must encounter this issue frequently. How do you advise? I also understand your point about the general readership of WP articles and the need to pitch the content at an appropriate level for everyone, not just for authors/readers. Point taken. As for the length of my response, I felt I had no choice since we were getting into detailed matters. That's why I even suggested a phone call, although I fully understand that you can't be chatting with article authors all day. --Shortliffe (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if they are not the same, you should work on those article: biomedical informatics redirects to health informatics... As for the "translational", this is a currently very fashionable word and in almost all instances it can be omitted without changing the meaning of a sentence (or descriptive phrase). This seemed to be one of those cases. Hope this explains. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at WP:COI and our writing guide for academic journal articles. The other changes I made at the JBI were: remove a listing what they not publish, shorten a statement on the availability of material older than 12 months, remove the 5-year impact factor (not listed in any journal article), and the addition of an independent reference for the impact factor. As far as I can see, this did not diminish "accuracy", improved readability, made the article compliant with sourcing requirements, etc. Please explain where the exact problem is. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I assume your journal has no page charges, right? I don't have much time right now, so I'll have to be brief. WP is not intended for a journal to inform its authors. It is intended to provide information about a subject to all readers, whether authors or not. Authors will have to go to the journal website and read the instructions there (I considered quoting the journal's own "scope and aims", but that statement must be about the longest ever for any Elsevier journal). Given your arguments above, I have restored the word "translational" (with its wikilink) in the infobox. As for the 5-year IFs, these are far from being accepted generally a being superior to the "normal" 2-year IF. There are many metrics around nowadays (like the Eigenfactor, etc) and we don't list those either. Listing all those different metrics is not only confusing and unnecessary, it opens the doors to promotionalism (journals would pick and choose which metrics to list, obviously only choosing those that make them look best) and would create a heavy burden to keep our articles up-to-date (as all these metrics change every year). As for making changes unilaterally, without asking permission to the editor of the journal: again it should be pretty obvious that such is impractical for most articles and would also take too much time. In general, you have to realize that who you are does not matter much here on WP (I'm an accomplished scientist/journal editor myself, but, hey, I could also claim to have 5 Nobel Prizes...). What counts are arguments and it is best to present those succintly and briefly, without resorting to "I know best"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiley-Blackwell
I disagree that adding "United States" adds too much detail to Hoboken, New Jersey as the base for this company. Someone reading Wikipedia in Swaziland may not know that Hoboken or even New Jersey is in USA. I will therefore compromise with you and include the USA reference only in the inbox.173.63.176.93 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as they click "Hoboken, New Jersey", they'll be enlightened. Many WP readers will not know where Swaziland is either, that's not a reason to link "Africa" :-) In any case, the the country is mentioned in the line just above "Hoboken, New Jersey". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can it at least say "USA" in the main text? (I somehow didn't notice it in the inbox until you pointed it out.) I still think that to be globally responsible (and journalistically proper), this is important. After all, Hoboken and New Jersey are not as well known as, let's say, New York or London, and a European reader might quickly assume that New "Jersey" is in England if their eyes don't happen to look at the infobox.173.63.176.93 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

SARISTU Project
Hi, because the "SARISTU Project" is the first wiki article i did could you please explain to me why the wiki article is proposed for deletition? Also could you please explain to me in simple words what "No independent sources on new project that has not yet had time to become notable. Does not meet WP:GNG. " means ? Please let me mention tha the wiki has the minimum of information at this moment and the purpose is to extend it with more information as time passes by and research results to be posted. If certain changes are needed, in order the page not to be deleted, please tell me so. TY in advance for your help --Gmygdak (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, creating new articles is one of the toughest things here. I hope this experience is not too discouraging. WP:GNG (click it to read) explains the conditions for a subject to be "notable" (that's a WP expression, has nothing to do with quality, "good", "useful", etc). "Independent sources" are sources not connected to the subject that show that the subject has generated interest of third parties. Research projects, especially if they only started recently, meet these standards only rarely. Hope this helps a bit. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick responce. i did a quick reading of the WP:GNG, to be honest it wasn't much of a help. Could you please assist me and guide me of what to do, because the page must not be deleted. TY in advance --Gmygdak (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you need is reliable sources that are independent of the project or its participants and that cover the project in non-trivial way (i.e., a journal or newspaper article on a participant that mentions somewhere that this person is part of this project will not do, the source has to be about the project). In my experience, this is rarely available for research projects, but perhaps I'm wrong. As for deletion, that's not the end of the world: an article can always be re-created if the project after a few years becomes notable. And thousands of very important and very good research projects don't meet our notability guidelines and therefore will not get articles here... To publicize your project, you have CORDIS, other EU websites, and, of course, the project's own homepage. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal Site
Several years ago my students and colleagues created a Wikipedia page about me. Today I see that you added two concerns to my page, which I have updated from time to time but did not create: (1) This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. (2) This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Since references/citations were generally created/added by others, can you be more precise about just which ones you find objectionable? And how does your "message" eventually get removed from the page? --Shortliffe (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, indeed. I should not have referred to this article as a "personal site". In fact, it was my understanding that there was a prohibition about people creating articles about themselves in WP, although I was told that updating an existing article was viewed as appropriate. At any rate, I do understand that WP is meant to be an organically evolving encyclopedia and have been pleased to use and contribute to it. As for biographic pages and references, it does seem that there are two suitable types of references. One type is, as you suggest, independent articles/assessments that can be cited and that confirm the details in the article. The second is, I would argue, certain key references, written by the author (not about himself/herself) that are viewed as important contributions. As I look at the books/references/external links that are provided in the article about me, I would agree that they could be cleaned up a bit for consistency, but I would similarly argue that they all fall into one of the two categories above, with the exception of a link to my personal web site (which I do maintain myself). Everything else was either written by me (not about me) or written/produced by others about me. I'll do the cleanup part, but do not see any obvious need for additional references/support since the ones provided do confirm what is written in the article. --Shortliffe (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I just looked at the article and realize now that you have segmented off the "References". I now understand the distinction you are trying to make between books, etc., and external references. I will provide a suitable list of references of the sort you request and put them in the talk portion of the article for your attention when you get a chance after your travels. --Shortliffe (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I have posted new external references for the article in question: Edward Shortliffe. They are on the Talk page, awaiting your review and action. --Shortliffe (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, this is not your "personal site". If you think this, you don't understand what WP is: an encyclopedia. This is a biographical article of which you are the subject. Second, I think the tags are rather self-evident, especially if one takes a moment to read the linked policy articles: statements in biographies of living people (see WP:BLP) need to be rigorously sourced, whether they are critical or laudatory. Especially for praise, primary sources connected with the subject won't do, what is needed are independent sources. From the article history I saw that you have been very careful in editing your own bio, only adding factual info, so I did not see any need to place a "COI" tag on the article. Nevertheless, we need sources that confirm everything said in the article. As an example, take the moves you made in recent years. You know this to be true, but we don't and (although I don't see any reason to doubt that you are who you say you are), you have to realize that anybody could create an account here with whatever name they want and then claim to be whomever they want. Obviously, WP would open the gates to lots of abuse if editors where to be allowed to add material with "I know this is so" as the only justification. WP is particularly concerned in the case of bios of living persons, because what may seem innocent to most, could be harmful lies in reality. As the article's subject, I would assume that you are familiar with whatever sources exist about you, your life, and your accomplishments. The best thing to do would be to list those on the article's talk page and I'll add them to the text whenever I have a moment (won't be soon, as I am leaving for a scientific meeting on Saturday). Once adequate sources have been added, the tags can go. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

edits to IPA pages by IPA Secretary
Hello, I got your "welcome" message and have responded by requesting a change of user name from "Secretary of the IPA" to "PatriciaKeatingIPA". I hope this will be acceptable - it makes clear that I am an individual editor (not a group of people), but at the same time I'd like a username that says that my expertise concerns the IPA. Not to worry, I have no intention of trying to control/"whitewash" the 3 entries that are directly about our Association ("International Phonetic Association", "International Phonetic Alphabet", "Journal of the International Phonetic Association"). I trust there is no conflict of interest in my updating and correcting minor factual points, as I have done. And I fervently hope there is no conflict of interest in making the more major factual correction of pointing readers to the official chart of our phonetic alphabet - the interests of Wikipedia and the IPA are surely the same here. Ideally our chart would be posted on this page, but on our understanding, copyright prevents that. As Secretary, I will be working to get the Association to agree to a re-use license that will allow posting here, but in the meantime some kind of clarification is needed. I've been receiving emails from readers asking me why the info posted here is different, and whether that means it's wrong. My goal here is to prevent such confusion, and to clearly point readers to the correct information. I welcome your guidance on how to do that within Wikipedia's rules. Secretary of the IPA (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, sounds like you have a pretty good idea on how to handle this. Minor updates/factual corrections are not a problem whatsoever. Anything that you think might be challenged given your COI, you can post on the talk page for another editor to review and add if necessary (you can also come here and I'll have a look when I have time). As for the chart, it is my understanding that you would need to release it in the public domain in order for it to be posted here, as WP uses a Creative Commons license. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Biomedical Informatics
As you pointed out in an exchange above, the current "biomedical informatics" article redirects to "health informatics". I looked at the page history for "biomedical informatics" to try to determine how that happened. You will note that I created the page myself several years ago and when I look at the most recent version that I authored, I find that it is still accurate. In particular, you will note that it carefully distinguished health informatics from biomedical informatics. At this point I'm not sure how to proceed. I'd be quite satisfied if the "biomedical informatics" page were simply returned to the way it was when I last edited it. For what it's worth, I know none of the people who subsequently edited it, leading eventually to this erroneous redirect. Advice? --Shortliffe (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it later (I arrived after a grueling 30+ hour trip at the other side of the world - literally, I have 12 hour time difference - and my meeting starts tomorrow). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A problematic (neuro)scientist article
I am glad to see that Robert O. Becker is supported by the Science and academia work group. I have been trying to expand this article with a description of this scientist's Research and Other activities - like this, but this edit was reverted, with only the "explanation" Undue.

(And then my attempt at adding this undue material was reported by the deleter on Fringe Noticeboard. I commented this there.)

What do you think about this article version, and about the unexplained Undue Weight tag in the present version? OlavN (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really an article that I am much interested in and I am puzzled why you contact me about it. However, I did have a look and on cursory examination found a claim of having been "nominated" for a Nobel Prize. As each year hundreds of people get nominated for that Prize, a nomination doesn't mean squat, so I have removed that remark. (In addition, as nominations are sealed for 50 years, Becker would have needed to have been nominated before 1962 in order for that to be verifiable). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw you listed as one of the members of the Science and academia work group, and as a neuroscientist, you seemed to be closest to Becker´s research. But - sorry to have bothered you. OlavN (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not much interested to edit an article where people are fighting and don't seem to be willing to compromise. And where people add silly puffery like Nobel nominations (I got six in the last 3 years -multiple Prizes nominated each year- did I tell you that?) Yes, I read the discussion about these nominations and decided to make that edit as an uninvolved outsider. Anyway, in cases like this it is better to post a note on the talk page of the project in question (in this case the science/academia group of the biographies project) and generally somebody who will come along and have a look. Although, of course, there's always the risk that their opinions are not going to support what you thought... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

American Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry
I’ve just come across the following article in the Polish WP: pl:American Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry published by pl:New York Neurological Society. I managed to find this Society on the Web, but I failed to find the journal itself. Does it really exist? If yes, the corresponding article is to be created in the en-WP as well. Otherwise, the Polish article mentioned must be deleted. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it did exist at some point, but does not exist any more. Hard to find anything reliable on it. The best I can come up with is this entry in the Library of Congress and this one in WorldCat. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for information. The links adduced by you have been added to the Polish article. But your information makes me change my mind. As the journal ceased publication, an article about it seems to be of little interest (to me, at least). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solus ipse Inc. (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)