User talk:Randykitty/Archive 4

Deleted Article
Dear Randykitty, you have deleted my article on Christos Terzides. As I am new in Wikipedia could you please assist me by telling me the exact reason so that I can keep my articles online? Should I rewrite the article in a different way? Your help is greatly appreciated. (Vendrediv (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Hi, first a precision: I did not delete your article, only admins can do that. I proposed your article for deletion and the reviewing admin obviously agreed. I can't see the article any more now, but the deletion rationale, as explained on your talk page, seems rather clear: the article was not written in a neutral way but in such a way that it more looked like an advert. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, maybe I was too excited about it... I will rewrite the article in a more objective way and try again. (Vendrediv (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC))
 * It might be helful to work on the article in your sandbox first and then have an admi take a look at it before moving it into main space. That way, you can work without interruption and also will have more time to improve before "going live". --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why delete journal names?
Hi Randykitty, I added a couple of good philosophy journals in English to the journals in philosophy page. I do not understand why you deleted them. I am not an editor of any those journals nor trying to promote them, but the list is very very short and several good journals are not there. These are all good legitimate peer-reviewed journals in philosophy and widely read n the US and Europe. You may want to google them before deleting my entry. Thanks.

A philosopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.116.207 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am sure Randykitty removed those links because they have undetermined notability as described by the academic journal project and Wikipedia's policy on notability. Only academic journals that are deemed notable are allowed on a list such as the one you are asking about. Thanks for your query and I hope this helps. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Steve says it all. And as I said in the edit summary: write the article first, so that as Steve says, we can clearly see that the journal you added is indeed notable. --Randykitty (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steve and RandyKitty, I see your point, but I don't have time to write an article for each entry. The journals I have added are pretty good ones, so maybe if you keep them on the list then someone else will write the articles. Thanks anyway for keeping wikipedia a serious source of knowledge. That's much needed.

ANI notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Serials Solutions
It seems to me that Serials Solutions is not really a selective indexing service, nor does it seem to be the type of service that indicates notability for our purposes. I didn't relaize this was only for taking the place of library catalogs. Somehow I got the wrong idea. Maybe I am not seeing something? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're right, it's not a selective service. Which is why I don't include it in the "abstracting and indexing" sections in journal articles (just like GS and such). Certainly a useful service, but doesn't convey any notability, I think. BTW, thanks for your insightful analysis at the Interpreter AfD, made me change my mind again... That debate (like any debate I have with Hodgdon's secret garden) has become quite murky... --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that Hodgdon's secret garden communicates with a quite a "murky" style. I did have to make a little extra effort to figure out what is being said. I think this person might consider writing novels - people would love it :>)--- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the so-o-o secret gardner's personal attacks and mischaracterizations toward you were totally inappropriate. I didn't take that into consideration when I posted the above. Such behavior is uncalled for, especially when directed toward an editor in good standing with this project. I also did not understand DGG's remarks characterizing the AfD as a possible ideological dispute about LDS, when it was simply an AfD for one single article. Also, then going on to say that he has knowledge of "what can happen around here to wonder", really had no correlation to the discussion, unless he was somehow referring to supporters for keeping this journal, as what happened later in the discussion. In any case, I felt the remark was premature. The PA's from Hodgdon's secret garden got more intense later. In any case, please don't take any of it personally.


 * OK, now I think DGG's remarks were prescient, based on past experience, and probably not directed toward you. For example, look what happened later in the discussion -- I am referring to the PA's from one particular "keep" supporter. If they were directed toward me, I would probably be offended as well. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm not easily offended and I have an elephant's skin :-) Remember, at some point I edited a journal and had to reject a lot of papers, sometimes of good friends. The latter generally took it in stride (I choose my friends carefully :-) but others were not so sanguine about it and I remember one instance where a Spanish-speaking author called me something that Google Translate rendered as "crazy balls"... (That was actually rather hilarious, as he said that in an email intended for his co-authors, but instead sent it to me, whereupon I innocently told him that he had used the wrong address and that I fortunately didn't speak Spanish... :-D Anyway, there's not much that our secret gardener could say to me to really get me irritated. The whole AfD discussion, however, did get messy. Apparently we're not the only ones thinking that, as I see it got relisted; I had fully expected it to be closed now as "no consensus" or even a "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

i did not know
it was possible to write an article about a subject 60 years dead. Dloh cierekim  14:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And make it promotional. I know, I was baffled, too... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion please

 * Do you consider this article entitled Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade to be worthy of inclusion (also please check out its website)? For an idea of what Wikipedia might consider notable in this area please see the over 100 Law reviews and law journals on the Master Journal List.
 * Also, I prodded this one Philotheos: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, which apparently has multiple issues and I have been unable to find a web page for it. The web page has nothing to do with notability, but it would give me more information about this journal. Right now the content is WP:OR without citations. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the first journal, I don't see any proof of notability in the article. However, it's been around a long time and seems to be one of the more important law journals in Serbia (note I say "seems", I'm not sure about this), so there may be local, Serbian sources that cover the journal. I don't read Serbian, so I've never really searched for sources, either. This is the reason I never PRODded this myself, but I also don't see any reason to oppose a possible PROD, either. The second one has a much shorter history and the probability of there being secondary sources in Serbian is much smaller, so I agree completely with your PROD there. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Philobiblon
BUT the journal it's RECENTLY INDEXED IN Scopus See this prin Screen Capture / link The journal hat RECENTLY indcuded in Scopus, it can therefore not yet included in the list that you have consultted. Best regards, Ikiloni (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)IkiloniIkiloni (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Your accuracy regarding the articla about Philobiblon jouranal!


 * OK. We waited until they Scopus wll update ther public list. The list consulted by You it's until April 2013 ... Either Philobiblon is indexed there from June ... The print screen capture indicated by me... it's actual, and can verified with loging... in Scopus. Thanks Ikiloni
 * That is the correct way of doing it. A screenshot or a link to a search result are not sufficient sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A.)The Ebsco Discovery Service Manager Richard Sawyer (RSawyer@ebscohost.com) wrote to me: "Hello... There is no such list. The Majority of titles with license That Would Also be searchable through EBSCO EDS(Ebsco Discovery Service) WHERE if the library has the database is being used That technology. Would there not be a specific list That Could Be referenced. Kind regards, ... " As such, the entire Wiki Team must take a DECISION on any referece to Ebsco Discovery Service from any academic journal. That will certainly be true for Philobiblon.
 * OK and THANKS for Your help! I write to Ebsco for request a public link for Ebsco Discovery Service ... in order the presence of our journal there to be lookbar and in "outside" Ikiloni  —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Randykitty: Unconditionally considering the accuracy and reliability of Your work, - REFERING to the article on Philobiblon - I received the following messages:

B.) Refering to the Scopus indexing of the journal i received the folowing message to Scopous BD Source Collection Management (bd-scm@elsevier.com): "Philobiblon-ISSN 1224-7448, online ISSN 2247-8442 - Dear ..., Thank you for email. I assume your question regarding Philobiblon That not available in the source list. This list is updated only four times per year and the next update is in late October. Since your journal was indexed after the last update it is not listed. to Increase the visibility That the accepted title is now added to Scopus, We Encourage you to inform the users of your home page title on your journal. I have attached the logo That You Could use. That I hope this answers your question. Regards..." We therefore expect the new Scopus Coverage List,but he really wants to make sure that I have not false information in this article Wiki ...Ikiloni —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we can only display information that can be verified in reliable, independent sources. Emails unfortunately don't fall into that category. We'll have to wait until Scopus updates it's journal list. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

curious
why'd you remove your PROD on Boockvar? I wouldn't have removed it, just fyi. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 06:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was careless: the PROD displayed showed that there had been a previous AfD, which I should have checked in the edit history. It was closed "keep", concluding that Boockvar didn't meet WP:PROF, but that the NYT sources were enough to pass WP:GNG. I think the article is rather borderline, but doubt that another AfD would be successful. Anyway, you did a great cleanup job on it! --Randykitty (talk) 8:41 am, Today (UTC+2)
 * I undersand nothing from hier!Ikiloni (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Randykitty. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

New Journal Article
Hey Randykitty, I just wanted to inform you that I have created a new article on an academic journal, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, and wanted to get some feedback and/or help on said article from someone who edits a lot of articles about this topic. Jinkinson (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Pansy Magazine
I received email that the article I added to Wikipedia on The Pansy Magazine was deleated because of copyright infringement. I would like to edit the article if possible and run it by you and see if it would pass. I do own the web site franklinbookstore.com and have several of The Pansy Magazines in inventory and thought I would share some of the info therein. I could change the text. The link to the image was one off Wiki commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A minor matter but
...FYI the infobox journal template page suggests providing a link at the openaccess parameter, not the redundant "yes" with a link below the journal's home page....--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What is meant are wikilinks, to appropriate articles. If a journal is purely OA, then no link is needed (because the line is already automatically wikilinked to the article on OA). Other possibilities are Delayed or Hybrid. The doc is a bit confusing, I agree. I'll ask for a clarification on its talkpage (it is currently edit protected). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc has been modified, it's only partially protected. --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. thanks--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Replies
I replied to your queries and comments on my talk page in both sections: JCR journal rankings and Chemical physics. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New Journal Article
Hi Randykitty, I am brand new to editing on Wikipedia. I created a small article for Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains today and I was hoping you could take a look at it when you have a spare moment. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--Okie123 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfredo Morabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

SCOPUS
Which are the respective sections stating that displaying previous versions of a(n) company/organisation logo is: Hippo99 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scopus&diff=572208289&oldid=572205732
 * unencyclopedic ?
 * against fair use ?
 * Well, that it is unencyclopedic seems pretty self-evident to me. There is no (sourced) discussion of the logo, so just including an older version is pretty trivial. I mean, it just looks a little bit different, what's the importance? More importantly, displaying multiple versions of a logo go against WP:NFCCP (especially point 3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"), see also WP:NFC. If you disagree, you can ask more specialized editors about this at WP:NFR, but I think NFCCP is quite clear in this case. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I got some interesting replies here. However, I could not find an explanation of the meaning of the sectioned "O" ( http://www.archives-pmr.org/webfiles/images/scopus_logo.gif ) of the previous scOpus logo. Would be interesting though. I will not insist, but I personally find inclusion of the evolution of a logo very interesting and also "encyclopedic". Hippo99 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm back
And this time it's because I noticed one of your editing interests is neuroscience and neuroscientists. I created a page for one such person a few weeks ago, namely Martha Herbert, and I was hoping that if I posted here I could get some feedback on it, since that worked with JTEH. Jinkinson (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Predatory open access publishing
Wow, just... wow. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you go "wow"? Not the fact that people are trying to make a fast buck from scientific publishing, I hope. People try to make fast money anywhere they can get away with it, so once online publishing made it easy enough and OA provided a convenient business model, it was just a matter of time before this kind of publisher would come along. (Although I have to admit that I didn't see this coming either... With hindsight it seems perfectly unavoidable, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Third Ventricle Hypothesis
Can you explain the issue please - I understand you don't like Medical Hypothesis but there are THREE other citations to the same theory - one of which is J Psychopharm. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverMonkey (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see: the J. Psychopharm. paper is written by the same person (Hendrie) who published the hypothesis in Med. Hypotheses. It's behind a paywal, but the abstract does not even mention a "third ventricle hypothesis", so it will be mentioned in-passing at best. In addition, several critical responses to this article were also published in J. Psychopharm. and not mentioning those is not the way to make a balanced article. You also give references to two other papers, not by Hendrie. Neither mentions a "third ventricle hypothesis" (logical, because they were published before that hypothesis was published), they don't mention any "evolutionary adaptation" either. Including the latter two references as seemingly to support this hypothesis is pure synthesis. There is also another article of Hendrie, in the European Psychiatric Review. This journal seems to have gone belly up after barely 4 volumes, not instilling much confidence in their review process either. Whatever the case may be, that article does not even mention the words "three" or "ventricle". So in all, it looks like the whole hypothesis is based on a single article in Med. Hypotheses, not really a reliable source. --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability flag on JASO page
Hello I see you've flagged the JASO stub I created as being of dubious notability. I've now had a look a pages for other anthropology journals and many are also sparse. So I'm puzzled why JASO's notablity is questioned while other journals are not. Ive expanded the entry a little bit to address this (specifically adding mention of the fulltext archive). Best wishes DZ - and thanks for all your work regardless of my querying this specific…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the criteria for notability for academic journals can be found here. Having archives online is not really one of the criteria, I fear. I realize that there are other articles that may be as badly sourced as this one. We call that argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or more disparagingly: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The solution is to clean up those articles, not to lower our standards, but there are only so many hours in a day and only a limited number of people interested in articles on academic journals... I did not outright propose your rticle for deletion, because given the history of the journal, I suspect that there may be sources somewhere out there that establish its notability. BTW, according to our article, being listed in AIO implies being listed in A+. Don't let yourself be discouraged by the notability tag. It's just an alert to other editors that wee need some good sources here. Also, new article creation is one of the harder things here. My advice would be that you should first try to improve existing articles and get a feel for how things work here. You'll find that it's not too complicated and that people are generally very helpful here. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. That's fair comment and I did wonder about the comparators. I've had a look at the notability criteria and am confident I can satisfy them. I'll doing some digging to collate sources.… best wishes DZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking into this a bit more I think indexing by AIO and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences plus paper copies in major research libraries satisfies Criterion1

Do I need to put in link to WorldCat to demonstrate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indexing by the IBSS pushes it just over the limit for me, so I have removed the tag. The argument that a journal is in major libraries is not uncontroversial and would require hundreds of hits. It is sometimes used as an argument in deletion discussions, but almost never included in articles. In addition, WorldCat is not very reliable as a source, as it is frequently incorrect or outdated, so I would advice against using it. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your help with this. I'm glad I've persuaded you to remove the tag! best wishes dz Dz3 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Open Access Journals
Hi, Its likely I've made a mistake and tried editing something I don't know enough about, but I was wondering what the reason was behind removing the Social Sciences Directory from the list of Open Access journals? Locutus243 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As explained in the edit summary: it's a redlink (i.e., there is no such article), see WP:WTAF. BTW, "Directory" does not really sound to me like that would be a journal, but as long as there is no article, that is immaterial. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573160387 your edit] to Biomedical Chromatography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * techniques in the biological and medical sciences. The editor-in-chief is Michael Bartlett University of Georgia.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573896591 your edit] to Laser Physics (journal) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573904794 your edit] to Martha Herbert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Herbert has received the Innovator Award in 2004 from Cure Autism Now since 2007 part of Autism Speaks, and is the director of Autism Speaks' Brain Development

Jazz Forum (magazine)
How do I link the article to the Polish version? When I click "Edit links" then "add" (under "Wikipedia pages linked to this item"), I then type "pl" and "Jazz Forum" but then get a pop-up message that reads:
 * An error occurred while trying to perform save and because of this, your changes could not be completed.

When I click "details," I get the following message:
 * Site link Jazz Forum is already used by item Q11723566. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Feel free to ask at Project chat if you are unsure — Eurodog (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For some reason, two items had been created on Wikidata. I have merged them and looks like the iw links are now displayed correctly. --Randykitty (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bolding subtitles
I see you reverted my edit. I've been scrambling around to find what the guidelines are for this. There are currently lots of journals with bolded subtitles, and lots without. I can't find anything at Manual of Style/Lead section or WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide - or WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, for that matter, which should provide an analogous situation. So my question is - why did you revert? Is it just personal preference? StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at GA and FA articles - but there don't seem to be any journals there. But I found The Slave Community, which is a clear example of a bolded subtitle in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Street Gang is another, by the way. StAnselm (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been systematically removing bolding of subtitles, based on MOS:BOLDTITLE. The way I read those instructions, we should bold the article title in the first sentence and avoid excessive bolding. Significant alternative names should be bolded, too, but nothing is said about bolding subtitles. So I've followed the rule that if an article title is "Journal of Foo", then the first sentence should say something like "The Journal of Foo, An International Multidisciplinary Journal". Personally, although I won't remove them if they're already there, I never add subtitles, as they rarely add anything (I can't think of a single case), and frequently are mildly promotional (like the example I gave before). In my experience, even regular readers of a journal (or even their editors!) will barely know there's a subtitle. Publishers often more or less ignore subtitles, too, and only use them on a journal's cover. The standard (ISO4) abbreviations of journal names never include subtitles. Even journals that don't use abbreviations but full journal names in lists of references, will only use the title, not the subtitle. What makes you think we should do it differently? --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice you're still making the changes - e.g. here. You said "per WP:JWG" in the edit summary, but it isn't there. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did (and I made many changes besides minor formatting, which is what the edit summary referred to). But I see what you mean: until this issue is settled, I must do things your way. Note that I have not reverted any of your edits after we started this discussion, something you cannot say of yourself (here and here, neither of them articles you have ever edited before). --Randykitty (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this is nothing to do with article titles (which is explicitly addressed in the article guidelines. I support this move which you made. StAnselm (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to let you know, I wrote a list of the journals that have subtitles unbolded. It doesn't look like we're going to get many more responses at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, but I do think it's fair to say that there is no support for your changes. So I plan to work on the articles on my list over the next few days. StAnselm (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In good faith
Edit was in good faith. I gave my explanation when I removed you're request for deletion.Frombelow (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming someone is biased is not directly the same as "assuming good faith", me thinks... --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that means you didn't understand my point. My point was that you're proposed deletion was based on a type of bias. Everyone is biased even those who edit in good faith. I was not saying that you're proposed deletion was in bad faith. Far from that. What I was saying is that its based on a bias (held by most wiki editors and people in general) against small media outlets. This is problematic because who is to say that a small media outlet such as The Con isn't notable? What makes it not notable? The fact that its small? Or the fact that it isn't mainstream? Or the fact that it is South African? Notability can be according to one's point of view. Obviously you don't think it is notable. However, I do think it is notable otherwise why would I take the time to create the page in the first place? I don't benefit from creating the page so I have no other reason to create it other than my own view that it is in fact notable - nevermind the fact that thousands of people already read The Con, they've been republished in a number of places, and they have well-established an notable well-known journalists as regular contributors. I therefore move to have the page remain at very least as a stub.Frombelow (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frombelow (talk • contribs)

Tomas Ganz
Hi, thank you so much for cleaning up my article, but can you next time don't call my article bad? It kind off hurt my feelings considering that its my first article on a physician. Also, (and its probably the sites fault) the site clearly stated that he is physicist, but maybe it misrepresented him, either way, not suppose to be my fault since my native language ain't English. But, I appreciate your help, hopefully my next article on a physician wont be as bad. Regards,--Mishae (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look around at other bios (especially those that are class B or higher) to see what a good bio should consist of. This really is the barest of stubs. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I mentioned above that's my first article on a physician. Quality wise they will improve.--Mishae (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:ACADEMIC. You really have to indicate why and how people meet these inclusion criteria, otherwise someone might take your articles to AFD (deletion discussion). Ganz obviously is a very notable person. Nemeth is an associate prof and those are frequently not (yet) notable enough for inclusion, so that article needs some more information (and from independent sources, if possible). hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people already cleaned it up a bit, but still, what position should a scientist have in order to be notable? A professor? A director? Is being a dean of a specific division is considered notable? Non of it is explained in the WP:Academic. All I read was that "a person suppose to be chair or equivalent". Now, in different countries that chair is called differently which actually confuses me. True, I write biographies on American scientists, but still. Now, I also know that in order for a scientist to be notable he needs to have an award, and that's what Nemeth have. But the question now is; which awards makes a scientist notable (aside from Nobel Prize)? In my opinion (correct me if I am wrong) a person without an award is not notable, but if he have one, weather he is an associate professor or not that covers everything. Please understand me correctly, I am not trying to write about non-notable persons.--Mishae (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think WP:PROF is clearer than that. It says that in order to be notable, a scientist needs to meet only one of the mentioned criteria, so an award is not a necessary condition. As for the position someone has, it mentions "named chair", which is not the same as "chair". These are generally rather prestigious, endowed positions, not an ordinary professorship. "Dean" in itself is generally not enough to be considered notable, it has to be the highest post at a university or society (generally the president). To get back to the awards, they need to be major awards ("highly prestigious", "at a national or international level"), I don't know whether Nemeth's award falls into this category. The notes below the criteria in WP:PROF explain all this. I realize that in some cases they're a bit vague, but that is because they need to cover all disciplines. Citation rates, for example, differ hugely between disciplines, so a clear cut-off about how many citations are notable cannot be given. Here is an archive of past deletion discussions, perusing them will give you perhaps a better idea how the guideline is applied. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

list of mags
Header is well. Please do not put your own "correct" form.--Egeymi (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you doing with the ref? Is it good faith? Please do not damage the ref. --Egeymi (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop it. You are damaging ref. I want to deal with expansion, not with your edits.--Egeymi (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The ref got inadvertently damaged when I corrected the header formatting. I have corrected that, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits and attention, but not so much needed. There is no wp rule stating that your way of header formatting is correct. Instead there is a wp rule stating that editors should follow the firstly established way of editing in any article. FYI. In addition there are other list articles that need attention, so you may deal with them. Egeymi (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first order headings were screwing up the layout. And, yes, I know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I got to this article through new page patrol, so that is where I am now. And another useful WP rule to know about is WP:OWN. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Carolyn Begley
First of all I would like to thank you for your kindness in providing a much detailed explanation in the above section. I also would like to thank you cleaning up my articles. I do however have a question: Is it possible to live the journals intact? See, some of our users might be interested in which scientific journals did the particular academic was published in.--Mishae (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is not something that usually is done in biographical articles. Some of the more detailed bios list some notable publications, and those will have complete references, but it is generally recommended to keep the number to 3 (or 5 at the very most). Only for extremely notable scientists (such as Einstein), do we have complete lists of publications. Some bios contain a (brief) description of the work done by a scientist and that can, of course, be supported by reference to that scientists works, but you have to be careful with that, as those references generally are primary sources, which can only be used with moderation, otherwise you might run afoul of the interdiction of original research... --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know how it might be an original research if you just mention some journals in which this or that person have published his works, its a fact no one will deny, since everyone can go online and verify where he published and what. Like honestly, I don't know the scientist personally, I just, like majority of other editors here run into such people online (sources) that I think it might or might not be notable. However, I do now have a small problem: This person is quite notable since there is a whole book about him being published (as my first source indicate) however it get cut off and I can't read further. Can you help me with this, please?--Mishae (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that a list of journals was OR, but that a description of a person's work could easily become OR. I'll have a look at that book thing later. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While you promised to look at the book, somebody already tagged him for proposed deletion. He also did the same with Max Snodderly. Can you please intervene?--Mishae (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Journal miniature infobox pics
Could have a major problem. See my talk and also User_talk:Blurred_Lines. Also, I just created The Journal of Military History, so I don't know if you want to look it over? Oh, commented out is the journal impact, which I don't have access to but which I know you do! So if you could fill that out and decomment the relevant bit (including the refs section, you'll see what I mean if you look at the article), that would be great. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked like Blurred Lines was a bit blurry about what images to put up for CSD :-) I made a few small changes to the journal article that you created (nice new addition!), but it is not in the JCR, so I removed the commented out stuff. There's no problem with notability, as it is in CC and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. It probably is also in some history indexed, but unfortunately, they don't mention that on their homepage, so that requires some significant sleuthing to find that. As we have enough to show notability, I didn't make the effort... I changed the cats slightly. We have no "military history journals" cat, but we do have "military journals". Not sure we'd need a separate cat, there aren't that many mil hist journals and interested people can find them from the cross between "history journals" and "military journals". The cat "American history journals" is for journals on American history, not for American journals on history (we don't class any journals by their "nationality") and this one clearly says it covers every region. Thanks for creating that article! --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luciana Borio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Another mass deletions
Can you explain to me the reason behind this proposed deletions: Steve Nicklas and Marilyn Price-Mitchell? Someone have improved the second one and someone still wants to delete it. Another problem is that the same user is proposing deletion of a Gary Alan Nelson article, who won a Benjamin Franklin Award which (I think) is a notable award and had many photos published in many magazines (should be enough for a notable photographer).--Mishae (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a reference to Gary Alan Nelson, but did not deprod. The book won the award, and Nelson is not mentioned. Borderline notability at best, it would seem. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the problem is with the sourcing. The last article, for instance, has only a link to the subject's own website. The claim that he has an award is enough to prevent speedy deletion, but without a independent reliable sources, any article can be challenged. The Price-Mitchell article has several references, but none of them is independent of the subject. If I were you, I'd look for good sources, add these to the articles, and then remove the prod tag. Just removing the tag without better sourcing probably will just mean that the articles will go to AFD. A prod tag gives you 10 days for improvements, so that should give you some time to search for sources. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the reason why they are like this is because when I type in the name and last name in Google, even if I do add photography or biography to it, I still get LinkedIn and Facebook profiles amongst other junk that wont make my article even more notable. Well, I added another source to Gary Alan Nelson which paraphrases the same as was in the previous one... Hope it helps.--Mishae (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexandre Gilbert
I'm still improving the page. The french deletion is quite old now.Frenchmedia1 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A PROD gives you 10 days for that. Too bad you removed that tag, because now we'll have to go to AFD if you cannot come up with better sources than those that are currently in the article. What we need are sources about the person, not the expositions or artists. Good luck! --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I completed the page with more secondary sources. Tell me what you think about the improvment. I'll continue the next days. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmedia1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I still see problems. I randomly selected one reference, nr. 23. It talks about an exposition, it mentions the galerie, but not a word about Gilbert himself. It actually looks to me like the galerie might be notable, but not its owner. Perhaps you should rewrite/rename the article in this sense. BTW, in English, you use the past tense if someone organized something that is not here and now but in the past, not the present tense a you'd do in French. --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the present to the past and tried to organise in a more clever way the information, actually in a more chronological way, extracting the ponctual informations to put it on top of the Biographic introduction. I also tried to change the page into a Galerie Chappe page but didn't really know how to rewrite the whole thing and still make sense. Thanks again for your advice.Frenchmedia1 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

See Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ling Chen
Can someone help me make this person notable? It appears that both name and last name is quite common in both United States and China.--Mishae (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think this person actually is notable? The article currently does not indicate anything that points towards notability. Being a board member of the American Board of Dermatology and the American Board of Pathology certainly is not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes me think that is that she might be if someone can help me with providing the proper source, like, there suppose to be publications somewhere but due to the common name and last name I can't find any. Also, yesterday I wrote a huge article related to a repeated offender. Now, according to Wikipedian guidelines its O.K. to write articles on semi-known offenders. Maybe I don't know all of the rules of WikiProject Criminal Biography, but as it stands I found only one source which had a huge biography! Now, someone proposed a deletion of it, which I am curious about. Can you help me please?! I spent time on it for like a half of the whole day, and even wanted to nominate it for DYK.--Mishae (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't get that. It seems like you're saying, she might be notable if somebody can show that. But you must have had a reason to think this person is notable before you created the article. Just being a physician, even a member of the mentioned boards, obviously is not very notable. I looked at her profile at the clinic where she currently is working and nothing suggests that she ever did much research and produced any notable publications (given that she was most of her career in private practice, that is actually quite unlikely). --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another New Journal Article
Hi Randykitty, I have created another very short journal article, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me by expanding the article. Jinkinson (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem with notability
Hello Randykitty, We tried to edit our page Faculty of Educational sciences at UGD according to your suggestion. If the content is still not appropriate please advice us in more details on which parts should we work on and how. Thank you for the effort in advance. Regards Btina2009 (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To show notability, you need reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. Very few university faculties actually cross this bar and therefore it is best to include brief information on them in the main article on the university. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hey, as of your recent msg on my talk page, do what you want but search internet, many sites has his books etc. and proves what the article say. -- itar buttar  [talk]  12:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are so many sources, you should add them to articles that you create, so that it is obvious to others why the person is notable and how this can be verified. Without that, articles will be speedied quite rapidly under criterion A7, as you have experienced. It is not up to a new-page patroller to go out looking for sources, it's up to the article creator to show why a subject merits coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Shirley Gordon
Someone trying to delete the article above, can you please intervene? I provided 2 reliable sources and the users still say it doesn't feet WP:BIO. I'm a bit shocked because I spent a whole day writing an article on a known criminal, and according to Wikipedia it is perfectly fine to write such articles (not to mention that WikiProject Criminal Biography have exceptions, but I don't know which ones). If she doesn't fit in in a criminal category then neither does any other criminal!--Mishae (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I look at the references, I only see one (both have the same URL). Seems like a run-of-the-mill con artist and I actually don't see any evidence of notability either. The relevant guideline is here: WP:CRIME. Have a look at it and perhaps that will help you show that this subject really is notable. If not, just let the PROD run its course. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexandre Gilbert
Wich sources do you think aren't reliable ? I will try to find new ones or simply erase them. Have a nice day. It's 7am. in France. :)Frenchmedia1 (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. A video that you uploaded to YouTube yourself is not really a good source. Also, I checked randomly some sources and they don't even mention any "Gilbert". 7am is too early for me, I rarely get up before 9:30 am, I'm a night owl... --Randykitty (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand... There is actually 14 videos on a ghost Youtube tv of the gallery i barely never go too since ages. There's is, it's true, approximately 7 whose origins are unclear (blogs, private etc.).Concerning the four that are mentionned on my page, I selected 2 from Cap 24 TV wich is the official youtube page of a Satellite channel. The other come from galeria Ludica, a web tv affiliatd to the Arludik museum (http://artludique.com). I swear i'm not the uploader of the videos mentionned on my page that only favorites 14 videos that reappear on my page there. Shall I erase for good my web tv if you like ? Doesn't create a single emotion to me. Tell me. Frenchmedia1 (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that my name doesn't appear all the time in the sources. I've chosen not to give my name to my gallery. It's true that in that case it would solved the whole problem. There is two other possibility to miss me with that name. First there's a galerie Chappe-Lautier in Toulouse, south of France, more ancient and closed now. Second there was a gallery before mine with the same name providing a long time ago Gauguin, Picasso, Millet or Manet paintings (keep on dropping, sorry) but none of the sources here concerns this time and place. Hope i can tell you more.Frenchmedia1 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

ZfdA
I've put a couple of questions on the talkpage. I'm also thinking it may be time for a Category:Journals of Germanic studies (using Germanic to include those like this one that restrict themselves to German and those like Arkiv för nordisk filologi that deal mostly with the Old Norse end of the Germanic Studies field - as well as those that do both German and Scandinavian). It's a field that cuts across language/linguistics, culture/area studies (mythology especially) and literature; I've had problems categorising both journals as a result. Is that the best way to title the category?? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've answered there (too). I see no problem with that cat, except that all journal categories are titled something like "Foo journals", so "Germanic studies journals" would probably be most appropriate. The cat could then itself be categorized as cultural journals, area studies journals, and linguistics journals. Two entries is a bit thin for a cat, but there seems to be a good rationale here, so that should not be a problem, either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; responded there. The German Quarterly, for example, already exists; where we have the massive gap is the non-English ones. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you
Do a similar c/e of Studia Socjologiczne as you did with ? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human Sexuality (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JAMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=576560552 your edit] to La Salamandre (magazine) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * | image_file     =
 * partnerships with the scientific programmes of the Radio suisse romande and France Inter. cn

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577998863 your edit] to Brain, Behavior, and Immunity may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brain, Behavior, and Immunity is a peer-reviewed [scientific journal] published by Elsevier. It was establiushed in 1987 and covers research on the relationship

American Atheist Magazine
Thanks for your cleanup on American Atheist Magazine, much appreciated.Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi - I restored the Editorial Board section, as it's just suggested by WP guidelines not to have it, not a rule. I think it serves this particular article well.Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We don't even list board members for scientific journals, not even if they have a Nobel... Such list should only be given in exceptional cases, which as far as I can see this is not. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, how can you "disagree" with the guidelines, that say suggested? Why such strong feelings about such a little thing?Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not so simple. First of all, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so listing some names of non-notable people does not really add any information. Second, we have to be consistent. Many journals/magazines have huge editorial boards and many editors. That would make for unwieldy (and still uninformative) lists that would also be a bitch to keep up-to-date. If there are no sources documenting anything specific about the involvement of someone with a magazine/journal, there really is no good reason to list them. Mastheads belong on the homepage of the magazine itself, not here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Gay, Straight and the Reason Why
Please stop editing the article. Your behavior is unwelcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN? --Randykitty (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would appear that you never learned the lesson that simply because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines permit you to do a thing, doing that thing is not necessarily a good idea. Your behavior at the Human Sexuality article - removing the books by Simon LeVay category - was one example of that. You justified your edit in terms of guidelines, but not in terms of common sense. Most people would think that what you did wasn't at all reasonable. The edits you've been making at the Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why article are I'm afraid only another example. I've created numerous articles about books. It's bizarre that of all of those articles, it has to be that at that article in particular that you would feel a need to add a pointless tag about notability. Either nominate the sodding article for deletion, or stop making an issue of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why article is perfectly fine now, was that so hard? As for the other one, anyone who spends some time at new page patrol will regularly encounter redlinked categories. If the only entry in such a non-exisitng cat is the article itself, the standard procedure is to remove it. Hence that edit, as already explained at length, was justified. Even if it hadn't been, your reaction and subsequent comments were disproportionate, uncivil, and downright rude. If someone needs to learn a lesson here, it is you. Please refrain from posting any further comments on my talk page in future, you're not welcome here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Following procedures, even if "standard", regardless of the circumstances or situation is stupid. I added the category for a good reason, and your removal of it was inept editing and an insult to my intelligence. I understand that you aren't going to apologize, but there's a lesson here for you in my reaction that might help you avoid similar situations in future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 7:26 am, 17 October 2013, Thursday (16 days ago) (UTC+2)

Speedy deletion of Milton Wolf (radiologist)
Thanks for raising the question of the speedy deletion of Milton Wolf (radiologist). I've responded on that article's talk page, and I hope you'll review my points and consider removing the flag.

P.S. You might want to change your top-of-page notice now that the "+" tab has been replaced with a "new section" tab.

--JohnPomeranz (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note about the "+", I have adapted the note. It actually depends on your settings (I see a "+", not "new section"). As for Wolf, at this point there is no sign that he is notable. As far as I can see, he meets neither WP:POLITICIAN, nor WP:ACADEMIC, nor WP:GNG. What the future will bring is anybody's guess. let's see what the closing admin will say. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving this from Speedy Deletion to Proposed Deletion, Randy. As I'm only an occasional WPedian, can I ask a question of protocol?  You and I apparently disagree about whether this article meets WP:GNG or the notability standards for unelected candidates in WP:POLITICIAN, i.e. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."  I've cited two such sources in the stub article and could cite more than a dozen more if I had the time to really work this article.  Would it be appropriate to kick this to the regular WP:AFD process and see if a consensus can emerge as to whether or not this long-shot candidate (whose distant relation to President Obama certainly does not alone make him notable) is notable enough for WP?  I don't want to waste everyone's time if I'm just being pig-headed about this, but I honestly think that there are grounds for notability here.  --JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is an alternative: if you know of sufficient good sources to show that this meets WP:GNG (it's obvious, I think, that he does not -yet- meet any other guideline), we can bypass AFD, because I would de-PROD the article myself in that case. If the current sources are all you have, I agree that AFD may be more appropriate than PROD. Let me know. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I don't really have the time at the moment to beef up the article itself, but I can put a bunch of raw reliable source links on that article's talk page. Once I've done so, take a look.  If you think they're enough, then you can de-PROD, if you don't, then please AFD.  Thanks.  --JohnPomeranz (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will Do; If I have time and think they're good, I'll add them to the article, otherwise you can do it yourself when you have a moment. --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, they're up. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've removed the PROD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
As you previously  participated in  related discussions you  are invited to comment  at the discussion  at  WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Jan Hartman
If publishing 13 philosophical books from acclaimed publishers doesn't show notability of author, then I have no idea what does. Francesco 13 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Publishing is what every academic/writer does. That in itself does not make someone notable. What is needed is that you show that these books made an impact on the field, by being reviewed in reputable sources, or cited by colleagues. Note that for academics, we generally require hundreds of citations at a minimum to show impact on their field of study. Meanwhile, I have pinged User:Gregbard, an experienced Wikipedian with knowledge of philosophy and he may be able to help you to show notability conclusively. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Statistica (journal)
Hi Randykitty, could you please respond to me here about the deletion request of Statistica? I think that everything is OK, but I don't want to delete the warning without anyone replying. Thanks! --Aubrey (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Another question: regarding the notability of the Journal, I wuld humbly claim that Statistica satisfies criteria 3 of the notability guidelines. In that case, can I remove the warning? Thank you very much for your work. --Aubrey (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But where's the evidence of that (i.e. reliable sources that confirm this)? I have asked one of our specialist mathematics editors to have a look at the article and he'll remove the tag if he sees fit. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2013 cover of Neural Plasticity.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:2013 cover of Neural Plasticity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please ignore the Twinkle-generated message. I tagged the jpg version for deletion now that the svg version is used in the article. --ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PROD on Chronicles Of Syntax
I've deleted your PROD as per procedure. You may have a point, but I think that there is a chance that sources could be found so would recommend AfD instead. Have a good day! DiverScout (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Artefact journal
hi Randy Kitten - I see you have added a notability tag to article I just created. Could I please ask a favour? would you be willing to do some research and editing to find the necessary sources to demonstrate the notability of this article. As a keen but not very proficient writer of articles, I have some difficulty in finding ways of meeting this criteria, and would hate to see another unpleasant discussion on this article, which I think you might agree on searching out some further information on the journal, that it has played an important role in archaeology in Victoria and will warrant a Wikipedia article, if only the proper sources can be found to demonstrate its notability.. Thanks in anticipation of your kind assistance.Garyvines (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits
Might want to take a peek at how the New England Journal of Medicine article is written to see why I made the changes I did. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I've changed it there, too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Guess we'll see if it sticks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Konrad Pesudovs
As a person who contested articles of mine for speedy deletion in the past, can you check the above one too see why that editor nominated it for deletion if the person is a chairman of a prestigious organization and was awarded the same award twice? Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I already did. Neither the chairmanship, nor the awards do, in my opinion, make this person notable. However, his citation record is definitely above average and I think he meets WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the tag is still on though.--Mishae (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it will stay for a while. This is not a speedy deletion or PROD tag, which I can remove if I disagree. It's an AfD tag and it will only be removed after an admin closes the discussion. Normally, that will be after 7 days, but it can either be relisted if not enough opinions are being voiced (and then it takes longer) or sometimes the "keep" arguments convince the nominator and the proposal is withdrawn (so that it takes shorter). In any case, I would advice you to have a good look at some good bios and at the biography notability guidelines. That may help you create articles in such a way that they'll neither be deleted as spam nor for not being notable. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it did. Thank you. I improved the article a bit (and I see you did as well). So thanks again. By the way, I hope people wont remove this one? She have five publications, which is probably low, comparing to my previous ones. But she is from China, so there is not many sources on her available (let alone on other Chinese Academics in the same field which have only h-index with no bio).--Mishae (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I must say that that one does not look like notability could be established. 5 publications sure is not much, so unless they were hugely important, somebody might get this deleted. In general it is better first to look for sources that show notability before creating an article. Remember, even if someone or something is notable, we still may not be able to create an article if things are not verifiable. --Randykitty (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, its difficult to establish notability for eye care professionals because they don't light up the web a whole lot (let alone any doctor for that matter). Dr. Phil got lucky though, but he runs the whole show. I never heard of a show related to optometry... Either way, see if this guy is any good Daniel Garibaldi, many articles in notable journals, sounds good for an academic? Another question, if any editor writes an article on optometry or ophthalmology, where do they get their sources from if the coverage on TV or on the web is scarce? And another one: Do you know of any Chinese or Japanese admins on English Wikipedia which can help me add more sources and even expand on the articles relating to urologists, optometrists and surgeons?--Mishae (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had a look at Hideyuki Akaza as well as Garibaldi. The latter does not seem to be notable at all. I find 30-something papers, but they have only been cited just over 200 times with an h-index of 9. This is absolutely not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1 and I don't see anything that might indicate that he meets any of the other criteria either. Also, you sourced the article with two links to websites that are not independent sources, so this article has severe problems. Akaza is more difficult, because there are several people with the same last name and initial "H". On the Web of Science he is borderline (1160 citations, h-index of 19), but Google Scholar shows several highly-cited papers, so he probably would pass WP:ACADEMIC#1. Again, however, you only use sources that are not independent of the subject. In addition, one of them is to SCIRP, a not-very reputable publisher. As for sources, there is nothing wrong with using print sources. TV sources are often difficult to verify, if they are not stored on the web somewhere. But the reality is that many healthcare professionals, however good and valuable, are not notable in the WP sense. Just being a good doctor, like Garibaldi, is not enough. As to your last question, I'm sure there must be some Japanese or Chinese admins, although no names immediately come to mind (and not all my identify themselves as such, of course). The best place to ask would be the Teahouse, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, even though Daniel Garibaldi have many peer-reviewed articles? Isn't that the main reason how academics can be notable? Either way, thank you for your suggestion and support! Another thing, can you see what is the h-index for those physicians: Seiji Naito and Ronald Bukowski. Verifiability is difficult even on the web, because some have an h-index but no bio, while others have a bio (and sometimes quite good), but is not verifiable.--Mishae (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not completely correct. Yes, most (but not all) notable academics have many publications, but not everyone who has many publications is notable. It all depends on whether those publications have been noted by others, and we take citations as evidence of that. So having a lot of publications is not enough, they have to have been cited a lot, too. And sometimes someone produces few articles, but they turn out to be extremely important and are therefore notable, despite only having a few publications. Citation indexes like Web of Science and Google Scholar can be used to verify these things (independent sources). Most academics also have a personal page somewhere, and although that cannot be used to establish notability (not independent), it can be used to source non-controversial stuff, like where they got their PhD/MD, where they have worked, etc. I'll have a look at the h-index of those people later. --Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Christoph Handschin
Dear Randykitty, We have taken the criticism of our contribution very seriously and made all the necessary changes, as well as included the missing sources. We have addressed all points of issue and would kindly ask you to remove your comments from the article. Many thanks for your support! --Indlekoferw (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Hi! I think the fact that WASET is the organiser of 2389 scientific conferences is an important information--it tells something crucial about what type of organisation this is, without having to discuss anyone's opinion about that. While the reference I included does list the 2389 conferences, they obviously don't include a count. Only blog posts have that count, but you say they don't count as reference, and I assume that you are backed by some policy. Given those parameters, is there any solution that would imply the count appears in the article and WP policies are enforced? Additionally, you have removed the acronym twice. Is there any reason for that? --Valmi &#10002; 19:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:RS, the applicable guideline for reliable sources. As for the acronym, if an article is very short, there is no reason to introduce an acronym, because the organisation can easily be referred to by its full name or simply as "the association". Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I assumed you were right in removing the first reference, and you have proven that you were indeed right. I'm still not sure what is the problem with the second, nor what to do in general (since there are, as anyone can see, 2389 conferences). --Valmi &#10002; 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? Are we looking at the same page?? I don't see that figure anywhere. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no figure, there's just a list of 2389 conferences...--Valmi &#10002; 19:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Plane (Magic: The Gathering) AfD
Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Plane (Magic: The Gathering). In, you wrote that "Jclemens has a valid point about licensing". How did you evaluate the validity of ? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll revisit this, but it has to wait a bit: I am awaiting boarding at the airport for a very long flight and may be without Internet access the rest of today and tomorrow. I'll look at it as soon as possible, though, I promise! --Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My plane is a bit delayed, so I had a look and clarified the closing statement, which could indeed have been clearer. Let me know what you think. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for your quick response. I will discuss with Jclemens and circle back later. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  professional science

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow! For once, I'm speechless. Thank you! --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A thought
Re:. I do think we should still use language-specific categorizations. If a reader wants to see all languages they can read in French, the multilanguage category is NOT useful. I don't see why we shouldn't categorize multilanguage journals with regards to various languages they use. If they really need to be separate from regular language category, we could have Category:English language multilanguage journals and other multilanguage journal categories by language. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not generally unsympathetic to your thoughts. However, the situation with academic journals is generally different from those of, say, magazines (or even some newspapers). The latter periodicals often have different language editions which may be complete translations of the main edition. That is, the content of the different language versions would be identical. For academic journals the situation is different: some articles will be in one language, others in another, with generally no integral translations provided (at best, abstracts are presented in more than one language). So a journal publishing in English and French is neither a "French-language journal", nor an "English-language journal". If a reader wants to know which journals (s)he can read in French, then including English/French journals in the "French-language journals" cat may be deceiving. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind much to re-categorize all multilingual journals in the respective language cats, like you propose, either, as my previous objection is only minor. The question then is, what to do with the "multilingual journals" cat. Keep it (so that an English/French journal is in 3 language cats - wouldn't that be overdoing it a bit?) or delete it (which in my experience is very difficult for cats)? Perhaps we should copy this to the journals wikiproject, so that other editors can give their opinions, too. --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating Impact Factors on Journal pages
Hello - I recently tried to update some impact factors (from 2011 to 2012) but these changes were deleted - I'm new to this and would like to know how I can get these updated? Thanks KellyHorwoodBMJ (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

After some further thinking on this - I realised that these changes may have been reverted as I also added some text changes that may have been considered a conflict of interest. In this case am I able to go back in and just edit Impact Factors? Thanks KellyHorwoodBMJ (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what happened, you added some very promotional text, which you really shouldn't do. Just updating IFs is no problem, though. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

American Atheist Magazine
Why are you more concerned with removing informative content from WP than building up its body of knowledge? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the case. The stuff that I removed was not informative content. When WP:MWG says that information on contributors and board should not be included, but that exceptions can be made, that really means that there has to be some exceptional reason to include that info. This occurs, for example, if an editor or editorial board member has done something or written something that was noted, that is, has generated non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If this is not the case, then just listing some rather unknown people (whose names generally can be easily retrieved from the magazine's own website), or name-dropping some notable people who just happen to have contributed to the magazine, just is not encyclopedic content. --Randykitty (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurasisches Magazin (deletion)
Dear Randykitty, I am very angry about the deletion of this article. I was my intention to present a very interesting journal which is one of the few in Germany and worldwide about the rare known region of Eurasia, e.g. Russia, Central Asia, Caucasus etc. The deletion was overnight and so "speedy" that I had no chance to expand or improve my article. This is in my sense a very bad behavior among Wiki authors, it's in fact a kind of "vandalism". Please tell me what to do to renew the article. Looking forward for help and thanks in advance --Stonepillar (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, well this is a week ago and I have been travelling and doing a lot of other stuff since, so I have to admit that I can't really remember this particular case (and not being an admin, I cannot see the deleted article either). What I gather from the logs is that I tagged it for WP:CSD (see there for the applicable criteria) and that it wa checked by an admin (User:Hiberniantears), who apparently agreed with this assessment and deleted the article. Speedy deletion is actually very common, not considered "bad behavior", and even less "vandalism". If you think that you can create an article that would meet our inclusion criteria (verifiable by citations to reliable sources), you can ask Hiberniantears (or any other admin) to "userfy" the article to your userspace, where you can work on it until it is ready to be moved to the mainspace. --Randykitty (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mexican Law Review
The Mexican Law Review meets notability requirements IMO. As for your argument that Mexican universities do not list the journal in OCLC, this is to be expected: Mexicans do not speak English. In addition, I am not sure OCLC has widespread adoption in Mexico in the first place. The MLR is published by UNAM, which itself should make it notable. Again, I stress that Stanford Law, Berkley Law, Chicago Law, New York Law, Boston Law, etc. etc. (pretty much every law library of note) consider it notable, and that should be enough. Int21h (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think these libraries think this journal is notable? It's an OA journal. All they have to do is link to it from their websites, which doesn't cost them a dime. For OA journals, WorldCat holdings really don't say much. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they are print journals. You do not just "link to [print materials] from their website", that's just not physically possible, nor is that what the world wide web does., is for the printed version of the journal; is for the online version.


 * I assume by OA you mean an open access journal.. But so what? What does that imply? That printed journals, that are peer reviewed, published by a major national university, with articles from Stanford Law LL.M. grads and that university's professors and the like, and print subscriptions at many major law school libraries in every major English speaking country, is somehow not notable anymore because they are also available online? Int21h (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying any of these things. You are arguing that the journal is notable because many libraries list it. If you care to go to the journal homepage, you will see that all articles can be downloaded for free online (= OA, indeed: "open access"). This means that libraries can include it in their catalogs without any cost to them, explaining the library holdings. This is not a value judgment in the least, we're not here to judge the value or worthiness of any entry. We're here to evaluate the sources. All I am saying therefore is that the library holdings in WorldCat can be explained by the simple fact that this journal is available online for free and that they therefore do not imply notability. If the journal were only available in print (or online behind a paywall), those holdings would imply that those libraries would have made the decision to pay for a subscription, which is a very different matter (especially with the restrained library budgets we have nowadays. Even then, the US has many more law schools than the 90 odd that currently list it in WorldCat). That WorldCat has different entries for the print and online versions is true. Unfortunately, WorldCat is also very unreliable in these things. In addition, if you click the two links you gave above to the print and library versions, you will see that for each one there are exactly 93 US libraries listed. The explanation is the remark just underneath "enter your location": Displaying libraries 1-6 out of 93 for all 6 editions. The 93 entries are for 6 (??) different editions of this journal (apparently more than just print/online) combined. In short: I sincerely doubt that these WorldCat listings indicate notability (or are even very reliable). --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Internal Medicine
Hi Randy, As I am new in working in Wikipedia I appreciate your comments and help. I also now hope that I am at the right place for a direct contact with you for future discussion. You said that it was wrong of me to refer to Wiley as it should be Wiley-Blackwell. This is rather confusing as I have got info directly from our contact with the publisher that 'Blackwell' has now been deleted, and it should from now on only be 'Wiley'. If you have other, more recent information I will of course follow your instruktions. Bengt Fagrell (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Bengt Fagrell, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Internal Medicine.
 * I have answered on your talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)