User talk:Randykitty/Archive 15

Articles for deletion/Passmap
You closed Articles for deletion/Passmap as "delete". I do not see a consensus for deletion. At most, there is a consensus for pruning the article by removing all but the first one or two sentences, which can be sourced to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513 and http://ijisme.org/attachments/File/v1i5/E0222041513.pdf. Please change your close to "no consensus" or "keep and prune". Cunard (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had another look at the discussion. The "keep and prune" !votes are based on the sources mentioned by Sadads, but those were challenged effectively, in my eyes. You yourself said that only the first sentence might be worth salvaging and it is copied in full in the AfD, so it should be no problem to integrate it in Draft:Graphical password. Once that article has been created, a redirect can be put in place very easily. I therefore see no reason to change the close. If you disagree, you're of course welcome to take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I have taken this to Deletion review/Log/2015 August 15. Cunard (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Category idea
Do you think it would be a good idea to create Category:Founders of academic journals as a subcat of Category:Academic journal editors? Everymorning (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. There are seldom good sources on who actually established an academic journal. Most of the times, multiple people are involved. Sometimes all the "founder" does is being the first EIC, after some publisher has decided that there's place in the market for a new journal. In the latter case, the founding EIC actually had nothing to do with the establishment of the journal. I know of cases at both extremes (no influence of EIC on establishment to EIC originally being the only one pushing for establishment and doing most of the work involved) and anything in between. The latter is actually the most frequent case: usually an academic (who often, but certainly not always, will go on to become the first EIC) and one or a few people from a publisher will together establish a new journal. So "founder" is a bit of a murky concept and usually only the people that were directly involved will know who did what. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Which version did you vote to delete?
Dear Randykitty, I see that you volunteered to get Tom Reedy out of the jam he was in by summarily deleting Dr. Richard Waugaman's wikipedia page. Its no wonder that the number of wikipedia editors apparently continues to decline and the organization more and more resembles a medieval church-state, complete with copious redactions of unapproved speech, threats of expulsion, and other charming examples of exactly the sort of things that Wiki's co-founder Mr. Sanger told you not to do when he left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger

I just have one question that I would appreciate you answer to: When you deleted the wikipedia entry on Dr. Waugaman, which of these two versions were you deleting? - and why?

My rewrite: https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D463500247154464%26time%3D1439742221%26metadata&access_token=570495920%3AAVJj6biOjD-hOCBh5KOiFGl7ZpTJtlCuGozW9wemsPboaQ&title=wikiWaugamanmyversion.docx

The version Tom Reedy had edited, and reverted, after I rewrote the article:

https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D463500247154464%26time%3D1439742345%26metadata&access_token=570495920%3AAVIeHVsrXteHKeZEGnCyU34zkNFNDJdOfIbIJEMC6irskg&title=wikiWaugamanmyversion.docx

Surely you can see the difference?

This question is germane to the legal and philosophical problem posed by the deletion of the article.

Thanks.

Best Wishes, Dr. Stritmatter--BenJonson (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of questions/remarks... 1/ I never have been in contact with Larry Sanger and he never told me anything. 2/ All versions of Richard M. Waugaman were deleted. 3/ The deletion was the result of a community decision at AfD, there was no "summarily" deletion. Now a question from me: Could you please explain what you mean with "the legal and philosophical problem posed by the deletion of the article"? --Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about an edit
Please see my response to Yopie here: User talk:JRicker,PhD Am I correct about this? JRicker,PhD (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about a deletion
Dear Randykitty, how can I get in touch with you regarding a recent page you have deleted? Please forgive me if this is an inappropriate way of contacting you about it but I am not too versed with the necessary procedure, I have spent almost two days trying to figure it out to no avail :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.26.180 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, you start with posting here without erasing somebody else's comments... From your edit history I assume this is about Franz Pagot and I see that you found Requests for undeletion and that already gave you an extensive answer to your question, so I don't really know what you want me to do more. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So sorry, I did that unintentionally, I am not very good with anything electronic, please accept my apologies. My name is Joanne, I am the owner of The Perfet Edition, a small publishing company, and yes, it is about Franz Pagot, one of the authors we publish. We tried to respond to the comments on the delete discussion as quickly as possible, we did not write the page (even though we know who did) but we think Franz Pagot has achieved a great deal in his career and deserves been mentioned on a resource such as Wikipedia. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments,and we were trying to address them, however others who requested deletion have been rather incorrect, for instance DGG (I think Dave is his name) who aalbeit a well respected contributor, got it wrong, suggesting Franz Pagot self publishes (we do exist, even though we are small) and that one of his book "Immersive Photography" does not appear anywhere. That off course is true, the book is called "Immersive 3-D", as per reference given in the page, and it was praised by Martin Scorsese and James Cameron. His books are selling reasonably well, and received good reviews and even won recognition, but the good thing is that Franz wants all his book sales proceeds to go to charity. I come to the point: when asked about his Wikipedia page Franz said he did not read it and if people think it shouldn't be there so be it, he works behind the camera and he is not interested in publicity. We see it differently, when people look him up they can see that doesn't matter where you come from (a very modest background in his case) one can still make a name for themselves and do good to others. Please give us a chance to edit his page to your standards, we are not as quick to react to these matters but we can still produce very good references to his notability, we just discovered he is being nominated for Cavaliere d'Italia (the equivalent of a Knighthood) for his services to the media industry and his work for charity, and I was with him when in Mumbai he gave his time teaching photography to children from the slums, raising money to buy essential equipment. It was thanks for being on Wikipedia that Officials and Public Bodies came forward to help, and that is the reason why I am asking you to reconsider. Respectfully Joanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.26.180 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Joanne, at this point I am not going to change the close of the AFD discussion. What you can do is establish an account (not using your company name, but please disclose your COI on the user page) and then in your sandbox write an article with the references that you are talking about. If he indeed gets a knighthood (a nomination is not enough), that should generate some coverage that can be used to show notability in the WP sense. Please note that this has nothing to do with whether a subject is "worthy" or not, all that counts is in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The same goes with praise from Scorcese or Cameron, that really is not relevant and can only be mentioned in an article if it has been covered in reliable sources. Once you're done, you can contact me again to have a look at your draft and we'll take it from there. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated, I'll do my best and if even then you are not happy I will rest my case :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.26.180 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to look at this immediately emerging situation
Issue: User completely reverting Talk comments of one User: A User that was in a recent edit war/block situation has taken it upon himself to completely blank out the Talk comments of this editor, see last two Talk entries here Talk as it should be versus The world according to… DePiep. See also here the edit history, where you see I had to experiment with his reversion, to believe my eyes, that he had actually reverted my entries. (Note, I do not know technically what he did, as the first violating edit of his, at 22:45, 18 August 2015‎ (DePiep, +4,687)‎, appears to be an addition. I simply know the result was to delete all my Talk entries of today.]

Please have a look, and restore the Talk to where it was before this problem editor did his erasure? It is urgent because others have been pinged to reply to the latest discussion (i.e., he needs to be reverted, and stopped from re-deleting Talk, before others begin to edit the wrong page.) Thank you for your attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Initial matter settled—Talk page restored—but not before the fellow let Doc and I have it, mdr. See closing Talk section here, . Perhaps look in here  to make sure Bagumba's reversion stands, if your time permits. Cheers, Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
This one needs some love. I trimmed down a lot of crap/promotional stuff from it (for some reason it eluded the scalpel of WP:JWG/WP:JOURNALS members, but I can't be arsed filling the infobox and stuff at the moment. The history section is nice, but we'd need a bit more refs than 'internal documents'. Most items of the history seem keepable, although I wonder about what that means to be a 'as a debt-free, unencumbered gift'.

If you're busy, that's fine too. Just thought I'd point it out as something in need of TLC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Interstate Journal of International Affairs
You've been editing this.Can you find any indexing information?  DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the Thomson Reuters journal list and Scopus and it is not indexed by them, which is why I tagged it for notability. I didn't have time to search for more, so I left it at that (as it's been around for 50 years, I assume there may be sources). --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Researchgate as a source for journal IFs
Do you consider Researchgate to be a reliable source for the impact factors of journals? The specific example I am referring to is this journal which according to the site has an IF of 0. Everymorning (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, that's not reliable info, because that particular journal (according to the TR master journal list) is not even in any of their databases, so it has no IF... --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So is it even possible for a journal to have an IF of 0? Everymorning (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rare (journals don't get into the SCI if they are not cited), but I have seen it... --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Raju Narisetti
I was sent a message about my edits to Raju Narisetti's page. As his wife, added personal information. How do I now provide a reliable source? A link to our marriage certificate? Family photos? He has been profiled extensively and a simple Google search would provide verification. Of all things to question? Sheesh. IAmIndaKnow (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot add information (and certainly not to a "BLP") just based on our personal knowledge. Things we include should be non-trivial, neutral, and verifiable in reliable sources. In the prsent case, a short phrase ("Narisetti is married and has two daughters") would be enough, if you can provide a good source for that. That you claim to be his wife is irrelevant. If true though, you should read our conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

re: Weird ...
Bibliography of biology used to be called List of important publications in biology. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that explains it, apparently just forgotten when the article was renamed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Journal of Optics (IOP Publishing journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Journal of Optics. 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, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Rajshekhar Rajahariya
Article recreated shortly after being speedy deleted by you, without any noticeable improvement. Still a joke of an article. Should be SALTed, IMO. Yours, Quis separabit?  15:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done already. Thanks anyway. Quis separabit?  17:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why page I have created was re-directed?
Hello,

I have just created today a page about the Faculty of Aeronautics of Technical University of Kosice. I have not copied any text from anywhere, I have used original text. But now I cannot find the page, it is simply re-directed to "Technical University of Kosice". Could you please help? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozefkozar (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I redirected it because the Faculty has no notability independent of the university. The article on the university itself is very small, so any necessary info on faculties can easily be incorporated there. In addition, your text was basically a large collection of in-text external links, which is not appropriate (see WP:EL). Creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here on WP. I recommend that you familiarize yourself at least with the more important guidelines and policies linked in the welcome template that I put on your talk page and then start with trying to improve existing articles. That way, you'll get a feel for the way things work here. When next you start an article, you could first work on it in your userspace, in your sandbox. That way you can work without being disturbed. Once you're ready, you can submit it as a draft for review and help from experienced editors. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will take a look on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozefkozar (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Randykitty, I have just one question. Yesterday you have deleted my newly created page about the Faculty of Aeronautics of Technical University in Kosice. But today I have found out that there is already one very old page about the same faculty, but in Slovak language. It is here https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leteck%C3%A1_fakulta_Technickej_univerzity_v_Ko%C5%A1iciach - does it mean that I cannot create the english version of this page? Because I understand it this way according your explanation. Could you please advise? Because faculties of this university have quite strong independence in science and research sector. Thanks a lot!
 * The different language wikis are largely independent from each other and therefore sometimes do things differently. I have no experience with the Slovak wiki, so I have no idea whether the article you mention adheres to their notability criteria, but in fact it is immaterial. An article may meet the inclusion criteria of one wiki, but fail another, because of this autonomy. Please note that the article that you created had more problems than just notability, but also contained many inappropriate in-text external links. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Pharmacogenomics
You've reversed an edit of mine on Pharmacogenomics, using the argument that "Has nothing to do with this subject". I had added 2 page links in the "See Also" section. I'm not fussed, but can't follow your argument. For example: So, can you please explain your 'no association' edit comment more precisely? Klbrain (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Race and health has a specific section on Race-based treatment, exploring pharmacogenetics (linking to "Pharmacogenomics" as its main article); a reciprocal link therefore seems reasonable.
 * Ethnopsychopharmacology has an even tighter association with Pharmacogenomics, specifically discussing racial variation in CYP2D6.
 * A lot of this research is of very low quality. There are no good biological definitions of race and even less of ethnicity. Much of this work is being done in the US, relying on self-identification. Things like "race and health" or "ethnopsychopharmacology" are often a coathanger for something else. Read the article on ethnopsychopharmacology, it actually is more about personalized medicine than about anything that has anything to do with ethnicities. A comparison of the definition of ethnopsychopharmacology with the one given for "ethnomedicine" (where ethnopharmacology redirects) is illuminating, and something completely different (and something much more logical). So I'd rather argue that the other articles need cleanup (ethnopsychopharmacology should be concerned with traditional medicines with psychopharmacological action and race and health should be much more concerned with the cultural aspects of race/ethnicity. Genetic differences between individuals within a certain racial or ethnic group are usually much larger and more important than those between groups. So while individual medicine makes a lot of sense, "race-based" medicine is really not a very serious undertaking. Preciously few pharmacogeneticists, if any, are interested in race differences. --Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had read the Ethnopsychopharmacology article (see the edit history for my numerous recent edits on it!); I agree that it is still not great, but at least I've removed most of worst POV problems that were in earlier versions. You state that "ethnopsychopharmacology should be concerned with traditional medicines", but that is not its current use in the medical literature (as the cited articles using the term attest); i.e. is not the psychopharmacology equivalent of Pharmacognosy. The Ethnopsychopharmacology article is quite clear that between-individual differences are greater, but that doesn't meet that inter-racial differences don't exist, as you can see from the clustering of polymorphisms in different populations. You say that "race-based" medicine is really not a very serious undertaking, yet prescribing guidelines in US and UK, for example, already have race-based criteria, particularly in the field of cardiology - because there is evidence that such race-based prescribing is helpful to patients. So, despite its distastefulness and dangers, I think that this isn't a topic that shouldn't be censored.Klbrain (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ethnopsychopharmacology article is not about what it claims it is about, it's about individualized medicine and unnecessarily duplicates that article. I'm not talking about censored, I'm saying that this article is so bad that linking to it via the Pharmacogenomics "see also" section is not really helpful to readers, because it will not lead them to any good and useful information. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ethnopsychopharmacology does discuss individualized medicine, but that's not surprising given that that is perhaps the most important functional outcome of the field; the argument idea is that in the absence of complete genetic information (which is more than just a knowledge of what someone's complete genome sequence is), racial background can be used as a surrogate for making better treatment choices. However, I do admit that the current page is of much lower standard than the Pharmacogenomics page and there is a good argument that it shouldn't be linked. That quality argument doesn't apply, though, to Race and health. Should that be linked? Klbrain (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry
This is with regard to the recently deleted articles Sultan ul Faqr Publications and Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore.

Your closing statement for Sultan ul Faqr Publications was "The keep !votes are unconvincing and not policy-based."

What seemed unconvincing? Sultan ul Faqr Publications is WP:COMPANY is WP:NONPROFIT and meets WP:NOTABILITY.

The active participants in the AfD User:JeraphineGryphon and Onel5969 do not belong to Pakistan and have no idea about publication houses in Pakistan but the article belongs to the Portal:Pakistan and the editors unfortunately are ill-informed about the notability of this publication and publication houses in Pakistan.

User:JeraphineGryphon's editing pattern shows he is already involved in WP:TE and even holds a bias against me as he keeps reverting my edits disregarding my contributions and biting newcomers. He has deliberately reverted my edits on many occasions. Of all the publishing houses mentioned in the List of Urdu language book publishing companies, he only picked out my article although my article was neutral and sourced. There was even a case of sock within the discussion who voted for delete editor W1i2k3i45.Even the other active participant in the Afd editor Onel5969 deliberately misguided by stating "google news search] returned zero results. And a websearch returned only primary or unreliable sources". However, I clarified the google result to be. It provides a list of full results. There are already notable and reliable sources available for this article in the ‘books’ and ‘scholar’ categories listed here if you click them. It is a notable company. According to User:JeraphineGryphon even Britannica and Marymartin are unreliable sources even if contributions, disregarding the fact that everything published by such sites appears only after the review of experienced editor team although it was a scholarly review.

Your closing statement for Mahnama Sultan ul Faqr Lahore was "The only keep arguments are based on WP:TOOSOON and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" Although there were other policies quoted there like WP:WORKINPROGRESS and that it meets NONCORP. What was missing that made you disregard these and delete?

Markangle11 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What was missing in all cases was clear evidence of notability. Whether somebody holds a bias or not is often less important in an AfD, as it are the arguments that count, not the !votes. As it was remarked in the debates at some point, the sources showed that this publisher/magazine exist, but that is not enough to meet WP:N. WORKINPROGRESS is not policy, but an essay. In addition, once an article is at AfD, whether it is complete or not is irrelevant, all that counts is whether there are sources covering the subject in depth and whether or not it meets WP:N, regardless of whether those sources are actually present in the article. So a one line unsourced article can be kept at AfD, if during the discussion it is shown that significant sources exist. This was not the case here, hence the delete closures. I also had a look at the diffs you provided accusing of unreasonably reverting your edits and biting newcomers, but, frankly, I don't see any evidence for that. Their reverts seem to be fully justified. Whether somebody is from Pakistan or not is absolutely irrelevant and has not bearing on whether somebody can edit an article about Pakistan-related subjects. I strongly recommend that you get more familiar with the policies and guidelines here and try to listen more to advice/opinions of other editors. Hope this helps. If you still want to contest the closures of the AfDs, you can take this to WP:DRV of course. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for clarifying and discussing the issue. I understand things better now. I will take note of your advice. Coming from an admin surely it means a lot.

I have made use of DRV as I wanted to restore the article. Please see it.

Deletion review for Sultan ul Faqr Publications
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sultan ul Faqr Publications. 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.

Markangle11 (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Academic Journals/Resources
Would you mind giving a shot at including a couple of your pre-formatted references links in there? I'll add some of my own later, but I'm busy today. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to modify/augment! --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Help, please
Good day, I saw you were on, and I have a quick question, regardless of the fact it makes me look like a moron. I must have inadvertently clicked on something yesterday, and now when I pull up my editing screen, the handy-dandy characters menu below the edit screen (where you can click on {{ or  Onel 5969  {{sup|TT me}} 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no clue! Try the helpdesk... --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

journalistic scandal
hello there. revised my contribution a little bit, made it more "professional sounding". thanks for your input.--Truthwarrior546 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MyEsteemedColleague
A sock? Not just because they created a misspelling to begin with, I assume — see my notes on their page? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Aha, SuperFriendlyEditor. Got it. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Indeed! --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, is there any chance these are related to ? Maybe I'm wrong, but they rang a bell for me. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could well be, they certainly quack the same. They're all blocked now, so the question is academic. --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I nabbed another: . Will you kindly do the honors? GABHello! 18:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Already done. GABHello! 19:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter Park deletion
Hello, I see you recently closed this AfD as a consensus to delete. I have to say I strongly disagree. Although AfD is not a vote, I don't agree that there was any consensus to delete it, this should definitely have been closed as "no consensus". There were an equal number of keep and deletes, four keep votes and four delete votes, and one of the delete votes didn't even list a valid rationale (it just said "no-no is a no-no", which wasn't a thorough argument for deletion). So that vote shouldn't have been given any weight. That leaves 3 delete votes and 4 keep votes, and all of the votes had valid arguments. For example, us on the keep side argued that the number of sources proved his notability, with Altostratus specifically saying "Over approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park. This proves his notability." That is a very valid argument as to why it shouldn't have been deleted. One of the opposes said the article as a copyright violation, as did you in your closing rationale (with zero evidence provided).

Given this, I believe you should undo your delete of the article, as this was clearly "no consensus", with both supports and opposes having valid arguments. If not, then I will be providing arguments about this at deletion review. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree. However, I didn't close this as "not notable", but specifically stated that re-creation was possible if good sources would be used. The article itself seems irredeemable to me. So by all means feel free to re-create (perhaps mentioning this conversation in you edit summary), but make sure to use good sources so that this doesn't end up at AfD yet again. --Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Peter Park
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Peter Park. 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. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Abba Gumel
Hello Randykitty,

I am Abba Gumel, and wanted to edit the entry to my Wikipedia page. It contains some errors, including erroneous date of birth etc. I will appreciate if you can approve the changes I made (or betterstill remove the whole page).

Abba Gumel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.133.41 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want the article removed, the best thing to do would be to send a request to WP:OTRS. I had a quick look and notability (in the WP sense) appears to be borderline and in those case we often delete a bio if the subject requests so (provided they can confirm their identity at OTRS). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Request
Hello, Randykitty. SuperFriendlyEditor has been vandalizing my user page using IPs. I suspect that he is likely to continue doing this. I would be most grateful if you could semi-protect my user page to prevent him doing this, preferably for at least a month. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi protected for 2 weeks, that should do it. For someone claiming to be an academic, our friend behaves quite a lot like an adolescent having a fit. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
thanks for the welcome and the improvements on my edits! Marco Catu (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Xtreme GH
Hi there, All the refs on that article refer to the Xtreme GH name rather than the Nuru name so I'm not convinced that is where it should be. noq (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The move was not completely copy/paste, they also changed the name. Probably best to engage in conversation with the editor who was trying to do the copy/paste move (once they have a new account, because I blocked this one for violation of the username policy) to figure out what the correct name should be. If necessary, ping me and I'll move it back. --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only name given in all the references is Xtreme GH - there is no mention of the Nuru name at all. I will post on their talk page to clarify why they wanted to move it. noq (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says his real name is "Mac-Abubakar Abdul-Nuru", which I guess is where "Nuru" comes from. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Photographer of victim of 2015 Bodrum fatal boating accident
Hi, FYI: Deletion discussion going on about Nilufer Demir, photographer of attention-grabbing photo. The photo of lifeless boy lying facedown in the surf with body on land, after having been dragged on land by a hotel employee that closed eyes gently. She has not won any PROPer awards yet, to my knowledge. Burst of unj (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alan Kurdi
I agree in many ways with you, but I couldn't do it. Plus (good thing I have a policy-based reason as well...) I think SNOW applies here. Guess who's the same age... Drmies (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I wouldn't have been able to do it either. But somebody had to say it, so I did, although I knew full well that I was howling against a storm... That your son?


 * As an aside, I do think there is some racism involved in this whole thing (not here on WP, but in the wider world, I mean) and am surprised that this hasn't been touched upon in the media. Literally thousands of people have drowned trying to get to Italy from North Africa in the last few years and this must have included little children (all of them, I'm sure, as cute as this poor boy, they're all cute at that age). Of course, they were black... --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, he's three. What it is with this kid is the actual photograph, I think, which is perfect in its composition. I do not doubt that Europeans and Americans care more for not-so-black kids, I think you're right about that. And I'm sure you're as ... not surprised, maybe, but tickled? as I am by Germany's response, compared to that of other governments in Western Europe. I mean, it's understandable in many ways, but that doesn't make it any less striking. I could have a family here in my house, but I think my wife would object. Imagine that, though--these people have nothing. I read an article on what they carried, what was in their little bags. And reading the paper today, about the increasing Russian involvement, you can't help but wonder whether that involvement, which will undoubtedly increase the magnitude of the refugee crisis, isn't just Russian revenge on Western Europe. Anyway, enough chatter from me. I did want to tell you that I read your argument and appreciated it. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of black, I just saw the video of James Blake being attacked and taken down by that cop. Unbelievable. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards to "(...) Europeans and Americans" and most any group: There is greater difference within groups than between groups. I think Max Weber said that. Burst of unj (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for the wiki welcome, i have been around a while but often forget to login, doh! wellen1981

Impersonator?
The user User:JeremyKai4077 has created a userpage that looks very similar to yours. Just thought you should know. Everymorning (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like they just copied it to keep some infoboxes that they were interested in, as the page looks different now. Thanks for letting me know anyway! --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bioline. 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) 11:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Far Eastern Bible College anthem
Hi, you said "remove possible copyvio (lyrics of anthem)". There is no violation. The law of copyright makes provision for academic fair use. Hence, the verbatim citation of the lyrics of anthem is acceptable and should be restored. Thanks Bpc.sg (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing something in its entirety is much more than just "fair use". And even if there would not be any copyright issue, the lyrics of the anthem of a school really does not constitute encyclopedic content. It should therefore remain deleted. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Point Valid
I noticed you relisted Articles for deletion/Point Valid for a fourth week?! This is highly unusual. I ask you to reconsider and close the Afd as "no consensus for deletion". In this regards, please see WP:RELIST, which says "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended... Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." Debresser (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmm, this was the third relist, but I see that the first one was done after more than two weeks. On the other hand, there are still !votes coming in. If that hadn't been the case, I would indeed have closed it as no consensus. I see no harm in letting it linger for another week, though. --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One relist there were no extra comments, this time there were two. Which shows that there is no corrolation between relisting and comments.
 * I was surprised at the previous relist as well, see User_talk:Spirit_of_Eagle, where the relisting admin said clearly "Except in exceptional circumstances, AfDs are only supposed to be relisted a maximum of two times, so the AfD is not going to be open much longer." Also, a good reason for this rule not to relist too often is given at WP:RELIST in the place where I put the "..." above. It's up to you, but I am not happy with the situation. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll close it as no consensus. Four weeks should be enough... As for two being the maximum: if there is no recent discussion, I indeed close after two relists. But if there still is ongoing active discussion (and no clear outcome yet), I prefer to relist a third time, despite that. IAR, I guess... --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Malformatted AfD
Hi Randykitty. Have a look at Articles for deletion/Jeonghan, it was malformatted and Begerith consequently got deleted. Maybe the former AfD was copied from Articles for deletion/Begerith? Best, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sjeez, what a mess. Jeonghan actually didn't get deleted... I hope I have now restored/deleted what needed to be restored/deleted... Thanks for letting me know. I guess this is the disadvantage of using an automated script to close AfDs, you don't do every action yourself... --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply and question from an editor
There is no permissible limit to contribution length, per contribution.

Nearly all of the material on the talk page for "Chinese Room" [] is not cited.

The contributions of Looie496 to that page each lack a citation. He is who brought up the disagreement.

He wrote on my talk page that discussing the topic is prohibited, yet that is exactly what he did on the talk page -- discussed the topic.

What guideline did I violate in your opinion?

Nn9888 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tan Ikram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District 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) 09:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Rexnord Corporation Page
Hello, Can you please explain why you have deleted the page I created for Rexnord Corporation? The page for Rexnord Corporation is purely an informational profile of the products and offerings of Rexnord Corporation. It does not contain ad or commercial speech, nor does it compare itself against other competitors. It states public information about the company, including industries served, products offered, number of employees, etc. This page is not intended to be promotional; only informational. Previously Rexnord Corporation did not have a Wikipedia page. Several companies similar to Rexnord Corporation have a Wikipedia page, which served as precedent. It does not serve as grounds for deletion. There are dozens of similar pages with the same company information. Please let me know how I can course-correct. If it has something to do with the formatting or references, that can be easily fixed. Emily.white89 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted for being unduly promotional, see WP:CSD. I will userfy it for you (here), minus the long lists of products (WP is not a catalog...) You will need to find independent reliable sources to show that this meets our inclusion criteria. You will also need to remove the inappropriate in-text external links. Please have a look at WP:MOS and its subordinate guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

CCMB - POV clarified
changed to "collaborates in its research with" http://www.ccmb.res.in/index.php?view=respartners&mid=123&id=28 Pravbv (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fun user page
I was just looking at your user page - I do enjoy seeing that sort of info posted. I was almost tempted, however, to make an edit (an old Wikipedian habit, I guess): it should be Australian states and territories. StAnselm (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right of course, I've changed it :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Atul Srivastava
Hi! As the article has been deleted post this Afd, can you please restore the article at User:Dharmadhyaksha/Atul Srivastava so I can work on it? I wasn't able to give it much time by searching non-English sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's at User:Dharmadhyaksha/Atul Srivastava. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 13, August-September 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
 * Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
 * Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Reply
It's impossible to discuss how to improve articles regarding the philosophy of mind without revealing what one's opinions are. Opinions regarding the philosophy of mind are interpretations to the best of the scholar's ability in the first-person. The very subject of the philosophy of mind deals with philosophizing on the on-going conundrum of objective knowledge versus subjective knowledge within one's mind. The subject matter of all of those three articles was by definition unavoidably subjective -- they were all subjects in philosophy.

Once opinions become a certain length in written form, i.e. if the contributor cares enough about the subject to reflect and explain his rationale, they will inevitably be viewed as essays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn9888 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to find a way, other people manage to do it, too. And even philosophy can be written about in an objective way, that's the whole point here: you don't write about your opinions, but about what philosophers X and Y have said and thought. That's what the talk page should be about and not about your ideas about the subject. Discussion closed, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonremovable adornment
Can you userfy this it might be notable. Valoem  talk  contrib  23:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ It's at User:Valoem/Nonremovable adornment. --Randykitty (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Userfy request
You deleted Marcus Louis per Articles for deletion/Marcus Louis. Could you help me userfy the article in User:Starship.paint/Marcus? Thank you. starship.paint ~  KO  13:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ --Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Randykitty! starship.paint ~  KO  09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiHsC
I'm trying my best to steer the commentary back to questions of sources (in particular independent sources), but it seems that many of the commentators are more interested in answering the question as to whether the theory is correct or incorrect. It's almost as if there is a hope that this Wikipedia article will serve as a crucible for evaluation of an idea that is steadily being more and more ignored by the mainstream community. (I shouldn't speculate like that, but it's in line with what I have noticed in similar articles like this in the past). I'm not sure if you can help guide the discussion back into policy/guideline world, but help would be appreciated considering you asked participants to do that. Maybe collapsing irrelevant discussions or moving them to the talk page? I don't know.

jps (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've noticed this. I have refrained from participating in the debate because it's not really my subject and because I don't want to get involved so that I cannot close the discussion any more. I rarely refactor AfD comments, unless they're really off-topic. At this point, I see several policy-based "delete" !votes (ignoring those that argue for deletion on the grounds that the theory is incorrect) and basically no good "keep" !votes. I appreciate your efforts to steer the discussion towards policy and sources and away from the correct/incorrect dead end. If nobody listens, that's their problem... --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Close account
I want to close my accountShuvo Hulk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me more precisely what you want me to do? I can delete your user page and archive your talk page, if you like. --Randykitty (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti
You seemed to reached "no consensus" pretty fast. To me it seemed that the two keepers failed to state any policy or guideline reasons for keeping. --Bejnar (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "keep" !votes argued that the "4 documentary films or series on UK national TV" indicate notability, which is a policy-based argument, I think. There is one good source (Daily Mail). It's weak, but that's what "no consensus" is, it's not a "keep". And about being "fast", the AfD was short and I did read all references in the article before closing. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of that weakness (I am not sure at all what policy it could be addressing, maybe the guideline at Creative professionals #3, in which case it failed.), and because of there being four editors with guideline arguments for deletion (all saying lack of coverage as summed up by Onel5969) versus two keeps, one arguably maybe making a guideline argument (Johnbod) and the other saying "per Johnbod". I still question whether the closure was in accord with the Afd guidelines. It was not a vote. --Bejnar (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Delete for now" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of deletion. One other participant !voted "delete", while remarking that there was a significant source. Also note that two other admins did not want to close this, but relisted it, with the same discussion. I did not want to relist a third time, especially because there obviously was no more discussion forthcoming. I really don't see how I could have closed this differently, but feel free to take it to DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti. 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. At Deletion review/Log/2015 October 6 --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Request procedural guidance
Today, Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada closed with redirects. Please see Talk:Colors (Viacom 18), and let me know what you would suggest as the next procedural move. I do not wish to become involved in an edit war. --Bejnar (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not familiar with the subject and currently very busy in RL, so I have no time to look into this. Perhaps you can pose the question at the Village Pump? Sorry! --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

David V. Chartrand, journalist-author
Randy -- I am new to Wikipedia and authored the David V. Chartrand page. I don't understand why the page is subject to deletion. Can you explain, and can you give me some guidance on how to proceed? Would it be better if I went the route of creating a draft and submitting it to Wiki editors instead of immediate publishing, the route I chose?

Thanks.

Jim Fitzpatrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfitzpatr (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, the article is not written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. If it gets deleted, creating a draft and going through the "articles for creation" process would certainly be better. Article creation is one of the harder things to do on WP. In general, it is better first to gain some experience by editing other articles, getting a feel of our policies and guidelines, and then start creating articles. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

List of science fiction magazines
I'm not sure this edit was entirely correct! The original article editor appears to be listing both magazines that contain science fiction (e.g. Interzone) and magazines that write about SF (e.g. SFX, which contains no original fiction), in which case, it perhaps ought to be 'List of science fiction and science fiction-related magazines'. As such it muddles the two, see the article's Talk page, where I have also mentioned this. Not sure what to do about it, frankly! Stephenb (Talk) 11:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great admirer of this kind of lists a they basically are categories masquerading as lists. I have no problem with a change in title. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mohan Rathore


The article Mohan Rathore has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Tris1313 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Tris1313 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Journal of the College of Engineering
Hi. The homepage clearly verifies the content of the text. Why adding it to the references doesn't satisfy you? Moreover, what kind of information do you want to verify? That the journal is authentic and has been disestablished since 2010? Please clarify what kind of "references" you are seeking. INIC-JG (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The homepage is already listed twice (infobox and external link), that's more than enough for a two-sentence stub. As for the rest, see WP:NJournals to see what is needed to establish notability for an academic journal. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Theology and Science
I was wondering if you could take a look at this journal and see if it passes WP:NJournals - it has been tagged for notability for six years. I see that it has an impact factor, but it's zero. StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have an impact factor (not even zero), as it is not indexed by Thomson Reuters. ResearchGate has the strange habit of listing an IF of zero in cases like this. According to the Routledge website, it is indexed in British Humanities Index, Current Abstracts, and OCLC. The latter two are trivial. I am less sure about the BHI, perhaps can tell us whether this is a selective index. If not, then the answer to your question would be "no". In any case, it's a borderline at best. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BHI is about atthe level of Ebsco, which is borderline significant.  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Phil America
On 3 September you closed Articles for deletion/Phil America (2nd nomination), saying:


 * The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that, at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Delete without prejudice to re-creation if better in-depth reliable sources become available.

The article has been recreated, by JarrettGregory. To me, it looks remarkably similar to the deleted article. (It's basically just a copy and paste job.) Pretty much the same set of references: I don't notice any significant new addition, or any significant expansion of the biographee's notability. Which of course is hardly surprising, as only two months have gone by since the article was deleted.

For your reference:
 * list of deleted versions
 * last version (13 August) before the arrival of editors who hoped to improve it
 * last version (3 September) before deletion

If I hadn't been involved, I'd delete and salt. (After all, salting doesn't mean that a new article can never be created. Somebody wanting to create an article can go through WP:REVDEL, and there can quote you on the lack of prejudice.) But I was involved, so I'll refrain from deleting. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deleted (G4) and salted as you recommended and warned the editor. Thanks for letting me know. --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please help to get this back up with new sources and a proper listing? I am from Sacramento and he is the most well-known artist from the region and I would like to have a Wiki for him. He has given 3 TED Talks and spoke at every University in Sacramento and worked with all 28 local museums. --jarrettgregory 2:33, 2 November 2015 (PST)

Journal of Strategic Information Systems
Hi, I was wondering why the tag "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" is still on as there do not seem to be promotional contents or inappropriate links. This is a professional journal and I am building the webpage with the EIC. It is pretty similar to the webpage of other "sister" journals such as Information Systems Journal and Information Systems Research. Please advise. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarabelli74 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your kind answer and please try and have another look at the page. I am referring to the EIC to make sure that all the information in the page is correct, which I think is fair enough to maintain objectivity, yet making sure that the page reflects what the journal is about. And please if you can let me know how I can improve the "neutrality" of this article, that would be very helpful. I looked at your link and I don't seem to have been too far from the guidelines in the article. Please let me know and thanks again.
 * Have another look. Those two journal articles are written much more concisely and neutrally. For some advice on how to write a good, neutral article on an academic journal, please see our journal article writing guide. Please also note that if you are "building the webpage with the EIC", you have a conflict of interest. Also note that WP is not a webhost. --Randykitty (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your clear instructions! I now know that I shouldn't put the PROD back again. I've taken it to AfD as you suggest. You can explain there why you think this should have been deprodded and should be kept. If you allow me to give an experienced editor like you some advice, I see that you dePROD a lot of articles. It might help other people to understand your actions if you actually could be bothered to explain why you are dePRODding them... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I independently asked for a similar contribution from them at another AfD, and I'm hoping all the other prodders do likewise. Widefox ; talk 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm under the belief the IP is actually a user evading a block as per this edit McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You may well be right. The apparently rather random removal of PROD tags seems kind of disruptive. If I remember correctly, there was a case at ANI some time ago where an editor was blocked for systematically dePRODding any PROD they saw. Perhaps you should take this to ANI so that perhaps a checkuser could have a look. --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion started. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

British wildlife edit-a-thon 2015
The page British wildlife edit-a-thon 2015, which you understandably deleted, should have been at British wildlife edit-a-thon 2015. Please restore it there. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots
I see you were the admin that deleted this page at List of David Gandy's magazine photoshoots.

May I ask who created it, and if there were other users involved in the edit history?

I ask because of this sock investigation, at:

Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT

and a prior sock investigation, at:

Sockpuppet investigations/SchoolMarm101/Archive

Any help you could provide, or advice at the sock investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT -- would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article was created by SchoolMarm101. It was tagged fr possible merge to the main article by Animalparty, which was done by SchoolMarm101, who subsequently blanked the page. It was then tagged for speedy deletion (g7) by Xx236. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wen Junhui
Why is this wiki deleted? Wen Junhui is real. He is a member of South Korean boy group Seventeen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveramenandcheese (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said he's not real, but there has been a deletion discussion (Articles for deletion/Jeonghan) which resulted in the deletion of this article. Let me know if you believe that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted. If you feel that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, a request to revert the decision may be made at deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emergency Journal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical care. 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) 11:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive
Sent of behalf of for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Euxeinos
Hi! About : maybe this really "non-notable journal", but this page is still linked with articles in other languages, and his talkpage is still kept. This is very bad idea - simple replace content on redirect. Maybe is exists more transparent procedure for determining whether or not article is required? And more accuracy way of realize this decision?--Kaganer (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a global sysop, you are certainly aware of the fact that different wikis are independent. What is regarded notable on one may not be notable on another. And, of course, perhaps nobody on the other language versions ever looked into this... The talk page is correctly tagged as a redirect. If the article were restored, I would take it to AfD and I am quite confident that this would result in deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Acta Orientalia
Many thanks for your fix up and edits. I am working from Kathmandu over a flaky internet connection and there was a power cut before I had quite finished - so again thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Madura Kulatunga
According to Notability (people) we can have standalone article about Madura Kulatunga because subject meet following criteria.
 * WP:BASIC if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable
 * WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.

Following Sri Lanka national newspaper articles addresses the subject Madura Kulatunga directly and in detail.
 * Madura's moxie : Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) - Youth Observer : 17-May-2015 : Page 8-9
 * Madura Kulatunga, a commendable contribution : The Island (Sri Lanka) - Watchout : 24-May-2015 : Page 15
 * Madura's story : The Nation (Sri Lanka) - insight : 21-June-2015 : Page i10
 * A humble success story Madura Kulatunga : The Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka) - Features : 15-July-2015 : Page A12-A13
 * Effectively bridging the language gap : Ceylon Today - Hello : 26-July-2015 : Page 2
 * 'මේ වෙනකොට ලක්ෂ නවයක් මධුර ශබ්දකෝෂය බාගත කරගෙන' මධුර කුලතුංග : Dinamina - Features : 08-August-2015 : Page 20
 * Madura Kulatunga's Notable Achievements : The Sunday Leader - Weekend Leader : 30-August-2015 : Page 2
 * මධුර ඉංග්‍රීසි - සිංහල ශබ්දකෝෂය නිර්මාණය කළ මධුර කුලතුංග : Silumina - Guru Gedara : 27-September-2015 : Page 39
 * The generosity of Madura Kulatunga : The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) - Education Times 2 : 27-September-2015 : Page 4
 * ඉංග්‍රීසි භාෂාව සිංහලයට සමීප කළ "මධුර" : Rajina - Loka Lama Dinaya : 02-October-2015 : Page 23
 * ඉලෙක්‌ට්‍රොනික මාධ්‍ය තුළින් ඉංග්‍රීසි සිංහලට සමීප කළ මධුර : Divaina - Features : 18-October-2015 : Page X
 * යටත්වීම වෙනුවට සටන් කිරීමෙන් උපන් මධුර ශබ්දකෝෂය : Irudina - Pitu 8 : 18-October-2015 : Page VIII
 * The Story Behind 'Madura' : The Sunday Leader - Business : 01-November-2015 : Page 28

Following Sri Lanka national Radio programs addresses the subject Madura Kulatunga directly and in detail.
 * RanOne FM - Negena Era : 13-November-2015 : Time 08:00 AM to 10:00 AM

Only 6 different English medium national newspaper publishers are available in Sri Lanka. All of them are published articles about subject Madura Kulatunga. Those publishers are Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Limited, Upali Newspapers, Wijeya Newspapers, Rivira Media Corporation, Ceylon Newspapers and Leader Publications. Thank you 112.134.64.37 (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The most recent AfD concluded that a stand-alone article was not justified. If you think that the closer wrongly interpreted community consensus, you can take this to deletion review, but given two delete/redirect decisions in close succession, I don't think you have much chance. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Before nominating to AFD User:Mdann52 did unconstructive content deletion from this article. Checkout this old revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madura_Kulatunga&oldid=679464214 Then User:Mdann52 came and removed well sourced & correctly cited key points of the subject and then he tried to compare this article with previous AFD decision. 112.134.64.37 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I can do for you, take it to DRV if you want to pursue this. Discussion here is closed. --Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a prof
Could you do me a favor and tell me if would pass on citation counts or other merits? It's a bit of COI for me, and I would like a 2nd opinion before I take a stab at stubbing this :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's at the lower end of what we usually take for notability (more like 1000 citations and an h of 19 or 20) in the life sciences. There are generally fewer citation in the social sciences, so if this would end up at AfD, I think he'd squeeze by, but barely. --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 14, October-November 2015 by, , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
 * Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anubias pynaertii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo. 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) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Matt Secor
Hi, this past December you decided to nominate Matt Secor's page for deletion because he didn't fit notability in your opinion but since then has had another top tier fight and is set to main event a Bellator MMA event against a former UFC Contender Josh Koshcheck and I was wondering if you've changed your stance on the deletion of his page and if you feel a re-creation of it fits the criteria JMichael22 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't nominate this for deletion, but closed the AFD as "delete" since there was a community consensus. It was actually remarked in that discussion that even a second top-tier fight would not make this person notable. I therefore don't feel comfortable with reverting the AfD decision on my own. If you feel that the new information is important enough, you can take this to deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Adamiraki


A tag has been placed on User talk:Adamiraki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page design
Hello, you can wrote page design page, because I want and design my page :) Lukaslt13   (talk)  11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 11:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13-- Lukaslt13   (talk)  11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 11:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't understand what you are trying to say... --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Thanks! And very happy holidays to you and your family, too! --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frontiers Media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COPE. 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) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Randykitty!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Randykitty, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages. .
 * Thanks! And a very Happy New Year to you, too! --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Article recreated
Hey, just giving you a head's up - there was an attempt to recreate the article for Rachel Santesso yesterday. I'd moved it to the draftspace since there was interest in improving the article and I actually ended up just doing the "heavy lifting" myself when it came to providing sourcing. It's not the strongest bio, but I found enough to assert notability for two things: the choir and an album that she put out in 2005 as a soprano artist. I don't really think that she'd be able to pass on the mentoring angle since that's a pretty difficult thing to really back up enough to satisfy criteria. (IE, being a mentor or big influence means that they'd have likely received enough coverage to make that criteria a moot point or that the coverage would be extremely heavy.) In any case, I just wanted to let you know. I'm debating about restoring the article history just so people can pull some limited info from the old page, although I really don't want some of the old sourcing to return - some of the sources were really dodgy. (IE, publisher sites that sell directly and the Daily Mail.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'll leave it up to your able hands to handle this :-). --Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)