User talk:Randykitty/Archive 11

Quantitative genetics reverted edit
Hi Randykitty. You reverted my edit under QG from 30 October. Sorry for not leaving an edit summary, was my edit actually incorrect, though? Repeatability is not the variance from within-individual across-trial differences, it's the complement of that, no? The variance that is not explained by trial-by-trial variation. http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/en/tartalom/tamop425/0059_quantitative_genetics/ch07.html Cheers. Paulcalcraft (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, that is a weird link and I actually disagree with that person. Litter size at different parities is absolutely not the same as repeating the same measure on the same animal (mice, for example, often have small first litters, larger litters after that, and smaller litters with increasing age). It's more like repeatedly measuring someone's blood pressure in rest. the text that you changed was "Repeatability ... is the proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to differences in repeated measures of the same subject", which, as far as I can see, is the correct definition of repeatability. (I guess that in some sense it would be the inverse of this, because as defined, the better something can be repeated, the lower the variance associated with repeatability). You changed this to "the proportion of phenotypic variance NOT attributable to differences in repeated measures of the same subject", which would mean that this would include, for example, any genetic variance present. That is, the opposite of what it is supposed to mean. Hope this is a bit clear... --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had another look at that link and I would strongly advice against using that as a source for anything. It is either a very bad translation from Hungarian or written by someone with poor English, which is not really a good thing if you are writing about a subject where utter precision is important. The second paragraph of the intro is a good example of this rambling mess, as is the definition of CV in the second chapter. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for review of AfD closure
Can you please take a second look at WP:Articles for deletion/National Operation Anti-Vivisection? You closed this as delete without any further explanation, and looking of the discussion the result does not seem obvious to me. I do not see a single guideline-based argument for deletion in any of the !votes. At a minimum, it seems that this could be kept open another week as no consensus to see if any additional opinions surfaced. I could take it to DRV, but I would prefer to skip the bureaucracy if you would be open to letting it run longer. VQuakr (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am surprised and disappointed that you (Randykitty) deleted the article "National Operation Anti-Vivisection", especially without any additional comment. There were four Delete !votes, two Keep !votes, and one Weak keep !vote. Several !votes had mediocre arguments from fly-by !voters.


 * In my opinion, you should have closed the AfD as "No consensus". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you are disappointment about my close. I have provided a (hopefully clear) rationale. If after reading that you still disagree with my interpretation of the consensus in the debate, you should take it to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for rewrite of Age of Learning
I appreciate your review of the page: Draft:Age of Learning. I would like to take a shot at a rewrite that is more detailed and I will to make it less promotional in all ways. Would you be ok with that?. Train1234 (talk) 1:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor who tagged it for deletion as spam was, who's judgment I value highly. Let's see whether he agrees with this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
 * English signup
 * Deutsch signup
 * Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
 * Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
 * British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
 * Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
 *  Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
 * JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

FYI
You might be interested in this off-wiki discussion, Randykitty. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's funny! So they think I'm a "bureaucratic fuck" who speaks 16 languages!! :-D Apart from that, people can speculate about me as much as they want, it's a free world. If anybody has concerns about things here, more specifically any edits I make, WP certainly has mechanisms to deal with that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Their accuracy seems rather suspect. In my case, I was slightly flattered that they thought I was someone senior in the Royal Air Force, but maybe speaking 16 languages would be even better (I only speak 5). I have never served in the RAF. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You beat me, I speak 4... But from one I also speak an additional dialect (but can't write it), so perhaps I should say 4.5 :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really want to protect your privacy and indentity, you should strictly avoid editing articles related to you personally. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure we all do, eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One might wonder what they would think on that site of this... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

block
You probably meant to block this user: Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like you did block the wrong user. I've unblocked them, but I haven't blocked the "right" user, so you can do that if you want. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy shit! I saw the signature and didn't realize that the comment it seemed to signed was actually an unsigned one. Thanks people for notifying me and Jack for unblocking! --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

due diligence
This article has not been added to any categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles, in addition to a stub category. Please remove this tag after categorizing. (November 2014)

what part of stub category do you not understand? Add the stub category if you want the tag removed. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid YOU are misunderstanding things here. You don't want a stub category added, you want the stub template replaced by a more specific stub template. That's a DIFFERENT thing. Please stop, this is becoming disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken user talk page deletion
Hello, you (seemingly accidentally) deleted while closing Articles for deletion/Retro-Dial. This sort of mistake (deleting a redirect with text in it that linked to a deleted page) used to be common with Twinkle when bug 7304 was a problem. Was it a simple misclick in your case, or are you using some automated tool to close deletion discussions? Graham 87 14:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, weird. Yes, I'm using a script to close AfDs. Looking at my monoboook.js, it seems to be this script. Far as I know, this is the first time I see something like this (although given that you don't see the deleted redirects -except if you go into your deletion logs- it may well have happened at other times, too, without anyone noticing). I'm pinging to have a look at this. Thanks for the heads up and for correcting the mistaken deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  professional science

Thank you for quality articles and contributions on scientific articles, especially neuroscience, on a professional level with a focus on science in Europe, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC) My  Pumpkin Sky Prize repeated a year later, - you deserve a larger gem and a better link ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian Islamic Library
Page on Australian Islamic Library has been deleted while it was under discussion on page articles considered for deletion. No notice or message was sent to me either.

Can you please explain why i was not communicated any time frame to edit the article and why was I not notified upon deletion.

I would be grateful if you can let me know about reasons for this happening without taking me in loop, which I consider quite offending.

Kind Regards, Nabeel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nabeeb, I'm sorry that you feel offended, no offense surely was intended. I also understand that you are disappointed that the article you created was deleted. Don't be discouraged by that: article creation is one of the hardest things to do on WP. This article was, as you say, discussed on Articles for deletion/Australian Islamic Library and that discussion had run its allotted time of 7 days. It is normal procedure that somebody then closes it and evaluates the consensus. When a discussion is closed as "delete", the article is then deleted as a matter of process. The closure of the discussion is assumed to be notice to all involved. Hope this explains. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Review
Can you please review the article so that I can be sure my edits are not spammy - Rahat  (Talk * Contributions) 16:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I told you to "have it checked by an admin (not necessarily me) before moving it back into main space." I have no time right now, as soon as I have, I'll have a look. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sunil Kumar Verma
Sir, Couple of months ago you did great discussion on the wikipage of Dr Verma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sunil_Kumar_Verma) before it was deleted.

A stunting new information has now been published now on the website of Press Information Bureau of Government of India. This is a Press Note by Government of India on the discovery of 'DNA Barcoding Technology' that it was discovered by Dr Sunil Kumar Verma in 2001 itself with the name Universal Primer Technology. Please see the link to this information on the website of Press Information Bureau Government of India: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=108185

Hope this serve as a direct evidence as mentioned by you on the discussion page of Sunil Kumar Verma.

Also this fact was discussed in peer reviewed scientific Journal that Dr Sunil Kumar Verma indeed pioneered DNA barcoding technology 3 years before Hebert et al (Please see section 2.3.2.4 of this paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24967868

In case, if you can not obtain the full paper, please get back to me, I will send you the pdf version of full text published in Forensic Science International.

With the above information in place (on most reliable news and scientific sources), could you please now reconsider to discuss undeletion of page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Kumar_Verma and also to add relevant new information on the discovery of DNA barcoding technology on various other pages on wikipedia such as on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding

I shall be grateful for your kind review on the above. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educationtemple (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your links confirm 1/ that the barcode technology is admissible as evidence in INdian courts of law and 2/ that Verma published an article stating something or the other. Unfortunately, neither contributes to Verma's notability. 1/ does not even mention him and 2/ is not an independent source. I see no reason to revise my opinion in that AfD and am pretty sure that an y re-creation of that article would be deleted at AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see all these links then. All of them mention him as inventor. See 2002 news source (which was before 2003 the year when Heber published barcoding)

2002: http://www.thehindu.com/2002/02/10/stories/2002021003090500.htm

2003: http://www.wti.org.in/oldsite/archives/2003/05/14/dna-tests-a-breakthrough-for-wildlife-forensics/

2003: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/04/30/stories/2003043001921900.htm

2003: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/ccmb-develops-wildlife-forensic-test/articleshow/44901017.cms

2003: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/checking-wildlife-crimes-with-dna-tests/articleshow/45002969.cms

2003: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0612/p13s03-stss.html

2003: http://www.scidev.net/global/news/indian-genetic-test-helps-combat-wildlife-crimes.html

2006: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20061203/spectrum/nature.htm

2008: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/csir-award-for-ccmb/article1344564.ece

2008: http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20080923/1060944.html

2008: http://dst.gov.in/whats_new/press-release08/csir-awards-2008.htm

2014: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=108185 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educationtemple (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I looked at a few of these sources and they just mention Verma in passing. I would never base an assertion like that he was the first to develop this method on those sources. In any case, I was only one of the people !voting in that AfD. You should take this up with the closing admin or take this to WP:DRV. Discussion closed. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not understand your reply due to some spelling mistakes, I think. What do you mean by "In any was". Please clarify whether you agree with my view of Un-deletion or you disagree with that, and still go with your previous view of deleting that page about S K verma. Sorry, I could have not written but did not understand the meaning of your last comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educationtemple (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, typo corrected. I see no reason to reinstate the article based on the evidence you provided, but you should talk about this with the closing admin or go to DTV. I regard the discussion here as closed. --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

K. K. Aggarwal (cardiologist)
Hi Mate, I saw your comment about the notability of Dr. K. K. Aggarwal and would just wanted to point out that he is a recipient of Padma Shri, the fourth highest Indian civilian award and B. C. Roy Award, the highest Indian medical award, apart from other minor honors. Guess notability on WP:ANYBIO is adequately met. I created this article as a part of WikiProject India - requested articles, to blue the red link therein. Cheers!!--jojo@nthony (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Padma doesn't impress me much any more since I wrote an article on one awardee and then had to adapt it because it turned out she was a confirmed plagiarist. The Roy award wasn't linked so I didn't realize it was notable. Still looks to me like several people get it each year, so it won't hurt to add some more sources to nail the notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, still Padma awards stand at the top of Indian honours system. The case you pointed out could be an aberration, but on a general count, they are the most sought after awards in India. A person who could fool the University of Heidelberg, could fool others too, but only for some time. Coming to B. C. Roy Awards, only a few awards are announced every year and that too spread around four categories. Since most of the award systems the world over, work on a regional basis, barring the global ones such as the Nobel Prize, notability of a person also has to be considered on a regional basis. Some of the most notable people in some countries are not at all known elsewhere but that does not diminish their importance. By the way, on K. K. Aggarwal, I came across more information, but had to bypass them as I was not convinced of their reliability. Please do not take this as an attempt for a debate, but only a friendly chat. Cheers!!--jojo@nthony (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, same here. I think the Roy award does it. If I had been convinced of a lack of notability, I'd have tagged the article accordingly. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
The orignal source for World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology is the 3rd reference, Hurriyet Newspaper: www.hurriyet.com.tr", a daily newspaper that is one of the most prominent newspapers in Turkey. You can easily comprehend the legitimacy of this Nespaper by checking its rank in internet ; for example in Alexa "www.hurriyet.com.tr" is ranked as the 7th most popular website in nation wise and 304th in the world (see: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hurriyet.com.tr ). The 4th reference is the translation of the news that was published in Hurriyet Newspaper. The 2nd reference (i.e., blog of tansu küçüköncü), is given as a further resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.146.110 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know Hurriyet, but your writing is not just in bad English (which I could easily correct), but it is also completely unencyclopdic. This is stuff for Facebook or your personal blog. Please self revert or copyedit to make this understandable and encyclopedic. --Randykitty (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your changes to Rambam Maimonides Med J
I just wanted to thank you for the changes you made. I was working on the InfoBox and got interrupted, planned on working on it this morning again, and found you had done it for me! I really appreciate your input. Thanks! If you have any other suggestions on information to add for this topic, please do let me know. I'd like it to be more informative, but not sure what is acceptable for a Journal. Most that I've seen are quite minimal. 777desha777 (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Yes, journal articles are usually not very large. It is rare that we have reliable and independent information of an encyclopedic nature on journals, so we have to limit ourselves with what the publisher says. And that is, of course, usually rather promotional, hence we can only be brief. Some tips are in our journal article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nova Law Review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circuit judge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Samuel Jacob Klein
Hi Randykitty, when you have a chance, could you move this deleted article into my user space? I want to investigate it since it was apparently nominated in bad faith. He may not be notable, but I'll check it out and if he is not notable, I'll have the user page deleted. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see much notability, but perhaps you have better luck. It's now at User:I am One of Many/Samuel Jacob Klein. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it and see if there is anything in HighBeam. Thanks. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation
Hi, since I am into the journals right now: is it a good idea to make a seperate article on the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk)
 * Well, it's in ATLA, which would make it notable. Creating a separate article would gut the American Scientific Affiliation article. At this point, it's covered extensively in the latter article, so I would only spend the time/effort of splitting it off if I had a particular reason for that. Otherwise, I'd rather spend my time on adding a journal that's not yet covered at all. But that's a matter of personal taste, of course, so the short answer is that I don't see anything against a stand-alone article. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Tausch article
Dear user Randikitty

I hope to have imrpoved the Tausch article meanwhile. Talking about Austrian political scientists, and other political science communities around the globe, one could use the following criteria

Variable	Acronym	Concept	Source 1	GLOBAL MARKET PRESENCE	Global library outreach of the bestseller number 1 according to „OCLC Classify“	http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ 2-3	GLOBAL MARKET PRESENCE	number of works with a global library presence of 100/300 or more global libraries (both versions were used)	http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ 4	GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY OF LIBRARY OUTREACH	Maximum Library Outreach in France (library outreach of the bestseller number 1 in the respective country)	http://ccfr.bnf.fr/portailccfr/ 5	GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY OF LIBRARY OUTREACH	Maximum Library Outreach in Sweden (library outreach of the bestseller number 1 in the respective country)	http://libris.kb.se/form_extended.jsp?f=ext 6	GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY OF LIBRARY OUTREACH	Maximum Library Outreach in Japan (library outreach of the bestseller number 1 in the respective country)	http://ci.nii.ac.jp/books/?l=en 7	GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY OF LIBRARY OUTREACH	Number of works available in the People's Republic of China (China Union Catalogue)	http://opac.calis.edu.cn/ 8	JOURNAL PRESENCE AND IMPACT	number of articles in peer reviewed journals according to SCOPUS	http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus 9	JOURNAL PRESENCE AND IMPACT	number of contributions in peer reviewed journals according to EBSCO HOST	http://www.ebscohost.com/ 10	JOURNAL PRESENCE AND IMPACT	Scopus-indexed article with the highest citation in SCOPUS journals	http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus 11	GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY OF JOURNAL PUBLISHING	number of articles in the majority of the peer-reviewed journals in Eastern Europe and Russia (CEEOL)	http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/SearchArticles.aspx 12	GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY OF JOURNAL PUBLISHING	journal articles indexed in the DIALNET network for Spain, Portugal and Latin America (DIALNET), covering most of the scientific journals published on the Iberian Peninsula and in Latin America	http://dialnet.unirioja.es/ 13	ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE WORKS BY WESTERN AND GLOBAL DECISION MAKERS	Number of works in the European Union Library ECLAS	http://ec.europa.eu/eclas/F 14	ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE WORKS BY WESTERN AND GLOBAL DECISION MAKERS	Number of works in the main United Nations Library UNBISNET	http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=bib&menu=search#focus 15	ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE WORKS BY WESTERN AND GLOBAL DECISION MAKERS	international articles for peer-reviewed journals indexed in the Pentagon Library	http://www.whs.mil/library/

On my Wikipedia to do list to write entries on Austrian political scientists, the following names - besides Arno Tausch - frequently appear in such sources:

BAUBÖCK RAINER FALKNER GERDA MÜLLER WOLFGANG C HELMS LUDGER PELINKA ANTON HAERPFER CHRISTIAN GOTTWEIS HERBERT PLASSER FRITZ DÜR ANDREAS LAUBER VOLKMAR BRAND ULRICH PIATTONI SIMONA GEBREWOLD BELACHEW WERLHOF CLAUDIA VON POHORYLES RONALD KERNIC FRANZ LIEBHART KARIN LUIF PAUL GÄRTNER HEINZ SEGERT DIETER

It should be also mentioned that the photograph in the Pelinka article (many regard Pelinka s the Doyen of Austrian political science, with justification) does NOT coprrespond anymore with realities, since he is no longer Chairperson of the Wiesenthal Center in Vienna. User John de NorronaJohn de Norrona (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

New journal article
Hi, I wanted to ask your opinion on whether the journal American Review of Mathematics and Statistics, whose article was created recently, is notable. I'm inclined to say no, given the lack of an IF, but I'm not sure if the databases it is indexed in listed here are selective enough. Everymorning  talk to me  02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I agree that this is not notable. I'll PROD it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Boyd Bushman
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Boyd Bushman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nobodyimportant123 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I second a review for this entry. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I wasn't able to respond from my iPad on the discussion page to show sources regarding what Boyd had done. Here is a link to his patents: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Boyd+bushman&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

If you click on one, you will see all the information. He was legitimate, unlike how others would give opinion of him. This man was a serious scientist with serious credentials and serious work, as evidenced in those patents. I am amazed how his memory is going to be voted out of Wikipedia because of the tantrums of most who vilify him for sharing his thoughts on something as mundane as ufos / aliens.

You also have this on your page, which I found purposeful to include here:

Deletion/Inclusion. I don't see myself as an inclusionist or a deletionist. Everything depends on the sources. If there are good sources, then an article should be written, even if our personal feeling would be that the subject is utterly trivial. If there are no good sources, then an article should be deleted (or, even better, should never even be created), even if our personal feeling would be that this is a subject of the utmost importance. We report what sources find notable, not what we find notable.

If majority rules on this medium, who is to grant or protect the rights of dissenting yet honest voices? Boyd should have an entry highlighting his patent work. Maybe the article could be watched and prevented from being tampered with. Perhaps the mention of aliens should not be allowed, either in agreement or disagreement. --HafizHanif (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you really should present these arguments at the DRV, because that's where things will be decided. Apart from that, I don't think that at this point anybody is doubting Bushman's existence or the fact that he had patents and worked. However, in order to be notable, he (or his work) needs to have been noted. That means that we need non-trivial secondary sources discussing him or his accomplishments. Patents are, of course, primary sources. --Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The underground storyteller
Hey Randykitty, what "list of AfDs to close" do you mean here? If it's Cyberbot's, I don't see it coming up there. I also had fixed the incoming links to go directly to the new, capitalized title, so there shouldn't be a problem with leaving it a redirect, no? czar ♔   13:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Czar, I got this one from here, where it still was listed although the AfD had been closed. So I "closed" the redirect and that removed it fro; the list. I admit to being somewhat challenged by these technical things, so if you know of a better way to do this, that's fin with me. Good luck on your RFA! --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should be good now that the AfD no longer transcludes through the uncapitalized redirect. Okay if I revert your edit and we see whether it's still an issue? (And thanks!) czar ♔   15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Marin Magazine
Hi Randykitty. I am just curious as to how adding circulation information for a publication (when it's cited from an external source) is considered promotional content when it is a Bay Area magazine? If that's the case, then the circulation information on the sidebar needs to be removed as well. It is just going into more detail as to where the magazine reaches. I guess I'm just unclear as to how it's promotional?. Thanks. MarinFan14 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Scopus list
Hi, I saw you provided a link to the list of journals indexed by Scopus in the AFD for Africa Today. However, when I click on the link, nothing happens (it just goes to a blank page). Is it working for you? Everymorning  talk to me  00:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Darn! They changed the link. this one should work. Blasted, now I have to change this in all the references where I use this link... BTW, if Excel cannot handle it (the file is pretty big) try Gnumeric or Excel viewer. --Randykitty (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

21 gun salute rally - Please help me to support the noble cause in India
I definitely honor your decision and at the same time since its for a good cause to the society, I request you to spare sometime to let me know how it can be posted so that the mass people are benefited. I have checked the guidelines on your page as well as wikipedia guide, but couldn't figure out whats wrong. I am sure I am representing it in a wrong way, otherwise you must have approved it. I have tried to share all the facts i can think off to support the cause & publish the same. Please help. Here are my takes: 1. I am not the owner of this rally & I donot wish to market this rally. As there is no gain in marketing the same. 2. This rally is for public & their benefit. I have visited & benefited last time & I spoke to many people & they feel the same. So, if its on wikipedia people will come to know more. 3. There are people who are attached to this rally & their profiles are already existing on wikipedia & I had linked to them. 4. Whatever revenue is generated, its used for charity, for a good cause help specially abled children. So no business linked to it. 5. What I can do is find out 2-3 such people who have benefited from this rally & ask them to confirm the same. 6. Please note that it is not about a person or a company. Its a public event with an intention to educate the young generation & the small amount of revenue generated is given to the blind & handicapped children.

Please help me to support the noble cause.

Thanks & Regards

Sujoyroyin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujoyroyin (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, "promotional" can apply to many things, not just for-profit companies. WP is an encyclopedia and what we present must be written in an encyclopedic way, that is, fro a neutral point of view. In addition, a subject needs to meet our inclusion standards and everything needs to be verifiable through references to reliable sources. Article creation in WP is one of the hardest things to do, especially if you're new here. Writing something "to support the noble cause" is, I am afraid, a recipe for disaster... WP is not a soApbox. --Randykitty (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for such a speedy response & your explanation. I wish I could interact more with you regarding this. Can I get your email id. My email id is sujoyroyin@gmail.com. It would be great if I get the opportunity to discuss with you regarding wikipedia and others.

Thanks & Regards Sujoyroyin
 * Hi, I limit off-wiki communications strictly to matters that have to be treated confidentially, such as personal information. Anything else can and should be discussed on the talk page here. There's no space limit, after all :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Tim Fedroff
I provided many links that more than proved Fedroff passed GNG, yet you deleted the article without explanation. Explain? Alex (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have provided a rationale at the AfD, although I would think that the consensus was very clear and well argued. Your disagreement was duly noted, but I would caution you to assume good faith in the future. If you have problems with an editor's !voting pattern that you think is improper, discuss that on their talk page and, if really necessary, then take it to WP:ANI (but beware of WP:BOOMERANG). An AfD is not the place for that. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Noah Pawlowski
Hi Randykitty, I'm just curious as to why the Noah Pawlowski page was deleted as it clearly passes WP:NCOLLATH and essentially all of the calls for deletion had either not looked at the references provided (insisting that the page pass based on NFOOTY) or as in the last case where Lukeno94 saying "He hasn't won an award, he was named in a team-of-the-season type thing" which is absolutely not correct and which is shown to be untrue with even a cursory glance at the references provided in the article. I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks for your time YouCallThisClean? (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but as I said in my close, I think that the people arguing for deletion have the better case. Of course, if you disagree, you can take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

re: J. Chem. Soc.
Hi, Randy. Yeah I admit I wasn't sure how to format the Journal of the Chemical Society (1926–1965) — if you look at their website, you'll notice how the journal was named throughout history; they probably want to distinguish the Old 19th century ''J. Chem. Soc.'' with the early/mid 20th century "resumed" one. But regardless, in formal citation there's no "(resumed)" added.

So, what do you think? How should I format it properly, and how should I incorporate the weblinks for the different era of this long-live journal, whose name is changing forever XDD? — SzMithrandir (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm currently traveling, working on a strange computer (with a different keyboard). I'll have a closer look when I get home next week. Ping me by Friday in case I forget :-) --Randykitty (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Randy .. turns out I'm the one who forgot .. so yeah, please have a quick look now, and tell me what you think. me. — SzMithrandir (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Helen Clark
Hello. I really don't see why you closed this AFD. Almost no one voted on it! There was the person who suggested it for AFD, one Strong Delete, and one Keep. Only three editors. We needed more editors to vote. Can you revert this please? Otherwise, it will have to be re-suggested for AFD, but that's more unnecessary work.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha: this mentions a "speedy deletion." It was not a speedy deletion, but an AFD. When you look at the history of the article, the speedy deletion tag was removed; then the proposed deletion tag was removed too; so another editor took it to AFD (not me). So the above "request for undeletion" is a lie on two counts. Moreover, please look at this edit they have just made, removing the evidence that they are getting paid by a private university to write such articles. Please bear all this in mind in your reply. Have you been duped?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, almost nobody !voted, and that despite several relistings. The AfD was open for 3.5 weeks, so I'd be surprised if another relisting would entice more participants to !vote. I did not see the undelete request (which I am sure will be dealt with appropriately by the people there), nor do I care much about the fellowship that Nikilada got. I was not duped, but based my close on the rather obvious lack of consensus in the debate. As I said, I don't see any use in drawing this out any longer. If you disagree, you could go to WP:DRV, but given the !vote summary that you yourself gave above, I think that would be a waste of time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "given the !vote summary that you yourself gave above" (do you mean strong delete?). Are you able to explain why more people didn't vote? I am baffled by that. It will have to be re-suggested for AFD, yes. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant this sentence: "There was the person who suggested it for AFD, one Strong Delete, and one Keep". And if you re-nominate this too quickly, you may run into some flak, possibly even a speedy close... --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. Can you please explain why? I am just trying to do the right thing by letting other editors vote on it after the speedy delete and proposed delete were removed. With all the other AFDs I've seen over the years, lots of editors voted within a week.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not for lack of participants, because several editors commented without !voting. Meaning that for them things were not really clear. Meaning: no consensus. You did the right thing by taking this to AfD and submit it to the community. Unfortunately, the community has not rendered a clear verdict. Either you accept that, or you take it to the community again at WP:DRV. End of discussion here, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but why didn't you try to get editors to vote before closing the AFD?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The AfD was relisted TWICE and was open for 24 frigging DAYS. If after so much time no !votes have been cast, I don't see any use in continuing the debate. And I don't see any use in continuing this discussion either. If you still think my decision was wrong, take it to DRV. Otherwise be done with it. --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Publications
Long time no see. I was wondering if did a correct removal of content here. He claims that's the list of publications is not encyclopedic, but if Albert Einstein have a list why can't this one?--Mishae (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mishae, indeed been a while. Ross is no Einstein... I agree with Biostmors that the list is excessive, but I think that it is also a bit excessive to remove everything. What I do when I encounter a list like this is add a template and an edit summary saying that the list is too long and should be pared down to the 3-5 (at the very most) most notable publications using an objective criterion (e.g. an obituary listing someone's most important contributions, or the most-cited papers). Einstein really is a special case, being one of the most famous scientists ever. I could imagine that the same would be true for Darwin, for example. These people have had such a huge impact on society (not just science), that anything they ever wrote is encyclopedic. For ordinary mortals, we should not want their bio to become a CV. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Theoretically I didn't wrote a CV. I wrote an article on academic, with maybe too much focus on her papers. I agree that the list is excessive but then there is no Google Scholar citation for her.:( I can use PubMed as an external link if that will be O.K. with both of you?--Mishae (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Scientists
So while I was absent from the science field on WP, I realized that someone had a nerve to edit it his way: On May 8, 2014 the subject had edited this article. My primary concern about it is that the subject added a broad amount of refs to his work which might imply OR. Also, various social stuff which makes the whole research section a list of what his focus of field is. Like, its already stated that he is a computer scientist what else our readers need to know? If anyone is curious to read broad bio about his works and his interests they can use GS, which I provided. If possible, can you please look into this matter. Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have realized that either you don't have time or its because everything is fine but you didn't even bothered to write weather the articles are fine or not. Also, can you be so kind to check on a mess in Ortwin Hess article? I cleaned it up but I don't know what to do with the other refs. Plus, again, I think someone just did an OR there. If so, what parts should I remove?--Mishae (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't look yet, rather short on time this week, I'm afraid... Will keep this in mind and perhaps check later. --Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Tausch article
Dear colleague,

you instructed me "References to his works need to be given in a correct manner (instead of "with John Doe", it should be either "Tausch and Doe" or "Doe and Tausch": order of authorship is important". Now I did this, based on the OCLC, the Library of Congress and what have you, and you reverted my edit 17 minutes ago. Reverting edits, while another editor works on an article, is not very encouraging.

I know introduced a section of "critique". Regards John de Norrona (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-formatted those references. The "critique" section could use some editing for clarity, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have attempted my best, and concentrated on various other available independent sources. Such articles are hard work, and on my to do list now there would be other Austrian political scientists. Please check my edits, and also check whether these tags at the beginning are still apropriate. There is a category "Austrian political scientists", with articles of very differing quality. Regards John de Norrona (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

eTOX
re: -> top: restore needed maintenance tags (those are different issues from the other tags))

Hello Randy, a new article describing eTOX and how it works was published, I introduced reference to it and removed the “original research” and “primary sources” flags because I thought the concern was addressed. Could you point to me the place(s) in the artcile where you see the warning applying? I’ll double check to see if I can get a reference for these facts. Thanks in advance, Moldeck (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a problematic article. Almost (perhaps even all) references are primary sources. In addition, most or even all are not independent, as they have been written by persons involved inf eTOX. Several of the sections are completely unsourced and seem to be the result of original research. Like almost all articles on projects subsidized by the EU, the article includes excessive and uninteresting detail (like the name of their website. Really?) It's also heavy on "what we're going to do" and other promotional fluff. Some general issues with EU projects are described here. One thing noted there and repeated here is the boasting about "participating organizations". Anybody who has ever been involved with one of these projects knows that it is not the organization (like the university or EMBL, etc) that is involved, but individual researchers. It's just administratively necessary that an official at those organizations signs. It's the saem in the US: if a researcher obtains an NIH or NSF grant, it's her/his organization that signs the funding agreement, not the researcher, even though we'll say "Dr Jones got a grant" and not "the university of xyz got a grant". In addition, I also note that almost all of your edits here are one way or another connected to eTOX. If you are connected to this consortium, you would do well reading WP:COI. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello RandyKitty, I can only agree on how slow and painful pre-competitive and large research consortia are with very often an unreachable, extra large scope and sometimes very poor ROI. For the rest, I do have an interest on toxicology and started to contribute to various pages, not all connected to eTOX (you can also visit the French branch of wikipedia for more diversity). I'm still on the learning curve on WP, I contributed a lot in the past to fora and I see here a new way to share knowledge and to help making it accessible for everyone. Regarding the eTOX page, I do not think I have a conflict of interest, but I'm close enough to feel the need to stop touching that page. Now that it is out, it is time to let it live its life, I hope others will contribute. Thanks for the Notability of research projects link, it's good to read such a discussion. Moldeck (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentinels of the Multiverse merger discussion
You opened a delete request in which the decision to merge the Sentinels Of The Multiverse article with that for the video game port was taken. We are attempting to discuss this merger on the videogame talk page, and are seeking input from the members involved in the discussion. If you would join us that would be appreciated, otherwise, thank you for your time. Aawood (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Azimo
Hi Randykitty, You recently confirmed the deletion of the page for Azimo but I think it was too hasty, in the 5 weeks it was under review only 2 administrators spoke for deletion yet over 1,000 articles were published on CNN, BBC, Forbes about the company during that time. I'd like to request that you undelete the page and work with me to ensure it meets the necessary requirements.

The page has been in existence for over 2 years and Azimo is the worlds most complete money transfer service impacting over 300 million people in Europe and reaching 5 billion people world wide, serving more people in more languages, currencies and countries than any other digital service as discussed by the World Bank. It partners with many of the worlds largest financial institutions. It was reported in over 3,000 publications that the business was approached by Facebook as an acquisition target in February 2014 and a co-founder was offered the role of Business Development at FB as part of what will in 2015 be launched as the Whatsapp payment integration. The company has appeared in 15,000 print articles over past year on services such as the BBC, CNN, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Telegraph, Times of India, El Pais, Le Monde, Reuters etc. The company has won every major award in the startup and technology sector and just 3 days ago was awarded The Mayor of London's FinTech award.

The article satisfied every aspect of the Wikipedia company notifiability requirements but I agree it could be improved.

I'd like to work with you to ensure it meets your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking again through the debate, I note that you were the first to comment there and presented these arguments, but failed to sway the "delete" !votes. Given the noted spammy tendencies of the article (with which I agree), I am very hesitant in restoring this even to user space. Of course, if things have changed since the AfD, a re-creation is possible, but at this point I'm uncomfortable with that. If you so desire, you can take it to WP:DRV and submit this case to the judgement of the (usually very experienced) editors there and I'm fine with whatever decision will be taken there. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that there were too many links which were originally presented as evidence of notability - once this was flagged 90% were removed and you will see from the tracked comments that there were no further negative votes after that point. The only vote after those amends was positive. I don't doubt the experience of the Editors, however including your vote in total there were only 4 people voting on the article in nearly 6 weeks under review. There has in the past 3 days been significant new coverage with the company featuring on the BBC News at 10 on Friday 28th November as part of the Mayor of London's visit to Singapore. The company falls into a category of businesses called FinTech which is one of the fastest growing in the world, I passionately believe this can be a legitimate article, especially as other pages for less notable companies like TranserWise remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not !vote: I closed the AfD, that's a different thing. And, in any case, AfD is not decided by counting votes (which is why we call them '!votes'). Can you give me 2 reliable sources published in the last 3 days that have give in-depth discussion of this company? --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Randykitty. What I'd hoped is that the amends made by an independent admin last week had ensured that the article complied as there had been no further negative discussion after that admin updated the page.The following coverage would have been added to the page: -Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/sites/freddiedawson/2014/11/28/azimo-a-disruptive-uk-polish-remittance-fintech-company/ -New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/video/multimedia/100000003252007/a-cheaper-way-to-send-money-home.html -BBC News (I'm the process of obtaining the video of the news coverage and interview from Friday night 28th November at 10pm which focussed on Azimo and it's expansion into Asia - the video is not available online but I am being sent a copy soon). The subject of the BBC News report was also mentioned (very short mention) on the Wall Street Journal on Thursday http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/11/27/londons-mayor-bangs-the-drum-for-u-k-startups-in-asia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review these new supporting references? {{User:Thesocialpro|Thesocilpro]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had a look at these sources and they don't really change my mind. The print ones are an in-passing mention and a very brief "article" (not in-depth coverage). The NYTimes thing is just a short snippet (2 min), too. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Tepera
(Deletion log); 09:46. . Randykitty (talk | contribs) deleted page Ryan Tepera ‎(Articles for deletion/Alex Andreopoulos closed as Delete)

Hi, it seems you accidentally deleted the redirect at Ryan Tepera in addition to Alex Andreopoulos as a result of the above AfD. Would you mind un-deleting Tepera so as to maintain the page history? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what the script did there. What I suspect is the following: on Nov 29 an IP editor added a (rather useless, because nobody will see it) navbox to the redirect. That navbox contained a link to Anreopoulos and the script must therefore have identified it as an Andreopoulos redirect that should be deleted. I have undeleted the past revisions. Sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, that would explain it. Thank you for the restoration. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Pan American Games and Alex Andreopoulos
That was a bold, but I believe correct AfD closing. I do a lot of work with Olympic swimmer articles, and most American Olympic swimmers were also Pan Am Games medalists. Winning a Pan Am Games medal, especially in an individual event, is a Big Deal, but I cannot say that merely competing in the games or playing on a team that participated in the games should confer notability on an athlete when it is his or her primary claim to fame. Like most regional Olympic-style games, the Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, etc., are a step below the Olympic Games or other world sports championships that actually represent the highest level of competition in a given sport. Playing on the American baseball team in the Pan Am Games should not confer automatic notability on an American player any more than playing on the Colombian team does for a Colombian player. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad you agree with me :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

COGEBI
Hello Randykitty, you deleted the page I created about COGEBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COGEBI&action=edit&redlink=1). We tried to change content to be more neutral and removed text taken directly from COGEBI website - I would like to ask you if the content is now ok and the page can be published - new version of text is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ondrej.sotek/COGEBI

We are able to obtain copyright permission about published text from Cogebi, a.s.

I am sorry if I am doing something wrong, I am new user on wikipedia and trying to publish my first article. COGEBI is our customer, we created website cogebi.com.

Best regards, Ondrej Sotek. Ondrej.sotek (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had a look at your draft but am afraid that it is completely unacceptable. It is promotional and completely unsourced. From the above I understand that you are involved with this company. Not only does this indicate that you have a conflict of interest, but it may also make it difficult for you to write objectively on this subject. There's a welcome message on your talk page listing several helpful links. I suggest you read them all (as well as those that I linked to above) before continuing editing in this area. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manchester University Press, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palgrave. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Autochecked
Hey Randyktty! I was observing the user rights log and seen you added the 'autochecked user' to MrBill3. Just to note that the user group is no longer active and is redundant. As Autochecked users states: Currently there are 0 autochecked users; if there are any, they must be removed by an administrator from the list. Best, ///Euro Car  GT  17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sjeez, that should be removed from the user rights management menu! I'll remove this, thanks for the heads up. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Big game
You just did a speedy deletion:

"09:10, 15 December 2014 Randykitty (talk | contribs) deleted page Bali Mauladad (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)"

I was about to contest those tags as they were inappropriate. A7 was not applicable as, apart from the general notability of the subject as a prominent big game hunter, there was a specific claim to fame in that they were the only non-white to be admitted to the white hunters society - the East African Professional Hunter's Association. This was backed up by two citations. They also had some prominence in the Safari Rally too. G11 was inappropriate as the subject is long dead and so their life is just of historical interest now - a larger-than-life figure from a bygone age.

So, please restore the article so that it may be developed further. Note that the young lady who started the article was being shown how to edit Wikipedia. As she is an Asian female, such hostility to her efforts does not serve our diversity efforts well. She was recruited at a Science Museum outreach event and will be introduced to Jimmy Wales at a forthcoming event this week. It would be a shame to have this casting a shadow on the occasion. If there is continued doubt about the merits of the topic, then the AFD process might better be used so that it is given a more thorough examination. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored it, although I don't really see any notability, nor do I agree about any claims for fame. G11 has nothing to do with whether the subject is alive or long dead or whether something is commercial or not. In any case, perhaps it's better to move it to draft space so that it can be developed to an acceptable level, before moving it back to main space. Let me know if you need help with that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. From what I've seen so far, I'm expecting to find more coverage of the subject in newspapers of the period but don't currently have access to Highbeam to check this yet.  I'll do what I can this morning though I have other plans too.  And I find that someone has just nominated my own transferable skill for speedy deletion!  That is a highly notable topic in education and there are thousands of hits in Google Scholar but I now have to waste some more time proving the obvious.  Now transferable skill is a topic where one has to be more careful about G11 concerns because there are lots of people currently engaged in promoting the idea.  I just can't see it for big game hunters though as they seem mostly an obsolete profession.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Global Health
I see you deleted an article on Journal of Global Health (I am talking about the one by University of Edinburgh, there is another from Columbia University The Journal of Global Health. I am proposing recreating the article. Looking at Ulrichsweb I find it is peer reviewed/refereed. It is abstracted/indexed in CABI databases "Global Health" (verified) and "Nutrition and Food Sciences Database" (verified) and CINAHL (verified) and PubMed and PubMed Central (NLM id 101578780) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Virtual Library as well as PubMed Central Canada and Europe and EBSCO Health Policy Reference Center. I am assuming that the Directory of Open Access journals provides no notability as merely a directory. WorldCat shows 150 libraries holding it but for an open access online journal many libraries do not purchase paper copies. In this article the Journal of Global Health assesses itself. This article has been cited 26 times according to Google Scholar (also cited in WP Sepsis). The citations include major journals and reflect an international base. This article was cited by] The Lancet, BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth and USAID publication. This article cited by 47 including some pretty major publications. Well I have presented a case, what do you think? - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the databases that you mention are particularly selective. PubMed is automatic for any journal in PubMed Central, which is fairly easy to get into, too. It's not in MEDLINE or other selective databases. WorldCat is rather useless for an OA journal. So in short, I think you'd better spend your valuable time on more notable journals, enough of those are still without articles, than on this (at best) borderline case... --Randykitty (talk)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in Relist to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Susan Cotter
Hi, since I don't know if the system will ping you or not (sometimes it fails to do so), I am letting you know that if you have time, to come for a chat at the current article regarding its notability. I have found zero mentioning of her on GS, so maybe she will be listed in one of those deep sources. Will be glad to hear any input regarding this issue. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I do however have a question regarding your edit here From what I understand when the original link dies we provide an archive which should read |deadurl=no but when the both original and archived one is dead (happened to me couple of times) then the parameter should read yes. Or am I not understanding the archiving process since the instruction on what and how to do it here is quite confusing.--Mishae (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I understand the doc of the cite web template (which concurs with the link you gave on linkrot), "deadurl=no" is used if a link is still life but has been archived pre-emptively. "Deadurl=no" then causes the original link to be used as main link. If the original link is dead, then "deadurl=yes" will cause the archived link to become the main link. If both are dead, the whole thing should be handled as normal dead links, I think, although I cannot imagine that to happen very often. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Its odd, because I looked at Barack Obama article and there refs 150 and onward were not dead yet it still carried deadurl=yes. Was it a mistake? If so, why no editor took action?--Mishae (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could be, perhaps you should post a note on the talk page of that article. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the users didn't respond to my question so I am confused now. However, I did discovered something interesting... There is no need to mark deadurl as yes in order for it to switch around. You simply can remove deadurl parameter altogether and you will have the same effect. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phenotype, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporocyst. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelsen Wiki page
Hi Randykitty, This is in reference to the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_S._Nelsen I have made several edits. Can you please review and let me know if you can remove the over linked banner on top? If not, can you please fix the page as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and learning as I'm going. Thank you in anticipation. TrueBRONC (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, just had another look at it and it is still heavily overlinked. We link a specific term only once, not each time it occurs in the text. And common English terms (like English, vice president, and such) should rarely be linked, either. There's a fine balance between having sufficient wikilinks and overlinking... --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

CAB Abstracts coverage
Here is a link and formatted ref for your list if you like for CAB Abstracts
 * CAB Abstracts coverage list; to cite:

Thanks for all your contributions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've probably already figured out a couple of clicks and you can check other CABI databases ie:Global Health and the tweaks for the ref are minor. Where are you getting the impact factors? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a decent publisher (i.e., not a predatory one), I just take it from their website and source it to the JCR. I have yet to see Springer, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, and such to make a mistake. Some journals don't list their IF and in that case I get it directly from the JCR itself (I have access to a lot of databases and journals). --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had seen you add IF for some I couldn't find on journal or publisher sites. I suspected you had access to JCR. I have a few databases at my disposal. If you could let me know which are most useful for finding info on journals that would be appreciated. Also any tips for finding sources on journals would be great. For the most part whenever I search a journal title I get the content of the journal. Thanks for some clear and specific ES's that have helped me out a lot. Thanks for the user rights too. Does this mean I can set has rationale to yes on images I upload, or should I let others do that? Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)cmt
 * To start with the latter, I think anyone can set "has rationale" to yes, but in any case, you should be able to do it now. There are rarely any sources for journals. Occasionally, a new journal gets reviewed in the Times Higher Education (for example, Genes, Brain and Behavior) or Nature (journal), which are great sources, but those are exceptions. Ironically, we often have good sources if the journal is low quality or commits an error (for example: Social Text or OMICS Publishing Group). That's why most articles on journals remain rather bare-bones, because all we can use is their own website and indexing info. --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So I am guessing Web of Science isn't an abstracting/indexing service and that is why you have deleted it a couple of places? - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it isn't. It's an access portal to several (important) services (Science Citation Index, JCR, and others), but it is not an index in and of itself. Any journal that is in one of its constituent databases will be in WoS, so it is better to cite those individual databases. Same goes for SciSearch, which is a platform to access the SCI, but not an indexing service in itself. --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what do you think of listing Academic Search and Academic OneFile? While not highly selective, listing them may be useful to readers attempting to locate content of the journal. Thanks again for all your help. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I usually leave in any serious database, selective or not, except those that are rather trivial, such as Google Scholar or DOAJ. I don't list PubMed for a journal that only gets into that because of being listed in PubMed Central, just like I don't list Web of Science if a journal is in one of its constituent databases. Hope this makes sense. --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. I am still figuring out which databases are serious and how many of the CABI databases to list (I am going with CAB Abstracts, Global Health and the Tropical Diseases Bulletin for now.
 * I was wondering about a source for a cover image. The image for the Journal of Infectious Diseases is small and grainy, a better image is available here but I don't know if it is OK to use this website as a source for an image on WP. Many thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem here would be to know whether the image at lymediseaseguide.org is legit or a copyvio... I'm not sure we could use it under fair use if they have it as a copyvio. Perhaps you can ask at the helpdesk, this is beyond my (rather scant) copyright knowledge... --Randykitty (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Research bible
A new account recently created the page Research bible. Does it look notable to you, given your expertise in scientific journal-related topics? Everymorning  talk  00:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see you deleted it. Everymorning   talk  00:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it as a copyvio. I didn't really look into it to see whether it was notable. However, when I read their "about" page, that all sounds kind of fishy... Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc
This was part of the same AfD you just closed as Delete - was this also to be deleted?Peter Rehse (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Usually, the script I use to close AfDs handles multiple noms flawlessly, but something must have caused it to fail here. I should have verified better... --Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Abu Dhabi
There were to other articles nominated in this article for deletion could you please delete as well. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Darn! See above... Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking
Hi Randy. This is regarding Polar Geography. I am aware that there is a limit on how much something is linked in an article. Since information in an article can be repeated up to 3 times (infobox, lead paragraph, and main body of the article), I generally follow the same rule of thumb of linking items within the text, once in the infobox, lead paragraph, and main body of the article. I had added a third link to Taylor & Francis, that you reverted. Is it necessary to revert it? (talk) user:Al83tito 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to add it? It's a short article, 2 links should be enough. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Mackey
Can you userfy this article for me. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome_Mackey

CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but: no. As I wrote when closing that AfD, the article was way too promotional. You can try WP:REFUND, perhaps someone there is willing to do this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources are very important. Finding them took a while and the research took a while.    How does the Refund process work and what is its benefit? CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aren't those sources here? And this has now been deleted three times, not least because of the promotionalism in it... --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC


 * I believe there were a number of updates over the last 2 months. I am unaware of the previous reasons for the deletions, as I hadn't been able to view the previous versions of the article.

07:56, 18 August 2013 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page Jerome Mackey (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) 09:17, 13 October 2010 StephenBuxton (talk | contribs) deleted page Jerome Mackey (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jerome Mackey
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jerome Mackey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

PNIS
What's your take on Proceedings of the Natural Institute of Science? I saw that you did some cleanup on it. I did a brief search and it appears to be mainly cited in popular media. In any other AfD, the journal wouldn't inherit notability based on coverage of the journal's articles—the journal itself would need to be discussed in depth in some form (sigcov). It also seems against the spirit of Notability (academic journals) #2, but that's where your experience comes in czar ⨹   01:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think NJournals applies here, it's a satirical journal. The references in the article just take it over the bar of GNG, I think. Perhaps more references can be found, I don't think I did a search. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Gravity Research Foundation
I don't understand the point of the tag you just added to Gravity Research Foundation - could you describe on the Talk page what you want to see changed or improved? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the ample use of external links in the body of the text, I'd think that was rather self-evident, but I have posted a note on the talk page as requested. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
I think this article meets C-Class criteria. Rather than make the change myself, I thought I'd seek your input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good, so I've bumped it up to B. With a little bit of effort, this could become a GA, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if you care to make some notes as to what is needed to get it to GA on the talk page of the article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria are here. They're pretty general, though. When I got Genes, Brain and Behavior up to GA, I simply modeled the article on the only other GA article that we had at the time, The Accounting Review. Have a look at the GA reviews on their talk pages, that might help. I'm currently rather busy, so I may not be able to offer much more help... --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR
I noticed you added an example for citing JSTOR on your user page. I generally just use the |jstor= parameter. If you are using the via parameter and the link to credit JSTOR due to an account through the WP library using the via and subscription parameters makes sense. I strongly advocate using the subscription parameter anytime the url parameter is used and the link does not lead to free full text. With journal articles I think the doi and jstor parameters provide links that most users understand are not free. I think any time a title is linked it should be to free content, or the subscription parameter should be used. Just my 2 cents. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I applied for a JSTOR account from the library (just yesterday, so don't know yet whether I'll get one). Links to free content are indeed very handy (for readers and editors alike), but sometimes some source is only available by subscription. The subscription parameter is indeed good to use, although I must admit that I often don't think of it (and having access to a lot of stuff myself, I often don't realize that something is behind a paywall...) --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting using the |jstor= parameter rather than the |url=, |via= and |subscription= parameters.
 * Do you know anyone can get 3 articles at a time free from JSTOR? If you do sign up make sure to use a different email than the one you will use when the WP Lib gets you one. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I'll need to try that out in my sandbox to see the difference... I copied this from what the library recommends. I know about the three free articles, but can't remember which email I used to sign up... --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunil Kumar Verma Wiki page
Hello Randykitty, just wanted you to get noticed re creation of Sunil Kumar Verma Page, Earlier this year after thorough discussion you deleted that page. I can post whole discussion if you want to have a look, its in my profile pages. However, regardless of anything the article is recreated. The subject is not famous to be published on wikipedia, would you please address this issue. I personally think that its not a good idea to start discussion on same topic again, by giving same reason and raising same points. Merry X mas:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I remember this case and just spent half an hour going through the (tortured) history. The article has been re-written, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion as a re-creation of a deleted article. As it already has been at AfD once, you cannot PROD it either, but if you think that the modifications are not sufficient to get it over the bar for notability, you can take it to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sparing your time Randykitty:), the author presented the topic smartly though he still not is a big-gun to be published on Wikipedia as living legend (any person of assistant professors level of any university of North America would claim to be published on Wikipedia after it since they all have better or comparable CVs, You are also from research background and you can feel the content I am talking about). Anyways if the author is fulfilling all the requirement and somehow justify to be on wikipedia I would not nominate him. Thanks once again and have a happy new year  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fitternity.com
I wan't advertising the company, I have recently come across it and while doing research realized that they do not have a Wikipedia page. I thus decided to create one. Kindly, if possible do let me know my errors so as to not repeat them while creating a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipra1112 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, the way you wrote the article, it read like an advert for the company. Articles on WP need to be written in a neutral way and anything you say (such as "the only company doing so and so") needs too be supported by references to independent reliable sources. Creating new articles on WP is very difficult, especially on companies. Being new here, I would recommend that you start with improving some existing articles and look good how other articles on similar subjects are written (especially if these are rated "good article"), before trying to re-create an article on Fitternity.com. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)