User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 4

African Studies Journals
Dear Guillaume2303, (comment on your previous comment about African Studies Journals) I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I would have been glad if you would really have improved the list (making it a nice and handy Wiki-format, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals_in_biology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bioinformatics_journals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ornithology_journals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_journals). I hope you will not "improve" these four (and other) useful lists too. Instead of improving, you effectively destroyed the Wikipedia article on African Studies Journals, without (in my view) any good arguments. I won't quarrel with you again. Our time can be used much better in a positive way. What I will do: improve the lemma of African Studies Journals by comprising it to one page and by adding "journal home" to any journal title on that page, as is done in several other wiki-articles about journals (as mentioned above). The complete list will be stored somewhere else. Kind regards, --JosephDamen (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Joseph Damen
 * If you disagree with my actions, you can start an RfC (request for comments) to see what the community thinks about this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandra.dandrea
If they really start being disruptive, your friendly neighbourhood admin will be happy to lend a hand. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the moment she has stopped editing. Thanks for the offer, if she starts again and becomes too annoying, I'll drop you a a note. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

slander versus libel
Hi -- just a point of terminology, nothing to do with the issue. A statement can only be slander if it is spoken aloud. If it is written, it is libel rather than slander. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've learned something today! My English is pretty good, I think, but sometimes I still miss some of the intricacies (as my wife -she's American- can attest :-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This point is one that many native English speakers get wrong. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The International Journal of Psychiatry
Mind running your magic on it again? It seems the journal was renamed International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy in 1972, and was published until 1985. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had seen that it continued under a different name, but given that I didn't have time to search for more info and that this was a completely uninformative one-liner, I thought PROD was the best (or at least, easiest) solution. I have tweaked the current article a bit, adding references to the NLM journal database, but it is still a bare stub and hardly informative... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Should be better now, with publisher information, history, ISSNs/CODEN/OCLCs. Still a three-in-one article, covering journals that existed before the days of the online mega-indexes. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At some point or another all three titles were included in the Science Citation Index. However, I have no source for this (searching in the index to establish this fact is OR, I guess). Also, all three were included in PubMed, but the same pplies as for SCI. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not OR in the sense that WP:OR prohibits. Fact finding is different than analysis and synthesis. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a question
I appreciate your moving the Niva article; I had Russian on my brain, so I was thinking of "journal" in the Russian sense of 'magazine.'

Also, I feel like an idiot for asking, but you say "use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab at the top of this page)," and I don't see any "+" tab at the top of the page! What am I missing? Languagehat (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, "journal" and "magazine" get mixed up all the time. The +tab should be a tiny "+" just right from the "edit" button on the top of your screen. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, I don't have a + but I have an A in the row of buttons starting with B, I, Ab... that creates a "Level 2 headline," which I never noticed before, so thanks! Languagehat (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oil Shale (journal)
Hi, Guillaume2303. I would like to ask the reason of removal category:Estonian journals from the Oil Shale (journal) article. This journal is published in Estonia, so accordingly it fits into the category:Estonian journals. Beagel (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Journals
Hello, Guillaume2303. OK. I see the point in removing national categories in journals. Since you do the cleanup for "journals" section, I would ask you to de-redirect the category "Theology journals" (theology and religious studies is not the same thing) and include it to the categord "Academic journals", where it belongs. Thanks. -- Lyonski (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rejuvenation Research
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rejuvenation Research. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Rejuvenation Research. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ersatz "notability" via vanity award?
I think you were onto something here. See my comment in the article's talk page: this award reminds me of the crapola I discovered here.

Maybe I should start the International Wikipedia Editing Award, with a tacky website and an entry fee of &euro;50. Winners will be limited to 10% of the numbers who enter; each gets a plaque that together with postage will cost me &euro;10. -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh oh! -- Hoary (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

African Studies Journals
Dear Guillaume2303, On Febr. 3, 2010, you again removed external links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_studies_journals. I think this is not correct, as the links you removed are used in the same way on other Wikipedia pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals_in_biology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bioinformatics_journals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ornithology_journals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_journals and on several other pages. Moreover: you repeat mistakes. My comment on 13 Jan.: “As you removed external links, two (of the three remaining!) journals under M do not longer have a link to the journal homepage, as the internal Wiki-link is incorrect; same goes for 3 (out of 5 remaining) journals under P).” I corrected this mistakes, but now these mistakes are back again. It is important to look at the results of your actions, especially if you use a script. You didn’t go into my previous arguments on your talk page, but said something about starting an RfC. (Can’t find my comment (25 Jan.) back on your talk page, so I guess it was removed). Why start an RfC and consume people’s costly time while anyone can see the same format is frequently used in similar Wikipedia pages and is working effectively? My proposal is to restore the page to the situation on Febr.3, 2010, 17:00 hr. Regards,JosephDamen (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear JosephDamen, having all those external links is against WP:EL, which clearly states that external links should be avoided in the body of an article (and a list is also an article). In addition, the Manual of Style clearly says "Wikipedia is not a link collection and an article comprising only links is contrary to the "what Wikipedia is not" policy." The African studies journals went against all these guidelines and I cleaned it up accordingly. I will do the same with the other lists that you mentioned as soon as I find time. Meanwhile, you should perhaps read WP:OTHERSTUFF: the fact that other articles make the same mistakes is not a justification for keeping those mistakes also in the African studies journals article. I oppose any reversion to the previous, incorrect, state. If you still think (after reading the guidelines that I have linked to here) that I am wrong and you are right, you are welcome to ask for the opinion of other editors by opening an RfC (although I must warn you that it would appear a rather futile exercise to me and, indeed, "consume people’s costly time" for nothing). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume2303, I know WP:EL. I agree with you that Wikipedia articles should not include external links. But WP:EL also states: "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense." I would like to stress the two last words in this quotation. Lists of journals in Wikipedia are really different from Wikipedia articles and serve a different purpose, as use in several hundred Wikipedia Lists of ... journals indicate. JosephDamen (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I disagree. This is not common sense. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

InsektenBorse
Dear Guillaume2303 The BHL digital version is a bound up version of the weekly collectors magazine but the same publisher used the title InsektenBorse for E Rundschau and E Zeitschrift and these are so referenced (ie InsektenBorse) in very many insect descriptions.I put in some refs and will add a note against the link. In the meantime I'm waiting for a response from Germany. It's confusing but this is an important scientific work in it's proper form. Please let me know If you plan to delete the article you were right to doubt. All the best Notafly (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw what you are doing. I don't intend to propose this for deletion, let's first see whether more can be found. It is strange, though, that there is no article on the German WP. In any case, all I was able to find suggest that Insektenbörse proper was only a small thing with ads from people (hobbyists mainly) wanting to exchange insects. By the way, the current title of the article is "Insekten-Börse", perhaps it should be moved? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This all relates to the relationship between taxonomists, publishers and dealers especially in Germany and France. I may write more on this at a future date.Not so strange there is nothing on the German WP-there are not so many taxonomists about these days.Anywhere! I'll ask Wikipedian Fritz Geller-Grimm if he can dig something up in the state libraries.Many thanks Robert akaNotafly (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I used to be a taxonomist myself in my early days (see Anubias). Now I teach tricks to mice... Wim :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fordham Law Review
Guillaume2303, You changed the status of the Fordham Law Review from six issues per year to bimonthly. I'm not sure if this is technically correct since the issues come out in October, November, December, March, April, and May--not at a steady two month pace. I'm switching it back to the way it was. Thanks for your other edits though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgang (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, I didn't notice that... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

One other thing: I also changed back the abbreviation to small caps because according to the Bluebook (the citation guide for law journals), the abbreviation for the Fordham Law Review should appear in small caps. Thanks again for all the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgang (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just reverted that, all other journal articles just give the abbreviation in normal type. Does the Bluebook (I don't know that and don't have access to it, i think) give this instruction only for the Fordham journal (in which case we should probably follow it), or is this a general thing (in which case we should stick to WP usage)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bluebook has all publications in small caps. I see that some journals don't use it on their wikipedia pages, though the Iowa Law Review does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgang (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then it looks like it is something that the Bluebook recommends what law journals use when they cite each other. I think we should then best stick to WP usage. Cheers, Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

British Journal of Cardiac Nursing and British Journal of Community Nursing ‎
As you suggested, I have undone my reverts to British Journal of Cardiac Nursing and British Journal of Community Nursing, and I have tagged the category Category:United Kingdom nursing journals  for deletion. ‎ Eastmain (talk • contribs)  18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Krakowian
Hello, I saw where you seconded the ProD for this. Both ProD's have been removed. Would you care to nominate for AfD? I'm at work now, and shan't get back to it till tomorrow at the earliest. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Looks like User:Eastmain is fixing it up. Dloh cierekim  11:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so I noticed. Let's see what he ends up with before going to AfD, perhaps a decent article can be made after all. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues journal
Dear Guillaume2303! I see that you have proposed the article on Contemporary Issues for deletion. I accept your kind remark that this article needs to be expanded in order to comply with Wikipedia coverage of academic journals, yet I cannot look past your statement that this journal is only indexed by DOAJ, as an external link showing its coverage by CEEOL is provided. CEEOL is an important indexing database in CEE countries. Further, as the English-language Wikipedia serves not only the users from English-speaking countries but has a global appeal and offers an insight into global knowledge and information, deleting a new electronic journal from a "small" scientific community such as Croatia does not help the development of Wikipedia, social sciences or the Internet, but, au contraire, it undermines it. With good faith in your understanding.

Best regards User:Centar za politoloska istrazivanja —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC).
 * There is obviously nothing against a Croatian journal being included in WP, but, like every other topic, it will have to comply with the notability guidelines. Neither DOAJ, nor CEEOL are very discriminating in their coverage, so neither shows notability for this journal. If you have other sources, please add them to the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles
Hi Guillaume2303. I believe it was you who nominated Brief Chronicles for deletion as lacking "notability." Here is my response:

It is not possible to address the concerns of the proposer for deletion for the simple reason that they are based on a priori assumptions. The respondent employs length of publication as the apparent sole criterion for notability. However, the criteria say nothing about this. They say that "notability refers to being known for such engagement." The journal in question is excerpted by the two most influential literary bibliographical services in the world for its topic areas. Why is this insufficient to constitute "notability?" Please advise. Also, please be so kind as to note that I seeded The Shakespeare Yearbook entry. I became a good friend through email with Douglass Brooks before he passed, and have a (long delayed) major article coming out in the forthcoming issue. Thanks. --BenJonson (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume2303, I wonder if you have had a change to review the most recent discussion on the "Delete Brief Chronicles" page and are willing to reconsider your vote in view of the discussion. Thanks --BenJonson (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead delete it
If such is desired by you. I have no objection for this is the BACKYARD of your wikipedians. I am just trying to create an article about the journal I serve on, NAJMS, which might be of some interest of some, of course not all, physicians and biomedical researchers.

Admitted: YES, I have conflict of interest. So I leave it to you.

Thank you! --Jon Zhang (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Health and Social Behavior
I agree with many of your edits. You have made many fine contributions to Wikipedia. I have to say that you are wrong about one small set of edits related to this journal. JHSB is a scientific journal insofar as the journal is devoted to the impact of social conditions on human health. It is not a healthcare journal. The Journal of Nursing is more of a healthcare journal. JHSB is not a healthcare journal. I would like to hear from you before I make a change in JHSB entry. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I made the change. I rarely disagree with your edits. This may have been the first time.Iss246 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Have a look at Category:Academic journals by subject area (and subcategories of subcategories, I am still reorganizing all that stuff...) whether you find a category that fits better. The problem was that you put it in "scientific journals". Although that category contains many journals, it needs emptying, not adding... Categorizing JHSB as a sociology journal on the one hand and a healthcare journal on the other hand seemed to me the best solution, but I'll happily accept a better one. If there is a bunch of similar journals, I could even create a new category just for them. (But bear in mind that categories should not be too narrow either, else they lose their utility). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you put the "scientific journal" category back. It is not intended to be used directly on articles as it is a top category. It should only contain subcategories. I am currently (slowly) going through all unassessed journal articles, rating them and doing some cleanup. Once that is done, I intend to go through the top categories "academic journals" and "scientific journals" and remove all journal articles from them and re-categorize articles into appropriate categories. Again, an existing category may fit better or else we can create a new category, but the article really should not be categorized as "scientific journal". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JHSB is a scientific journal the way the American Journal of Epidemiology is a scientific journal. I sympathize with you about the unwieldiness of the category of scientific journals although it is true that there exist a great many such journals, thousands. I also observed that there are journals in the category of scientific journals that don't belong (e.g., finance journals). Although I disagree, if you want to remove JHSB from the category scientific journals I am not going to dispute you. I insist, however, that JHSB not be termed a healthcare journal.Iss246 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The category "scientific journals" is unwieldy because many people have added articles to it without checking the category itself first. Also, often people will categorize, say, a mathematics journals as (indeed) "mathematics journal", but then also add "scientific journal". The latter is incorrect: "mathematical journal" is already a subcategory of "scientific journal", so by being categorized as a mathematical journal the article automatically is included in "scientific journals". I don't know whether the American Journal of Epidemiology is categorized as a scientific journal, but if so, it will have to be removed and categorized more exactly. The end-goal will be to have not a single journal directly categorized as "scientific journal". Get me right, I do not dispute that JHSB is a scientific journal. I only say that it should be categorized a bit more precisely than that. I can, for the moment, categorize it as "medical journal", how about that? And I repeat yet again, if you think there is a category that should be created for this and similar journals, that can be done. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Science Vision
I am inclined to give it considerable tolerance as the only science journal in a minority language. Is there somewhere to merge?  DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, too, but the problem is that I could not find a single reference. I'd have left it alone if there had been a link to a homepage (or if I could have found a homepage), but I couldn't. It's not in JournalSeek or WorldCat. Perhaps you have other ideas how to find sources? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Famous Victories
Hi Guillaume2303,

Thanks for adding some additional material to the new entry on Critical Survey. You may be interested in this, which I just created today: Famous Victories .--BenJonson (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Yearbook
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Guillaume2303, I wonder where I ran into you in the past. It must have been here on Wikipedia, since I haven't been in Bordeaux in years, though I hope to spend some time near Cahors this summer. Het beste, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We interacted about something last year, although I cannot remember exactly what either. I think it was another journal, or perhaps the proposed journal notability guidelines. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm already tired of Shakespeare... Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Guillaume2303, I hope your flight wasn't too bad. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your level-headedness in that discussion. Incidentally, I found it remarkable that I was not in agreement with DGG--usually I am, but let me reiterate that I was only three letters away from agreeing with you and with him, and if the vote had been to delete I would not have shed a tear. All the best, Drmies (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Check it

 * Chris Adams (Character)
 * Calvera (Character)
 * Bernardo O'Reilly
 * Django (character)

I suggest a deletion templates are not suitable for these articles. I hope, You'll change your mind, after You check them. Regards. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not really convinced. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not much to discuss. Just adding some books that discuss (spaghetti) Westerns, or the film career of Charles Bronson may show notability for those movies and for the actor. It doesn't show notability for the individual characters. And, really, have a look at them: apparently there is no material for a real article because all they are now is just a bunch of trivia. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, discuss it there, otherwise templates, which are have no argument, will be removed. In russian wiki we remove them 30 minutes after they were posted if nobody tries to discuss them. I don't know the whole procedure in en-wiki, but I have no doubts about their unnecessity. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it doesn't work that way. The problem is stated in the tag, so there is no need to expand on that. You correct the problem, you can take down the tag. You take down the tag without addressing the problem, the article gets taken to AfD. Simple as that! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gutenberg-Jahrbuch
Hi. Why have you removed these two cats? The GJ is mostly, though not exclusively, a German-language publication and it is definitely a scholarly periodical. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the "German-language" category because it is a multilingual journal (and categorized as such), in which case we don't categorize all the different individual language, too. I removed the "scientific journals" category because 1/ it is not a scientific journal, even though it is an academic journal and 2/ the scientific journal and academic journal categories are top categories that should remain empty (even though they are not at the moment, that is the aim). Articles should be assigned to appropriate subcategories. As I just returned home from a transatlantic trip, I crashed and went to bed before I had thought of an appropriate subcategory. Have a look at the different subcategories in the Category:Academic journals by subject area and see if you find something appropriate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I am not even sure this should be categorized as a journal. The publisher website lists these volumes as books with an ISBN. I will ask User:DGG, who is a librarian, for advice. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure myself. Nothing really fits, perhaps History journal is the least worst category. You decide. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

 * Dear colleague. Your nomination for deletion a five articles in my edition, together with supporting of User:EEMIV in his actions against these articles, instead of editing it, will be considered as vandalism and treated correspondingly. It has nothing to deal with good will. I recommend you to remove all of deletion templates and cross out all your nomination in deletion discussions. Otherwise I will request for administrator attention. Your current intention are clear. I rely on your common sense. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. SerdechnyG (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style
I didn't see it in the MOS (apropos of the edits you made in the EA-OHP entry). Please direct to the spot in the MOS. I don't doubt you that it is there. I remembering seeing the guideline to which you referred, and could not find it. Perhaps I might appeal for a change. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC) --Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll search. Perhaps it's in one of the sub-manuals derived from MOS. Can't do that tonight any more, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this covers it, although I also remember a more specific mention. I'll continue looking. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I also observed that the MOS indicated that "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In my editorial judgment, it would be better for the article if the deleted links were restored to the "See also" section. These are my reasons. Restoring the two deleted links would put four important links in one group for the readers to use. Having the links together would underline their mutual relatedness and their relatedness to the topic whether or not the links are mentioned in the body of the article.

Let me also be clear about this. I don't support piling up internal links in the "See also" section. I think having four is a workable number that will be an aide for visitors to the entry. Thanks for giving this your attention.Iss246 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a hugely important deal to me, so I won't object if you put those links back. The above was just to explain why I removed them. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.Iss246 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Calvera (Character)
Why did you deleted the information of scientifical titles of experts? Why did you deleted an interview content instead of hide it by a hidden comment or to make it convenient to read with wikipedia instruments? And many more.

It looks not so fair, your edits while the article is being discussed for deletion. If you don't revert it by writing full information about experts and Wallach's interview about how he created the character - I will consider it as vandalism. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have another option - to withdrawn your nominations instead of my previous recommendation. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the block of text from the interview, not Guillaume2303. It was an abuse of copyrighted material to copy-and-paste such a large block of text, particularly since Wikipedia didn't offer any transformative value to the original work. It is more appropriate to summarize or paraphrase the content. --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, You can optimize it by `div class`-options or hide it instead of delete it. Second, . I suggest no further questions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear SerdechnyG, you're starting to get on my nerves. If you look at the diff that you give above, you'll see that the interview is still there. I did not remove it so please start being a bit more careful, as you seem to be so fond of reminding others. (Not that I don't agree with the removal, but that is another matter). Second, if you care to look, you will see that in my edit summaries I always explain why I do something. If you would care to read the Manual of Style, yoou would see that it clearly says that academic titles and such should not be used. Finally, editing while an article is under AfD is not only normal, it is encouraged, because by improving an article it may in the end turn out to be better to keep it than delete it. If you would stop accusing people and yell "vandalism" at everybody who disagrees with you, articles never will get improved. Why don't you try to improve the encyclopedia instead of yelling at people and picking fights. Please don't post on my talk page any more, I am done with you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, editing while an article is under AfD is not only normal, it is encouraged, because by improving an article it may in the end turn out to be better to keep it than delete it. - it's normal when you wrote "No indication of notability whatsoever" and now trying to proove its notability by removing evidences of notability? Well, well, well.
 * If you would care to read the Manual of Style, yoou would see that it clearly says that academic titles and such should not be used - if you would care to read it, you would see that there is not a single word about academic titles.
 * I did not remove it so please start being a bit more careful, as you seem to be so fond of reminding others. You didn't. But EEMIV did. Accepted.
 * Dear SerdechnyG, you're starting to get on my nerves What preventing you from have some rest? Take your time, relax. World wouldn't stop if you would give yourself some wiki-vacation. My goal is to protect your nerves.
 * If you would stop accusing people and yell "vandalism" at everybody who disagrees with you - I had acused nobody yet. And please reveal: who are these people and everybody you are talking about. Let me guess. EEMIV and Guillaume2303?? You two pretending to be a whole Wikipedia? Perfect! No further questions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Your nomination for deletion a five articles ... will be considered as vandalism and treated correspondingly." What was that about "accus[ing] nobody"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Notification
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Calvera (Character). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chris Adams (Character). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SerdechnyG (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG
Well, I've started talking with SerdechnyG. He seems receptive to my explanations, and is keeping his cool. I explained to him why referring to yours and EEMIV's actions as persecution would seem excessive here, and also stated that I felt that the two of you could have been more patient with him. In particular, it would have been worth explaining policies to him, rather than just directing him to them. Also, while some of the comments I saw would generally be seen as constructive criticism, he may not have understood them as such, given that English isn't his first language. In short, I think you bit a newcomer, but that's just my opinion. Regards, RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree completely with you. We definitely got off on the wrong foot. I prodded some of his articles during new page patrol. PROD gives a week to improve articles and, indeed, it often prods contributors to clean up the article they created and correct the signaled problem. In this case I received the rather hostile responses above, although I now realize that most of the hostility I saw was just clumsy English. So I did realize that I had bit a newbie and I have said as much myself, but my olive branch was refused and any attempt to communicate with SerdechnyG has proven to be in vain ever since. Attempts to improve the articles that I took to Afd are rebuked (and note that it is not at all unusual for the nom at an AfD to try to improve an article and hence prove himself wrong). The articles that he created are, without any doubt, bad. Perhaps something good may come out of it, but not if he keeps insisting doing things his way. I have re-written, for example, this part of the Chris Adams article, and posted several comments offering advice on the talk pages of the articles concerned, but SerdechnyG just ignores all. I understand the problems with English not being his first language. It is not my first first language either. But he must be aware of this and that should make him realize that from time to time, he misinterprets things and actually make him more prudent before jelling "vandalism" or "persecution" instead of more likely to do so. Anyway, I hope this episode is over and that you'll succeed in making a good contributor out of him. As I have said before, WP needs people with knowledge of Russian themes to improve our coverage. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

merging
There's a discussion on the Bernardo O'Reilly close on my talk p. I ventured to make a compromise close in this area, relying on the editors to actually merge a significant part of the material.  DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Business Ethics Quarterly
Hi Guillaume2303,

I've been modeling the information for Business Ethics Quarterly on the Wikipedia page for the Journal of Business Ethics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Business_Ethics. You'll see the same awards and impact factor presentation. Can you point me to a humanities or social science journal presentation that we can use as a standard going forward? Gleaman (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Gleaman, thanks for bringing that article to my attention, as it urgently needs cleaning up. It does not adhere to several WP policies (see WP:NOT and the writing guide for academic journals). The BEQ article looks pretty reasonable to me as it is now. If there are any awards to list, that would be good. Also, I don't understand why you removed the "normal" impact factor. Having an IF is always a very important argument when journal articles are brought to AfD. I would do something about the "notable contributors" list, though. There is something like WP:NOTINHERITED and for the uninformed reader (which is who we are writing for here) probably has no clue why it is worth mentioning that these people have published in the journal. If there is an article that was exceptionally well cited or that was prominently mentioned in popular media, that would be an excellent thing to add, much more useful than this list of people. I'll have a look tomorrow to see whether I can find a good humanities/social sciences journal for you, but for now I'm off to bed! Hope this helps a bit. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I have gone through the class B and C academic journals and most humanities/social sciences journals in those categories were actually pretty bad and contained a lot of fluff and other inappropriate stuff. After cleaning them, I re-assessed them as Start at most... So it seems like there is no really good example out there. I think that the best advice is still in the WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Church (TV personality)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Church (TV personality). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Church (TV personality). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the page history for this article.
 * I'm impressed to see the effort you made to bring an article you thought sub-standard up to standard.
 * It would appear others agree with you, that it is beyond hope, but who knows.
 * Your editorial actions here strike me as exemplary. Bravo!
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I actually don't think that this article is completely beyond hope, as the reality TV show seems to exist. But someone (probably the subject himself) keeps inserting all kinds of nonsense ("D.O.A." and such) sourced to YouTube and the likes and that basically made me give up on it. As long as he keeps doing that, I think the article is beyond hope... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. Even if Church himself is undermining that article, it's great you're trying to stop him. He really should let us cover him responsibly and well. How ironic if he's making it more trouble than it's worth to have an article covering his work. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adamantius
Dear Wim,

firstly, thank you so very much for expressing timely and heart-felt sympathy for my wife and I. I appreciated it all the more knowing how your professional work is part of advancing human knowledge that could well spare others all sorts of misfortunes.

But, back to business. As chance would have it, over the months I've been quietly working on my own research, an email was forwarded to me, regarding which journals we should approach to have our work published. I've uploaded a copy to my userspace here, so you can see it. The main point is, of course, that Adamantius is peer-reviewed journal, not only on the short list of journals, but ranked "A". The ARC listing is also taken seriously by Australian research institutions (if you can trust I didn't fake or prompt the email).

You may also have noticed that I found the proceedings of the Origen Research Group were not only indexed at ATLA, but reviews of the proceedings had been indexed. Origen studies are hardly the most world-changing discipline, and the number of Wikipedia readers who might benefit from knowing who's who in that field is undoubtedly small. However, although I'm not an Origenist, he's such a major early theologian, that he's actually even relevant to my own research on the Song of Songs. Origen wrote a great deal of commentary on the Song, much of which survives in a old Latin translation. In seeking information on Origen, the Italian Origen Research Group is a major world player. In their very small pond, they are big fish. They are obviously not very devoted to their website, however. Research in theology-related disciplines rarely has much funding for things like that.
 * King, J. Christopher. Origen on the Song of songs as the spirit of scripture: the bridegroom's perfect marriage-song. Oxford theological monographs. OUP, 2005.

Where do we go from here? Well, I hope that, now I've had time to actually present some information for you one-to-one, you might actually support provision of a basic start or stub of an article on the Italian Origen Research Group, or on their journal. Probably an article on the group, rather than the journal, since reliable sources on the group are easier to find than sources specific to the journal.

Although I have no particular passion for this Italian group, I've come to know they exist and do good work in an area that is valuable to at least me, and people in related disciplines to mine. The way things are at Wiki, though, people sometimes find it hard to believe anyone would start articles simply for the sake of a public service. Were you, however, to support documenting the existence of this group, it would obviously carry more weight, and all the more so given a range of other factors.

With regard to your original objection, that the Group themselves call their journal a "newsletter", I'd offer that this is classic academic understatement (even the generic name "journal" is very unassuming for the cutting-edge information that these publications contain), and that both the Italian Group's own work which is reported, and their reviews of the work of others, are of the highest standard in their own field.

Anyway, I'm sure you hear what I'm asking. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we might be able to proceed. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me ask DGG's opinion. I'll get back to you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Personally, I'd be inclined to follow whatever DGG proposes also myself. I don't want to disagree with you or him, I admire the hard work both of you do. The ARC have made it hard for me to give up on Adamantius though. Sorry to be such a bore. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have known of that journal ranking project from the start. It is certainly taken seriously by Australian institutions, because government funds will be alloted based upon it. In the sciences, they are using  bibliometric measures--though one can argue the details, it's at least a rational approach. But in the humanities I consider the way they are doing it to be unscientific, and a variant of I LIKE THIS ONE, as with  other studies based upon reputation But it is still a reputable list and we need take it into account. WP:NOT TRUTH would be the relevant guideline.
 * I am however not sure about the nature of the journal. Based on the material available online,, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, but a mere newsletter. A newsletter can be notable, for some have carried important scholarly work--and I want to try to get some of the noteworthy ones into Wikipedia. It is possible that it is a peer-reviewed journal, be that this is not reflected in the available material--for otherwise I am quite puzzled it is on any recommended list, however prepared.  Princeton Theological Seminary claims to have a set, and I will be visiting there to give a talk on Wikipedia in May, so I'll look at it then.
 * What I think best is to do as Alaistair suggests, to write an article about the group with a section on the journal. since they have other publications as well, including monographs with separate WorldCat entries, it will be a substantial article and a good start for later expansion.    DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly happy with that, so long as you can be gracious about the article being short and more of a start than anything else. The group may be technically notable, but the note they warrant might only be a small one. I'll try not to let that make me lazy about extracting what information I can.
 * I look forward to hearing what you discover at Princeton. That is verification at its best! :))
 * Shall we defer action until Dave's return from Princeton?
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Meanwhile you could start the article on the group in your userspace. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor in chief
Hello. I want to point out a discrepancy that I came across with IEEE Microwave Theory and Wireless Components Letters regarding the editor in chief of this publication. The link from the Society page here:  says the person is Prof. C-K Clive Tzuang. Scrolling to the bottom the page has been last updated: 2010-01-02. But this page says the person is George E. Ponchak. I just wanted to point this out because maybe we are not sure at the moment who is the editor-in-chief. Of course you might know from your own experience.

While I am here :), I wanted to point out that the link to letters from this page does use MWCL as an abbreviation. So I am thinking it would be OK to put this in the info box. You can see the abbreviation right after the name in parenthesis. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Psychiatric Quarterly
Hi Guillaume2303, Cheers.User:LeadSongDog come howl  15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl  16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cleanup.
 * I've readded and revised the OCLC linkages. I hope in the new form you find they are more usable. Feel free to refactor as needed. *On WorldCat's pages for these OCLCs there are "electronic journals" listed that link to googlebooks and HathiTrust images of the early volumes. This was the first time I had seen the HathiTrust archives, and I must say it left a very positive impression.
 * Thanks, now I see what you meant! I have edited it a bit to make it more in line with WP style. I have left out the Google Books, because that only offers "snippet view" and you have to pay to get the whole thing. The HathiTrust has the same material and all for free, so I added that as a direct external link. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I should have EL'd them myself.
 * I tend to like the OCLC links as well for these older works that often don't have DOI, ISSN or ISBN, since they help people who can still go to brick-and-mortar libraries, but I recognize many WP editors don't like seeing them in citations, especially for massively referenced articles. Accordingly I tend to use them in citations only when the newer linkages are not to freely available versions.
 * For googlebook pages, there is usually a "Find in a library" link that can be helpful to researchers.
 * You're right, I've added them back. I should check whether one can have multiple OCLCs in journal infoboxes (one can have multiple ISSNs), that would provide a neater solution. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that the multi-OCLC condition is intrinsic in the distributed-source design of WorldCat. Over time a single one should theoretically be established that covers all editions, but that rather depends on all contributing libraries to be enthusiastic about maintaining their catalogues, a rather unrealistic assumption. In any case, we can't know in advance which one will win out, so being able to list a few seems useful. User:LeadSongDog come howl  18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Konsthistorisk tidskrift
Could you please explain how this article needs to be "cleaned up"? --Hegvald (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, for some of the work you put into the article, but some of the changes seem rather unmotivated and need to be reverted. For example, the title is Konsthistorisk t idskrift, not Konsthistorisk T idskrift. Same thing for other proper nouns of publications and societies; Swedish does not use "title case" the way English does. These proper nouns were all, I believe, fine as they were.

You also removed things in the history section that gave important context, such as names and positions of people involved at the time the society was started. And what was wrong with pointing out that "The society was clearly Stockholm-centric from the start: Sirén and Roosval became chairman and vice chairman, respectively"? This was sourced to a book on the history of art history in Sweden. The only reason I can see to remove either of these things would be if a separate article were to be written on the society, and I don't think that is needed. In any case, it functions as background for the later decision to start a journal published in Stockholm, as opposed to the already existing one (Tidskrift för konstvetenskap) published in Lund.

I will keep out of the article right now as others are working on it, but will get back to it in a couple of days. --Hegvald (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the list of "publishers" and "editors" should be pared down. Having a list of the equivalent of "editors in chief" is fine for a journal article, but I have the impression that the "publishers" are basically the persons handling the day-to-day running of the journal and those are generally not listed in journal articles. Thanks for the note about capitals. I did check this and was thrown off by the fact that the T&F site uses capitals for the header of the page. Further down they don't and the journal cover (the final arbiter, so to so), doesn't do either, so I'll change this back. As for the Stockholm-centric thing, the way the reference was placed I understood it to source the persons and thought that the "Stockholm-centric" remark constituted unallowable synthesis. I'll change that, too. The references need to be cleanup up, too. Most of what is under "databases" can be deleted. The section "Recognition" should be renamed and retitled. The "Notes" are the "references" and the "references" should either be deleted or be used to source statements in the article and reformatted as real references. Hope this helps explain the tag. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: I have copied this discussion to the article's talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied there. --Hegvald (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Korean Sociological Association/Korean Journal of Sociology
Dear Guillaume2303, hi. Thanks for your work on these two: Korean Sociological Association, Korean Journal of Sociology and the picture of the journal. I'm sorry I am still making basic errors but I think I am improving but it is tricky to remember everything and I tend to be doing this while doing two other things as well. I am not sure I understand properly about how to establish the notability that user:ConcernedVancouverite has requested on these two. They seem to be similarly sourced and referenced to most of our journals. My hope had been that these could support Gil-Sung Park who is up for deletion as he was formerly Chief Editor. Would you have any suggestions as to how to address the tags? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)) PS: I did look for some more sources for Global Policy but haven't found anything yet.
 * Hi, where I currently am, I cannot access any secure sites (https), so I haven't been able to see whether the journal is listed in the Science Citation Index and whether it has an impact factor. If it does, that would pretty much establish notability and should lead to a "keep" on Park. Alternatively, if you can show that the journal is indexed in the more important sociology databases, then that would help, too. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No I couldn't find it in SCI or an impact factor - there doesn't seem to be much from Korea.
 * The only thing I have found like this is: This entry: Han'guk Sahoehak/Korean Journal of Sociology, 1225-0120, Core in the  Sociological Abstracts - Current Serials Source List here
 * []
 * Where "Core" is defiend as journals are published by sociological associations, groups, faculties, and institutions, and/or have the term "sociology" in their titles. All substantive articles appearing in these journals are abstracted and indexed, and citations are provided to the book reviews published therein. Is that enough? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I thnk it is enough. Good job! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Guillaume2303 - Could you help unmerge Korean Sociological Association and Korean Journal of Sociology. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Dear Guillaume2303, Thanks for your contribution on the above (and sorry I thought I had completed IJCS properly). I failed to get a keep only an inconclusive on Gil-Sung Park.  Best wishes (23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

Global Policy

 * Another one :)

Sambrook
hi, just wondered if you saw the thread at the BLPN, also do you intend to add any more citations? Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I did not see that as the link you give on the talkpage goes to Joseph Sambrook. The guy has authored a book of which just one volume has over 125,000 citations in Google Scholar. Much as I dislike that search engine because of its inaccuracies, that is about 10, times as high as the highest citation number I have ever seen. I don't really intend to work much more on this article. If you would put as much effort in finding sources as in putting and PROD tags, it probably would be perfectly sourced by now... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you would add some more citations, the article has existed for five years pretty much uncited, the subject of the BLP would rather not have the article, I had a look round and found little in the way of ordinary citations, I am not much of a scholar. I have asked at a wikiproject page for an expert but if one hasn't come along after five years I don't imagine one will come along now, anyway thanks for you work. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a few more refs. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw. Thank you for your improvements to the Joseph Sambrook BLP. It is really appreciated. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian journals
I must say I find it odd that there would be no way of categorising something as Australian even when it has Australian in its title. I created the category partly as a way of justifying its inclusion in the Australian project.--Grahame (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept there is no such thing as Australian entomology, but there is Australian history.--Grahame (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although without having read it, it is true it is not necessarily a journal about Australain history, so I have no objection about the category being removed and I will consider removing the project tags.--Grahame (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hispania (journal)
Blimey that was quick - nice work, thanks! – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters
Geez, that is a long name for an annual publication.

The indexing services I provided were the only ones I have access to. I don't have access to the subcription indexing services. I notice that some journals provide the names of indexing services that carry their information. Others don't. So, it is difficult for me to know which ones they are. I can assume that anything with the IEEE name in the title would be carried by the notable indexing services. Is there some place on the web that could supply simple information like which indexes carry what and the impact factor?

Also, I notice that you removed other "numbers" that I placed there. I guess the only thing that is worth putting in an article is the impact factor. Is that correct? I can read your response here. One more thing - I could not find anywhere that says this publication is peer reviewed although I assume that it must be so.

BTW, I hope you don't mind, but I have your talk page on my watchlist, because interesting information regarding peer reviewed journals seems to show up on your page. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, yep, those engineers sure don't go for short and snappy! No problem of course watchlisting my talk. I sometimes do that with othr users, too, or look in their contributions because they have similar interests and may lead me to articles that I am interested in. The indexing services for this journal are almost trivial (like JournalSeek), but the fact that there is an impact factor suggests that there is more, at least the Science Citation Index. Even if you don't have a subscription, you can check that by going to the Thomson-Reuters journal master list (I have a link to that on my user page, together with some other links that may be useful for editing journals). Of course, this only lists their services, but it's a start. I didn't check it myself earlier, because I only was online for a short time (couldn't sleep.... :-(. As for being refereed, I actually just assumed that, because otherwise they would not profile themselves as a scientific journal. It should be checked though, because some IEEE publications are indeed not reviewed and therefore should be classed as magazines. About the other figures, there are of course no real rules here, but all other journal articles only mention the impact factor. Some articles also list other citation data, but on an article level. See Genes, Brain and Behavior for an example. Most of the information included in that article got there from suggestions that I got from User:DGG, who is a librarian. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I just see that they use ManuscriptCentral for handling submissions, which they certainly wouldn't do if there was no peer review. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Italictitle
Actually Italictitle redirects to Italic title so both work, although as far as I can tell there is no consensus for the use of either except for species/genera articles. – ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I only noticed that there was no difference after I had "corrected" your change. There is consensus in the WPJournals project for this (at least, when I removed the instructions for the italic title from the writing guide of that project, I was rapidly reversed). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BIOSIS
I do not want an edit war with you. I do want Wikipedia guidelines and policies to be followed. Any suggestions? --Bejnar (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The listed sources, particularly: Steere, William Campbell; Parkins, Phyllis V. and Philson, Hazel A. (1976) Biological Abstracts/BIOSIS, The First Fifty Years, The Evolution of a Major Science Information Service New York Botanical Garden, Plenum Press, New York, ISBN 0-306-30915-7, contains a great deal more that just the datum for a single footnote.
 * 2) It is normally considered inappropriate to list a book for a given footnote without a specific page cite where the datum that has been footnoted can be found.
 * 3) It is normally considered inappropriate to place a book in a footnote if you have not examined the book itself.
 * I have reverted myself to the last version edited by you except for some minor tweaks. Is that what you mean? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Garrison and Morton
You made this edit. I've commented at the article talk. Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl  18:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of theology journals
Hi Wim, I've provided a very belated reply at the list article. It really does need clean-up. Can we chat a bit about what end result might be useful at Wikipedia: no lists of theology journals, a list of all journals that have articles, a top 100 list, a list of "top 10s" broken up by category: cultural anthropology, Ancient Near East archaeology, linguistics, literature, "pure" theology (i.e. doctrine), ethics. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Alastair: I have responded on that talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Phil Trans
Dear Guillaume2303, please let's not get into some silly acrimonious edit war here. I did try and correct the entry retaining the mention of JDS, but that was reverted too. So I removed it in the interests of simplicity. I don't really mind what you do to the entry about JDS as it's not my concern. However, please do not continue to distort the Phil Trans entry. The fact is it was the first journal exclusively devoted to science. This is not in question. It is a fact and I shall be happy to send you the relevant evidence. As it is a factual statment, it should not be reverted. The mention of JDS here is an optional piece of background only and I am happy to have it included, but only in a correct context, not the original context which tried to claim it was the first science journal. This is not correct, as JDS published a wide variety of scholarly material. Please look at reference no. 1 in the wikipedia entry for Journal des Scavans, I quote "Although the Journal des sçavans is often hailed as the first scientific journal, this is not quite true."

Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that your latest wording is slightly better. I have no wish to exclude JDS from the record, as I think it is relevant. But just wanted a fair picture to be given. Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses
I have responded here. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinpoint citation
The guideline is at Citing sources. There are a couple of ways of doing it. If you are only citing the same work with different pages twice, then one may use two entries, or if there are multiple cites with different pages in the same work, then one can put the work in the sources section and use abbreviated footnotes like Thompson (2006) page 17; Thompson (2006) page 47. You are correct that it may be slightly supererogatious to provide pinpoint citation for a two page article. But after one has repeatedly spent time looking for the datum somewhere in a thirty page article, and eventually come to the conclusion that the citation did not in fact stand for the proposition suggested by its placement, one appreciates pinpoint citation. In other words, it is a good habit that is supported by the Wikipedia policy of verification. --Bejnar (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When I first started editing Wikipedia, things were much looser than they have now become. Which is why you will see articles up for deletion that have been around for several years, and only now are other editors asking: Where is the significant coverage in secondary sources?  Originally only a few articles were provided with inline citation.  Most editors just put some titles in the Sources (or Reference) section and felt that that was adequate. (That is what I did in the first article that I created.) The confusion over references and footnotes continues to this day. That is why I like calling the sections Notes and Sources (or Further reading) rather than References. --Bejnar (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods
Thanks for the cleanup. Please see its talk page for some general comments and clarifications.

The journal is in fact quite active. The web page has now indicated its publication schedule.

I can't figure out how to do the disambiguation for "jackknife." I thought I had it figured out, but the disambiguation tag remains indicating it still needs fixing. If you know how to do that I would appreciate it; once I see it done properly I should be able to avoid disambiguation in the future.

Also, I apologize for not using the "+" per your instructions - I don't know how to do it or what it does, so I've just left my comments here.Edstat (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check this: http://www.coe.wayne.edu/COE/Projects.html. The copyright is held by JMASM, Inc., so I agree it may be confusing.Edstat (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Organdi quarterly
Hi, you have raised two questions in modifying my entry: the question of (1) notability and the question of (2) academic journal or not. Ad 2: The Organdi quarterly is listed as academic journal in many journal lists - I have quoted some of these references in my renewed version. Ad 1: Several of the authors that have published in the Organdi journal cite it, and it is cited by others in academic bibliographies and references. But information on the journal is scarce, so I thought it might be a good service to the public and the scientific community to provide basic information via wikipedia. I do not think that infos on a less known, "small" journal are entirely unnotable. And by the way: where are the limits of notability, and who is to decide on them? What will become of the idea of a free encyclopedia, if a class of supervisors starts to function as editors, deciding which lemmata are "notable" and which not ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.99.141 (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I'll answer here, because you are editing from an anonymous IP. As for the journal being academic, that depends in large measure on whether it was peer-reviewed or not. I'll have a look at the sources that you provided. As for notability, please see WP:N for the general criteria about what is considered notable enough to merit an article and WP:Notability (academic journals) with some (non-binding) thoughts on what specifically constitutes notability for an academic journal. The notability tag that I placed is not a call for deletion but an encouragement to provide sources (per WP:V and WP:RS) establishing the notability of the subject. Finally, you ask "who is to decide on them"? Well, that is the community of WP editors (including yourself). If an editor feels that an article does not meet the criteria referred to above (and this can be any editor), he can propose an article for deletion, a well-defined procedure to establish consensus within the community (note that "consensus" does not mean "unanimity"). Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry for forgetting to sign. The journal was, according to its own claim, peer-reviewed. How can one really check if this claim was met? it is listed as academic in several sources. who can remove the notability tag you have placed? you alone or anybody?--188.23.99.141 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Just checked that I was working in a window where I did not sign in. here is my signature--Leontari1 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)*I have corrected the article. In principle, anybody can remove that notability tag, provided they address the problem (or think it has been addressed sufficiently). However, if the person who originally placed the tag disagrees, the result often is a deletion discussion. I have to say that I have not seen any evidence of notability and this is certainly the way that I would go. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC) hi, and we shall see, crusader. before starting a deletion discussion just have a look at the following link social science research network, and searching Google books with the keywords "Organdi revue" or "Organdi quarterly" also produces results which can be interpreted as reliable secondary sources, at least tmho. --Leontari1 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The SSRN link gives the abstact of an article published in Ogandi, what does that prove beyond the fact that the journal existed? And a GS search gives exactly 35 hits, which is not directly an indication that there is any notability here either. Up till now, all you do is giving me arguments why this should be taken to AfD ("articles for deletion"), not why this should be kept. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy decline
I declined your speedy on TR BioSurgical. It's not perfect, and I can see why people had COI concerns on the editing history, but it isn't purely promotional spam.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Applied Physics Express
I am glad you caught those category errors for Applied Physics Express. Apparently I was asleep at the wheel on that one. I did notice before that this article got categorized as Publications established in 1982, and I wondered if that was correct. I should have asked you or someone else on the project about that. Somehow I totally missed the "weekly" for the frequency. Oh well live and learn. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The weekly probably wa because the website says they update weekly, but issues come out monthly. The 1982 probably was because they say that APEX is the follow-up journal of another that was established then. Don't worry about it, those things get caught sooner or later by someone :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

109.165.174.183 notion
Hi, I'm registered user, but sometimes I forget to log in and left unsigned changes.

Čikić Dragan (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I left a welcome template at that IP address, because I could of course not know that you were registered. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Phenome/Phenomics
Dear Dr. Guillaume2303,

I hope we can use this page as a way to work out the issues surrounding the words "Phenomics" and "Phenome". The two words have been used in many scientific publications and are listed as words in many online dictionaries. I think Wikipedia should have these words as a separate items in it's database. Please add your thoughts to this page. As I am sure they will differ from my views, perhaps you can suggest a way to deal with is issue, because the current mode of dealing with this issue is not helpful, I am at a loss to find another way of dealing with it. I welcome your thoughts.

Steven A. Garan
 * Dr. Garan, good to be talking, which is more constructive than anonymous edit-warring. I have explained my reasons for reverting both to Phenotype at length on the talk page. Whatever the outcome of the discussion there (which is the appropriate venue for discussion, not here), the claim that you coined the word "phenomics" should be substantiated by an independent reliable source. A 2003 abstract won't do it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A request
I know from the talk pages that you have strong feelings about the phonemics redirect, and I'm very aware that there are numerous issues interacting in this matrix at this point. Things are getting out of hand, and I'd ask that we leave the phonemics article in place for a while yet and have some more discussion. I think that might have a calming effect and help ease sorting all of this out. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Retirement
Sorry to see this Guillaume2303, always a shame to lose valued editors. Best wishes to you on your voyage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this as well, it would have been good to have your input. If you do have the time or inclination, I've started to add some text covering various usage issues relative to phoneme and phenotype, any feedback would be appreciated. Best wishes, and thanks, -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally, some relief from the constant prodding of not-notable journals!! ;-) Thank you, and please come back when you have more time or renewed interest.. or consider wiki-retirement at Wikisource! (e.g. Systema naturae, Philosophie zoologique, On the Origin of Species, or I'll be happy to set up a transcription project for something else that of historical importance to your research) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes for your retirement and many thanks for your kind assistance (Msrasnw (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

journal discussion
I think the discussion at RfD: which seems to imply the removal of all redirects from journal titles that do not have articles, might benefit from some yjpughts of yours'.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Article class: stub
Hello there. I noticed that you reassigned the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese article as "stub class." It would be nice if you could take another look, as the page has had much added to it since that rating was originally assigned and according to the quality scale guidelines, it is in the very least a "C" if not a "B" or a "GA." Thank you! Chelschamplin (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Houston, we (may) have a problem
Hello. First let me say, welcome back. Are you semi-retired, or back in full swing?

Second, there are a bunch of articles where I filled in "yes" for peer review field. I reviewed the instructions on the infobox, as per your note in the edit history. I guess I will have to back and correct this error. Thanks for the heads up. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

direct
Hi ... Can you please direct me with greater specificity to the guidance in wp:mos that requires that we remove academic titles? Also, to the guidance that requires the deletion of the advisory board, per guide to writing journal articles and WP:NOTADIRECTORY? Also, in re your assertion that editors in chief are inherently notable. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for helping out on The Church Quarterly Review, even though you are--apparently--retired. I hope you're not really retired; I've always appreciated the work you do here, even when we disagreed. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for the kind words. WP was starting to take up too much of my time and I found it difficult to reduce, so I went "cold turkey"... Worked for a while... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has had those effects on me too. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical Programming
Good job on that article - it looks great now. - TB (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, although in fairness I have to say that User:Steve Quinn did most of the hard work :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I go cross-eyed looking at histories sometimes. Luckily thanks are not dimished by duplication;  good job the both of you :) - TB (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Academic journals
Hi Guillaume2303 -- I've removed a couple of prods of yours on biomedical journals (Journal of Surgical Technique and Case Report & Journal of Young Pharmacists) on grounds that Notability (academic journals) is not policy. I'm not particularly arguing that this pair are notable yet, but they seem to merit their week at AfD. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to count indexing as significant coverage for academic journals (as otherwise only a handful would count), though I'm aware that this is subject to debate. You could just leave 'em -- I'm not sure why they're doing any harm? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it's just an irreconcilable conflict between a card-carrying inclusionist and the rest of the 'pedia -- I simply can't see a single reason for deleting a viable existing article on a peer-reviewed academic journal that's been around since 2003 (apart from those "journals" which masquerade as academic but exist to publish pseudoscience). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, as that's probably a better place for this discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

IJSEM
(1) In all the articles I've seen it's italicised (2) In all the articles I've seen all the relevant abbreviations are given (3) As I recall it was decided long ago that frequencies were clearer in numbers than words (4) SGM is extremely widely used and understood (5) Consistency with List Editor Espresso Addict (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1/ I guess we've been looking at different articles then... :-) I don't mind either way, but think we should be consistent. Perhaps the infobox can be tweaked to display these abbreviations in italics by default, that way we don't have to go round and change all those articles that I have seen. 2/ According to the infobox instructions, this is for the ISO abbreviation, which is internationally standardized. Personally, I find acronyms a bit silly, it's like assuming our readers cannot spell. 3/ Sorry about reverting, I didn't know that, can you point me to that decision? 4/ SGM may be widely used and understood in the particular community of microbiologists, but we are writing for a more general public. The whole abbreviation is used only once in the article, so why introduce it in the first place? 5/ Oops, didn't see that. Should the list editor be mentioned at all? The Guide for writing journal articles (I think) says only to list the editor. And why don't you want to wikilink to editor in chief? As for the caps, being an editor myself, I prefer using lc, editors are just people doing a job... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Retired?
For someone who's retired you seem to be busy :) - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Retired
As if. Thanks for the cats though. Res Mar 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Applied Mechanics Reviews
If you look at the abstracting and indexing for  Acta Materialia  you will notice that Applied Mechanics Reviews is listed there. At the ASME site Applied Mechanics Reviews is (obviously) a "review" journal. Since, it is listed in the Acta Materialia indexing I was looking for a database connected with AMR, and the ASME site says nothing about this. However, after some searching I found this: AMR Abstracts Database on page three of this PDF. However, when I searched for the AMR Abstracts Database, or Applied Mechanics Reviews abstracts database on Google I didn't turn up anything else.

Do you know anything about this journal and / or the abstracts database? I am guessing the database has been discontinued or is now part of some other entity. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a field I am familiar with. I found |this link, saying that the database was split off from the journal in 2003, but I cannot find anything about the database, not even on the ASME website. I also found a posting on a message board saying that it ceased publication in 2004 (on Google cache, the direct link does not load at the moment). So it looks like it doesn't exist any more (although the message board thing is not a reliable source for WP, of course. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Although the second link is not a reliable source, it seems to present a good indicator that the abstracts database is no longer in existence. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Promotional verbiage vaguely dentoting attributes
(How do you like this section title?) Sometimes a scientific journal's own description can be surprising with: Whew! What are they selling? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypothesis-driven design of biomaterials
 * Biomaterial surface science linking structure to biocompatibility
 * modeling applied to capture biomaterial behavior
 * Combinatorial approaches to biomaterial development (combinatorial? must be a new science discipline I haven't heard of yet :>] )
 * Processing of biomaterials to achieve specific functionality.
 * :-) Yep, not something to put in a WP article... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Materials and Structures
Hi. Ironically, I was re-editing this journal as the same time as you. I had an editing conflict and when I returned to the article I saw that you had already accomplished what I had set out to do. It is interesting that we both had almost the same wording. My format, however, was to be a little different than yours. In any case, you did fast work on this one. This time the race was won by the swiftest (Ecc 9:11).Steve Quinn (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request
Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

IJSEM revisited
Sorry, didn't respond to your talkback I've been busy with creating non-journal articles and tend to be a bit monofocused.

(1) I'd much prefer italicised -- the abbreviations are almost always italicised in other contexts. I don't know if it can be done via the template, but that would cause problems with extra abbreviations if present (see 2).

(2) It makes a lot of sense to list all acronyms that are commonly used. In this case the ISO abbreviation is so long that it's almost always referred to as IJSEM.

(3) I'll try to dig it out when I get a mo. I don't think it makes much odds for monthly, but it's much clearer in numbers for, say, bimonthly, which variously means every two months and every two weeks.

(4) This one I'm fairly easy on -- perhaps we could define it, for the benefit of those who know SGM, but not use it?

(5) In general I agree that only the Ed-in-chief should be listed; however in this case the journal is all about the lists -- which define updates to bacterial nomenclature, the raison d'etre of the journal -- so it seems to make sense additionally to include the Lists Editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Crowther
My reply re. Crowther wad directed at Noq or whoever is removing categories and reverting to typos, etc. The refs are handy but the tagging and constant reversion to bad edits is making me very cross. I have had to sort out these pests before and would like to get this pest blocked if I can.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Foundations of Science
Thanks for your help there. It is a pleasure to work with you! Tkuvho (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tia Keyes (2nd nomination)
Dear Guillaume2303 - I hope it is Ok to write here and ask if you, as an influencial editor, might have another look at Prof Keyes article before the deadline and see if any of the "new" evidence is enough to allow you to help change your mind and avoid the deletion. The H-index up to 16 (from the original 10) - and new (old) article not in the old h-index calculations with 135 citations - a number of citations which is 948. A reviewed book. An article in the: Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry. A mention in Highlights of Chemistry. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) ps (I have also written about this to Xxanthippe)