User talk:Harold Basset

Welcome!
Hello, Harold Basset, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Daphne Maurer. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 23:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello, I'm Johnny Au. I noticed that you recently removed content from Toronto without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing
I have edited the article to reinstate some of its previous content while leaving most of your new text, but you need to provide better sourcing. You accidentally used the companies house reference for a paragraph it didn't support. I have restructured the article into sections.

Previous major edits to this article were made by a paid advisor to CSP, without any mention of this, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. If you have a connection to CSP, please read WP:Conflict of interest, and if you are paid by them, please note WP:PAID. Thanks. Pam D  08:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing
I am not in the employ of CSP. Here is the reference: https://www.noshelfrequired.com/cambridge-scholars-publishing-doing-simple-things-well/

I see these problems in the changes you made:

-- "The company previously published academic journals[6] including the discontinued titles Zambia Social Sciences Journal[7] and Review Journal of Political Philosophy.[8]"

There is no point to mentioning two of the discontinued titles. They have no special status. Surely it would be sensible to end the paragraph after footnote 6.

-- "It was not included on the original Beall's List of predatory publishers, but it was included on an updated list on beallslist.net.[9]"

This updated list puts CSP, with no explanation or reference, on a list of publishers that "may be predatory." This is a defamatory assertion without evidence. It does not belong in Wikipedia.

-- "David H. Kaye's Flaky Academic Journals notes that 'the journals do not look stellar; no editorial boards are listed.'[10] Before 2019 the publisher was rated as 'Scientific level 1' in the Norwegian Scientific Index; from 2019 it appears as 'Scientific level 0' because it publishes no journals.[11]"

I know nothing about the journals but the first reference here is just a discussion forum. In contrast, the Norwegian Scientific Index has objective criteria for categorizing journals at level 0 (unacceptable), level 1 (the norm) or level 2 (exceptional). The criteria are specified at https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/OmKriterier. An editorial board is one of the requirements. Kaye's forum is one source of the defamatory rumours discussed in the previous paragraph. It ought not to be in the text.

In short, this paragraph would be sensibly be either omitted or changed to this (with the footnotes' numbers corrected):

"The company previously published academic journals, which were listed by the Norwegian Scientific Index as level 1, which is the norm.[6] [11]"

In that form it would not warrant a special section.

Harold Basset (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)