User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 7

Image copyright problem with File:Behavior Genetics cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Behavior Genetics cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Farrokh
In case you didn't know, he's notified I think 17 editors - it isn't clear on what basis though. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just saw that this morning. Perhaps we should take the wretched thing to AfD again and be done with it. Even if it would go in a similar way as last time, I'm pretty sure that nowadays the decision would have been delete (I don't think today any admin would close no consensus while stating that he actually believes it should be deleted...). The only "new sources" that In fact has posted on other editors' talk pages are from Farrokh's own website... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I quit the discussion. Yes I notified those users who were involved in the AfD in 2008 and said: "Keep" to come and defend themselves. In case you want to go for AfD again, I'm Ok with it, and who knows, Maybe I won't even participate. *** in fact ***   ( contact )  15:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another policy you might find useful: WP:CANVAS. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You too. 1 & 2. *** in fact ***   ( contact )  18:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message on my Disc
i don't know what's your problem. Just started an article which can be expanded, it's just about the german band. So what? Your reaction is really "overwhelming"... :-| --Saviour1981 (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My message on your talk page concerned the "notability" template that you put on top of the article you created. Such a template indicates that the notability is in doubt and if this cannot be shown, the article will be deleted. I'm sorry that you found that "overwhelming". I was only wondering why you would start an article if you yourself are not sure that it is even appropriate to create one. Given your comment here, perhaps you intended to use the tag instead of the  tag? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me putting this Template to the article. I'm sure about the infos (taken from german wikipedia, including sources and links to comfirm the content), i don't know why this Template appear on this article. Someone else probably put it in there --Saviour1981 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you put the template there: see here for the first version of the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OASPA
Hi Wim, thanks for your cleanup work there. What do you think of putting the members into List of OASPA members instead? Judging from the many "List of" articles already in existence (and the many blue links in the list), this would not seem overly odd to me. -- Daniel Mietchen 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not really very fond of this kind of lists, especially not if they just replicate what is already on the original website. I didn't realize this earlier, but the list was actually a copyvio of this. A separate list article would be copyvio, too and, as I said, a list of members doesn't add anything to what is already on the OASPA website. Perhaps it's better to do it the other way around: mention in the articles on the different members that they are a member of OASPA. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't ike such lists either but just did Special:Random a few times, and the first list that came up was List of quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl starts &mdash; not necessarily more notable or useful in my view than a List of OASPA members. As for the list being a copyvio, no: At the bottom of each page, they state "All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License." But I agree, mentioning OASPA membership in articles on the individual members is probably better. -- Daniel Mietchen 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, as so often, that list is only useful if you know what is is about... Most people outside of the US won't have the foggiest what a Super Bowl is. Even having lived there for 5 years myself (and being married to an American), I can only guess what a "Super Bowl start" is... But WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not really a good motivation and as bad as it may be, I have the impression that one could not find that list just by clicking on some EL. So, you're right about the copyvio, I missed that, but I still don't see the utility of copying a webpage from somewhere else. Anyway, we seem to agree that putting this info in the individual articles (insofar they exist and are notable) is the best way to go. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears this article is using blog enteries as references. See reference # 11 "According to Open Access linked to Alabama shooting and The OA Interviews..." and reference # 12 "OASPA: act now or lose credibility forever..." . These may not be the only such references. Also, the way one particular reference is written, it appears to contradict WP:NPOV. The wording appears to be written like a headline in a newspaper, i.e., "...several suspicious OA publishers..."  Steve Quinn (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Library Trends
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and hope this is the correct way to "talk." I am curious as to why the content I uploaded on the "Library Trends" page was deleted. Please let me know so I can be a better Wikipedian in the future.
 * Hi, you can find some good information in the writing guide for journal articles. Also, when you leave a message on a talkpage, you should sign it using ~, that makes communication a bit easier. Don't hesitate to contact me if I can help. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Behavior Genetics Association
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed OPTIQUE Article deletion
This is the first time im doing this and i was wondering why my article on OPTIQUE the healthcare company is scheduled for deletion. I had given appropriate sources about the founder but they were all removed. It was labelled that vanity info on founder to be removed. It is essential to know the history of the company through by giving knowledge about the founder.

i hope im doing the right thing by writing it here. Thanks 122.162.212.84 (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:CORP to see what is necessary to show that OPTIQUE is notable ("notable" on WP has a special meaning, it has nothing to do with "quality" or being "good" or "bad", see WP:GNG). If the founder himself is notable (see WP:BIO for guidelines), a separate article could be created on him and the two articles could be linked. It is not correct to create an article on a company and then use it basically to write a biography of its founder. Also, creating an account will make it easier for you to get around here, although it is not obligatory. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

After seeing the corrections to my article, i went through all the highlighted corrections including the ones mentioned above. So now i intend to make a page for the founder, and then link it to the OPTIQUE page. Thanks or your help. Also, if i make these edits, will my article still be deleted? i couldnt edit this page with my account signed in, because it is blocked. i have requested for an unblock. They say it was cuz of SPAMMING. I only wrote one article. Anyway, i'll try and fix the damage done now. thank you. 122.162.141.134 (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember your user name, but probably it was blocked because it was identical to the company name, which is something that WP does not allow. You should be able to set up a new account with a more neutral name. Whether or not your article on the founder will be deleted depends on whether or not he meets the notability requirements (see WP:GNG and associated policies and guidelines). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy
Hi Guillaume2303. I just wanted to give you a heads up on why, for now, I removed the notability tag on the Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy article. I found out that the journal is moving to an E-journal publishing site where it will be assigned an ISSN and appropriately indexed. See here under "Coming Soon!". I've noticed that these notability tags can sometimes result in some quick notability decisions on journals and books, and in case the indexing process would not be completed fast enough before that happened, I removed the tag for now and added a sentence regarding the pending move in the article. It is ok if you wish to restore the tag, but I would hope there is enough time given for the process to play out and the journal to receive its assigned ISSN, etc. Anyway, I did not mean to ruffle any feathers, just trying to avoid any unnecessary deletion discussion, or deletion reinstatements, etc. Anyway, thank you for your additions and clean up of the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a notability tag is warranted at this point. I have enough doubts for that, but not enough to take it to AfD or PROD. I doubt anyone else will bother, but if that happens, the journal is tagged for WPJournals and the ArticleAlertbot will warn project participants if the article is PRODded or taken to AfD. There is no risk for CSD, of course. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was actually surprised it wasn't indexed or had an ISSN, but it isn't in Web of Science at least. I am certain it will have an ISSN, I'm just not sure how long the indexing process takes or how far along they are in the process. The d-scribe system they are moving too supposedly takes care of that as one of its services, but I'm not involved with the journal so I have no first hand knowledge, so I'm hoping the newbie that showed a recent interest in it will help contribute to the article. Anyway, take care. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not too unusual for a law journal not to be in WoS, but this one looks rather amateurish, I have to say. If you open one of their articles, it just looks like a typescript, that is, not professionally produced. Not necessarily a problem, but combined with the missing ISSN, it makes me doubt the notability. I don't know too much about law reviews, though, so I'm not inclined to do anything about this. Let's hope something comes up and takes away the doubt! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

AustMS
Fine by me. Does it matter that the award was presented to "Professor John Doe"? (Not "John Doe".) (See http://www.anziam.org.au/The+ANZIAM+medal.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. We don't call people "Professor John Doe" in biography articles either. What counts is that they got the medal... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. ;-) --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

John Hooper (marine biologist)
Thank you for your contributions to John Hooper (marine biologist), especially since you have the expertise to add very well documented material. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, it's certain to be kept now (but I think that was already certain before my edits, too). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Theory, Culture & Society
Dear Guillaume2303, i appreciate your edits but TCS is an organisation as well. it publishes the journals TCS and Body & Society. could you please revert to the old text which also had links to website and blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.247.60 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, but this article is about TCS the journal. The journal is notable, I don't know about the organization (but didn't really look in detail). if it is (see WP:ORG for the appropriate guideline), a separate article might be in order. The same goes for Body and Society. Note that blogs are rarely considered notable, only if there are multiple, independent reliable sources. Also, when making further edits, please adopt a neutral tone. WP is an encyclopedia and editors here are very sensitive to attempts to use it for promotional purposes (perhaps you didn't notice, bt your article was immediately nominated for deletion as spam and only saved because of my edits). Please also read WP:COI (and all the other policies that I have linked to above), it will help you edit WP without getting into major problems. If you have questions, please feel free to post them here (I will generally be able to direct you to the places where you might find the answer). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Be sure to log in before you edit, using multiple accoutns (and using an IP account falls under that) is frowned upon, too... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DRAMITJANA REPLIES

thanks for your advice but its rude to question the reliability of any information without knowing a subject. Daniel was doing that. Am new here may seek your guidence at times. But in real world we have a base erasing in a virtual world is not much for Students Health Home — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramitjana (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics
Hi Guillaume2303, Thank you very much for all your cleaning ups. The article looks much better now, however, I was a bit shocked with the huge number of withdrawings. As, I am new I would respect all your modifications, but I'm wondering if there is the possibility to undo some of the modifications. I have already read the WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide and for example I think the name of the journal should be returned back to ''Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics instead of Paladyn, subtitled Journal of Behavioral Robotics or the abbreviated name is Pjbr and not the Paladyn''. Overall, I'm sure what you did is reasonable, and I hope to learn more from your answers. thank you. --Ranjbar (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the name to Paladyn, because that is how the Springer website calls the journal (and that sounds much more logical to me, in fact). A period (full stop: ".") in a title is highly unusual, unless it concerns a subtitle as seems to be the case here. The other names (including the full stop and the acronym) all redirect to the current title. The abbreviation field in the infobox is for ISO abbreviations, which never are acronyms. I hope this explains. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I learned new things and I hope that I can apply some logical modifications to the article in order to make it more notable. Once more, thank you for your valuable revision. --Ranjbar (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume2303, It's a while that I'm trying to establish notability in the Palayn article. I'm wondering whether the fact that the journal is indexed in "Cabell's, Google Scholar, OCLC, SCOPUS and Summon by Serial Solutions" is enough or not. In fact, I have seen many articles about journals in the wikipedia, which doesn't have any more criteria. I would appreciate if you give me some guidelines. Thank you --Ranjbar (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ranjbar, I've had a second look at the article and removed the notability tag. Scopus is becoming less and less selective, but I think that for the moment the consensus is indeed that a journal indexed by them is notable. the other indexes you name (important as they are) are a bit trivial here: they try to cover everything, so being in there is no distinction. It's a bit like arguing that a website is notable because "it is indexed by Google". Some more discussion on notability of journals can be found at WP:NJournals and its talk page. As for the existence of other articles, there's an essay about this: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (less reverently also know as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). It may just mean that no editor yet stumbled upon it... Or did and checked notability, but without adding the (presumably positive) result to the article... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Videnskab
Hi, I created this short stub on this journal after seeing it red linked in a 911 conspiracy theory article. I'm pretty sure its a very notable scientific journal but can't find many english sources about it. I was wondering if you could help expand it?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look when I have a moment. I had a quick look at their website and my impression is that this is a popular scientific journal (I mean: intended for a larger public than just scientists). I didn't see an ISSN (yet), that often helps to find sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and I see that it is about a website, not a periodical in the ususal sense (journal or magazine). I don't have much experience with articles about web content (I even would have to search to find the notability guidelines for that... :-) So I'm afraid I can't be of much help here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Just a note that per this request on my talk page, I have restored this article and reopened the AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
My immature friend invited me to make an account and then proceeded to hack it. My apologies.

Will8em (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, but be more careful with your password in future :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Family Physicians
Dear Guillaume2303 - We note your recent edits to the information posted for the College of Family Physicians of Canada and Canadian Family Physician. Please help us understand the reason for the edits, and if there is specific criteria for Wikipedia content so appropriate revisions may be made. Thank you. JJohnston Jayne Johnston (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry that it took me a while to get back to you on this. I've re-visited Canadian Family Physician and I was indded a bit too enthusiastic when I edited the article. I have restored some content. However, I did not restore some unsourced content (circulation numbers, French title -not even mentioned on the journal's website as far as I can see) and such. There was also some original research: "making it one of the top 5 international journals of family medicine". ISI does not have a category "family medicine" and in the category in which the journal does figure, it only ranks 71st. In addition, I removed some external links and formatted the article and its references according to WP:MOS. In the article on the College (which I just moved as the official name includes "The") I removed the information about the journal (already present in the article on the journal), removed some promotional language and unsourced material (even though I left some in, suich as the number of members), and again formatted it to comply with WP:MOS. I have also added a more elaborate "welcome template" to your talk page, with links to all kind of helpful articles on style, content policies, etc. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unref
About this: The article plainly contains two WP:General references, which you seemed to be aware of. Rather than the  parameter, which is limited to articles with zero references of any kind at all, I think you wanted , which is similar to the No footnotes tag you added. (I've already fixed it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see, thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PhenomicDb
The PhenomicDb was referred by the Phenomics page. That is why I try to enrich the wikipedia knowledge with some info about the PhenomicDb database. The database is a free of charge and contains integrated data from publicly available primary databases. I do not understand what is the problem, and why you removed the PhenomicDb from the Phenomics wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenomicdb (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

May I kindly ask you to restore the PhenomicDb reference from the Phenomics wiki page? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivobio (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice
Please take another look, based on the information Ohiostandard has found that is now on the article talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At first I was confused, because I thought I had already reacted to those sources, but those were the one added on the AfD page, not the article talk page. I have now changed my !vote. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

!Vote early, !vote often
Hi Guillaume2303. Looks like you've !voted twice in Articles for deletion/Jimit Sanghvi. Just saying ;) Favonian (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I did! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Siddharth Sharma
I've had to decline the BLPPROD here, the external links formatted as text are enough that the BLPPROD template shouldn't have been placed there (at least according to policy.) You're welcome to put a regular PROD on it or pursue deletion at AfD, of course. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 07:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I goofed... And I now see that it had already been BLPPRODded and de-prodded before for the same reasons, too... Thanks for taking care of this! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Templating biographical subjects
Hi. I notice you templated User:Grahamludlowca on his talk page. Assuming this is Graham Ludlow, and someone interested in writing a biography about himself, it would be much better if, in the future, you tried to communicate with the user in your own words. Repeatedly adding warning templates to an editor trying to contribute in good faith, without first offering your help isn't very constructive. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. I often patrol new articles with conflicts of interest and find these templates, which I can simply add by a single click, very handy. They link to the relevant policies and mention everything else, from using the four tildes to sign to COI policies etc. If I had to go into detailed discussions with every POV creator of an autobio, I couldn't do the patrolling. Most of them are not very reasonable any way, just interested in autopromotion. The current case seems to be an exception and given that you seem to have entered in an effective communication with this editor, I'm taking this from my watchlist and will let you handle this. Thanks and happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Guillaume2303, you are doing good work, so don't take my comments negatively. It's just that we must always put the human touch first, even if we are patrolling with automated tools. My point is that there are human beings on both sides and we need to remember that at all times.  The template messages can help in some instances and hurt in others.  We need to have good judgment to decide when to use one or the other or both. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right and I do sometimes get a bit inpatient. And doing a lot of this patrolling recently, some of these tend to blur together. I realized today that this Ludlow bio in my mind kind of merged with this one: Steven Kunes. Next time I'll try to be more patient. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

This is Graham Ludlow and I greatly appreciate the note Viriditas sent to you. I am trying to conform to the Wikipedia guidelines, but your warnings were not very helpful. I am simply trying to contribute in good faith, since there are other Wikipedia references to me. I am not trying to use this as a personal website, or to promote myself in any way. I am simply trying to contribute the most minimal amount of information to connect the dots within the system. Your patience and assistance would be greatly appreciated by this new user/editor. (/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamludlowca (talk • contribs) 09:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those warnings are useless if you indeed don't read them or don't read the policies that they link to. But it looks like you're working productively with Viriditas now, so I'll leave you guys to the job to make this a good WP article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PLoS ONE
How about declaring that you are a PLoS ONE published author and a member of the PLoS ONE editorial board? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianganges (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that has to do with removing a blog (and note that I also deleted "pro-PLoS ONE" entries). Consensus is that blogs are not reliable sources. If you don't agree with my removal, go to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or start a request for comment (RFC) on the article's talk page. Continued edit-warring using sockpuppets will only get you blocked and will severely undermine your arguments for inclusion of links to this blog. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Brianganges here. I have indeed had to resort to "sockpuppetry" since you have removed my editing rights. How else am I to respond to you? Anyway, you don't address the question of an editor policing a wikipedia page in which they have a personal interest without declaring that interest. As to the issue of blogs and RS, you yourself have posted an entry on the RS page. It is not clear to me from the responses you got that your position is the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradgrind1 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting way of seeing things. In fact, of course, you got blocked because you were using sockpuppets. As for the comments on the RS noticeboards, if you read well, you'll see that the response is indeed nuanced: Poynder's blog could be used to source one of his opinions, but is not appropriate as an external link. As for my perceived COI, you seem to feel that I am pro-PLoS ONE because of my involvement with the journal, but a while ago I was attacked by an open-access fan for being against this type of journal (because of my involvement with a traditional journal). Must be doing something right if both sides attack me... :-) A COI is only a problem if it leads to POV editing. Feel free to start an RFC on the PLoS ONE talk page (as soon as your block has expired) and address my preceived COI there. If other editors agree with you, I'll certainly be censured. Till then, I strongly advise you not to engage in sockpuppetry again (as you did here: I will not report this instance, but will if ever you use this account again). Remember that the last time you were blocked (not by me, by the way, but by uninvolved admins based on the evidence that they had), you were also warned that one more occasion of sockpuppetry would lead to an indefinite block (and obviously an RFC would be impossible then). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wim, I think my interests are balanced here too:I am an open access (publishing) advocate. I am a PLoS ONE author. I have been interviewed by Richard Poynder. I have written critiques of some of the points made by Richard Poynder. I also value the writings of Richard Poynder. I think references to his writings should be reinstated. He is a controversial but RS. The concerns he raises about peer review standards of some Open Access journals are legitimate and should be considered seriously. Stevan Harnad 12:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Stevan, this has nothing to do with whether I happen to agree with Poynder or not. It's just an inappropriate use of what external links should do and blogs are generally considered not to be reliable sources, as are self-published pages (or books, or journals; generally anything that was published without any editorial oversight). They can be used to source something, under certain conditions (so that's why the PLoS ONE blog can be used as a source about PLoS ONE, but not necessarily about something else). Whether something is a relibale source or not, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with there it is "good" or "bad". In the case of the Poynder blog, I actually happen to agree with much that he says (and over the years have grown more critical myself of where OA currently is going, now that many people appear to have discovered that creating an OA journal may be more profitable -and more immediately profitable- than starting a subscription-based journal).
 * If I look back at the history of the insertion of the Poynder links, all this started when I removed the first link to Poynder's blog for the reason that it is not a RS. That doesn't mean that I think the rest of the article is perfect, it clearly isn't. But there's only so much I can do. I have several thousands of journal articles on my watchlist and for most all I can do is look at recent changes and revert if an edit makes an article worse. That certainly means that I regularly make mistakes and I think the archives of this talk page show that I readily self-revert if someone provides sound arguments. In the present case I even sought some advice at the reliable sources noticeboard, but then I had to face edit warring and sockpuppetry and accusations of POV pushing. None of that will generally increase my patience... (I edit in all openness under my own name and have no patience at all for people hiding anonymously behind multiple sockpuppets). Anyway, you're of course most welcome to edit the PLoS ONE article and improve upon it, it sure can use it. As long as it stays neutral and the sources cited don't get any worse than they already are... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Wim, nice to hear from you. I agree with you completely on both "sock-puppetry" and anonymity itself. I only edit Wikipedia under my real name. -- And although in the case of journal peer review I strongly support the option of referee anonymity, I personally never referee anonymously. And of course in the case of journal peer review the referee is never anonymous to the editor. In my view anonymity is a major flaw of Wikipedia.) I've done as you suggested, re-inserting the deleted links to Richard Poynder's two blog references, one in the paragraph right after the unchallenged (because flattering?) blog reference to Heather Morrison, and one in a new section on concerns about maintaining journal peer review standards when the author is paying to publish. I have counterbalanced Richard's criticism with a reference to a D-Lib article of my own on "no-fault" peer review as the solution to the problem. (Authors pay for each round of refereeing, not for publication. Hence the journal has no incentive to lower peer review standards in order to make more money.) Stevan Harnad 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)
 * Guillaume2303, we rarely disagree, but you're wrong here. Poynder is a reliable source; in fact, I would probably use his blog as the example of when a blog can be notable. He's the most authoritative commentator and reviewer of online sources in the library and publishing professions, and his work is quoted freely in all professional magazines. His opinion is an opinion worth quoting under his own name as a reference by an authoritative commentator, and I think his postings can be better used for this than as external links. (I'd even consider him a suitable external link in some cases, even against the usual rule, as they sometimes are regarded as the major contribution to a discussion. I'm emailing you about some other aspects.   DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

really no consensus
Hello Guillaume2303, thanks for your reaction here - I admit for sure that there was no consensus. I made the move of the article and me other edits according to the WP principle "Be Bold". As this discussion was more or less old, I think the situation is changed, because the article is moved: it is not only a list, but a website and a database. I wrote a short article about in in the German WP. The other point: the ISI does no longer exist as an institute, it is only part of Thomson Reuters. I am just going to ask ISI Highly Cited for literature about it, for the year it starts, and for numbers about the growth of the database. If the article will be better and longer, this will be another argument against a merge with the article about ISI. Best wishes Plehn (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it can be expanded, then a merge would indeed not be necessary (or even a good idea). I'll wait and see what you come up with! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I sent an email yesterday, and I will try some other sources - by the way: I see some problems for the article about Institute for Scientific Information himself - it is obviously just a historical name, the weblink to the "Official Homepage" goes to the "Web of Knowledge". So it must be made clear, that ISI does no longer exist, even as part of a bigger company (another point against a merge) Plehn (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like you may be right. The TR site now says that WoS is "Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) Web of Knowledge" (although the url still has "isi" in the name: http://isiwebofknowledge.com/) and the link to "Thomson ISI" at the bottom of the ISI Highly Cited page (http://isihighlycited.com/) is a dead link. It's probably a recent change, but indeed looks like TR has abandoned the ISI brand. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether TR has abandoned the ISI brand, the ISI brand is still the one by which everyone knows the source.    DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Electrical Bioimpedance
Hello! Thank you for your valuable comments on this article. I am involved in the journal. The article was initially written by someone who is not involved, but I have also made some small contributions. I generally agree with your comments on notability and references. However, I will object to the deletion for two reasons: 1. Although it doesn't yet strictly satisfy WP:NJournals, I will claim that it is noteworthy since it is the first journal ever, which is dedicated to bioimpedance, a more than 100 years old research area with high, and increasing, international activity and a growing number of clinical applications. The journal furthermore represents a collaborative action by most of the large international bioimpedance research groups (as can be seen from the section editor list). 2. We anticipate that the journal will soon also formally satisfy WP:NJournals, e.g. by being indexed by Scopus and because we know that other media plan to publish articles about the journal. Instead of deleting this article and then in a few months request for undeletion, we would like to continue working on the article, remove irrelevant references and add more pertinent ones. We also would like to participate in the WP:AJ. Bioimp (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Hello again. Well, my point was actually that I believe the journal is notable. Furthermore, I am new to this game, please advice how removing the PROD was not a good idea in this case. 80.244.54.218 (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in Bioimp (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. however, what you are saying really goes against the letter and spirit of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. We cannot create articles just on the assumption that the subject will "soon" become notable. Too bad you removed the PROD, because now I have to take it to AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD means that a lot of people will have to look at the article and decide whether it is notable or not, so it's quite a hassle for all involved. In addition, and more important for you I guess, an article deleted after having been prodded can quite easily be re-created if new information becomes available that establishes notability. Articles re-created after an AfD are often deleted on-sight by patrolling admins, so even if the subject has become notable, re-creation is much more difficult. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, and the editor who removed the PROD is not allowed to revert his action? Anyhow, please reconsider the article before taking it to AfD. Bioimp (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cannot, but you can revert that edit yourself. And yes, I did have a look and still think that at this point, the article does not meet our standards for notability. Sorry... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: you can also move it to your userspace and work on it there until the time it meets the notability standards.

OK, that sounds like a good idea. As far as I understand, indexing in Scopus will e.g. make it formally notable. So I will relaunch it when that goal is achieved. Bioimp (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC). Can anyone move it to their user space, or just the editor who created the article? Bioimp (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I will try myself, but may return to you if I get lost :-) Thank's for all your constructive comments and help! Bioimp (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Hello again. I realize a short recipe on how to do this would be very handy (and highly appreciated). I am not sure if you mean that I should simply revert the deletion of the PROD in order to let the article be deleted, and then copy the article to my sand box? Thanks again! Bioimp (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can do that, I can do it if you like. And Scopus would indeed be enough to meet WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to understand this, I think. Can I just move the article (using the Move-option) to my user space, renaming it e.g. to Sandbox? In that case I do not have to revert the deletion of the PROD or make any other changes to the article? Bioimp (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC) One last question (I hope): WP now redirects searches for the old article name to my sandbox. Is that OK, or should I do something to prevent it? Sorry for all the questions and thank you for all the help! Bioimp (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what you should do! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There a special "speedy delete" tag for that, I'll put it on the article. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie
(Please indicate a preference to communicate in English if applicable; I gather from your personal information that your first language is Dutch.) Dag Guillaume2303, wat betreft het journal Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie: het heeft een B-rating van het ERIH. Dat betekent dat het een hoge waarde heeft. Er zijn drie categorieën: A, B en C. De meeste journals worden niets eens beoordeeld en hebben dus (niet eens) C. Wikipedia vermeldt een aantal journals waarvoor dit geldt (en die dus geen oordeel van het ERIH hebben) en ook een aantal die een C-rating hebben.

Dat is op zichzelf al een reden om journals met een B-rating op te nemen, maar als je dat nog niet voldoende vindt: het blijkt ook uit de praktijk. B-journals aanvaarden ongeveer 10% van de artikelen die ze ontvangen en zijn dus zeer selectief. Daardoor hebben ze een grote reputatie verkregen. (Voor A-journals geldt dat nog meer, maar dat doet geen afbreuk aan de status van B-journals.) Om deze redenen heb ik het Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie opgenomen. Mocht je kennissen of collega's hebben die binnen de filosofie werkzaam zijn of het gebied kennen, dan kunnen zij het bovenstaande ongetwijfeld bevestigen. Overigens heb ik geen persoonlijk belang bij het opnemen van het journal en ik heb ook geen persoonlijke gegevens op de pagina opgenomen, zoals je kunt nagaan.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Logiccs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logiccs (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Logiccs, my first language is indeed Dutch, but communications on the English WP should be in English, I think, for the sake of openness (which is also why, except in very sensitive cases, I prefer not to discuss WP things by email). As for the great notability of journals classed "B" by ERIH, if so many people think this is the case, then some certainly have written that down, so that we could have a source. I don't ask my colleagues about this, because "my colleague said so" is not a source I can use on WP... :-) That there are WP articles on journals that are not ERIH rated, falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (less reverently known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and is absolutely irrelevant. If those journals are non-notable, they should be PRODded or taken to AfD. Eventually, this will happen... Anyway, until a source that states that "B" in ERIH means a great deal is available, I think that notability has not been established. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quite right that a colleague's opinion will only go so far. However, that's not the point. The point is, rather, that the B rating itself is high, and I refer you to them since I have no sources that confirm this (and if there were, you might ask me to provide sources to provide their notability, and so on, ad infinitum). At some point, a rating must be acknowledged by a community of pears, which has happened in the case at hand. That's the only reason I referred you to colleagues, since you are yourself apparently unaware of the rating and how it works (i.e. what its value is). This is no criticism, but a journal should not be omitted here on account of a reviewer's ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logiccs (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if a rating is important, then there are certainly references to find that establish this. See, for example, the article on the impact factor. Controversial, certainly. Notable: without a doubt. The same cannot (yet?) be said for the ERIH exercise. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take another approach. Consider Mind, arguably the most renowned journal of philosophy (at least at the top (and it has an A rating)). The Wikipedia page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_(journal). The same goes for Analysis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_(journal)). Neither page cites sources. Does that mean that you're going to put these pages up for deletion as well? And these are just the journals off the top of my head; you can have more examples, if necessary, of prominent journals without sources or with the same (sort) of sources as the present journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logiccs (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are millions of WP pages and some of them will be bad, that's unavoidable. But WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]) is not an argument. If these journals are notable, references should be available and should be added. If they are not notable, they should be proposed for deletion. However, I would like to point out that I did not propose to delete the Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie article. I only put a "notability tag" on the article, which is far from the same thing. In any case, I had a look at [[Mind (journal). It has indeed only a single reference, but if you go to the journal's website, you can see here that it is included in a host of major selective databases, establishing notability without any doubt (and the same goes for Analysis (journal)). If you care, sources can be found for all this (each database has somewhere a list of journals) and all that could be added to the article. So that is why I am not going to tag this article for notability. It's not in the article, but I see it is there. I have no time to add all that stuff to the article, so I leave that up to someone else, but the notability is easy to see. This is therefore a very different case than Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, because there the only claim for notability is the "B" rating at ERIH. I hope this makes clear that I am not just frivolously tagging articles. And even though I have doubts for the Archiv, for the moment they don't go so far that I am PRODding the article or taking it to AfD. However, I do think the notability tag should stay on that article until things are more clear. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your considerations are noted, but (1) the 'WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS' argument, as you so eloquently put it, is too broad a criterion (i.e. it applies in some cases, but not in all, such as, I opine, this one); (2) the difficulty is that the notability is not always easy to find. Applied to the present journal, it does not mention the databases to which you refer, but that doesn't mean that it is not notable for that reason (and the fact that its website does not mention them should not be a disqualifying feature). Its notability is established by the community of authors, on the basis of the quality of the articles and the acceptance rate. These facts can be gathered from some inquiry into the journal's record. If you consult them, I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logiccs (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who says the articles have high quality? Who evaluates the journal's record? I'm sorry, but what you are saying here is contrary to all WP guidelines and policies. Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The professionals in the field say the journal is of a high quality. Compare this with a novel that has a page on Wikipedia, such as Moby Dick. In the entry for this book, it says: "Moby-Dick is widely considered to be a Great American Novel and a treasure of world literature." No sources are provided for this statement, however, since the community (i.e. those who may be taken to be able to assess the book's merits) has apparently decided that this is a great book, and the same goes for many other novels (and other contributions). No sources are needed since it is generally known this to be the case. The same goes for the journals. A difference consists in the fact that the journals deal with specialized topics, so that the communities in this case consist of fewer people. It is also impossible to have an overview: I dare say to be able to indicate which philosophy journals are valuable enough to be listed here, but would not claim the same for e.g. journals in the field of physics. If you are familiar with the philosophical journals and are on that basis able to make the same claim as I can, I leave it up to you to go through the philosophy journals one by one and see whether they have the sources (either on Wikipedia or via their own websites) you apparently crave. I can, however, guarantee that such sources as are provided in the case of Mind and Analysis are not always present. That does not mean that these journals are not valuable enough to appear in Wikipedia, though, but only that they sre not promoted (whether there may be self-promotion involved in some cases, I leave to your unquestionably able judgment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logiccs (talk • contribs) 07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I start to find this convesation exasperating. Surely you're not saying that there are no sources saying that Moby Dick is a great novel. The article is replete with authoritative sources that assert that. They are just not in the lead, which is as it should be for larger articles like that one. The lead does not need to contain references, as long as it faithfully summarizes sourced statements from the rest of the article. In shorter articles, such as most articles on journals, lead statements need to be sourced, too. Certainly, "the community has decided" that MD is notable, but that is not the Wikipedia community. Surely you understand that we cannot establish notability just on the word of an anonymous (or non-anonymous, for that matter) WP editor? I can make an article about my cat and assert that the community here in Pessac has decided that she's notable (she certainly is to us), but unless I can back that up with independent reliable sources, that won't fly. I do not need to go through philosophy journals one by one, because that should not be necessary. In any case, your comparison with MB is false: whereas there are probably hundreds of reliable sources on American (or world) literature mentioning Moby Dick, there are none on the Archiv. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This touches on a longstanding trouble spot. We rarely have sources that literally discuss the notability of a specific journal. The formal assessment of citation indices for journals is a modern trend that helps us in quantifying which journals' contents are well noted in other journals. Going back a century the same convenience was not available, but we can look to the choices taken by academic librarians of the day as proxies for the same purpose. Searching Worldcat for Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie or for Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Gesetzgebungsfragen yields up a history of publication by the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (de:Internationale Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie) over those ten decades, and finds that most of the great law libraries chose to subscribe and retain those publications, though they were catalogued under a great many variant titles. Searching on the association (as author) is more inclusive. The publication gap 1933-1959 has fairly obvious roots, although the one exception,, might be instructive to examine. I don't really see a great controversy is likely to arise over the inclusion of this serial. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right LeadSongDog, that is also why I only put a notability tag and did not PROD or go to AfD. It has been around long enough to be notable. But I really cannot believe that the only source for that is a "B" rating at ERIH. The journal did not just exist a long time ago, where sources are usually even scarcer than they already are for most journals. The journal is still in existence and its notability should be easy to demonstrate by coverage in databases and such. I have no time to go look for that, nor is this my specialty area, so, again, that's why I tagged it only. Leaving it without sources and without a tag is, however, not an option, I feel. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from that, you can’t go on validifying the sources that are used to validify the information on Wikipedia forever, lest the infinite regress I pointed to earlier emerges. So the real question is: is (if we stipulate, for argument’s sake, that the second source is not enough) the first source, Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, a reliable source? I think so, and have good reasons to think so. These have been presented above. It is also important to know that a number of journals with less than a B rating (a C rating, or they haven’t even received a rating) appear in Wikipedia. As I mentioned, it would be necessary to be consistent and not eliminate a B rated journal but at the same time leave these other – presumably inferior – ones remain. For the record: I would not myself propagate the latter approach but rather let the journals appear, since in some cases notability is even harder to demonstrate than in the present case (and even that has given rise to this ample discussion).Logiccs (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Guillaume2303: the statement about your cat is beside the point. You say that reliable sources are needed - which is in itself correct - but then decry the sources that have been provided. There are now two sources, the second of which (i.e. the ranking of the journal by the Netherlands School for Research in Practical Philosophy as "A") is arguably not recognized by all as a sufficient source (although I would, considering the remarks I made at the beginning of this discussion, consider it to be so). Even irrespective of that, though, the first source, the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals - European Science Foundation's ERIH list, does suffice. I have already suggested to you to inform with those who are able to assess the rating’s merits; they’ll be able to tell you that a B rating is high (for the details, I refer you to the previous discussion). As to the validity of the sources: at some point, one must say: “the buck stops here.” Your remark “I really cannot believe that the only source for that is a "B" rating at ERIH” says more about your lack of relevant knowledge than about any alleged lack of notability.
 * I will respond to this a very last time. 1/ That "C" journals have articles (even if that would be their only claim for notability) is covered by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 2/ That only a "B" in ERIH makes a journal notable is something you assert, but with which I disagree. 3/ I have not seen anybody proposing to delete any article at this point. I'm worn out. I will not put the needed "notability" tag back on the Archiv. 4/ End of discussion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Digital Humanities Quarterly
Guillaume2303 -- thanks for your contributions to the Digital Humanities Quarterly article. However, I don't think you are justified in dismissing my two edits to the article as 'unhelpful' and removing them.

The citation template I modified had the 'work' field missing, it identified the page title incorrectly in the 'title' field, and it had an incorrect date in the 'accessdate' field which erroneously pre-dated the creation of this article by twelve months. I corrected these shortcomings.

Also, Twitter has become one of the most widely used channels of communication amongst digital humanists; there's even a conference paper presented at last year's Digital Humanities conference that documents the fact. The inclusion of the DHQ Twitter feed is therefore fully pertinent. ARK (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I went a bit too fast, sorry. However, Twitter links are often removed by a bot, they're blacklisted, I think. The workaround for legitimate cases is a specific template, which I have now put into the article. As far as I know, including them is still a bit controversial, just like Facebook or MySpace. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Terje Sagvolden
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for adding some info to Journal of Nursing Education, I appreciate it. I'm not terribly familiar with journals/periodical standardization and information (etc) but I knew that JNE is an important one in the world of nursing. If I create any more medical journal articles in the future, can I throw you a line to ask you to plug in more info? Jrcla2 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. The extra info here I got from the NLM database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals). Just enter the ISSN and you get lots of info (often even for non-medical journals, too). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ZEFQ
Good evening. Thanks for controlling the ZEFQ site. I am happy that you are so familiar with the journal, as one may deduce from the journal categories you choose. Please allow me the comment that from my perspective as ZEFQ's editor the category "public health" is wrong. Elsevier itself categorizes the journal under general medicine. Regards Wegely 21:25, 14 April 2011
 * As editor you should only edit this article if you really, really are very familiar with WP policies (see WP:COI). But that is an aside. From your acerbic message I deduce that you are unhappy that I removed the category "medical journals". Now please take two moments;: one to have a look at that particular category (Medical journals), you will see that it does not contain a single article. This is because it is a "top" category, which should remain empty. I have recategorized the journal as "general medical journals". Now take a second moment please and have a look at the article history, and you'll see that in my last edit summary, I explained all this. But apparently you are so familiar with Wikipedia categories that you don't need any advice about all this. By the way, you might also like to read WP:AGF, if you want to have any future here on WP. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SJR
Hi Wim! I agree about the updating work. I saw this highlighted in an APS discussion and it tweaked my curiosity. It seemed well run, and the list seemed right in terms of the big 4 (now I see including Psychological Science, which pushed BG down to 5th, I think). The idea of impact outside academia seems worth noting, but how, I agree, is the question.

Re the the promotional angle: Perhaps we can find the other categories to give broader picture of impact, or just note that the papers often garner a non-academic readership? Welcome your thoughts, and hope all is well for you!


 * Sorry for being silent for so long, but I've been traveling and pretty busy. Will get back to you in a few days! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fordham Urban Law Journal
Just because other law reviews use the journal template intended for SCIENTIFIC journals does not mean that it is correct. It is absolutely missing details that law reviews require. If I knew how to make a new template, I would. Many would take offense to "Editor" and one persons name listed. It is a 100+ student effort. At least if it was clear that it was "editor-in-chief," and not the sole editor, it would be acceptable. Citation and Style standard are important information for submission authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerrobbins (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the journal template is intended for academic journals, including law reviews. Most US law reviews are student-edited, they all use the journal infobox (if they have one, that is). Instructions for authors do not belong in a WP article, they can easily be found by going to the journal homepage, which is where that information belongs. As you seem to find it offensive that "edited by" seems to imply a one-man show (it doesn't, most academic journals have an editorial team), I have added a few words stating that Jason L. Libou is the current EIC. Hope this helps and explains. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume2303! Thank you for all your assistance making the ULJ Web page as good as it can be. I have two questions for you. First, the articles in the ULJ "significant articles" section were chosen based on the number of times they have been cited in other journals. But that information is in Westlaw, behind a paywall. Is it worth it to cite to Westlaw? Or to describe the search in Westlaw necessary to confirm that these articles are regularly cited? Second, what do you think are the most important things for the ULJ to do to improve its page at this point? Thanks! Ponyoshimi (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words! As for further improvements, have a look at the suggestions in the guide for writing journal articles (linked on the talk page - in the WPJournals banner). You could also have a look at Genes, Brain and Behavior, an article that I have paid particular attention to in the past (for obvious reasons... :-) But note that I took care of any COI issues by having other editors check my edits). As you'll see there, I put in references to sources behind paywalls, too. It is always preferable to have sources that are available to everyone, but sometimes they're just not there and so you'll have to use the non-free ones. You can find other good examples by going to the GBB talk page and click on the "B-class" rating, to see other B-class articles. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The New England Journal of Medicine
Greetings, I'm just an average long-time user with minor edits and such. I came across an article that I feel was entirely biased against The New England Journal of Medicine. I honestly don't know enough about the issue being discussed to adequately address/edit it myself, so I did a quick search to find a learned, active editor. The article is at Melaleuca_alternifolia and is the last paragraphs.


 * The scare story that essential oils of tea tree and lavender, contribute to prepubertal gynaecomastia, an abnormal breast tissue growth in prepubescent boys, has been thoroughly discredited. This claim, by just one irresponsible local doctor, has been refuted in detail by the Australian Tea Tree Industry Association (ATTIA). [4] The story was challenged as soon as it appeared by a number of authorities and researchers for its poor reasoning, poor methodology and conclusions which are certainly not supported by science. The New England Journal of Medicine came in for much criticism for publishing such an unscientific paper, which was then repeated uncritically by the media - which caused alarm and damaging consequences out of all proportion to the facts. The ATTIA published the most thorough of the many refutations of this scare story. The Aromatherapy Trade Council of the UK has also issued a rebuttal The New England Journal of Medicine has so far not replied and has not retracted the study.

There is no need to respond directly to me as I have no idea when I might be checking on this issue again. I'll leave the decision what and if to edit entirely in your capable hands. Regards, Mensch (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. You really made things happen!


 * Thanks! All I really did was bringing this tot eh attention of the WikiProject Medicine and they did the rest. That article really needed serious work and I'm glad you brought it to my attention. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

External links tag
The tag you placed on this article  was removed twice by the same anonymous IP. I have restored it twice. You may want to provide an explanation on the talk page and keep an eye on this article. It is on my watchlist. I just haven't had time to review the external links to see what can be done. In the meantime removing the tag may not be appropriate. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I still have this watchlisted myself, but have recently been too busy to keep up with my watchlist. I have placed an explanation on the article's talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Archives of Natural History
Hello! Thank you for all your help in improving the Archives page - much appreciated. Thank you also for the welcome. I am learning my way around so also appreciate having you available for queries. I note your query re Honorary Editor - that is the official term that the Society uses. But - yes - it fulfils the same function as Executive Editor - so thank you for the link. Any advice on further improvements welcome. Thanks! --Els21wiki (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, happy I could help. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Don't Remove Text with Many Citations
As you just did on the "anti-social personality disorder" page. Removing cited materials is serious vandalism according to Wikipedia policy and if you persist you will be reported.

173.246.35.185 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

peter vujin
Pvujin (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search I respectully request that you refrain from the deletion of this page due to significant improvements and your own definition of 'notable person'.

Any biographyShortcut: WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 'The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field'

As such, and considering the citations from reliable resources, I politely ask you to refrain from deleting this page and help me with any improvements that may need to be done.Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Vujin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Thankfully yours, Pvujin (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pvujin (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on the article talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Guillaume2303, and thank you for your quick and informative response. Please excuse that I'm a TOTAL neophyte here, so I hope you get this message. You see, I do not believe that I will EVER be lawyer of the year, since I'm the eponymous people's tribune, an attorney-at-Law. Thus several times I have already been ranked #1 in the United States by Martindalle-Hubbell. My fight is for the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the rights of the American People. Judging by your residence, you may not know whats going on in the States today. The banks and their lawyers are robbing the people blind with the assistance of some venal Judges. In fact, dear Sir, they all get together to fleece the people. I fought those interests - and won. In addition, I was the first to raise the red flag at the 'foreclosure gate' crisis. So, at the present moment, I am expecting a Judgment in the 4th District of Florida, where the bank 'took' my clients property without a hearing. At the very least, we Americans have the federal Constitutional right to notice and a hearing. Now, I expect a great deal of coverage there since it's going to affect 3.5 million people in Florida as precedential common Law. Previously, I refused to give statements to newspapers since I though it would be unethical, but now I obtained the permission of my client to do so - after being contacted by the director of Legal Services of greater miami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Services_Corporation) for assistance in the seminal pending case of Karen Logan vs. US Bank National Corporation, Inc., No. 10-55671, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, I expect to receive more coverage very soon, that, perhaps, would make me more notable.Kindly excuse my pride, it goes before the fall, dressed in a poor man's garb. But, at least I hold my chin up - enough to learn these days to constrain it as much as possible. I thank you for the proposed discussion of the article, and wish you a very happy Holiday Season! Sincerely Yours, Pvujin (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller
Wim: There is a very controversial, current paragraph in the Ágnes Heller entry. The prior version was extremely biassed toward the right wing view, portraying Heller as being guilty of fraud. In reality, she is only being accused of fraud (by the right-wing government, of which she is a severe critic). According to the left-liberal and international press, Heller is the target of a systematic harassment campaign and is not guilty of anything. Please see the paragraphs in question (they are the latest ones with the do/undo changes. Many thanks, Stevan Harnad 13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Stevan, I'm vertainly willing to help, but this is absolutely not my area and I have not much time to delve into this. Your edits were very amusing, gave me a good laugh. If that is the kind of accusations she's dealing with, then her opponents are indeed morons! However amusing though, it's not a good idea to make such edits. Not all editors will see the humor of it and one has indeed already remarked about these edits being "pointy". In my experience here, it's best to stay cool and save this kind of remarks for the talk pages. If the tendentious editing persists even after you clean up the mess, then you could go to one of the ANI noticeboards, where usually a lot of people hang around who are willing to help against POV-warriors. If I can help with anything specific, let me know. Wim --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Research on Steiner Education
Hello Guillaume2303, thank you very much for your support in improving this article and for supplementing basic informations (info box). I read about the quality criteria regarding the presentation of academic journals in the English-language Wikipedia. I am convinced that it is possiblle to fulfill the requirements. My idea: not to delete this article but to improve it step by step. I would appreciate all your further suggestions. Best regards, Issajewitsch (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

American Speech
Ha, thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Theory, Culture & Society
Hello Guillaume2303, thank you very much for your support in improving this article on our journal. However, you have changed the journal's cover image back to that of a specific 'special' issue whereas we have provided the standard cover image for the journal. The 'official website' for the journal is the one we have provided a link to and not the publisher's website. In case you require proof of authenticity, the TCS editor-in-chief could confirm this. Best regards,--Prosperoscell (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some problems with that, though. You uploaded the new image to Commons, which does not allow fair-use images (and as it is copyright SAGE, you cannot upload it under a CC license), so it will soon have to be deleted from there. You should re-upload it over the image that I uploaded on en.wp as a new version, that would be the easiest thing to do. As far as I can see, the link you give now is also on the SAGE website, just different pages. I am happy to believe that the journal is "linked" to another one (what does "linked" mean here?) and that there is a book series connected to the journal, but you'll need references for that. Also, you cannot say that the books are by "key" people, unless you have an independent source for that, otherwise that will be seen as promotional language. It is not necessary for the "TCS" EIC to confirm anything. WP only accepts information that can be sourced to so-called "reliable sources". The"TCS" acronym is not very useful here. Anybody who is halfway literate (and non-literates don't read WP...) can see what the acronym for the journal is themselves. I have changed the URl in the infobox, too, but the links to online access seem to be non-functional. I cannot find handy links on the "new" website for online access/archive (unless the access is through www.sagepub.net/tcs/default.aspx?page=TCS in which case you should get another website designer, IMHO... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * okay, we are new to wp and happy to bow to 'superior' wisdom. There's no need to be overly supercilious as you have been here. The reason why TCS the abbreviation (it isn't an acronym) is mentioned is because that is the popular name for the journal. The related journal is its sister publication. Finally, there are plenty of links to the SAGE website from the TCS website both for online access / archive - you need to look carefully. I am going to change the image as well - once I figure out how. TCS is an important journal in its field (which I realise is very different from yours) and it would be useful to the readers of wp to get correct and more detailed information about it. I will make some further changes and remove the irrelevant reference that you have added.--Prosperoscell (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)--Prosperoscell (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think my above comment is condescending, it was not intended as such, I only tried to explain (realizing you're relatively new here). As for the image, just go to the current one (click on it), that will bring you to the image file page on en.wikipedia. Scroll to the bottom and click the link "Upload a new version of this file" and from there on it should be self-evident. This will immediately change the image and you won't need to re-enter all that pesky licensing stuff as it is already present there. As for the reference I have added, the only one I see is a reference for the impact factor and ranking, which, as far as I can fathom, is far from "irrelevant" (unless you want to remove this important information, which don't think you want to do). Concerning the links to online access, yes, they're there and yes, you need to look carefully. That's why I said you'd need another web designer: you don't want your readers to have to look carefully, it should be easy to navigate, as simply as possible. People nowadays rapidly lose interest and if they don't immediately find what they are looking for, they surf away. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right. I've checked the reference for the impact factor and it is indeed useful so my apologies. We will take on board your comment on the site - we are commissioning a new web-designer to move the site to a wordpress platform. I cannot change the image because I do not have adequate permissions on the en.wikipedia site. The image I'm after is http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/28/2.cover.gif, which is the TCS standard cover image. The one that is there is the cover of a special issue on Paul Ricoeur that is quite old now. I was wondering if you could at all replace the image given the greater permissions that you have. I am also not sure how to provide the necessary clarification about the fact that Body & Society is a sister publication - the only solution that comes to mind is our own website. Thanks for your help, anyway. The previous post did sound condescending but it's obvious that it wasn't meant as such. --Prosperoscell (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * many thanks for changing the image. We might add a couple more lines to the text but not before consulting our board and the wikipedia guidelines. --Prosperoscell (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that you needed special permissions (perhaps you need to be "autoconfirmed" for this). Anyway, I've uploaded the new cover. As for B&S, your own website is fine to source non-controversial neutral information. So you can use it as a source for, say, the identity of the editor in chief, but you cannot use it to source something like "the most important journal in the world". TCS is obviously notable (the impact factor alone is evidence enough of that). I haven't had time to check this for B&S, but if it has an IF or is indexed in some major, selective databases (not Google Scholar and such, they are not selective), then it would be notable enough for its own article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A dispute
Hello, I am sorry to be strict but I considered your behavior not good, so I am at least informing you about reporting you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

Will you/we place it to other noticeboard/discussion to gain more input or anything other? --Snek01 (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Journal
I removed your G6 speedy from this article as I don't think this is "non-controversial" enough to be suitable for speedy. I suggest you start a requested move if you so desire. Dpmuk (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what is controversial about it? the two pages are almost identical... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the current situation is far from ideal I am not convinced that simply making Journal a disambiguation page is the correct course of action as there is some information that may be lost related to the general term journal rather than any of of the specific instances. The current way of doing things has also been around long enough that I am not happy for this to be speedied.  I'm not sure what the best solution is to all of this and for that reason I think it needs discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I've created a stub for Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature, which isn't very far from The Gene Illusion based on the reviews I've seen. I'll work on it some more (there are more reviews), but you may want to add it to your watch list in case fandom shows up. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. But much as I dislike denialist stuff like The Gene Illusion, I also am quite critical of a lot of evolutionary psychology... :-) Buller's university page posts several reviews in reputable journals (but not the one you found, for obvious reasons :-) and although he does not give exact references, they should not be too difficult to find. I don't know this book myself, but I see that respected evolutionary biologists like Johan Bolhuis are quite positive about it (in nothing less than Science...) So while the Gene Illusion got unanimous bad reviews in scientific journals (if they even bothered to review it), this one seems to have gotten a much more mixed reception (and actually quite a few positive reviews). Anyway, as Buller does not say too much about psychiatry, I think, I don't expect too much fandom to show up, so it should be possible to make a balanced article. Cheers. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your welcome! Greetings from Italy. --Mickey (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A question
Hello, i am the maker of the page Wageningen Academic Publishers. I think it's fine you check everything and you obviously know what you're doing. The thing I don't understand is that you keep removing the booktopics from my page as a "unnecessary section". I don't think this is a unnecessary section because it's part of what the publishing company is about. I would love to hear your thoughts about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMP1912 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you, i appreciate it. MMP1912 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look again and re-added these subject matters (but not in a separate section). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Armed Forces & Society Comments
I am new so I wasn't quite sure how to respond to your comments. Below is what I added after your comments in the discussion at the wiki page for armed forces & society

Response to Guillaume2303 - I am new to this so I appreciate your input. However, your comments are ambiguous and don't help me to address any errors I may have made. I am not clear on a couple of points you made. First, you said that I included extensive biographical data on people connected with the journal. Are you referring to both Shields and Janowitz? In the case of Shields, I do not see how adding one dependent clause describing the work position of the editor of the journal is extensive. However, I did think that a note on Janowitz's work would be important since Janowitz created the journal and his philosophy seems to have influenced its direction. But, if that needs to be reserved for an article about Janowitz, that's understandable. Second, what are the promotional statements that I made? I am simply trying to add more information about this journal since it seemed very small. One of the ways that I attempted to do this was by describing the literature about this journal in greater detail, you will notice however that I relied only on the source material. Third, I removed links such as "sex," in "co-author sex" because it seemed irrelevant, unnecessary, and distracting. I also removed "links" that did not yet exist, since they don't exist yet.

Please clarify your issues with my edits with examples so that I can make any appropriate changes. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Whetsell (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have that article watchlisted so I will see any comments posted there. I have responded there, too. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been naughty
. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) Perhaps "tone" and "meacock" was overdoing it, but otherwise I think the problems were evident enough that they didn't need detailed explanation on the talk page. Looks like things are a bit better now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiley-Blackwell Journal edits
Hello,

You recently changed a couple of edits that I made to links on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction_Biology and this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism:_Clinical_and_Experimental_Research. I am an employee of the publisher of these journals and part of my job responsibility is to keep all external links to the journal homepages up to date. The journal content (i.e. all articles and research) is no longer housed on the old pages since we developed a new journal platform in 2010 (Wiley Online Library.) You said in your comments that the old pages contain "more useful information", however the new pages contain literally all of the same information as the old pages, plus more because they house all of the journal content. Half of the links on the old pages end up linking to the content on the new pages anyway, so really it is just making the user experience more difficult by directing them there. I would appreciate it if you could change these links back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzawada (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The info may be the same, but I find the "old" pages much more accessible. Perhaps I just have to get used to the "new" look. But I don't really see the problem: both the old and the new links are present in the articles, so everything is accessible for everybody. BTW, as an employee of WB, you should be careful about conflict of interest issues. No problems up till now as far as I can see, but it cannot harm to read COI. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that calling this the "Journal Homepage" is incorrect. These pages have not been updated since July 2010 when Wiley Online Library launched and they will not be updated in the future as we prepare to phase them out entirely.  For example, the old Alcoholism page (http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0145-6008&site=1) still announces a new Impact Factor of 3.166, but this is outdated information from 2009 and the latest Impact Factor is actually 3.392.  Furthermore, your statement that you find the old pages "more accessible" implies that this is a preference issue, when the Wiley Online Library pages actually deliver a more efficient and intuitive experience since they take visitors directly to the journal content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzawada (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Law Review - non notable law review addition
Dear Guillaume2303 I have tried to edit the wikipedia article regarding law reviews and you keep unediting it. My question is why is in non notable? it is from a University in Italy, published with the University Press (ISBN Code and ISSN codes) and among the authors there are several Judges and distinguished jurists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.122.207 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC) The journal does not even exist yet, its website states that "issue 0 will soon be published". Have a look at WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. New journals are almost never "notable" (in the Wikipedia sense, this has no bearing on quality or anything like that, only whether the subject of an article has been "noted" in independent reliable sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are incorrect the first issue has been published back in October check the "Current Section" also check the annocements it says it can be downloaded now... I am not sure how this works but is there a way to settle this? I don't see what the problem is from adding 1 review when there are multiple for the other countries.
 * Even with 1 issue published, your new review simply does not meet the notability requirements that I linked to above. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see why you get to make that call, also why is the Aberdeen Student Law Review, one issue 'notable' and even in the wikipedia sense? This is the first review of it's kind in Italy, Professor Cassese is a Constituional Court Judge and Prof. Conforti is a former European Court of Human Rights Judge. I am new to editing wikipedia but I dont get how one person get's to decide. Is there any other way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf156 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also for the sake of independent reliable sources see: http://eum.unimc.it/news/nasce-la-201crivista-giuridica-degli-studenti http://www.cronachemaceratesi.it/2011/05/17/al-via-il-festival-degli-studenti-con-mostre-concerti-e-spettacoli-teatrali/ http://sfoglia.corriereadriatico.it/Articolo?aId=1159366 that is a newspaper btw http://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/macerata/cultura/2009/10/22/250937-premi_laureati.shtml same with this one.

Please let me know what you think

- Sf156
 * I have answered at the article's talk page, given that you have copied this discussion there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)