User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 14

Speedy deletion declined: TheSixthAxis
Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of TheSixthAxis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 19:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Organic Syntheses
I will need to change the publisher information for Organic Syntheses back to the way it was. Wiley & Sons does not fund the Organic Syntheses website and it should be noted as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerOrgSyn (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say that Wiley funds the website. Wiley publishes the print version and an online version. "Published by Wiley on behalf of" means that Wiley does not own the thing. BTW, I'm writing "thing" because it is not clear to me what exactly this publication is. For the moment, our article presents it as a journal, but Wiley lists it as a book/database (complete with ISBN). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiley does not publish the online version of the journal. The online version is published solely by Organic Syntheses. TylerOrgSyn (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When I access an article through the Wiley website, the byline reads "Copyright © 2011 by Organic Syntheses, Inc. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc." WP goes by reliable sources. If you have a source that clearly states that Wiley's website is in error and that Wiley is not the publisher, then we can change the article. Otherwise it will have to stay as it is, I fear. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. It turns out that the situation is rather complicated.  I spoke with the journal editor and this is the gist of what he said.  Originally Org Synth articles were only published collected in annual volumes by Wiley (and republished as collective volumes every five or ten years).  In 2000, Organic Syntheses Inc. (a non profit corporation) created (with agreement from Wiley) an open access website, orgsyn.org, where articles are now published individually upon acceptance. Each year, Wiley collects the articles of that year and republishes them in book form as an annual volume.  At the same time, they also make the articles for the past year available on their Wiley website which is not open access and where articles are not posted individually but only one year at a time. This is why I had previously written in Publication Details for the Publisher "Organic Syntheses, Inc. (open access website) and John Wiley & Sons (printed volumes). This was changed to just Wiley ("on behalf of Organic Syntheses).  The problem is that the other publication details such as frequency and open access only apply to the orgsyn.org website, not to the annual printed collections and annually updated Wiley website, so the publication details are confused.  What do you suggest we do?TylerOrgSyn (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've modified the article, let me know what you think. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation style
Hi there

While Organic Syntheses is supposed to be a book series, it's traditionally been cited as a journal (using volume, page, year/collected volume, page, year, but without ISBN). In the same way that Inorg. Synth. has. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. i did see that it also has a valid ISSN. Confusing... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

GLS Page
Hi Guillaume2303,

I am not sure which of your concerns were not addressed. I spent a good bit of the summer at the library (real dead trees library) adding all the now archived GLS books, conference proceedings, etc. to a list that I inserted into the GLS article as this impt. school no longer exists and this wikepedia article would be the only place for a consolidated record unless someone writes a book down the road.

Can you please be more specific? As you suggested I rewrite the lead. I added external links to CFF. I explained why the list of GLS pubs had been presented. Bibliographically these items are not pulled together and had to be manually verified at two libraries..one in Florida and at the U of C library on a trip there. This very small bit of librarian history is not of vast import.

I spent a lot of time running down all the former professors and creating links or footnotes. I think that the information is valuable and unique. This was primary research. Thank you for your oversights to make this better. Gracetupelo (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The list of publications is unduly long. Usually, we list 3-5 publications, with a clear rationale why those particular publications were selected. Similar, the list of "prominent" faculty has no clear inclusion criteria. Without such criteria, it looks like the list is completely idiosyncratic. Also, the article should comply with WP:MOS, which it doesn't, and should be wikified. In addition, the article does not really establish the notability of this school. The list with 9 policies looks like it was copied verbatim from someplace else, which is a copyright concern (and unencyclopedic to booth). as for your remark that "this was primary research" and that the WP article is the only place for a consolidated record: please see WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:ISNOT, for relevant policies/guidelines. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of publications is everything that the GLS published because they closed. There is no record of the work in a unified fashion. it seemed to me that this article would be the place to pull it together as there would be no other place. I will remove it, but it will not exist. it is not even at the archives of U of C. There are now a few samples to indicate scope rather than the complete list as you suggest. The policy set is referenced:

^ Douglas Waples“The Graduate Library School at Chicago” The Library Quarterly 1 (Jan. 1931): 26-36.

You say that "In addition, the article does not really establish the notability of this school." The School was notable for it awarded the first phd and moved the field of librarianship from an apprenticeship model to an academic model. This came about because the Carnegie funding of library buildings (the CF thought) was not all it could be w/o better educated librarians. The large endowment made to Chicago allowed the school to develop and Waples' article on policies extends this. Let me know if there is still insufficient information. I did provide the footnotes that expand on this.

Most of the faculty represented have their own pages in Wikipedia (not done by me) and if not I provided a citation. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracetupelo (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Gracetupelo (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Grace, please read the policies that I linked to above. "Notability" has a very special meaning on WP and to establish it, you need reliable sources independent of the subject. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand about notability. I read that before I did the article. I have removed all the faculty as most have their own pages it is unlikely that their connection to GLS would be missed by anyone who has interest. I think the better part of valor is to delete and not defend. When I have time, Guillaume2303, I will try and get back. Thank you for your oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracetupelo (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Gracetupelo (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to help. Sorry to be a pain in the lower end of the back... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiperboreea page
Hi, I made a new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiperboreea for my magazine but wikipedia will delete the page. Why? I must make something to correct the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm1930 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is much that can be done at this point. The magazine is too young to have generated coverage in third-party reliable sources and does not meet our inclusion criteria (see WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, and WP:NMAG). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: William Collier (c1585-1671)
Thanks Citation Bot! Mugginsx (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have linked everything in the article that was relevant. I have reviewed and followed MOS as I understand it in the lead and elsewhere.  Will you please comment?  Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I've removed the tag. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again.. Mugginsx (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Indian Journal of Urology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Trauma and Incontinence


 * Tharasu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tabloid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

EVISA
Do you know about EVISA? Maybe it is a good place to look up information on academic journals and databases? It doesn't appear to be a commercial web site. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks useful to find info on journals. No idea how reliable it is (library catalogs are often unreliable, even PubMed often contains inaccuracies), but it's a useful start. I couldn't find how they select journals, so I'm not sure whether inclusion here could be used to establish notability. Did you see something? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think this would be useful for establishing notability. For me, I would use if for information purposes only. For instance, it might provide information to be verfied somewhere else. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am sending you an email. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

American Journal of Preventive Medicine‎
Thanks for all your helpful improvements to American Journal of Preventive Medicine‎! Jokestress (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thanks for the note! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sid magazine page
hi there, i'm looking to improve sid magazine's page- the issues were that blogs were used for sources. the 'blogs' referenced are indeed well used, well respected, and notable fashion websites including models.com (the goto site for fashion information), f.tape (similar), and fashion monitor (a contact service which has been running since 1989). --> Because of this I suggest that the page is well referenced.

Similarly, I do not believe the article to be premature. HERO magazine has the same birth date (give or take a few months), and sid is just as wide reaching as hero.

Sleepyandscar (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) sleepy
 * Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think this is well sourced at all. Not only are the sources blogs (generally not considered to be reliable sources), but the coverage is sketchy at best. As for HERO, I just checked that article: as far as I can see, that magazine existed for 5 years, whereas Sid was only recently established. In any case, whether the article for HERO is justified or not is immaterial. WP has 4 million articles and there are bound to be quite a few that are undersourced or on non-notable subjects, nobody yet having had time to clean them up. We call that argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, less reverently: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright calm down. Notice how the beginning of my post began with how I was looking to improve the page not argue with you!

Yeah I agree there is no point in comparing it with HERO's page. Just as a passing comment, your maths leaves a lot to be desired: Hero magazine was established in 2009. It is now 2012. That is 3 years of operation not 5.

Back to Sid.. only one of the references is actually a blog. The others are notable websites (ftape, models.com, fashion monitor) or magazine's own websites (nymag, sid mag). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.103.212.217 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? I am calm. The other websites that you are talking about are what we call "in-passing mentions". What is needed to establish notability is in-depth coverage. In any case, the article is at AfD now, so if you have any good arguments for keeping it, now is the time to mention them there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Hi Guillaume

Thanks for your comments on my revisions to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor page, and my apologies for anything I have done which may have been against Wikipedia policy.

To explain, I work for the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, the company which owns GEM. It was noted by our board that the GEM Wikipedia entry was very short and not entirely accurate, so I was asked to revise it.

I understand the points about conflict of interest, but I knew this in advance and was trying very hard to portray GEM as neutrally as possible, just stating the facts about our organisation and research without any comment or bias - can you indicate where I might have gone wrong?

The content I used was written by me. Some is based on material from the GEM 2011 Global Report (http://gemconsortium.org/docs/2409/gem-2011-global-report) but since the language is quite technical, nearly all of it was paraphrased. GERA (along with the authors) owns the copyright to this report - if it helps, I could produce a signed document to confirm this?

Thanks again for your help and I look forward to hearing how I can have my content reinstated.

Best regards

CAylett (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi CAylett, The problem with your previous edit was that it literally copied text from the GEM website. Even if the copyright issue would be solved (there's a mechanism for this, called OTRS), this would be problematic. Text copied from an organization's own website is rarely neutral as required by our policies, nor will it usually be encyclopedic. In addition, most assertions in an article should be sourced to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there are inaccuracies in the article, the best way to handle this is look for good sources that show this and post a message on the talk page of the article, so that another editor can update/correct the article. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Weekly
Hi, I originally put 'journal' in the Soviet Weekly article which you changed to 'magazine'. Actually images online (example) (and my own memories of it in the early 1980s) would suggest it's more a 'newspaper' - not glossy, reported news. Do you see any problem with describing it thus? It would mess up your categories though. asnac (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Have made some changes. Haven't worked with cats before, interesting. asnac (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it to "newspaper", I was actually hesitating whether to use that. The distinction between a weekly newspaper and a magazine is not very clear: Time Magazine is also called a magazine, for example. I think there are equivalent cats for newspapers (except the dis/established ones, those are "publications dis/established..."). I leave it up to you to keep it this way or change to newspaper, I have no strong preference. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Neal Ashkanasy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to SIOP


 * Torture (journal) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Rehabilitation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MCPcover.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:MCPcover.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Guillame2303:

Thank you for your notes. I am trying to update the journal cover to its new look so that the image is correct for the journal and the text I uploaded earlier today was at the request of our Editorial Board, I am most concerned about the image being correct. As I check now the image has reverted back to the old image - please reinstate the updated image I provided last week and this morning.

Thanks, Peg — Preceding unsigned comment added by PegWentz (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: when I check, the current image displayed in the article is the latest cover (and already was the latest cover when you re-uploaded a new version). Perhaps you need to empty your cache and reload the page. As for the requests from the editorial board, unfortunately WP is not a bew hosting service. The article on the journal must be an encyclopedic article written from a neutral point of view. I understand that your boards view may be different, but that is not how WP works. In addition, if you are invovled with the journal, please read our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, you proposed an article, this Medicus (journal), and I don't mind but didn't find it's name in the list of proposed aticles of a day. Thanks. Arantz (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is listed: Category:Proposed deletion as of 26 August 2012. Perhaps you are confounding WP:PROD with WP:AFD? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Guillaume2303, Thank you for your recent changes to List of journalists killed during the Syrian civil war. Sorry for the editing conficts, but I was making a major change at the time. I did go back and address all the issues you had covered. As they say, "Great minds think alike!" Thank you for your contributions, Crtew (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me
I saw you edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Venom how is it gonna be deleted what is wrong with the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvenom09 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not make clear why this person (you?) is notable, hence it does not comply with the WP inclusion criteria. It has been deleted several times now, aren't you getting the message? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IM NOT JAY!

I am a fan of his this is not Jay! this is not an autobiography these are actual accomplishments me and liam754 are working on it together --Jayvenom09 (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Spunti e ricerche‎‎
please refer to my talk page for further discussion on this topic. This is a work in progress and by no means complete. An opportunity to improve the article would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imtechnology (talk • contribs) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New User
Hello, this is my second ever time writing on wikipedia. Moments ago I made a edit to the scene magazine which had recently covered my band and came across their page. I live in Toronto but am from St. John's and I simply added the fact that St. John's is the oldest city in north america. My comment was removed. I felt it is a very relevant fact. But I guess advanced wikipedia users don't like us giving out 2 cents. Last year I donated 15 dollars (Despite being a struggling musician) to wikipedia thinking this is a great platform and lets people give their 2 cents but now after this personal experience I feel otherwise.

Thank you for giving me opportunity to express myself here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.175.122 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel like this. In principle, all constructive edits are welcome. The one you made, however, added a fact that was completely unimportant to the subject of that particular article. Just imagine how cluttered articles would become if we would add all kind of facts that are not of direct importance to the actual subject. Hope this explains a bit. (As an aside, ST. John's is not the oldest city in North America, it's the oldest English-founded city...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Appreciate the response. I refer to wikipedia for St. John's being listed as oldest city in north america. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John's,_Newfoundland_and_Labrador . I just realized you are also a volunteer and not a paid person so i am not upset any more. I must also mention that magazines like the Scene has been a great platform for small bands like ours and I was just trying to contribute something useful to their page. Have a wonderful day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.175.122 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Grazie mille from Iskender Iskender
yes, as they say in Italy. You are among the ones not biased in that never-ending Nova story. One question though: for people who maintain that they = Nova Science Publishers are a "vanity publisher" the fact that Thomson Reuters includes them in their 336 company list is SIGNIFICANT. The inclusion, as the TR website shows, indeed means a quality judgement. Perhaps I should have specified this more clearly in my edit which you removed. Look at the facts please and perhaps revert the deletion and change the text. Best wishes from Iskender Iskender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskender Iskender (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to remain neutral... The "vanity" thing is only on the talk page. It is not in the article (and as long as I can do something about, it will not be in the article). So I don't think it is necessary to mention in the article, after all, since we don't mention this for any other publisher, it would again like trying to unnecessarily make Nova look better than they are. However, it's a useful find and I'm glad you mentioned it on the talk page, as it is a great argument to use against those that want to add negative POV. So, grazie tante for digging this up! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Volume! indexing
Hi, Volume is indexed by IIMP, it's no longer just the previous email - that's why I added the index number. Will add the link when everything is online, within a couple of weeks. Same thing with the RILM database: will be there in October. Encore une fois, merci mille fois d'avoir aidé Volume, par votre veille minutieuse, à implanter, enraciner, authentifier sa légitimité. Best, Zamuse (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sultan bin Turki Al-Sedairy
Dear Guillaume2303,

First of all, thank you for fixing the subjects' page. I apologize for not doing a good job here - I think it's quite obvious I still have a lot to learn about editing pages.

The subject is well known to me and he really deserves to get commended for his contributions in the area of healthcare research and disability-related research. I did not create the page as a way to promote him, he is not about that. I can, however, see how his Wikipedia entry may be mistaken as a promotional tool. Can you advise how I may edit this page so as to get rid of the issues tag and improve it in general? Thanks again for your help.

Sincerely, Yanicaracas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanicaracas (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the best thing to do is to look at some good biographical articles and see how they did things. Then you can model this article on those. The first thing you have to realize is that a WP article is not intended to "commend" someone... Some guidelines that may be helpful to you are: WP:BIO, WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV, as well as links at WP:WikiProject Biography. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I appreciate the feedback.  I made some more edits to this page in the hope of addressing some of the issues raised.  I hope you don't mind looking at the page again and letting me know if its OK (or not).  Believe me, I take criticisms well.  I can't thank you enough.  Best regards, Yanicaracas. >>PS: I am not sure what to do with the "citations needed" or "need verification" notations - I am not sure if I was supposed to take those out after providing proof.  I do apologize if I am not supposed to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanicaracas (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Indoor and Built Environment
I reverted him and issued him a COI warning (since it seems he's the editor of said publication). If he does this again take it to WP:ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was fast! I actually missed that this was the editor... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland
It's not strange; note that WP:CSD also requires that copyright infringement be unambiguous - where there's only close paraphrasing, it should be sent to Copyright problems. Although I wouldn't bother with that and just speedy it if it was a copy-paste then change a few words jobs, the overlap appears to be primarily from proper names, the list of subjects covered, etc. The overlap appears to come from two short articles that cover just basic facts, rather than re-use of the journal's text. Wily D 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

JAOA Edit
Guillaume2303, your edits on this page are inaccurate. The JAOA is not a peer-reviewed journal about the discipline of osteopathy. While true that it is targeted primarily at osteopathic physicians as its audience and non-physician international osteopaths as well, the journal is about original medical research, meta analyses, reviews, osteopathic medical education in the United States, and OMM as well as other medical disciplines. It is not limited in scope to osteopathic manipulative medicine. To say that it is solely about the OMM portion of osteopathic medicine is inaccurate and too narrow in scope. This is why the osteopathy page is an incorrect link for the discipline section of this article. The Osteopathic Medicine in the United States page is a more suitable choice and discusses the discipline of American Osteopathic Medicine, its history, current trends, etc so that article goes above and beyond what is needed to discuss the discipline further but the osteopathy page is not the right page for this. I'll refer you to this link which is the about JAOA section and as you can see it is also about original medical research, osteopathic medical education policies, etc. so please refrain from changing this again unless there is a more suitable choice other than the osteopathy page or the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States page. http://www.jaoa.org/site/misc/about.xhtml TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "American osteopathic medicine" is not a discipline. If our article on osteopathic medicine is somehow deficient, then you should improve it, not wikilink other articles to inappropriate targets. The journal link that you give above does at no point mention that the journal only covers osteopathic medicine in the US. I have seen Headbomb's edit and although it seems a reasonable compromise, I disagree for the same reasons. As it is, the article now gives a "discipline" that is not a discipline and, on top of that, is supported not even by the journal's own website. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: further discussion should be on the talk page of the article. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, osteopathy is the wrong "discipline" and is too narrow in scope. The osteopathic medicine in the U.S. page discusses the profession and gives a better idea of the discipline. It's not my job to improve the U.S. article but linking the page to the osteopathy page is wrong. As a compromise we can just not have it linked to anything and agree that there is no suitable page to currently link it to which is really how I see it. I have responded on the talk page. However, the journal's website does imply rather strongly that the journal is not about osteopathy but about osteopathic medicine which is more comprehensive than osteopathy which is the discipline for non-physician osteopaths, not osteopathic physicians who are licensed to practice the full scope of medicine. This is an important distinction. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the talk page of the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My categories' titles
Hello,

Could you please explain to me to what extent my categories'titles are inappropriate ?

Thanks in advance Euroflux (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the appropriate guidelines, they are much more detailed and exact than I ever can be. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you tell me that my titles are incorrect, the least you can do is to explain to me why. Euroflux (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one example: "Category:Grandes écoles (French physical & chemical engineers)". The convention here is that information between parenthesis is used to disambiguate, that is, to clarify a title if there is a need for (for instance, if there is more than one "John Jones" we name the articles "John Jones (artist)" or "John Jones (social scientist)", etc). Obviously, "French physical & chemical engineers" is not supposed to clarify this category, but to indicate that this is a subcategory of "Grandes écoles". I guess you intend this to be a category of people who are alumni from certain grandes écoles. As there are also non-French students at these schools, the word "French" has nothing to do in the name either. There's more, but this should make it sufficiently clear why this name is inadmissible. Why not simply create a category "Grandes écoles alumni", as we do for all other universities? You could even make an alumni cat for every different grande écoles (and join them under the topcat "Grandes écoles alumni"). In any case, categorizing is a very specialized area of WP. If you don't know exactly what you are doing, I advise to stay clear of it. If you wish to continue in this area, I strongly recommend that you first familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines (see: Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Categorization and the links therein). Hope this is sufficient explanation. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Category:Grandes écoles (French physical & chemical engineers)" means : "Category:Grandes écoles which train French physical & chemical engineers)". Otherwise, by definition, a "French engineer" is either an engineer of French citizenschip, or a person from whatever country who was trained for the most part in a French engineering school, or an engineer from whatever country who was mainly active in France. For example Wernher von Braun was a German engineer by birth and by training, but he was as well an American engineer, no matter whether he obtained or not the US citizenship. A Korean who would have been mainly trained in a French school would be considered a "French engineer", no matter whether he obtained or not the French citizenship. Euroflux (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but nobody would call a Korean who obtained an engineering degree at a French school and then went back to Korea to work there are a "French engineer". We call that, at most, a "French-trained engineer". And the fact that your category apparently is intended to mean something quite different from what I thought it did indicates that the title is absolutely unclear. Your title suggests that the category contains people, whereas in fact it contains schools. And there aren't really that many grandes écoles that we need multiple categories to deal with them. Just the topcat "Grandes écoles" seems perfectly adequate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read "Grandes écoles for physical & chemical engineers ; 95% of engineers trained are French ; and such schools are several hundreds which demands a categorization.
 * The category "Grandes écoles" contained engineering schools, business schools, administrative schools, most of them I never heard of... The appellation "Grandes écoles" is very debatable ; there are many schools calling themselves "grandes" but not recognized as "grandes" bu others... That is why I decided to introduce the acronym + town because many schools have almost the same name and can be confused, being not so well known... Euroflux (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 95% is not 100% (and I'm not sure which article you're referring to, as we don't have an article "Grandes écoles for physical & chemical engineers"). And if names can be confused, then a disambiguation can be used. But not an acronym and city. And your reasoning is weird: if the names are similar, then the acronym is most probably going to be identical... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Never say "your reasoning is weird" ; this is a personal attack, inappropriate on WP ; you just misread what I wrote ; giving the geographical location is a good way to disambiguate... before being condescending on people, please make the effort to read thoroughly first. If you were able to read French, you would have noticed that there are a great deal of physical & chemical engineering schools present on WP:en. Euroflux (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For most French natives, (ENSEEIHT, Toulouse) makes sense : if I read this I know that it is an engineering school situated in Toulouse, even if I don't know exactly the complete name. For a French native "École nationale supérieure d'électronique, d'électrotechnique, d'informatique, d'hydraulique et des télécommunications" is very complicate to read and does not give the geographical location. Most people know the acronym without knowing what the letters stand for ! Isn't it wise to take intio account the opinion of a French native engineer concerning such idiomatic things as acronyms, French towns ? Euroflux (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your idea of what constitutes a personal attack. I'm not commenting on you, but on your idea. As for the rest, you're making some unwarranted assumptions: who tells you I'm not familiar with the French situation? Again, your logic is warped: this is the English WP and it is not written for people in France only and should be comprehensible for anyone, regardless of their nationality. However, even though you argue that the way you propose to name articles here is the way that French people would do it, the French WP doesn't do this either. Although I see that you're running into trouble there, too, trying to impose your own personal views. After your problems there (and on the German WP), perhaps it's time to be a bit more cooperative, to avoid similar problems here. Just some friendly advice... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but on the english WP they give "École nationale supérieure de mécanique et d'aérotechnique" and on the French WP they give "École nationale supérieure de mécanique et d'aérotechnique de Poitiers". It is important to give the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroflux (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you just made an enormous blunder :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%C3%89coles_Polytechniques

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:%C3%89cole_polytechnique_%28France%29

You cannot see the difference between Ecole polytechnique (Palaiseau), Ecole polytechnique de Nantes, and Institut national polytechnique de Grenoble. The difference is enormous !

Ecole polytechnique has nothing to do with Instituts nationaux polytechniques ! Euroflux (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The blunder is yours. You cannot just empty a category and then wait for it to get deleted. There's a process for that (CfD), which has to be followed. I see that you're doing this with other categories, too. Please stop, as you clearly fail to understand how things work here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is no "network" for "Ecoles polytechniques", contrary to Ecoles centrales or Ecoles des mines. The word "polytechnique" is very misleading !
 * The categories "Ecoles nationales supérieures" or "Ecoles supérieures" are irrelevant ! You have put in the same category institutions which have nothing to do together ! It was a capharnaüm ! Euroflux (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I did an appropriate classification :

Category:Grandes écoles (French engineers)

This category has the following 6 subcategories, out of 6 total.

► Grandes écoles (French mechanical & civil engineers, materials scientists)‎ (4 C, 12 P)   ► Grandes écoles (French mining & nuclear engineers)‎ (9 P)    ► Grandes écoles (French aerospace engineers)‎ (2 C, 5 P)    ► Grandes écoles (French military engineers)‎ (1 C, 5 P)    ► Grandes écoles (French electrical & electronics engineers, computer scientists)‎ (2 C, 11 P)    ► Grandes écoles (French physical & chemical engineers)‎ (1 C, 10 P)

Pages in category "Grandes écoles (French engineers)"

The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

Conference of the Directors of French Engineering Schools Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur

Again, you made the ridiculous bluder to confuse Ecole polytechnique (Palaiseau) with Institut national polytechnique (Grenoble, Lorraine,...) ; this shows that you know nothing about the French system ! Euroflux (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have tried to explain above: 1/ Your category names don't make sense and are against WP naming conventions. 2/ If you want to delete a category, you have to go through WP:CFD and explain your rationale. You cannot just empty a category and mark it "to be removed". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Grandes écoles alumni
Sorry, but this "global" category is nonsensical for many reasons.

Whether somebody is an alumnus of a given school is true or false.

But whether somebody is an alumnus of a "grande école" is very debatable. He might be an alumnus of school A and declare that school A is a "grande école", but there is no official definition of a "grande école"...

Ecole polytechnique alone has more than 200 alumni on WP ; Ecole des ponts as many...

The overwhelming majority of "grandes écoles" mentioned on WP have no alumnus ! Most of them are brandnew schools and make use of WP to advertise...

In addition in the former category "grandes écoles" there were all kinds of GE, engineers, business, arts, etc...

There are a huge number of "écoles nationales", or even "écoles nationales supérieures" which are no "grandes écoles".

The initial category GE was a mess ; may ranking is a wise one and sorts GE by profession, by specialty... Euroflux (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have said what I had to say above and directed you to the proper procedures that you should follow if you want to delete these categories. As an aside, could you please stop putting talk page comments on category pages? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

French spelling / École polytechnique # Institut national polytechnique de Grenoble
Hello,

You should avoid trying to teach to a French native French spelling. Am I teaching you Dutch spelling ?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_centrale_de_Lyon

You go on refusing to admit to making a terrible blunder confusing "Ecole polytechnique" and "Institut national polytechnique de Grenoble, de Lorraine". Did you catch it ?

Are you an expert on French Grandes écoles ? Obviously not.

Have a look :

ENSEEIHT ENSEEIHT École nationale supérieure d'électrotechnique, d'électronique, d'informatique, d'hydraulique et des télécommunications ENSEEIHT ENSEEIHT Высшая государственная школа электротехники, электроники, информатики, гидравлики и телекоммуникаций 国立高等电力技术、电子学、计算机、水力学与电信学校

The acronym "ENSEEIHT" is much clearer than the monstrous complete name "École nationale supérieure d'électronique, d'électrotechnique, d'informatique, d'hydraulique et des télécommunications", all the more if you add the town Toulouse.

"ENSEEIHT, Toulouse" is quickly understood by many people worldwide ; it takes me one second to read it.

"École nationale supérieure d'électronique, d'électrotechnique, d'informatique, d'hydraulique et des télécommunications" is a monster ; it takes at least 6 seconds to decipher it, and the reader does not know where it is.

Most people who know "ENSEEIHT" know that it is an engineering school in Toulouse, but would be unable to giove the complete name ! It is the same with NASA, NATO, FBI,...

There are many newly created engineering schools in France with very long and complicated names. The best is to give the acronym + the town. The geographical location is very umportant to disambiguate !

Many people would know for example "ENSMA Poitiers", but if you write "École nationale supérieure de mécanique et d'aérotechnique" without giving Poitiers, it would take a long time to read the whole name... "aérotechnique" is a weird word very rarely used...

Are you going to teach a French native engineer everything about French spelling and the French Grandes écoles system ?

You claim to have an "advanced" level in French ; I strongly doubt it. You have no knowledge about French spelling and you are unable to make a difference between "Ecole polytechnique" and "Institut national polytechnique de Grenoble".

Aren't you overstimating your own intellectual and linguistic capacities trying to teach other people things they know much better than you ? Euroflux (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I keep trying to tell you that WP has its own conventions, guidelines, and policies. I didn't make those. If you want to change them, go ahead and propose those changes on the talkpages of those guidelines. Or are you going to impose unilaterally your own ideas of what Wikipedia should look like on this community? And, please, leave my intellectual abilities and linguistic capacities out of this, they have nothing to do with this matter. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you have the honesty to admit that you made a ridiculous bunder trying to correct me ?
 * Look : Category:Écoles Polytechniques

This is sheer nonsense ! Can't you see it ? Since you claim to be Fr level 3, you should be able to read the corresponding articles...

Why can't you admit the obvious ? Euroflux (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I see is that you're telling the Ecole Centrale de Lyon how they should spell the name of their school. As for the rest, I repeat, everything has been said. Please stop poring walls of text on my talk page and start reading the guidelines and policies that I have linked for you. End of discussion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the French WP:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_centrale_de_Lyon

École centrale de Lyon École centrale de Lyon Logo-Centrale-Lyon.gif Nom original 	École centrale lyonnaise pour l'Industrie et le Commerce

École centrale de Lyon

L'École centrale de Lyon est une grande école d'ingénieurs généraliste française, située à Écully près de Lyon, fondée en 1857 et membre du Groupe Centrale.

Why don't you have the honesty to admit it when you are wrong ? Euroflux (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Thanks for your help Guillaume! I was editing without using my account, but am now registered and and editing within wendybelcher. You removed I think two of my posts where I added my book to relevant wikipedia articles and I can understand why you would think it was a conflict of interest. I prefer to think of myself as an expert on the topic. My book is the best-selling and best-reviewed book on publishing journal articles in the humanities and social sciences. It seems like it should be cited there and perhaps NOT some of the others. For instance, the William Germano book is cited under journal articles or journal publishing when it has to do with publishing books and not journal articles at all. So, I guess I have three questions. Since it is entirely relevant, won't you allow me to make the additions? Two, if you won't allow that, would you allow it if I added a section to journal articles or journal publishing in which I describe why journal articles typically get rejected or get published and then cite myself? I do have ten years of laboratory experience to back up my conclusions. Three, if not, then what happens if I ask a friend to add it to Wikipedia? Will it now be automatically removed, even though it is entirely relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendybelcher (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Okay, I accept. Since a regular encyclopedia asks experts in the field, it seemed like this would be a good place to add my knowledge, but I guess not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendybelcher (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, while I agree that both these article could use some work, I don't think that adding your book will improve them by much. If it is such a smashing success, sooner or later somebody independent will add it. I'd advice against asking somebody else to do this for you, that constitutes "meatpuppetry", which is rather frowned upon here. As for you updating these articles, frankly, you don't sound objective enough... I would advice that you first get some experience on Wikipedia in general, by editing articles with which you have no direct connection. After getting a better "feel" for things here, you could then come back and propose some changes to these articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wulfenia (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BIOBASE (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) 11:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

List of planning journals
Hi Guillaume, There is currently an AfD discussion for the above-referenced article. I'd appreciate if you would contribute your perspective at: Articles for deletion/List of planning journals. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC
Hi Guillaume. I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate Journal of International Affairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International affairs (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) 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I still do, but quite honestly, I prefer the old Special:NewPages. Together with Twinkle, it's much faster t o look for the stuff that I am interested in (I can list a 1000 new articles on one page, for example). Sorry... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

American Journal of Business
I am Richard Reed, one of the Editors-in-Chief for the American Journal of Business. If the AJB is to remain listed on Wikipedia, then, as I’m sure you will appreciate, the information not only should be non-promotional it should, above all else, be accurate. Since taking over as EICs—Dr. Susan F. Storrud Barnes is the other EIC—we have, with the agreement of the Editorial Board, restricted the focus of the journal to the business disciplines of Accounting, Finance, Management, Marketing, Information Systems, Operations Management, and Strategy. Its original focus was much broader and included not only those business disciplines but also others such as entrepreneurship, labor relations, sustainability, and more. The previous focus also included economics, sociology, and psychology which, of course, are not core business disciplines but are areas of theory and areas of study t hat can contribute to the understanding of business. We would therefore appreciate having the current focal areas listed in the Wikipedia information. If you are not willing to do that then I must insist that you delist the AJB because of the inaccuracy in the current version. Thank you for your help in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.148.13.101 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your help in this process, we are now satisfied with the accuracy of the page and its representation of the American Journal of Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.148.13.101 (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the scope info of the journal given your explanation. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi! Just to let you know, I replaced the db-bio tag you put on Clinton Gilden with a db-attack, as it the only purpose was to defame its subject. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best, Electric Catfish (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC).
 * And it just now got deleted as A1... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Confluenze
Hi Guillame, where should I discuss the deletion of Confluenze? I fail to find the Deletion page, shold I use the talk page? --Aubrey (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no deletion discussion as such at this moment, this is a "PROD". If you disagree, you can simply remove the PROD tag. However, if your reasons for doing so are not convincing, I will then take it to AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to do that, tha is why I'm asking before removing :-). I just think that the National Agency is indipendent, and reliable (this is a major discussed point, but it is somehow biased and complex), so Confluenze "should" be notable enough. Anyway, I'm trying to set up a discussion here, I'm eager to understand better notability issues and such regarding journals. We can discuss there, if you prefer. --Aubrey (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dmitry Konstantinovich Belyaev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (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) 11:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Manchester Journal of International Economic Law
I have declined your deletion proposal for Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, as a message contesting the proposal was posted on the article's talk page. You may wish to take it to Articles for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue removal of image in public domain
Guillaume, you don´t know but we have been months in mediation due to the fact the article is about the version of the book published by SRF, when are other publishers. The text of the book was heavily edited after the author´s death, which is unthinkable if you consider Ethics in Publication. Any change can only be made if there is written proof the author wanted to make the changes but died before. Red Rose does not want a page with a neutral point of view. He does not want these facts to be added to the book history, since they are relevant information. Just for you to know, the original book is in public domain. Now you just come and remove the image we had reached a consensus after a loooooooong time and mark the image for deletion. Could you please revert what you have done and if necessary I will be glad to inform you. In fact it would be important that you find out what is going on. Your are welcome. The article is being used to spam, does not respect a neutral point of view and is sectarian, advertising SRF, a hindu-american sect. Here are some of the links for the discussions: PS Could you please remove the deletion request? Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Mediation
 * 2) A proposal for a new article Tat Sat (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I see that I've stumbled upon a hornets' nest. I've reverted my edit removing the image. I'm maintaining the deletion proposal on Commons, as things are not really clear. The image is currently tagged as having been uploaded by the "copyright holder", who is releasing it under a CC license. Whatever teh status of the image, this is obviously incorrect, so it's better to have the deletion discussion run its course. Please present your arguments for keeping the image there. I don't know anything about Hindu sects, nor am I inclined to get involved into that, so I'll decline further editing the article itself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Guillaume: yes your have stambled upon a hornets´ nest. The article is not neutral. It is full of wrong information also, for instances since a reprint is not an Edition (book) of the book, etc. The fact is that the book, which is in public domain (its cover and its content: text, images and photos) is being reprinted by many publishers. The article featured SRF´s current cover for over 2 years and it took me months to replace it by the firs edition cover. I could uploaded it as "fair use" but since until proof in contrary, nobody owns the copyright of the first edition. Perhaps I made a mistake when I uploaded the image as the "copyright holder" since a public domain image does not have a copyright holder. I only made the scan. How can I correct this? Red Rose says he/she is not a member of SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship, one of the book publishers) and does not have any connection to SRF. But as anyone can check, all his hundreds of editions point to SRF´s book only. Who can verify what I am saying? I am not talking about subjective matters like opinions, but facts that can be proved. The facsimile of the book with all its contents can be freely downloaded everywhere. Does it make sense that if there was a copyright owner, after so many years these free editions would not have been suppressed? Also as you see to prove my point that the article is not neutral, I checked for instances the article True at First Light and in the contents there is the topic: Publication Controversy. The history of the publication of Autobiography of a Yogi is full of controversy due to the fact the text was altered after the author´s death without proof of his wishing it to be done. This is highlighted specially - among other things - by the change in his signature many years after his death. I am unable to insert these facts. Red Rose removes any contribuition I make and falsely denounces me for "edition warship". Where we were in mediation (for putting the original cover following Wikipedia´s guideline) I never edited the article, while Red Rose made dozens (literally) of editions, thus banning me without having the power to do so. Just take a look in the "View History". Could you please remove the deletion request until proof of copyright ownership? The copyrights claims have been made curiously only by Red Rose - without any basis. Instead of spreading hearsay (by SRF members only) he should be requested to show proof of uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources regarding the copyright issue. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tat Sat, as I explained over at Commons, the burden of proof is not on those who claim something is copyrighted, but on those who claim that something is not. I think the best way to handle this is to await the "verdict" at Commons. If it is kept there, you're fine. If it is deleted there, you're still fine, because you could re-upload it to en:WP under a fair use license. Apart from this, I have no interest in getting further involved in this dispute. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Neither do I have any interest in hindu sects. I consider this book an autobiography, that´s all. It is a pity you are not interest. However you marked the file for deletion without knowing what is going on. As I said I can upload the file as fair use but I would be misleading people with a wrong information which is not good for credibility. But if you who are an admin do not mind, it´s fine with me. Tat Sat (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm not an admin. And whether or not this image should stay on Commons is, as far as I can see, an issue separate from the content dispute. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Guillaume, if you are not an admin, you are undoing months of mediation. It was Yworo who inserted the image on the page. I uploaded the image at his request. Tat Sat (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be an admin to propose an image file for deletion on Commons. End of discussion. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Carson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International affairs (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) 12:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

various edits to Philosophy Documentation Center page
I appreciate the time and care you take to help improve this and other listings. I understand and agree that entries should be sourced, encyclopedic in nature, and not promotional. At the same time many of these changes are discouraging because the article now provides less information that is relevant in our field. The edits to our listing also do not seem consistent with the current listings for other publishers, e.g. Spring Science+Business Media, John Wiley & Son. Formerly I had three key people listed and that was removed - OK. Now you've restored me but not the others. We are a team here and I'd prefer to have my name removed if the leadership team cannot be listed. I've tried to make my role in making changes to the site transparent by choosing my name for my user name, so I don't see how adding me but not the other members of our team is clarifying. Gleaman (talk)
 * As far as I can see, the articles for the publishers that you mention have no long lists of their journals/books/etc. either. As for the key people, the PDC website lists just one director. All the other people (still according to that website) have minor roles (marketing, accounting, etc. No "associate director" is listed and it is unclear why the person responsible for electronic publishing is listed as a key person but not, say, the person responsible for production. I understand that you personally know who the most important people are, but what you or I know is, unfortunately, not an acceptable source and what WP lists has to be based onto something. Hence, I only listed the director, because that is obviously a key person and for none of the other persons is this clear from the website. At this point, the "associate director" position is unsourced and the listing of the electronic publishing person seems capricious (mind you, I'm not saying that it is capricious, but why this particular person is included is not clearly understandable from the source, the PDC homepage). I think you should revert these additions until such time that the PDC homepage indicates otherwise. BTW, I do appreciate you candor in editing under your own name and none of your edits has been overly promotional, as far as I know. However, when one edits about a subject that is close to one's heart, objectivity sometimes gets a bit snowed under :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Namibia Nature Foundation
Hi Guillaume2303, I am disappointed in you for removing Namibia Nature Foundation from the categories I created. You were supposed to nominate them for deletion. Sorry, but I will have to revert your recent changes to my article. User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I removed a bunch of red-linked cats (categories should not be redlinked), so I don't see why I should have taken anything to XfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Anubias gigantea
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia
Beste Guillaume,

I am disappointed that you erased my article Journal of language relationships and that you propose to do the same with Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia. I would like to stress the fact that several high-profile researchers, who have their own wikipedia article (Georges-Jean Pinault, Frederik Kortlandt etc) have published in Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia; as for the Journal of language relationships, it is new and hence its citation rate is not high, but many well-known linguists have either published in it or are member of the editorial committee. It is not fair to delete people's articles like that. It took me time to write it, and I don't appreciate seeing it deleted without concertation. Phonology (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure what you mean with "without concertation". In both cases, you were duly notified of the PROD tag having been placed, giving you plenty of time (a whole week) to react. And "Studia" is not deleted yet, but proposed for merging into another article. I understand that it is disappointing to see that your work was not appreciated the way you would have liked, but creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here on WP. We have rather strict inclusion rules and I'm sure that if you think about it, you'll understand why this has to be that way. As for your argument that notable people have published in the journal, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. If the quality of the journals is a good as you say, then I'm sure that soon they will comply with our inclusion criteria, but at this point, it's just too soon and we are not suppposed to predict the future... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-free content policy and guideline
Please do not place or replace any non-free images to any pages except for actual articles, as you did at User:Guillaume2303/IJssalon Crusio. It is not a question of fair use. Such use is a clear violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. Continuing to do so can be viewed as disruptive behaviour and you may be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For Pete's sake, I'm writing the article, it's almost done. It'll be moved into mainspace tomorrow. If I had been keeping this here for weeks, I could see your point, but after just a couple of hours, this is ridiculous. And giving me a block warning on top of that?!? Ever heard of WP:DTR??? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While narrow exemptions are allowed for the management of (non-free) content, user sandboxes whether active or inactive are by policy not allowed to display non-free content. If you disagree with the policy or have other concerns with it, feel free to bring it up at the policy's talk page or other appropriate location. Also, perhaps you are familiar with WP:TR? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look
Hi Guillaume,

please have a look at this edit. My first inclination is to revert it, but I would like to hear your opinion first. (Some context: Inventiones is indeed a prestigious journal -- I guess, in the top 10 mathematical journals by impact factor -- but I would say that this information is not encyclopaedic, at least while it is phrased in this way and not sourced.)

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have cleaned up all the article, thanks!
 * Sasha (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your exact status on English Wikipedia, if I may make so bold as to ask ?
My dear Guillaume2303,

Can you tell me very clearly : what is your exact status on en:WP ?

According to my investigations, you are nothing more than a simple user, aren't you ?

At the most you are a "reviewer" ; I do not understand exactly what it means and what it implies.

What are you exactly entitled to do on Wikipedia ?

I checked you are  NOT  an admin of en:Wikipedia.

You are a simple user, just like me, aren't you ?

In this case, what entitles you to say that you know better en:WP than I do ?

You have more than 80 000 edits and you are NOT an admin. You are NOT an admin not because you did not want to be an admin. You are NOT an admin because WP did not want you to be an admin.

Therefore you have no superpower over me and nothing entitles you to say that you know or understand en:WP better than I do, especuially in a field that I know much better than you do. Euroflux (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course you may ask and you don't even need to be bold for that. And if you hadn't followed your question with your (by now usual) ranting, this would have been a perfectly normal question. Indeed, I am not an admin and, if you go through the RFA (request for adminship) archives, you'll see that I never even tried to become one, so I really wonder why you think that WP doesn't want me to be one. Check my block log: I've never been blocked and, in fact, have never even received a serious warning. So, yes, I'm a simple user just like you, no superpowers, nor do I wish to have any, nor does anybody on WP have them (be they admins, bureaucrats, ArbCom, or even Jimmy Wales). The simple fact of WP is that everybody can challenge everybody else's edits if one thinks that they are incorrect. And in that respect, yes, I think that because of my long experience on WP here I am more familiar with how things are being done than you are. For instance, a CSD (speedy deletion) tag can be deleted by anyone, even an anonymous IP editor with 0 past edits. It is then inappropriate to put such a tag back. If it's an article, you can then use a PROD or go to AfD, in the case of a category you go to CfD, as I have tried to explain to you on several occasions. Whether or not someone is an expert on some subject or not, actually doesn't count for much here. What counts are arguments: reasonable, rational arguments that you bring forward in a calm and friendly manner in order to convince somebody else of your point of view. It is also helpful in such discussions to stay focussed and not divert to the personal characteristics of the people you disagree with, or to start talking about different subjects (such as whether a certain person is notable, if the subject at hand is the title of a category). As to your other question: a "reviewer" is simply somebody who can create an article, which will then automatically be marked as having been patrolled. Articles created by non-reviewers will be listed in the "new articles" log as "unpatrolled" and somebody will have a look at them to see whether they are not violating any serious policies and that person will then mark the article "patrolled". There is no need for long investigations to figure out somebody's status here: go to your preferences and activate "popups" (you'll find that under gadgets). Besides offering several handy tools, it also produces a little popup window if you hove your cursor over a wikilink (offering a preview of that page) or, if you hover it over a username, that window will display how many edits a person has and what that person's status is (note that "admins" are officially called "sysops"). I am currently very busy so I have no time right now to file an WP:ANI report on your behavior, but once things calm down, I absolutely will do that, because you have been warned many many times now to refrain from personal attacks and you attacked me again at the CfD discussion (as well as Timrollpickering, for example) and just now again in your above post. Perhaps an admin will come by and block you, if not, I'll file a report in a couple of days. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra Jaume Almera
User:Guillaume2303, your assertion that "an in-passing mention in one newspaper does not indicate notability" is not correct: an entire article of half a page (p. 31) in the 3rd newspaper in Spain is indeed devoted to the institute. I would kindly ask you to look around in other equivalent articles (eg. Institut_d%27astrophysique_de_Paris) and check the 'notability' documentation offered. And then remove the template. Another way (the best one) you can check the notability of a research institute is by checking its scientific publication performance, which you can do using for instance the Scopus database. Gaianauta (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the talk page of the journal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also responded at Talk:Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra Jaume Almera. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess next step for Irving Gottesman is GAN?
Feeling a bit more bold after more editing, so probably after I get a few images from somewhere what do you think of putting it up for a GA nomination? Should I add more details first, or is what we have enough? Photos: revived the old thread, may get one from the Festschrift; if not will try fair use considering his age and so on. Churn and change (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I find a moment, I'll see whether I can find a photo. GAN is indeed the next step, I think. There's lots of material in the article now, it just needs to be fine-tuned I guess. I have never gone through GAN, so it will be interesting to see what a GA-reviewer comes up with :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current Mathematical Publications (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) 12:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Int'l Journal of Sciences
I'll see what I can find. The selective indexes are "Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus.", right? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC) He hasn't yet responded. Anyway I took a look at the ISI Web of Knowledge and entered the ISSN and the name in Journal Citation Reports. I couldn't find an entry there WhisperToMe (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few more, depending on the field, but for this journal I think that's about it. You could perhaps ask User:DGG for assistance, he's very helpful and very knowledgeable in this area. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I'll drop him a line! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Built For The Kill
Hi Guillaume,

i'm having trouble with a table i've used in Built For The Kill to better display episodes in the Dvd Releases section. basically i'm after 3 evenly spaced columns left, centre and right of screen.

eg: episode 1.......space....................episode 2.....................space.....................episode 3. instead i'm getting - episode 1 episode 2  episode 3, i don't know how to rectify this nothing i've tried so far has worked.

any help you could give me is great, i'm trying to make any additions or edits i make to an article in the same way the article author has used, often even using the same wording so as not to show multiple authors. this is also how i'm learning to make edits, using the same methods i find already in the article making alterations appear original.

However i disliked the episode listing method used, and opted for another method to better use the space. As there was nothing in the article i could follow, i ended up using a generic table that i can't modify.

Thanks in advance. Rockwizfan (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of tables, exactly because they are not very flexible. Try this: remove the table, precede each entry with an asterisk (*). Then put at the top of the list: • and at the bottom of the list . This should produce a table that adapts to the screen width (just change the size o your browser to see how this works), employing the total width of the screen. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I used your template and initially had 2 columns, by changing the column width to 20em. I ended up with 4 evenly spaced columns, it turned out a lot better than i first hoped. Thankyou very much Guillaume for your help, it's greatly appreciated. Rockwizfan (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good. On my screen (I have a very wide one) it makes 6 nicely-spaced columns. Glad I could be of help. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Promotional edits
Thanks for your suggestions Guillaume2303. I will definitely remove all the links which were discussed by you Jack1144 (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits (and those of others)
Thank you Guillaume2303, By seeing their website and references available on net i have edited and created pages for omics publishing group.I am no where related to omics. Just, being a hobby to edit articles i am doing wiki editing.

Once again i thank you for your advise.Jack1144 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Crusiologo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Crusiologo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
A belated thank you for the barnstar. It is nice to know people notice you for one's work... the good work. Oh I get plenty of notice for my not so good work :).  Bgwhite (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Stillwell Stadium
Hi Guillaume2303,

I am attempting to edit the page for Stillwell Stadium, and I used the information from the Kennesaw State atheltic website. Also, I obtained permission from KSU Athletics to use the pictures KSU Stillwell Baseball Stadium.jpg and KSU Stadium.jpg.

I understand I need to put the article for Stillwell Stadium in my own words, and I will edit accordingly, however, I do have permission to use the pictures.

Thanks bleheu (talk)
 * Although there is no reason not to believe you, I hope that you can see that WP cannot just take the word of any anonymous editor for this, as this might lead to horrendous copyright problems. If you have this permission, you should use the OTRS system to get the images uploaded into Commons. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do understand. I'm not familiar with the OTRS System, but I will look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleheu (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Feminist Africa
Guillaume2303, I'm sorry to say I found your cuts to the Feminist Africa to be unhelpful, bordering on vandalism. You delete several paragraphs worth of material that detail the journal's significance—and then slap a notability template on the top of the article! (Bad enough even if we didn't live in a world where African women are inherently at a disadvantage with respect to internet media, and Feminist Africa has nevertheless succeeded in establishing notability online.) I echo the concerns of users above in the discussion about Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra Jaume Almera, right down to the unjust dismissal of "in passing" discussion in references. groupuscule (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The references that I removed did not discuss the journal, did not substantiate anything that was said in the article, or were not independent of the journal. Every edit was explained in the edit summaries. If the journal is notable, then please add references that show this (see WP:NJournals and WP:GNG for what is needed). As for vandalism: reverting wholesale even edits that correct errors (like adding the correct ISO abbreviation to the infobox) is much closer to "vandalism" than anything that I did. Some tips for writing articles on academic journals can be found in this guide. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You deleted (among many others) a sentence with two sources, stating that Feminist Africa is the first continental African gender studies journal. The sentence is an obvious justification for notability and the sources were valid. You've deleted all sources that speak positively of the journal but left in a piece of criticism. The article meets the guidelines specified in the style guide you provide—and this style guide is furthermore no reason to limit information about the social importance of a journal. I don't work for Feminist Africa and the article as it stands is not fluff or PR. Your edits are truly baffling to me and I cannot see what purpose they serve. groupuscule (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So I see you "conceded" the point about the abbreviation. What you apparently did not appreciate is that there were several other edits that you carelessly reverted: omitting the word "professor", is just one small example (and, yes, there is support for that: WP:CREDENTIAL). The journal obviously is not notable, so I'll proceed with AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Guillaume, the style guide you are citing here is describing the first sentence of biography articles... not the general use of credentials, which seem quite relevant to people's comments. You have said that your edits were well-documented and explained, but in fact the majority of them were summarized inaccurately with the single word "cleanup". Still baffled, groupuscule (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What CREDENTIALS says is: "in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name". So if in the bio of Stephen Hawking we don't talk about "professor Hawking", then that goes for other articles, too. Use of such titles, as with "names dropping", is really rather meaningless. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)