User talk:Randykitty/Archive 13

Response to Randykitty from Biographer100 about biography of Roberto Refinetti
Hello. I was a graduate student under Dr. Refinetti many years ago. I set up the Wikipedia page six years ago because of his important role in circadian physiology. The page has been the same for years, except for minor updates. Apparently, you have a problem with it, but the causes are not clear. You question "neutrality," but the article is simply descriptive. You complain about primary sources, but all statements of fact are based on secondary sources. Apparently, you object to a full bibliography of his publications (which, of course, are primary sources), but, in the electronic age, it makes sense to be thorough. This is valuable historical information that is available in biographies in various encyclopedias. Finally, you question the reliability of the "sources." Do you mean the actual references, or are you talking about his bibliography again? If the references, they are all "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Why do you question it? If you are referring to the publications, I guess I could set up links to the various journals, but there is no way to ensure that the links won't change over time. Please clarify. Thanks. Biographer100 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I thought that the banners are self-explanatory, but apparently not. Being his graduate student may make it more difficult for you to be objective about this article. It's really not "simply descriptive", but more like a fan site. Much is unsourced. The referencing is totally inadequate. There are dozens of references to his own work (primary sources, I a referring to the "Notes" section). Marquis' Who's Who is really not a reliable source. Some "references" are just links to homepages of universities or journals and don't substantiate anything said in the article. There's only a handful of newspaper articles, of unclear relevance and standing. So, no, you are incorrect if you think that the references are all "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And WP really is not in the business of publishing lists of publications or CVs. To improve this article, you should start with reading Biographies of living persons and some of the guidelines linked from that one. Some good tips for writing an encyclopedic bio (and some more related links) are given by the WikiProject Biography. That project has also a work group on science and academia, and people there can perhaps provide some help. His Google Scholar citation record is not exceptional, but enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1. In the end, despite all the fluff, the article does not really do a good job of showing his notability. Were none of his books ever reviewed, for example? Yes, we live in an electronic era and WP is not paper. But WP is an encyclopedia and this particular article is absolutely unencyclopedic. Finally, you remark that this article "has been the same for years". Yep, that happens. We have millions of articles here and many of them are not up to standards. We even sometimes have hoax articles that stay around for years, because nobody notices... But once it get noticed, the least we can do is tag the article for the problems it suffers from. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It sounds like you would like the article to be shortened considerably, and I can do it. Two questions, though: 1) You asked about book reviews of his books, but, if the book reviews are positive (which they normally are), wouldn't you question the "neutrality" of the article? In the same line, I could introduce ISI Science Citation statistics for journal articles, but this would be inserting a judgment of value, wouldn't it? 2) You say that Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source for biographical information. I understand that a biography written as a monograph by a historian would be a better source, but is there anything in between? Oh, regarding COI, the NIH Peer Review system (http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/Grant-Reviews-508.pdf) considers that a COI exists only if one person collaborated with another in the past three years. Thanks. Biographer100 (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as book reviews have been done by people and published in journals independent of the subject, they are significant. Yes, such reviews are often (but not always) positive (I suspect that book reviewers often decide not to review a book if they don't like it), but the fact that a well-established academic journal decides to review a certain book is testimony to its importance. Adding citation statistics for articles would be overkill, but ISI (or Google Scholar) stats can be used to determine the most notable publications of a researcher. We generally list the 3-5 most significant publications. The reason that Marquis is not an acceptable source is that their information comes directly from the people who's bio is included, without any editorial checks (apart from formatting). There is indeed not much else, but sometimes an academic has been the subject of newspaper articles and such, and those can be used as sources. As for COI, we are indeed a bit more stringent than NIH. Doing a thesis with somebody can be a very intense experience (hopefully positive, but can of course also be negative) and only seldom leaves somebody completely objective, even after years have passed. As for NIH, it's not always easy to find good reviewers. If they would make their rules too stringent, they would have trouble finding enough people willing and able to do it, I guess. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just one more question: even the entry for Bill Clinton doesn't have strong documentation for "Early life," relying mostly on his autobiography. Is it okay to use Who's Who for early life information, or is it better to omit early life? I assume that the latter would cause a lot of cuts in Wikipedia biographies, though. Oh, I guess one more question: After I revise the article, can I post it, or what is the mechanism? Thanks. Biographer100 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An autobiography, especially if published by a respectable publisher, is acceptable for neutral information (such as where a person studied). Marquis, being considered a vanity publisher, is always to be avoided, though. A faculty page, on the website of a university, also can be used to get info on current position, for example. Have a look at WP:PRIMARY for the guidelines about using primary sources. As for revising the article, I'm not sure what you mean with "posting". You should do any revisions directly on the article itself, so that the contribution history remains intact and complete. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I did find some online sources on university web sites that could serve as documentation of basic biographical information. I would think that a published book would serve as more reliable documentation, though. You referred to Marquis Who's Who as a vanity publisher, but the libraries at both Harvard and Stanford carry it, as you may verify by searching their online catalogs. If you insist, I'll drop Who's Who entirely, but I thought I should check before I replace a book citation (forever stored at major libraries) with a web citation. Thanks. Biographer100 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the archives of the WP:Reliable sources/noticeboard (this one, for example: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56). There has been consistent consensus that Marquis is barely better than a self-published source. In any case, I wouldn't worry to much about "early life" sections and such. Academics are notable for their work, not their private life like some third rank starlet. Many bios on academics don't have anything beyond place and date of birth and then just start off with college and higher education. That, too, can be kept brief. It's their work that is interesting. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You
I'm aware that at the moment I am probably not someone you actively want to have any interaction with, and I know that's my fault for being too quick on the editorial trigger, however I wanted to thank you for intervening to keep out the apparent ip troll on the RFA page for Buggie111. I was unaware that we had an rfa troll, otherwise I would have cautioned Buggie to be on the look out for them. Additionally, I apologize for what I wrote since in rereading what I originally posted I can see how poorly I phrased my original comment(s). Like I told Piotrus, I should never have commented. I know this, I've learned it repeatedly, but it seems that every so many years I am required to relearn this lesson the hard way... TomStar81 (Talk) 14:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The last few RFAs have been marred by an IP troll posting this kind of comments. Usually someone removes them quickly enough, but if the page doesn't get protected, they just come back with another IP. Must be someone who knows WP and has a grudge, doesn't look like the run-of-the-mill high-school vandal. As for the SS comment, having seen and read a lot of what the SS wrought, I don't think that organization can ever be compared favorably with anything, least of all an organization legally operating in the US. I know that the latter includes loathsome organizations like the KKK, but even though those creeps might want to commit genocide, they haven't done so yet. An organization that systematiclly tries to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and whatnot is in a class of itself. Read about them, look at the surviving photographs... Anyway, apology accepted. --Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Journal of Hymenoptera Research
Hi Randykitty,

I'm trying to learn more about WP editing so I can contribute more, particularly around open access academic journals. I couldn't help but notice you had removed the category 'Open access journals' from the Journal of Hymenoptera Research page I made recently. Why? Could you explain your reasoning a little to me? This is a category I am likely to add to many articles where I consider it to be evidenced/appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Hymenoptera_Research&diff=651763330&oldid=651763199

Even under the strictest interpretations of open access this appears to be an open access journal to me (immediately open/free articles at the publisher website, made available under the CC BY license). e.g. here's an article published yesterday at this journal: http://jhr.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=4908

Metacladistics (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is an OA journal and it is indeed in the cat "Creative Commons Attribution-licensed journals", which is a subcat of "open access journals". If an article is included in a subcat of something, there's no need to include it in any parent categories any more. For example, we would not categorize an article on somebody from Boston, MA, as "People from Boston, MA" and "People from Massachusetts" and "People from the United States". See also WP:Categorization. Hope this helps and thanks for your contributions! --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation & the pointer to WP:Categorization. I've read that now and realise you've correctly interpreted Wikipedia's rules on this matter. It's not how I'd choose to do it (I would prefer to display all higher-levels of categorization), but hey - I'll follow the rules now I know them, thanks. -- Metacladistics (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:KeerthiEstates.in
You blocked User:KeerthiEstates.in as a promotion-only account earlier. They are still using their talkpage to advertise, please could you revoke their talk page access? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for letting me know! --Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Methods in Organic Synthesis etc
Hi RandyKitty,

I see you have literally just updated the page for Methods in Organic Synthesis. By coincidence, I have simultaneously been working on this and the related products Catalysts and Catalysed Reactions and Synthetic Reaction Updates. Drafts of my revisions are in my sandbox User:TheMikrobe/sandbox

If you haven't begun work on the other two products then I will make add my edits to the CCR page and make a new one for SRU — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMikrobe (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, i haven't started on the others yet, being temporarily distracted by some vandalism... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've updated CCR and started a new one for Synthetic Reaction Updates :) TheMikrobe (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , one suggestion I have is to merge the three articles into the new one. Given that the articles on the predecessors are rather brief and bound to stay that way, we could get a more substantial article for the new one, possibly also avoiding notability problems. What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about something like that too - it would be much more useful to readers to have the (now) historical information collected into the article on the new product. I'm still too new to Wikipedia to be able to make a judgement and I don't know how to go about doing it. Also I have limited time to put into it, so I'll leave it up to you.TheMikrobe (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it when I have a moment. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my UAA report on User:Pankajpr91
Hi Randykitty, thank you for your double-check. I understand that real names can be used for usernames, however that was not the reason for reporting the user. Based on his article creation, it appeared to me that his account was used solely for self-promotion by publishing his CV, and that tied strongly with his username. It is not a problem with the username, but I felt it was a problem with intent. Nevertheless I have withdrawn my report, and do tell me if there is another place which I should be making such reports in future. Thanks, Optakeover  (Talk)  22:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I now understand the logic behind this rule. Thank you once again, and I apologise for the mistake. Optakeover  (Talk)  22:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Qualitative Research
Hello: I am over on the Qualitative Research journal edited by our colleagues at Cardiff University. I've added to the site as Qualittive Research, though there may be another entry instead. We have a lot of people who want in on the qualitative research entries!! So, do take a look to see if a separate entry is warranted. Good to meet you. Best to our friends at SAGE; and no they do not usually cite each other. Julie Ann Racino JARacino (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have undone your changes at this article. First of all, they were highly promotional ("SAGE publications produce an excellent set of books, both comprehensive and detailed instructional," for examle). Second, this was about the field of quantitative research, but the article is not about the field but about the journal. Third, you claim that Bogden, Biglen, and Taylor are leaders in the field, but as evidence you just cite some of their own works. You should familiarize yourself with WP:PROMOTIONAL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:RS. These are the guidelines and policies that apply here. Please do not add this kind of stuff to any article again until you have a better grasp of what is acceptable and what is not. Also, you should avoid inserting references to your own work (see [[WP:COI), again, at least until you have a better understanding of our policies. Sorry that I had to revert and sorry for being so blunt, but this way we may perhaps avoid a large loss of time and effort for both of us. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is an article about the field: see qualitative research. --Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Julian Gold
Hi. Just wanted to double-check with you--I plan to create a new page for Julian Gold, as he becomes the new Mayor of Beverly Hills tomorrow. It will start as a stub but quickly expand. I understand why Vice Mayor was not significant enough, but Mayor is I think. All good?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, mayor does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN either. Are there in-depth reliable secondary sources that were not already in the article during the AfD? Perhaps it would be best to go through WP:DRV, just to be sure that your work does not get speedily deleted as a re-creation. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most recent Mayors of Beverly Hills have a page. This is not the Mayor of a small town in Iowa. There will be many references, but obviously many more will come as the year progresses. I'm not contesting the deletion of the page when he was Vice Mayor.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most" is not "all"... And DRV is not only for contesting a deletion as such, but also to see whether the community is fine with re-creation after new information has become available. "As the year priogresses" may be likely, but WP is not a crystal ball... --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I may create a draft and see how much I can find; however, I may not be able to move it as a page had already been created. By the way, I agree with you--I will need to create more pages about most of those mayors. There is a lot of history about their impact on the entertainment, luxury and financial industries, as well as philanthropy, all of which are global.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Historia Scientiarum
Thanks for figuring that out what it is-upon looking at the article title I couldn't figure out what this was or if it was notable but I didn't want to put a speedy on it as I was thinking it could be notable. Wgolf (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what PROD is for, to give us some time to do the necessary sleuthing :-) As a book/journal it would not have fallen into one of the A7-eligible categories anyway. I have a little bit of time now and will try to see whether I can find something more about it. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jerome Mackey
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. —Cryptic 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Jasslimhuimin
Hello ,

I'm a teaching-assistant with Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. We are currently running a course-assignment with Wikipedia: Education Program:Nanyang Technological University/ Information Technology (Spring 2015)

We had asked our students to form groups of 2 and 3 in doing this assignment. Unfortunately, it appears that there was some miscommunication in this regard, and two of our students used the same Wikipedia ID,, simultaneously. As a result, you had blocked that ID from performing any more edits.

We have now communicated to all our students that either they designate one person to make all the edits, or if they'd like to edit simultaneously, they'd have to create multiple ID's. The two students involved here will also be doing the same; they will create an additional ID if they choose to work on the article simultaneously. Given this background, would it be possible to lift the block on ? We'd like to work with all the Wikipedia norms in this regard.

Thanks! - Twotino (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Noesis (online journal)
I noticed this recently in the AFD log. It doesn't seem to be a journal as much as a scholarly database, meaning the article title is incorrect. Do you think it's notable, whatever it is? Everymorning  talk  20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, even though they have an editor and editorial board, it doesn't look like this is a journal. If it is a database, then notability will depend on the availability of independent sources. There are none in the article and nothing came up in GScholar, but I didn't have time to check Google, so I can't exclude there's something somewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Hi Randykitty,

I noticed that you set the Catholic Church article to Full Protection in response to the edits of a single anonymous editor. This would seem to me perhaps a bit overkill. Traditionally, administrators have restricted the page to "autoconfirmed" users or similar in such instances, so as to not disrupt routine maintenance. Perhaps you could reconsider, especially since I working on several edits as part of a GA nomination for the article. Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not overkill, but simply a mistake. Don't know how that happened, but I don't often protect articles, and in this case I apparently clicked something wrong. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have changed the protection settings, hopefully correct this time! --Randykitty (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

James Tyrrell
This is Megantruth,

You have just undone my edit on the James Tyrrell page but have given no valid excuse, just saying you liked the page better before is unacceptable and simply showing a bias, which an administrator should not do. The assertion by David Starkey is not logical at all. Please replace the edits immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megantruth (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Your original message to me said my edits were deleted as you liked the page the way it was - there was no mention of 'sources'. David Starkey's statements about a confession has no basis - but you have allowed it, thus you are showing a biased judgment. What I wrote quite rightly points out illogical assumption Starkey has made and offsetting his claims. It is not necessary to have a source. You have not followed procedure. In lieu of reinstating my edits, you must remove the unfounded assumptions from David Starkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megantruth (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to judge whether an assertion is logical or not. Your addition was completely unsourced. If you have reliable sources supporting what you wrote, you can re-add it (with those sources), otherwise not. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's problems with the article, the solution is not to add to that by adding your own unsourced opinion. The solution is to search for sources and then correct the article following the sources. Many articles have many problems. We call that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and if other editors have made unsourced POV edits, that's not a reason to do the same yourself. Your edit wa not improving the article, which is what the template said. In any case, next time I'll try to select a clearer template. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits
Did you read the reasoning of why I made those edits on the Saudi Arabia pages. Please do so and see that my reasoning is perfectly legit.64.121.83.151 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just block him Randy. He is just another disruptive sock of Jacobkennedy. AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bentham Science
I know that the Bentham Open imprint is on Beall's list, but I don't know if all Bentham Science journals are questionable or if it's just that imprint. What do you think about, for example, this journal? Everymorning  talk  21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is only Bentham Open, but would need to check that. In any case, the flyer for this journal says that it is in Scopus and MEDLINE. If that is correct, then whether or not it is on Bell's list is irrelevant as it would meet NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Physical Review A page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=654152490 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F654152490%7CPhysical Review A%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnetic resonance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nature Communications
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nature_Communications. -- Regards, Oisguad (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentisty
There isn't a great deal to say about academic journals, is there? It's never likely to be very newsworthy.Rathfelder (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not a reason not to class them as stub if that's what they are. And much more can usually be said than in this article, see WP:JWG for some tips. Most of our journal articles are larger than this one. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

List of information systems journals
Greetings! I see that you reverted my edit on this article, saying that "it should be sorted as a list". If by that you mean it should appear in a category under "L" for "List of", that can still be accomplished by piping "|List of information systems journals" after whatever category in which the article will appear. The use of DEFAULTSORT allows organization of articles that use the "inc-lit" template, which assigns an article to the "Incomplete literature lists" category but which does not allow for use of the pipe method of sorting.

Please let me know if there's a category in which this article is not sorting according to the convention evident for that category and I will try to make sure it does. Cheers, Pegship (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drugs & Aging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imprint. 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) 09:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Kim Sawchuk
This woman is the editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal of Communication. This journal doesn't have an article yet, but I wanted to know if you thought it was reputable enough to make Sawchuk notable enough to pass WP:PROF criterion 8. Everymorning  talk  23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure... The journal is not in any Thomson-Reuters database, nor is it in Scopus (which has a fairly low barrier). On the other hand, it seems to have been around for 40 years and is not a predatory journal, so if an article was created, at least some people would !vote "keep" in a putative AfD on that basis alone. Whether that would be enough to argue that she meets PROF#8 is a toss-up, I guess. Sawchuk seems not to have many citations, even though this is not a low-citation density field. I think the best chances for showing notability would be to look for book reviews of the books she has published. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End-of-life. 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) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick on the uptake
Hi, thanks for doing the quick revert on 'Physical Review' (in about five seconds). So thanks Randykitty from Randy Kryn 16:32, 20 April, 2015 (UTC)
 * Coincidence, I was away for a while and just came back :-) BTW, this is a weird template and I have posted a remark to this end on the template talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Coincidences are the bread and butter of the expectant. Hi. Those last three you reverted are actually on the template, I was just placing them on what I thought were untemplated pages. Maybe you could go through the template when you have time to see which items are template-worthy and which ones somebody put on by mistake. Or, better yet, maybe the scope of the thing could be enlarged to include such pages. Apologies for catching you up in this pit of scientific international jargon. Good to meet you, and welcome back from wherever you (or the faiths) took you. Randy Kryn `18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

JPIM
Hello, I'm the social media manager for JPIM. The current editor of the journal is focused on re-branding from an academic to a research journal. The other information that I have been adding is also directly from the editor (Gloria) and from the Wiley page of the Journal of Product Innovation Management. We would appreciate it if you did not delete the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odippon (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it for good reasons and I will delete it again. If you keep adding this, you will be blocked from editing. WP is not a vehicle to "re-brand" or otherwise promote your journal. Please also carefully read our conflict of interest guideline. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Psychreg part of a group??
I know you follow journals and I saw your iVote re: Psychreg where I had come following a link from Carine Lewis (which looks as though it was created in tandem with Psychreg. Would you take a look at Nicholas Troop?  Sourced to Psychreg, and not to much else.  Would value your opinion.  Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had noticed this, too. Looks like an attempt to use the inclusion in Psychreg of notable people to show notability for the website and the other way around. I need to have a closer look at the edits to get an idea of whether the same editor is behind the three articles or just seized the opportunity. The article does not show anything that would make Troop notable, but I haven't myself checked anything else yet. --Randykitty (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look at
…the deletion matter at Binding antibody. Communicated because you participated in the deletion of a related article some time back. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Coercive Citation article
Hi, I'm trying to address your concerns about the Coercive Citation article, and I'm hoping discussing it in a bit more detail might be helpful.

First of all, I want to make sure I understand exactly what aspect of edit you have concerns about. When I first read the article last week, the sentence I edited read "However, five of the top ten offenders come from the same publishing house, which shows the problem is also related to specific business practices of publishers and not just the particular discipline." When I read this I thought it was a curious oversight note to mention the name of the publishing house, so I went to the source, determined that the publisher was Elsevier, and added that to the article. My edit literally just added that one word, "Elsevier," to the middle of the existing sentence.

Because the rest of the sentence seems to have been around for a while, I assumed that what you were objecting to was my addition (the name "Elsevier"), but I realized you could have been concerned about the sentence more broadly, so I'm trying to address both issues.

In the first case, I think specifying that the publishing house behind "five of the top ten offenders" does not constitute WP:OR. It is true that table S12 in the source only lists "journals identified as coercers by survey respondents" by "Journal Title" and "Number of Coercive Observations;" it does not specifically identify the publisher of each journal. However, in my view, the name of the publisher of a specific journal falls within the policy's standard "that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." Like the example of a statement that needs no source ("the capital of France is Paris"), the publisher of a given journal is non-controversial, non-analytical, factual information that is trivial to verify from any number of sources (Worldcat, publishers' websites, copies of the journals themselves, etc). In particular, I would point to the fact that the Wilhite and Fong themselves treat the publisher of a journal as self-evident given the title of the journal, since they do statistical analysis based on type of publisher without feeling the need to explicitly state which journals' publishers are in each group.

If your concerns were about the broader point, I've now tried to edit the article more extensively to align it more closely with the source. I hope this will address possible concerns about the analytical claims: I also thought they were somewhat broad as they stood when I found the article, but improving them was beyond the scope of what I originally intended to do. LiberalArtist (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teck-Hua Ho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Behavioral change. 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) 10:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your good-faith misuse of admin tools
Read this. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So take me to WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You meant to say WP:ARBCOM. But no, now is not a good time for that. I've enough trouble making time for browsing through histories of admins that are already there at the moment. But soon. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, ARBCOM is fine, too, be my guest. BTW, don't waste your time posting here again, because any additional posts will be deleted without me even reading them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:ADMINACCT? You have failed to explain your questionable use of admin tools when a request for such an explanation was made. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Others have already adequately explained my actions on the RFA talkpage. Now go away. --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a question
Sometime back you welcomed me to Wikipedia stating you could help if I had questions. Thank you. I posted a couple of more recent references under the Psychosurgery article but were deleted as "not needed," and there were very few references on those particular points. Can you please check and advise. Again thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.15.229 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the deletion rationale unclear, so I have reverted and asked the editor to explain/justify on the talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your quick response and action. I see the other party has reverted the additions and made several allegations. I have also read the long discussions on the Talk pages in both Psychosurgery and History of Psychosurgery and found that Staug73 has made these allegations before. He must have a political, professional, or a racial vendetta against Faria, who is a dark Hispanic. Staug73 has not allowed Faria's review articles to be used in those entries. Arguments went to a hearing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine last year in which no one agreed with Staug73. I read this transcript in Talk:History of psychosurgery. Nevertheless, Staug73 ran off another Wikipedian who wanted to post Faria's articles as references. Staug's page list numerous disputes with others, but he is obsessed with Faria. Anyone reading Faria's articles on psychosurgery would agree they are neutral review articles on the history of psychosurgery from a perspective different perhaps from Staug73. In fact this is what WikiProject Medicine found at the time but Staug73 ignored the suggestions. He seems to be a law onto himself. It would be a loss for Wikipedia not to have those articles under those topics. A full reading of the Talk pages reveals plainly Staug73' s vendetta. He needs to recognize we ALL want to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for lending your ear, and hope you rule justly.75.91.15.229 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As to the article by a "Neuroskeptic" it is the type that should not appear in Wikipedia. It is an unreliable anonymous libelous source, who admits he is speculating using a sham, anonymous blog, and who although attempting to defame three or four living people and a medical journal, admits that the the articles in Surgical Neurology International journal are scientific.75.91.15.229 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to that discussion at WP Medicine? And Staug73 may be making allegations about Faria and you, but you're making allegations, too. Just stick to the subject matter, that's always best, I don't care about STaug73's (or your) presumed motivations. --Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the transcript of WP Medicine in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_psychosurgery#Wikipedia_talk:_WikiProject_Medicine_discussion_on_this_article. 75.91.15.229 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File 18
I don't agree with your assessment of File 18, the reason why the editor wanted it deleted was not sue to any Wikipedia guidelines, it was due to religious belief which is not something that Wikipedia should allow when it comes to page content or the existance (or not) of pages.

File 18 has a history of religious edits and attempts to delete it, and your decision caters to those individuals' desires to remove an historic page.

Obviously Wikipedia guidelines allow you to do such, and I see that you assist inthe project greatly for which I offer my appreciation and my thanks, however I feel that your decision emboldens the religious extremist.

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary on the subject as well, you worked and worded your decision in an effort to allay anger at the page being deleted which is helpful. Damotclese (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I had another look at the AfD debate. I must admit that I don't see any religion-based arguments among any of the "delete" !votes (there are some mentions of religion among the "keep" !votes). In any case, I personally don't care what an editor's motivation behind a certain !vote is or is not. All I pay attention to are their policy-based arguments, which the "delete" !voters had, but the "keep" !voters didn't. If you disagree with my close, you are welcome to open a discussion at deletion review. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Psychosurgery

 * I agree with you that motives should not be speculated; what should be important is the value of the material in question. Much of the speculation on Faria by Staug73 is irrelevant. As to the value of the material one person has already given excellent explanations and summaries in the Talk Pages of both Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery. Staug73 has brought back the same allegations that were previously refuted. I think you should read the articles for yourself. They are excellent Review Article as the titles imply but they cover more than surgery but also the history, advances in basic neuroscience, and deep brain stimulation. As some one else said in the WikiProject Medicine discussion, the articles are good and should in any case be used and cited as POV material, especially the end of Part 3. I think you will actually enjoy them as I did and. I think once you read the articles, you should be able to judge for yourself and make a  more objective and rational decision. Thank you for helping me with this. Below are the links to the articles:

Faria MA. Violence, mental illness, and the brain - A brief history of psychosurgery: Part 1 - From trephination to lobotomy. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:49 Available from: http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/text.asp?2013/4/1/49/110146

Faria MA. Violence, mental illness, and the brain - A brief history of psychosurgery: Part 2 - From the limbic system and cingulotomy to deep brain stimulation. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:75 Available from: http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/text.asp?2013/4/1/75/112825

Faria MA. Violence, mental illness, and the brain - A brief history of psychosurgery: Part 3 - From deep brain stimulation to amygdalotomy for violent behavior, seizures, and pathological aggression in humans. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:91 Available from: http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/text.asp?2013/4/1/91/115162 75.91.15.229 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted a note on the talk page of the WP Medicine project, asking that some editors with specialist knowledge have a look. I know that I have been a bit involved in the past, but can hardly remember any details and don't really feel like delving into this right now. --Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ozzie10aaaa (talk) who is a member of WikipediaProject Medicine responded to your request for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine evaluation. He states the references must comply with  MEDRS Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). The Faria references fully comply with MEDRS — according to the criteria of Biomedical peer review medical journal citations, especially for review articles. I see no reason why they should be continuously deleted. I hope you apply the Wikipedia guidelines, and thank you for your efforts and hopefully doing the right thing.98.16.9.222 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Endoscopy (journal)
Hi, and thanks for your edits to Endoscopy. I note that you have cited the impact factor for the journal in the body of the text; this number is different from the one I entered in the infobox (culled from the journal's homepage rather from the actual source). Which one is correct? I have done the same thing in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, with the source from the journal's publisher Elsevier, but I am aware that this too may be incorrect. Is there a better source for these stats – I do not seem to be able to access the source given? Regards,  GILO  A& E&uArr;  15:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My fault, I must have been interrupted or something, because I see I also mangled the abbreviation. I have access to the JCR, but have yet to find a single case where a reputable publisher (such as Elsevier, BMC, Springer, etc) gives an incorrect IF. The mistake occurred because this sentence and reference are used so often by me when I edit articles on journals, that I put it on my userpage, code included, and then copy-paste from there. Of course, I then need to change the IF and journal name, and I forgot that in this case. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! --Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this...
I just came across this user User:Lacmaboingo. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's funny! For a moment I thought I had clicked the wrong link when that page popped up :-) I removed the references to my username and the admin userbox. The rest they can have if that makes them happy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed a few other misleading things as the admin icon, which categorized the user as an admin and a few other direct references to you. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, see I missed some stuff! Thanks for taking care of that! --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 11, March-April 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
 * Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research
 * added a link pointing to Alpine


 * Louis van de Laar
 * added a link pointing to Philip Morris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Help
I started my first AFD, but somehow haven't managed to effectively list it. The article is Song of the Sparrow.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a closer look at it tomorrow, but am a bit rusty at the procedure. Ever since I discovered Twinkle years ago, I haven't done this manually any more... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Teck Ho?
Can you let me know why you removed a majority of his page text, including his awards? We were using Colin Camerer as a model.

Thanks, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgardner2010 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those awards were rather trivial: purely local or just runner-up. None would contribute anything to notability. It is not always a good idea to take another article as an example, unless you're really sure that it is a good one. Articles get a quality rating. Those that are B class or higher are often good examples. Others may just be waiting for someone who spends some time cleaning them up... Besides that, I removed some unsourced stuff, or stuff that was insufficiently sourced. For example, there was the remark that "Ho has published many significant works in refereed journals, in both economics and marketing." This was sourced with a reference to GScholar, which does not say anything like that (GS just gives citation data, those data may mean that something was significant, but you need a source that actually says this). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Open Access and fringe science
By their nature, most fringe science journals are open access-based. After all, they are meant for for promoting, and not investigating science. Because of that, I wondered if we should put the “Open Access Journals”-category as a category under the “Fringe science journals”-category. What do you think? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be very wrong! While some or even most fringe journals may be OA, the reverse is not true. There are many more OA journals that are not fringe (e.g., all BioMed Central, PLOS, or Springer Open journals - and there are many more). Putting the OA cat in the fringe journals cat would be very unjust to the legitimate journals and misleading to our readers. If a fringe journal is OA, I would categorize it in both the OA journals and fringe science journals cats. --Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then my words did not match with what I tried to say. I indeed meant the opposite. My idea was to make the Fringe journals-category a sub-category below the Open Access-journals. Then the Fringe Science journals wouldn't mix with the legitimate journals. We could achieve that by putting the line "Category:Open Access Journals" under the text of the “Fringe science journals”-category-page. That was what I tried to say. Anyway, think about it, and I'll see how you think about it. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, that's indeed something completely different... Nevertheless, I don't think that's a good idea either. You cannot exclude that some fringe journals are not OA. I think it is best to keep those two category trees separated. If a journal is fringe, it goes into fringe journals. If it is also OA, it also goes into the OA journals cat. It might also go into other cats, too: if it is published in French, it goes into French-language journals, if it is quarterly, it goes into quarterly journals, etc. There's no problem with having multiple cats if they deal with different qualities and I think fringe and OA are very different qualities. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal Relationships (journal)
Hi Randykitty. Thank you very much for your helpful edits on my Personal Relationships (journal) article. There is one edit I did not agree with and that is the title. I added back (journal) to the title. This will be of most help with google searches. If you just google "personal relationships" you will get all manner of articles and news clips. Personal Relationships (journal) will help google searchers who may wish to find academic journals related to the topic of personal relationships. The journal "AIDS" for example has the title of "AIDS (journal)" in Wikipedia for the same reason. As a researcher, if I was interested in an academic publication whose title was the topic, I would put in "journal" with the search to make sure I got academic sources. I hope you agree that this clarification is necessary. Many thanks for your helpful edits Hans100 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Hans100
 * Hi, the correct title is "Personal Relationships", without the dab. Whether this pops up high in Google searches or not is absolutely irrelevant, WP is not here to promote anything. AIDS is a different case, because we have an article on AIDS and if you want to have an article on the journal, you need a dab. In addition, your concerns are unnecessary: the word "journal" is in the body of the text, so if someone searches for "personal relationships journal", Google will most certainly rank this very high, even if the word journal does not figure in the title. I will move the article back to its correct title, please don't move it again. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: please don't re-add promotional stuff to the article either. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Randykitty. I think you misinterpreted the importance of the google search in my comment. Many academic researchers will use google scholar or google as a first line research tool now.  As a social psychologist, I was trained to use such tools as Psychinfo, PubMed and other academic databases.  With the advent of google and google scholar, many individuals bypass the academic databases in their favor. This is not as I see it a promotion - it is as a visibility issue.  I am disappointed that you changed the title of the article which I wrote.     There are many journals that have titles that are research topics "Health Psychology" "Political Communication" etc.  These journals are listed with (journal) in Wikipedia. The terms health communication, political communication, and personal relationships are used without reference to a journal in everyday speech. I would ask that you reinstate the title of Personal Relationships (journal). I am unclear as to why you took out the scope section of the article.  I reworded text from the overview section of the journal and the Research society's home page. Fair enough to take out "premier journal" in this area.  That is well established from the impact factor alone. Hans100 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Hans100
 * One more thing. This is not a personality journal.  It is interdisciplinary but personality psychology is not one of those listed.  I believe you are a philosophy PhD? In psychology, personality psychology does not relate to "interpersonal" as you might have thought listing it in personality.  Personality psychology refers to trait theory and individual differences.  Interpersonal psychology is most under the purview of social psychology  which studies the individual within the context of a group - a group can be anything from a dyad (interpersonal), small group, or race/ethnicity (intergroup). Communication is tyhe other main field for interpersonal as well.  I am taking out the personality category,and I am adding in communication and psychology.Hans100 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Hans100
 * To start with the last, "Social psychology journals" is a subcat of "Psychology journals", so the latter is not necessary (just like "Psychology journals" is a subcat of "Academic journals", so we don't put the article in that cat either). You're correct about the personality thing, I went a bit too fast there. As for the title, even if we had an article "Personal relationships", then this article title would be OK (even with just one cap difference). That this journal has perhaps the highest IF among a subset of the journals in its cat is something you can put in the article if you have an independent source for that. Otherwise it is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. I took out the scope because it is unnecessary ("all aspects of personal relationships" really says it all). Nevertheless, I have restored part of it. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Zhejiang University Science on May 6
Thank you for your editing the page Journal of Zhejiang University Science on May 6. But why do you delete most of text? Journal of Zhejiang University Science was a peer-revieweded journal established in 2000 and is splitted into three sub-journals. Could you please add more information and improve the page? Bmezhou (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The text that I deleted was mostly a repeat of what is being said in the articles on the individual journals, which is unnecessary. --Randykitty (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Elements (journal)
Thank you for editing the page Elements (journal) page. It is clear that you have formatted the page so that it is similar to other journal postings. However, in the format, you have included the seventeen sponsoring societies into the introductory paragraph which is very cumbersome for the average reader. I had formatted the page so that the societies were bulleted below the description. This was not meant to be "self promoting" but rather for ease to the reader. Please reinstate the bulleted list of societies and include a cross-reference hyperlink. Also, you cut out much of the text explaining the content of the magazine. This magazine contains more than thematic articles. Please include a more in-depth description of the content (e.g., thematic articles, society news, opinion pieces, editorials, and regular columns (e.g., Mineral Matters, CosmoElements, Life in Science, Parting Shots, etc.). rich99352 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't see a problem with listing the societies in the lead. I'm not sure what you mean with a hyperlink here, but for a short stub like this, it really is not necessary to include "references" to the journal's homepage. AS for including a list of article types, that's pretty boring and unencyclopedic info that can easily be found on the journal's own website. If you have independent sources that discuss these different article types, that would be different, but I'd be amazed if that were the case. And the way all this was presented earlier in the article really was promotional, it could have come straight from the journal's own website. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree fully with your comments and ruling on the two headings above: "Open Access and Fringe Science" and "Elements Journal." I also wanted to make you aware of the WikiProject medicine discussion on Psychosurgery that you requested FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Disagreement_at_Psychosurgery_and_History_of_psychosurgery  98.16.11.0 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Geelong Historical Society alternative website
Hi Randykitty, I understand there may be an internal dispute within this organisation about the particular link to the society's website, leading to the current edit war over the link to * Alternative website compared with Official Website. The latter appears to have been recently updated. I'm keeping out if it.Garyvines (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah! I was following your lead here :-) I'll let it go, too, then. --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Open Medicine (journal)
I think this should be moved to Open Medicine (DeGruyter journal) to avoid confusion with Open Medicine. In addition, I think Open Medicine should be moved to Open Medicine (Canadian journal), with Open Medicine converted into a disambiguation page. What do you think? Everymorning  talk  20:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Too bad they chose identical names... With only two entries, one should not create a dab page but use hatnotes. I left things as they were, in order not to create any more confusion... BWT, De Gruyter is two words :-) --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Norm Houghton (historian)
Hi Randykitty, Are you taking a personal interest in all articles I am creating or working on? It seems I can't do anything without you jumping on my back straight away. How about you pass my case onto some other editor to deal with? I would feel less paranoid if I could see that it was not a personal vendetta.Garyvines (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no vendetta here. I mainly edit academic journal articles, but regularly follow links of interest. So via the journal I came to the Geelong Historical Society article, which was woefully inadequate and took it to AfD. During that AfD, the equally inadequate article on the Centre came to my attention. After the AfD, you basically copied the article that had just been deleted into the article on the Centre and that brought Houghton to my attention. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines and I'll stay out of your hair. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yes but why the comments like 'not a shred of notability, woefully inadequate''? - not very helpful and you sound like you are trying to annoy me.Garyvines (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to annoy you. Let's make a deal. You stop creating articles on subjects that have no notability at all and I'll stop making those snide remarks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Open Medicine (journal) publications frequency
Thank you very much, Randykitty, for your support in editing and publication of my articles. As for Open Medicine (journal) frequency publication, can we leave just "Open Medicine is a peer-reviewed open access medical journal, which is published in on-going basis"? We can't say that it's bimonthly, since it had less than 6 issues per year before 2010. Moreover, it's May already and this journal yet has one issue in 2015. Please don't consider me annoying, but info "bimonthly' isn't indicated at journal's home page as well. Floraljay (talk)
 * Journals often increase in frequency over time (if they are successful, that is). In the past few years, it published 6 issues/year consistently. It only posted one issue for this year yet, but because they don't say anything about this on their website, there is no way of knowing whether that means they are simply delayed after the changes the journal went through, or changed issue frequency. As they do list a January issue, though, we have to assume for the moment that they still are organized in issues and can not do any better than use the last information available. So until they update their website, I think we'll have to stick what the current source says, which is bimonthly. --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg Speed
You commented on my new page Greg Speed. Yes it is a page about me, but someone has to start it and I don't know anyone else who is a contributor. I just wanted to get it up before I start my summer speaking engagements for Olympic Day celebratory events. Do you want to take it over and add me as a contributor?

I will be working on it and adding references and more info.

Thanks,

Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregspeed (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just put a standard welcome template for new editors who created an autobiography on your talk page. There's no rule against that, but unless you know WP and all of its rules and pitfalls extremely well, it's not advisable. Read WP:COI. The best thing to do is not to edit the article directly any more, but put any material that you want included on the talk page. If you need help, you may find interested editor at the sports project. I don't edit in that area. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Journal draft
Does this journal look notable to you? It looks predatory to me but I wanted a second opinion. It has an impact factor but I suspect that "International Scientific Indexing", which assigned this journal its IF, may not be legit. Everymorning  talk  19:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty bad article... I checked the Thomson Reuters journal list and they are in The Zoological Record, but not in the SCI or SSCI, so they don't have a legitimate IF. They claim to be in Scopus. I haven't checked that (a bit short on time, the link is on my userpage), but if correct, then they would meet the letter of NJournals. Of course, as it stands, the draft is not acceptable at all, but it might scrape by on notability. Neither the journal nor its publisher are on Beall's list, so they are likely not predatory. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Impact factor
Thank you for taking time to edit so many entries! On the issue about partial impact factors this does seem to be used more frequently, for example by the RSC and Cell Press to name a couple. Hope you'll consider reverting the change. 86.3.108.68 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Would it be acceptable to add the following text to the Impact Factor page under heading of 'Calculation' (but without a new heading for 'partial impact factor') as follows?: 'Occasionally Thomson Reuters awards a partial impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, as long as the journal has published either 15 papers over 9 months or 20 papers a year. Although not an official term used by Thomson Reuters the usage of ‘partial impact factor’ is becoming more common as a way of describing this.' Citing as examples RSC and Cell Press 79.78.190.234 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll post a note at the talk page of the academic journals wikiproject, asking other editors to give their opinion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this: "Occasionally, Thomson Reuters assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data." The RSC and Cell Press links could be given as links. That way, the word "partial" is in there, but we avoid the not really recognized term "partial IF", which I think technically is incorrect (it simply is one year with 0 articles published and 0 citations to those articles, the IF formula doesn't change...). I also would omit the 15/20 papers thing, for which we don't have firm confirmation from TR that this is really policy. --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine
Firstly, thanks for catching my newbie blunder (redirection error). I wanted to ask your opinion on the above article. I feel a little too new to delete a section on the article concerning 'Notable Faculty'. I have used real PAPER encyclopedias and I have never run across a list of faculty in any. I know wikipedia is not paper, I just do not see the reason for it. It is not sourced either. I would be willing to research a few of the most prominent, but not if that section is going to be deleted sometime. So how should I go about this, or should I just leave it alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotton2 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not a great admirer of such lists, either. (There's worse: lists of "notable contributors" in articles on journals or magazine, that's almost always just a personal selection made some editor or other). Nevertheless, most of our articles on such schools have such a section, the inclusion criterion almost always being that the persons listed have a WP article (showing that they are notable. I've pruned that section, leaving only the faculty that have a WP page. I didn't check, but their bios should have a reference for the fact that they are faculty here. Some of the faculty that didn't have an article are perhaps also notable, but then that should be shown by first creating an article on them. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Madura Kulatunga
The subject Madura Kulatunga is featured on Sunday Observer magazine cover page 2015-05-17. Story about him is published on page 08 & 09.


 * Web address for Sunday Observer magazine cover page http://www.sundayobserver.lk/magazine/2015/05/17/


 * Web address for ePaper article http://www.sundayobserver.lk/magazine/2015/05/17/?id=8&tday=/magazine/2015/05/17


 * Web address for readable text http://www.sundayobserver.lk/magazine/2015/05/17/art.asp?id=/magazine/2015/05/17/pg08_0&h=&pt=t (This link also can obtain by clicking on the ePaper image)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.211.218 (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem enough to me to overturn the AfD decision, but you're welcome to take this to deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The subject Madura Kulatunga is on Sunday Island Watchout Magazine 2015-05-24 Page 15


 * Web address for Sunday Island article http://www.island.lk/modules/modpicturegallery/gallery_pictures/143238465615.jpg (2nd News)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.181.30 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's not much use to post this on my talk page, as I don't think it would be appropriate for me to revert an AFD with a unanimous delete decision (with only one COI "keep" !vote). You should go through DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

List of management journals
I see you PRODed this, and the article creator has left some apparently misplaced comments there that you might be interested in seeing since they pertain to your PROD rationale. Everymorning  talk  18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Man, looks like I hit a raw nerve there! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Garyvines
I appreciate your edits of my articles, but I feel you are taking too close an interest in my wikipedia writing. With the thousands of people involved in this process, it seems unhealthy that any one person in particular should focus on an individual, particularly since I can see no particular juncture of our interests. I would feel more comfortable without your particular attention.Garyvines (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you check my contribution history, you will see that I "fixate" on a lot more than just articles edited by you. Your editing came to my attention because of the Geelong article and seems problematic to me, because I think you fail to understand the whole concept of notability and reliable sourcing. If my attention is unwelcome, as I said before: create articles on notable subjects (like Betty Meehan) and you'll see that my edits will be constructive and helpful (as, I think, they were on the Meehan article). Create articles like Norm Houghton (historian) or like this, and I'll tag them for problems and will take them to AfD if I feel that is warranted. As long as you keep creating the latter kind of articles, you'll have my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but why do you need to fixate on me - there are plenty of other people who will help me out so I can keep adding content despite my obvious inadequacies. I have created over 200 articles, all but two surviving the editing process, but they have sometimes required several weeks or months of trial and error, tweaking and help from others to get them right. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process open to anyone, where we help each other get to the right standard. It takes time, but if you jump on my work the second I start something, and do it every time, of course I am going to get discouraged. And if you do this as a matter of course, and others like you do the same, then Wikipedia will become the preserve of a narrow caste - the Cabal that is so often denied. If you really were collaborative, then you might help by researching Jo Kamminga, help find the independent authoritative sources the demonstrate his notability, and save an article on a worthy topic, that just might not meet the technical standards at the moment, rather than just splash some tags around to show off your superiority.Garyvines (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Researching whether a topic is notable is something you do before you create an article. And for the rest, I fear that we'll have to agree to disagree. --Randykitty (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF MEDICINE
Please do not mistook us (iMed.pub) -not listed in Beall's list- with imedpub.com -listed-. Please remove that sentence in the entrance. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.6.81 (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion on the talk page of the article. --Randykitty (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hi! This is AnimikhRoy967 I am extremely sorry I if have unknowingly offended you in anyway. The article I was trying to create titled "K.C. Das Pvt Ltd" was in no way intended to be put up as an advertisement. I have tried to establish the article with genuine sources and citations. It is indeed a very well known confectionery and the pioneer of the Sweet meat industry of West Bengal and India at large.I can give you a full list of sources and citations in published articles and newspaper journals along with websites to support my claim. So please help me establish this article. Maybe the language I had used was inappropriate and I sincerely apologize for that. I am relatively new on Wikipedia, but I can learn and adopt fast and correct my mistakes. So please give me the right to create a sand box of this article so that I can get it reviewed by you personally before publishing it. If I had made any unintentional errors please forgive me for that and grant me this permission just once. I promise I will strictly abide by what you say and republish the article accordingly. K.C. Das Private limited has a deep rooted heritage in West Bengal and Bangalore. So please let me present the facts, because I promise you whatever I had written was not distorted but the well known truth. All I ask of you is to allow me the rights to write a sandbox with the title "K.C. Das Pvt Ltd" and get it approved by you. Thanks I would much appreciate it if you could be kind enough to help me out! — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can create it in draft space and if one of the people patrolling "articles for creation" approve it to go "live", that'll be fine with me. --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Telos (journal)
This is regarding the edits to the Telos journal. Not sure why you erased the contribution of the journal in introducing European philosophers to the English speaking world. (Lukacs, Baudrilliard and later Schmitt). This has been very significant for many of the social sciences and the humanities. And much more important than "impact factors". The latter is insignificant because while of possible use int he sciences it is of no relevance for the social/sciences and humanities. This is because of the nature of the latter. For instance you might have much more citations of a particular article in a particular field because the field is much bigger (contemporary crime in america compared to the nature of crime in Hegel). This does not indicate "value" in any sense. Which is why universities across the world, and I can speak of America, Europe and South Asia) do not every ask for "impact factor" of the journal one contributes in for their promotions. This is well known. And therefore reason enough not to take "impact factor" seriously. In the light of the above please restore my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1765 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite your distaste for the impact factor, it is widely used also in the social sciences and humanities. More importantly, the information has an impeccable source and there is no reason whatsoever to remove it. As for the other contributions of the journal, that is at this point just POV and name-dropping. If you have an independent reliable source that says this, we can think about adding it, but unsourced like this is a no-no. So, no, at this point I see no reason whatsoever to restore your edits. As an aside, I will copy these comments on Talk:Telos (journal), which is where this discussion belongs. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion
Hi! Apparently, you have deleted my sandbox page. I used to think that we could experiment with the articles in our respective sandboxes. Please let me know where I went wrong. Thanks. Vishal14K | Talk 17:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Up to a point, yes, you can experiment there. However, keeping copies of articles that have been deleted for being promotional (WP:CSD) is not what a sandbox is for. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Open Geosciences
Hi, Randykitty. Open Geosciences journal isn't bimonthly as per your note (6 issues last year) and correction. The journal had 4 issues last year and is rather being published on on-going basis. Can we change this info in article? Thanks. Floraljay (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.119.60 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've changed everything to "quarterly". Whether they are going to have a different frequency this year and in the future is not clear from their website, so for the moment we should stick to what we know, based on last year's info. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Magazine or journal
Hi Randykitty! Do you think we need two different categories? Category:Mountaineering magazines and Category:Mountaineering journals? The Himalayan Journal is a magazine and the Alpine Journal is a journal? Or we can change the name from Category:Mountaineering journals to Category:Mountaineering magazines and put Himalayan Journal, American Alpine Journal, Alpine Journal, Climbing, Alpinist all in the same category? Thanks. Byrdbite (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the mountaineering journals cat is not very large. I put the magazines in the "climbing magazines" cat. Is there a good reason to separate "climbing" from "mountaineering"? --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * it´s ok to put climbing and mountaineering in the same, if Category:Climbing magazines is in the Category:Works about mountaineering >> no problem. but separate American Alpine Journal from Alpine Journal is not useful. (Climbing magazines‎ (7 P) and Mountaineering journals‎ (2 P)). All 9 in one category. Byrdbite (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with putting those two also in the "climbing magazines" cat, go ahead! --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, the Alpine Journal etc are journals, not magazines. A climbing magazine is something like High, Alpinist or Outdoors (i.e. not the annual published work of a club but a purely commercial venture). Journals such as the AJ have always been known as journals, and satisfy the third description on our page Journal ("many publications issued at stated intervals, such as academic journals, or the record of the transactions of a society (my bold), are often called journals. In academic use, a journal refers to a serious, scholarly publication that is peer-reviewed."). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the categorization trees and infoboxes, we use the "journal" designation for academic, peer-reviewed publications and the "magazine" designation for the rest. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. Ericoides (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)