User talk:Randykitty/Archive 5

Nova
Hi Randykitty. I can understand that you disagree vehemently with my edit, but undoing it with a "vandalism" summary is completely uncalled for. I'll explain the reasoning behind my edit in the talk page shortly but I would really appreciate it if you could take back your hasty accusation. Regards. Gaba (talk)  01:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've opened a new section over at that article about my edits. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Gaba  (talk)  02:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. And, sorry, but your edit did constitute vandalism. --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I just can't let this go so easily. An accusation of vandalism is a strong one. I'm a long time editor and I've explained all my edits in the talk page, one by one. If you believe you are right in accusing me of committing vandalism, then I propose we request comment at AN/I because that means one of us is greatly misinterpreting WP:VANDAL. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  10:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: 1) The edit deserved to be reverted. 2) The word "vandal" should be reserved for people who are actually trying to disrupt the encyclopedia; using it more freely than that verges on personal attack. 3) Gaba was clearly operating in good faith, and in any case should have been assumed to be doing so. 4) It is plausible that Randykitty honestly thought Gaba was a vandal, and we should assume good faith there also; however, now that it is clear that Gaba was not, Randykitty owes Gaba an apology. 5) Even though an apology would be good etiquette, this episode should not lead to any procedural action (e.g., AN/I) in any case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for commenting. Just to be clear, my proposal to open a section at AN/I was never intended as a threat to request procedural action. I just thought that if we can not come to an agreement about whether I incurred on vandalism or not we requested comments there, nothing else. I see vandalism accusations as a serious one but precisely because I WP:AGF I'm sure Randykitty and I can come to an amicable agreement on this episode. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry you are upset. However, when I see a badly-sourced POV-edit, changing an article with a controversial edit history (varying from turning it into an attack page to trying to change it into a fan page) basically into a hatchet job, I'm afraid that I have the apparently bad habit of calling such an edit vandalism. If you want people to AGF, I would advice some prior discussion on an article's talk page to avoid this kind of situations. --Randykitty (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So can I understand that you take back your accusation of vandalism? You'll notice this is important to me because such accusations are pretty serious, especially when directed at a long time editor. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  01:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry to have to insist on this but as I've told you above, it is an important issue to me. You can call my edit a "badly-sourced POV-edit", that's fine. But I need to hear from you that you either take back your vandalism accusation or that you stand by it. I'm not trying to create unnecessary drama, I just want to set the record straight on this matter so we can both move on with our edits leaving this incident in the past. Hope you'll understand. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  11:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that calling a "badly-sourced POV-edit" vandalism is wide off the mark. I understand that you didn't see it as such and were therefore unhappy about this edit being called "vandalism" and I am sorry that you feel that way. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You do understand that up to this point I have been nothing but extremely polite to you inspite of you accusing me of vandalism, right? It is not my fault that that article has been vandalized before many times, it wasn't me who did it and it shouldn't be me who gets abused for it. I've asked you to please take your accusation of vandalism back many times by now and you have refused each time. You can disagree 10000% with my edit, that's fine. But after being reverted I immediately took the issue to the talk page, presented my sources and reasons and discussed the edit thoroughly being perfectly WP:CIVIL with other editors just as it is expected. There is no possible way you could seriously believe I am a WP:VANDAL after that, yet you insist in standing by your accusation.
 * I have no desire in the least to end this issue in anything other than the most amicable way possible but you are making it very difficult for me to accomplish that. So I'll ask you one final time to please take back your accusation of vandalism so we can step back from this matter in a friendly way and get back to editing WP. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, I think I have been civil throughout this discussion, too. I don't really know what you want me to say further. Yes, it is clear by now that you are not a vandal. What else do you want? --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I guess this last comment will have to do since you are apparently hell-bent in not apologizing and/or in making a clear withdrawal of your "vandalism" accusation and I just don't have the time to take this to AN/I right now. Yes, you do know what I want you to say further since I mentioned it explicitly numerous times throughout this discussion. And yes, you have been civil in this discussion, but accusing a long time editor of "vandalism" is a particularly uncivil thing to do. I recommend you give WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:VANDAL a very thorough read.
 * It saddens me to end this discussion like this when we could have very easily ended up in the best terms if you would have just acknowledged your mistake and taken back your hasty accusation clearly when I asked you to. Anyway, see you in the Nova article. regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm sorry you feel like that. But you're right, there is no way that I am going to apologize for something that definitely was not a mistake. If you don't want your edits to be labeled "vandalism", then the surest way for that is not to make such edits. End of discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what? I'll find the time. I'll let you know when the AN/I thread is up. Gaba  (talk)  17:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, you're good right. Beware of the boomerang, though. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Please_comment_on_vandalism_accusation.  Thank you. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  12:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I obviously disagree with the closing done by James and your reasoning I hope we can put this in the past and hopefully have a friendly wiki-relation. See you at the Nova article. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. By I agree, let's put this behind us. It was indeed, perhaps, a storm in a teacup and we could perhaps have been a bit more flexible to save the community time and hassle. We're both decent editors, not vandals, and with not too much effort, we should be able to get along. I think we just inadvertently pushed each others' red buttons. Normally, if somebody feels offended for whatever reason, I'm pretty fast with apologizing, even if I don't think I did anything wrong. (Not just on WP, but also in RL). Makes life a lot easier... This time it didn't happen. We disagree about that one single edit. So be it, let's forget about it and move on. Peace. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And to be fair, I have many red buttons :) Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  18:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And back to work we go, but not before Randykitty uncorks something nice from the secret section in his cellar. Tell you what, I'm not editing until that bottle is passed around. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey ho! Hey ho! Back to work we go! FYI, it was a 2009 Bergerac (which combined exquisitely with the cheese, in order: St. Maur de la Tourraine, a Coeur de Neufchatel, St. Marcellin, and some Rocquefort to finish). I am saving the 2007 St. Emilion Grand Cru and the 2007 Rioja for very special occasions, who knows perhaps you'll come for a visit some time :-). --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You know I'd love to. Not this coming summer, though--being in academia here doesn't mean you get summers off. Ha, what do you think the odds are that we meet and have nothing to say to each other? I met a Dutch here the other day--he and his US wife have lived here for eight years and I never met them. Shows you how much I get out. His name is Louis, BTW, and he's from The Hague (joh!). I guessed he was from a southern, Catholic family, but it can't be verified: the records were destroyed in WW2. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for JofC?
Hi. I would like to talk about the "Proposed deletion" you made on the page Journal of Conscientiology. First of all this page is marked as a stub. So if it get deleted by proposal it will be no chance to improve it. I would like to propose a "Deletion by voting" (if it is the case).--AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality of the article
I assume that I have took one or two criteria of notability for granted. But, after you made the cleaning up there is no aspect at all, that allowed anyone to presume notability. For instance the link of the Leipzig University, where it shows that the journal has subscriptions of academic libraries on 7 different countries. Also this is a journal established since 1998 and the only one of its kind; I'm sure that are lots of reliable sources that can be put on the article. -Cheers!! AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Randykitty! You seem to be a user with experience on articles about scientific journals. So, let me ask you a few questions on this topic. I agree that the information supporting the notability of JofC is very thin in this very this moment, but still in my opinion, there aren't arguments enough to delete it either. Since I wrote both articles:


 * 1) why in Spectrochimica Acta B the primary source is considered reliable and on JofC not?
 * 2) Is it not that the best scientific community to evaluate the journal is the involved community itself? For instance only a chemist can assess the information contained on a chemistry journal, if you know what I mean.

Cheers. --AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean with the primary source in Spectrochimica Acta B. That journal is in the Science Citation Index and has an impact factor. Only a select subset of all academic journals are included in that index, so that is a sure sign of notability. JofC is not included in any selective database, as far as I can see. --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Journal of Virology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agricola (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) 09:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581153766 your edit] to Cary Coglianese 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) 08:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * * "Moving Forward with Regulatory Lookback" Yale Journal on Regulation (June 8, 2013)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583071903 your edit] to John O'Keefe (neuroscientist) 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) 10:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neuroscience. In July 2008, he received the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies [European Journal of Neuroscience[European Journal of Neuroscience Award]], which is given in

On SENSE and Nova Science Publishers - what SENSE in the Netherlands were saying and the [negative sense] made out of it by your recent edit
It's a real mockery of their nice clasification, usable also for other Wikipedia purposes, to call a C company in a derogatory term "the lowest category". There are liars, damnded liars and statisticians, we heared once, so did we learn from that? Regards Franz Weber

Franz weber (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion about that article belongs on that article's talk page, so I will respond there as soon as I have time (I'm currently at the airport on my way to participate in an evaluation of a Dutch university consortium, believe it or not). I'll assume that your reference to liars and such was not intended as a reference to me. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hideyuki Akaza
Can you please comment on a discussion here. This article is proposed to be deleted but the user who nominated it apparently didn't read that there is one reliable source in it which is the Scientific World Journal. Plus, he pops up a lot in Google searches, suppose to be notable, don't you think?--Mishae (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Per your participation in the first nomination, you are invited to comment here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

African academic review
I don't understand why you removed the Journal I've added. They are academic journal about Africa. Articles could come later, if needed. Best, Sitanix (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just posted a comment on your own talk page about this. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a French contributor, my English and my timetable don't allow me to create article on e::Wiki. I don't understand your choice, since your list is missing important european and US Journals, but it will remain your problem… Best, Sitanix (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WTAF. The problem with these lists is that they tend to attract a lot of spam. It is very difficult to judge whether something is spam or not just by looking at a title (and perhaps its homepage). Creating an article on a non-notable journal is more difficult, so only including journals on the list that have an established article makes a lot of sense, in my eyes. As for the articles on these journals, if you are familiar with them, one solution could be that you create them in your sandbox. Drop me a note when you're done and I can correct your English for you and when you're done, it can be moved into mainspace (and added to the list). --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Category removal
Can I ask why you removed category:Geography of England here? Atlas-maker (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure: the cat is in "Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom", which is already in "Geography of England". So per normal categorization principles, the latter cat is superfluous. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom is not in category:geography of England. It is in category:Geography of the United Kingdom. Perhaps thats what you saw? It wouldn't make sense for a UK category to be a child of an England category. I'll re-add it. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Plane (Magic: The Gathering) AfD, take 2
Previous discussion archived to User talk:Randykitty/Archive 4

Hi, I'm back. Jclemens's note is incorrect because it gets the attribution burden backwards. Deleting the source articles first and hiding the attribution built into their page histories would violate WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline), WP:Copyrights (policy), and Terms of Use. See also and the wording of Copied. There was no restriction on the deletion of Plane (Magic: The Gathering) until to Magic: The Gathering storylines as the result of the AfD.

On a side note, is consistent with WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions, but the incoming redirects might not all be deleted. The G8 criterion excludes "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets". The warning at the top of db-redirnonebot reflects this, but db-redirnone does not. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that . I spent the intervening weeks attempting to discuss with Jclemens: to User talk:Jclemens/Archive 13,, and . I distilled my salient points into the comment above. The tangent about a yet-unidentified merge target C is best ignored. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thank you again for your previous quick response, and I apologize for my delay in returning. I would like you to consider removing the two sentences about licensing from your closing statement: make no determination rather than endorse either side. Hobit challenged Jclemens's note with an explanation and just as much cited policy support (none). Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps
Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

International Trends
Hello! I appreciate that you explained me some rules about how to write about journals. But I have partly revised your change in International Trends. I appreciate if you let them keep, providing that I deleted unnecessary details. The list of the editorial board members is not FULL as it is stated in the rules. There are 2 dozens persons there, I mentioned only 6 of them and deleted all information about them. Concerning the list of contributors, I also deleted some of them but others remained (I used International Affairs (journal) as an example). It is only a single statement with no details, featuring only few persons instead of hundreds of authors. Maybe it is the only way to make clear that the journal is really notable in Russia, because until now most Russian journals have not been displaced in such scientific nets as Web of Science, they are only in the beginning of the admission process. That is why I kindly ask you to let the article live as it is, because it CANNOT be stated that 1) FULL editorial board is mentioned, only a few of its members are mentioned; 2) there is a LIST of authors, but mentioning only few of them in one sentence. Thank you --Koganbkogan (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted all unnecessary details --Koganbkogan (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Boards and contributors are only mentioned if there are reliable sources about their involvement with a journal or magazine. For example, a board member who resigned for some reason or a contributor whose article had a lot of impact. Nothing like this is the case for the contributors/board members that you listed, unfortunately, so they don't belong in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Debasish Chatterjee
Can you check an h-index for this person? 20+ articles looks medium.--Mishae (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He has a GS profile showing citation rates and h-index (which are decidedly at the side of non-notable, I fear). --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. Didn't knew where to find it since Google Scholar didn't popped up for me for this person for some reason.--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While I did screwed up with the previous, take a look here: Hans Westerhoff! H-index 44!!!--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jinkinson  talk to me  16:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

European Young Chemists' Network
Hi Randykitty, I saw your remarks on this article and I have tried to improve it (based on the information given via the links in the header template). I am an active user on the Dutch version of Wikipedia and although it might not be clear at first sight, the last thing I want to do is to advertise on Wikipedia! On the contrary: I am a strong opponent of propaganda and advertisements on Wikipedia (e.g. as a sysop on the Dutch Wikipedia I have deleted many articles that were set up just to advertise). I have tried to write a neutral article on this subject, which in my opinion is encyclopedic enough (a European organization with >15.000 members) to be accepted in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, little independent sources on this organization are known, so that might perhaps be an issue. If you are able to help with the cleaning up of this article, please let me know. It would be very kind of you! Have a nice day. Best regards, Capaccio (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Zelf kom ik niet al te vaak op nl:WP, dus daar ben ik het die de regels niet goed kent :-) Anyway, I assumed already that this probably is a notable society, so I did not take the article to AfD. The problem will indeed be the sourcing. Non-controversial stuff can be sourced from their homepage, but that does not contribute to showing notability. For that we need independent sources. From my (rare) excursions into the Dutch WP, I have the impression that sourcing is a bit less important there, but here it is crucial. I can certainly help with cleaning up the article or advice, but finding sources is another thing (takes more time than I currently have). --Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Evaluative diversity
RandyKitty--Thanks for your help with the Evaluative diversity article. Can you please confirm that the clean-up was done properly? 68.117.136.98 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the references you said were inadequate (chapter and verse were already cited in the text) but someone reverted that change--what's the next step? Langchri (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Trying again. Please confirm that your concern was addressed. Langchri (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Sosa Nuez
I've changed your tag to a multiple, adding copyvio. It's a direct translation from the site used as source. Peridon (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was so short, I didn't even think of that possibility... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Help!
This user here have nominated all three of my articles for deletion just because I used Google Scholar as a main ref, because I couldn't find other links. Can you intervene? Thank you.--Mishae (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I highly value it!--Mishae (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I now had a quick look at those articles. While the citation data indicate notability, I must say that they really are very meager. For an article to be written, it is not enough that a subject is notable. There also has to be something that we can write about. An "article" saying "John Doe is a professor of foo in India and has published an article that has been cited 600 times", while making it likely that "John Doe" is notable, is not really very useful. My impression is that you go about creating articles the wrong way around. It is not enough to check whether someone is notable and then after you have created an article search for material to write about. What you should do is first see if there are enough sources that can be found to give you material to talk about. GS alone will not do this. --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am not doing it the wrong way. You see, there are not many material related to those folks because they are foreign. Like, if there will be a user who speaks Hindi, or Chinese, I will be more then happy to use it as a source. Since I don't know any other languages other then Russian, English, and a bit of Ukrainian, Google Scholar is my best friend here. I did tried to expand on them by citing their discoveries which they publish in their journals or in the news (the second one is a rarity, since only 1% of academics are mentioned in press). Like, every time I read Yahoo news science section, I end up reading on the like "John Doe made a comment on that but wasn't part of the research group", which made me wonder how notable is he. In this case, the notability is zero. You see, in such articles as this one I don't even need Google Scholar everything was in English in the net. But what if there aren't sources, or they are hidden? By the word of hidden I mean there might be some other people (non-notables) with the same name, same last name, or both, which makes searches more painful and confusing.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Guideline for identifying reliable journals
Hey Randykitty, since you have such an extensive interest in articles about scientific journals, I thought you might want to comment on the proposal being discussed at WT:MEDRS. Jinkinson  talk to me   What did he do now?  03:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had seen your notice on the WPJournals talk page, but didn't have time yet to take a look. Does sound interesting. --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was LeadSongDog, not me, who posted that. Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  11:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. Wasn't really awake when I saw that, so didn't recall :-) I'll have a look later. --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

AFC submission about a scientific journal
I'm curious to know what you think of this. I'm probably going to accept it, but I want to get some feedback on whether you thought it meets WP:NJOURNAL. Here's the submission: Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Hand Therapy (Journal) Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  04:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had a look and there's actually quite a lot to say about this article and the other submissions of this editor. This person most probably works for Sage Publishers. The reason I am saying this is because they a/ only create articles on Sage journals and b/ their articles look like made from the same template as used by User:Luke.j.ruby, who stated that he worked for Sage. Some telltale signs are inclusion of the phrase "Scandinavian Journal of Surgery is abstracted and indexed in, among other databases: SCOPUS, and the Social Sciences Citation Index" under "Abstracting and indexing" (which in the case of the Scandinavian Journal of Surgery obviously is incorrect: it will be in the SCI, not the SSCI), made-up ISO 4 abbreviations, and a "scope" statement that is basically copied from the journal homepage, which usually is not linked to (in the case of Hand Therapy, the homepage is http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal202181/title, not http://hth.sagepub.com/). Everything in these articles needs to be checked: links, abbreviations, ISSN, etc, because sometimes they forget to update those fields after copying it from another journal. The abstracting and indexing section is generally very deficient (apart from the errors mentioned above), the journal homepage generally mentions many more databases. In the current case, Scopus (not "SCOPUS") is not mentioned on the homepage of the journal, but it is indeed included (recently, the homepage is probably not yet updated) in the Scopus journal list, so it meets NJournals. The reference used is not very helpful, because you need to have access to Scopus in order to see it. Better to use the reference to the (Excel) journal list that I have on my userpage. I guess it's an improvement that they now go through AfC, but the downside of that is that I don't see any new articles in the new-article feed any more and not all AfC volunteers are familiar with academic journals (I have seen quite notable journals rejected for lack of notability, but also the complete opposite). Hope this helps... --Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

mr. world of un-necessary computer damage and making the most wanted information the hardest to find
That's absurd. There's a world of people who spill their keyboard and would like advice.

The internet is not yours to decide. And your not good at it.

You can sound cheery if you like. I don't beleive a word of it. Leave the tip alone.

And leave my page alone and stop watching my page. Leave me alone. go delete your own stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facistdeleter (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All contributions to WP are welcome, but to paraphrase "WP is not yours to decide". Of course people are interested in tips, but tips is not what WP is about. It is an encyclopedia and a community effort and you cannot just tell people to go away. I'm sorry if my well-intended advice irritated you, but please realize that communities have rules and you'll have to follow them if you want to be an effective contributor here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International affairs (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) 09:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Jaroniec
This article was proposed for speedy deletion because it didn't met WP:Academic guideline? It says clearly that he was a research fellow at the National Science Foundation or being research fellow is not the same as being a fellow. Could you come to user Frank talkpage for a discussion. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you do the same for this article? Srinivasan Seshan, his h-index is 38, and I provided two refs, one of which is a CV. Not suppose to be a problem?--Mishae (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that this wasn't proposed for speedy deletion (A7), because your article doesn't even have the slightest claim of notability (publishing and being a scientist are not claims for notability). You will have to write your article (and provide sources for that) to show why this person is notable. Don't panic, you have almost a week left before the article actually risks being deleted. Once you have done this, I'm sure the article will not be deleted any more. Do not simply remove the PROD template, as that will just result in someone taking it to AfD and that would be a waste of community time. A start could be to add citation data and cite his GS profile. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Mishae (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As if that wasn't enough someone marked this article for deletion: Brad Karp? I provided a reference and Google Scholar with no avail. Mind for a comment?--Mishae (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!--Mishae (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Check it out: Brad Karp. People think we are real villains and bashing GS. Plus, calling my articles a hilarity... Hm, can you show those clowns a way of respect by typing them your opinion?--Mishae (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look here. Another one of my articles is nominated for deletion! Rajeev Rastogi I commented on its page saying that the h-index is way above norm here: 56. Can you throw your two cents in the discussion? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, can you point me out the line which makes the above article not neutral??? First time ever I got accused of writing a non neutral article:

"This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral."--Mishae (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Hi, I !voted in the AfD, but you really have to make an effort to make your articles more substantive and showing notability clearer. The tags are really justified, because you didn't use any sources (except GS) that are independent of the person himself. Suppose he had been involved in some controversy some time in the past in which he looked bad (I'm not saying that is the case here, just for the sake of the argument). He would hardly put that in his CV or on his lab page, wouldn't he? So by basing your article solely on sources affiliated with the subject, you do indeed run the risk that significant (negative) information is not presented. This is not necessarily something scandalous, but could just simply be people that have criticized his work, for example. By writing such brief stubs and basing them solely on this kind of sources, you should not be surprised that people take them to AfD. Not everyone knows that such a high h-index makes someone notable and if people see a stub based solely on affiliated sources, they often conclude immediately that the person is not notable...

BTW, you don't need to alert me about every AfD of one of your articles. I look at every AfD of academics and will see them in any case and comment where necessary. By calling for my help every time, you risk being accused of canvassing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Randy. I don't think I will be accused of canvassing just because I notify you because of your experience in the field (You always bring valid and long points) which I highly appreciate! As far as notability goes, as I said earlier, academics don't appear in many independent sources (including newspapers). Like, sportspeople for example are easy, they appear in every sports section of the newspaper whether its online or not. Academics don't. I usually find articles on specific new innovation that was highly praised but then it says either about an invention or about someone who "was not a member of research group". Tell me now how to write those articles if the independent sources are almost a null for any academic?--Mishae (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I cleaned up the Rajeev Rastogi a bit by adding one reliable source and another probably reliable as well...--Mishae (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My replacing back redirects, and templates.
Looks like I figured out my error just shortly after you saw it.

I was originally looking at one of the pages based on a log from an archiver bot which was apparently going to the wrong page. That was resolved, but the page then was no longer a redirect. That was what prompted the change on my part.Makyen (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Talk pages don't really need a redirect (almost nobody goes directly to a talk page anyway), but they are handy if no project tags them. WPJournals does, so then a redirect is not necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can accept that. However, I disagree with it.  Leaving the page without the redirect results in a likely case, in some instances, that a user will end up there by mistake from an old link to a talk page. Without the redirect, or at least a banner across the page saying where to go, they might have a inconvenient time of figuring out how to get to the right place. Another possibility is that a new user might end up going there and adding a new section with the expectation of a response (unlikely, but possible). In addition, bots and templates are unlikely to be currently programed to figure out that there is a problem.


 * As an example of the possibility that users could end up on the page, Talk:Nasen has 8 links to it which now do not end up on the talk page which was intended.


 * IMO, a better solution would be to tag the page while leaving the redirect in place. As I understand it, the primary reason to tag the page is that it shows up in a category. It would still do so while having none of the drawbacks of eliminating the redirect. The primary difference is that the tag is not actually shown to someone who goes to the page. Given that it is not desirable for them to be on the page, that is a not really a good reason to just have the tag without the redirect.


 * I am interested in learning more about the reasons for this decision. Where might I find a statement of this policy, or where it was discussed? Thanks. Makyen (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't see this happening. Newbie's don't get much to talk pages to start with. And if someone lands on a talk page by mistake that has a banner "redirect", then clicking on the article tab will bring them to the correct article (because that, of course, remains redirected) and the attached talk page there is of course the one pertinent to that article. There's probably some guideline or other about this, but I honestly cannot remember where (perhaps someone at the helpdesk knows). I have been doing this for years now and this is the first time somebody seems to think it might cause a problem. --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What should I do
Today I wrote about a professor which is an Egyptian and used CV as a reference, I also added Google Scholar with no avail only to see my article being deleted seconds after my save! This user Deb have deleted my article in which she stated that my article was a meant of promotion. Since when did CV considered to be a promotion, not a reference! It sounds like, I can't use Google Scholar because some folks don't think its legit, I can't use official sites (other then as an external link), and now I can't use CV's either, while the whole internet is full of notable academics that some users here don't let me write about, by putting the highly cited works for AfD and even accusing me of advertising someone. Can you help me, please as my head is now boils in anger.--Mishae (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not being an admin, I cannot see the article now that it is deleted. The GS profile of Moustafa Youssef certainly shows notability. You can use a CV as a source/reference, but only for uncontroversial matters, such as where/when a person worked/studied. As it is not an independent reference, you cannot use it to source awards and honors and it does not contribute to showing notability. For that, you need independent sources (of which GS is one). Usually, to meet WP:GNG you would need at least 2 independent sources. For WP:ACADEMIC that is less clear and just the citation data would probably be enough for a "keep" at an AfD just on that basis. What you can do is ask the admin who deleted the article to "userfy" the article for you (that means placing it in your userspace), where you can work on it (remove enything that could be construed as promotional, perhaps finding some other sources). I'll have a look at it too and when you think it is ready to go back to article space, you can ask Deb to check it and place it back if they think it is good enough now. I think part of the problem here is an apparent history of repeatedly created promotional bios. Don't get angry, patience is always the best strategy here, although I agree that WP can be frustrating :-) --Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wont ask that woman anything, she already showed me the way, as a good faith editor does. :( Why couldn't she put it on AfD? That way the editors could have commented on the article and even help me improve it... Sigh, I need to do it only when she is not present or hide the text. Wish she could have admin privileges being removed. I would have been a better admin then she is! Wikipedia have many good people, but then you come across such folks to whom Wikipedia needed to be closed forever... Yes, you are right, WP can be frustrating when you deal with such people as Deb upon others that used to come across which I used to dislike as much. And then we have people like you, me, Ironholds, my mentor user user:koavf and many other great editors that will assist me rather then provoke me. O' and you probably haven't seen what she put on my talkpage? Implying that I don't know what Reliable Source means, taking me as a fool I guess. Like look at my Alyona Osmanova article and tell me if she could have used blp sources tag instead of deletion?--Mishae (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have, at your request, placed the article at User:Mishae/Moustafa Youssef. Frankly, I'm disgusted by this person's attitude as shown above. Perhaps you could explain to him the purpose of the sandbox and the Articles for Creation process, and the fact that other contributors are not here to clean up after him. Incidentally, the article had been deleted five times previously, though I don't believe it was about the same person of that name. I've only userfied the latest version. Deb (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Deb, I perfectly understand that people aren't here to clean up my mess, but you need to know that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that people have differences as well. Personally for me, its not easy to write an article since English is my second language, I encourage you to take a note of it, because in the future, you might run in simmilar people either here or in your real life. Yes, I used to create some article on non notables before I got accustumed with GS and CVs, so, in my opinion, I am doing a lot better now. If only you would have treated me like an editor that is here to help the project rather then a fool that is here to create a mess, I will treat you much differently... So, please, change your deletion process, and I will surely change my tone toward you. :) As far as the article goes, if it was deleted five times before, doesn't mean that it was me (because it wasn't) that created it in 2008, and it doesn't mean that you need to walk through Recent Changes and remove it per whatever criteria you find suitable for your tastes (because G11 wasn't applied here). You could have just PROD it, that what good faith editors do. --Mishae (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Not sure
What you are up to, that editor ever rarely edits, removes a heap of tags you put there 7 months ago, and you cannot help yourself - have you read the talk page? Please read, he is a notable person, please read what happened before placing the tags back back... If anyone has that amount of publications, and had positions as state, then there is no doubt it clears the hurdle. satusuro 11:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?? --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Graham McKenzie Smith is not an academic, he was a notable published forester in Western Australia and Canberra, befor ehe retired and became a military historian. You seem to have taken issue with a very low edit editor, by mulitiple tags, who has added appropriate 3rd party refs, and simply replaced tags from April.  I would say that shows a lack of reading what the additional material actually significies and also the comments by the admin who has put a comment on the talk page. satusuro 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham_McKenzie_Smith&diff=573581841&oldid=573554526 try that for size satusuro 11:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let me try to understand this. Somehow the fact that the editor who removed the tags has few edits is unimportant and means I should not put them back. ALL references in the article are authored by the subject except for one extremely brief newspaper snippet, but in your last edit summary you claim "sources are valid 3rd party sources" and apparently this all shows notability. Oh, and then there is of course the claim on the talk page that reliable sources exist, but nobody ha bothered to add them to the article, but hey, what the heck, that must mean this person is notable so the tag has to go? Am I missing something here? --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * not sure what you are missing
 * The academic tag has gone and stays off
 * The orphan tag is valid
 * As for the other tags, well - you jump on it 7 months after the first tag, it is not going to get deleted, you can wait for some further links with other articles and refs to be added I am sure...
 * you seem like a patient type, I have seen articles in Australian project space wait a year before they are fixed up satusuro 12:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm usually patient (and I have indeed left this stub alone since April). However, I have no patience for non-notable articles where people take of the tags without addressing the problems, just saying "NODEADLINE". Meanwhile, I have looked at the "sources" mentioned on the talk page. Nothing indicates a shred of notability. I have to leave now, when I get back I'll prepare an AFD statement and you can give your policy-based arguments on why this should stay there. --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it is now in user space for more work on it, enjoy your new year - cheers  satusuro 13:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. And Happy New Year to you, too! --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your non-admin closure of Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians
Hello! I would request that you revert your closure and allow an administrator to do so instead per the non-admin closure essay points. It's clear there's contention about how those sources meet the notability guidelines. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I really don't see how this was contentious. There is an obvious consensus with only the nom (you) arguing for deletion and everybody else for keeping the article. The sources seem appropriate to me and the keep arguments are solidly policy-based. This does not seem to be one of the cases listed in WP:BADNAC either, so I stand to my close. You are of course welcome to take this to WP:Deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the argument that there were sources that met the guideline was not actually addressed, but I won't belabor the point here, I'll take it to DRV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace
Since you responded to me, then the AfD closed, I guess I have to answer you here. I actually went to the admin who had relisted it twice and asked him to do something. At that point, it was 2 delete and 2 keep. Your comment, however, makes it look like I made no effort and just sat there thinking up a conspiracy theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you said something like "why is this not closed just to get more delete votes" (I'm paraphrasing, I'm a bit too lazy right now to look up the exact words :-) which seemed to imply to me that you were thinking that the AfD was not being closed on purpose. With about a thousand admins that can perform such a closure, that's a bit of a stretch. And Mark Arsten may have been busy or not feeling like closing this one for whatever other reason, so it's most of the times more effective to go to Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for the help on the Tausch article from User John de Norrona. Wikipedia is good, but a complicated thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Norrona (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Spam?
Are you familiar with this outfit? They're the most recent journal spammers in my inbox. For tonight, gelukkig nieuwjaar! I'm about to get my oliebollenbeslag going. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're part of the Centre for Promoting Ideas and are on Beall's list of predatory OA publishers. They really put in an effort to look respectable: American International Journal, no less :-DD You wonder who is silly enough to agree being an editor or ed board member for an outfit like this... No oliebollen for me, but huge amounts of Middle-Eastern food with some Southern French additions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks--that's interesting. I remember reading about the Cornell thing a while ago. I'm going to use your talk page as a clearinghouse if you don't mind, haha. Glad to hear you had a nice oudejaarsavond--my oliebollen were not a success: the recipe on About.com is crap. I think it's twice the right amount of yeast they're suggesting. Anyway, the Americans here didn't complain, but then, everything that's fried is good. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability of an academic
Would you like to comment on Henryk Witek before I AFD it (prod declined)? If you reply here, please echo me. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look. His web page does not indicate any awards, so I looked at his citation record.There's another scholar called Helvi Witek, which makes it a bit difficult, but the citation results I got from Web of Science should be about right. They are around our usual threshold for notability: About 800 citations (highest counts 94, 84, 57; but note that he's neither first nor last author on the first and the third ones) and an h-index of 15. The number of citations he gets per year seems to be growing and is currently at about 100, so peering into my crystal ball I would expect that he'd be clearly above the bar in a few more years. At this point I'd say he's below, but the outcome of an AfD could go both ways depending on how stringent people want to interpret our criteria. I'm afraid this doesn't help too much... --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

World Intellectual Property Review
Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. I suppose my edit summary "clearly notable in my opinion" was quite vague. My apologies! I think the article should be kept at least in view of WP:MANYLINKS and WP:HASPOT. --Edcolins (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll see whether I can find any sources. If I don't find any, I might take it to AfD, so keep it watchlisted for now. --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found one external source, which seems to be independent from the subject... The circulation is not negligible: about 5,200 copies per issue. --Edcolins (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... why is the abbreviation "not needed"? It is prominently shown on their web site and here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's an acronym that is not used in the rest of the article (given its size, that's hardly necessary either). So I guess that only illiterates would need someone to tell them what the acronym is and somehow I don't think many illiterates read WP... :-)) Seriously, somewhere in WP:MOS or related style guidelines it is said only to introduce acronyms if they are used in the article. If you like, I can try to locate it. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It seems that, per MOS:BOLDSYN, the abbreviation should be indicated in the lead if it is a common abbreviation. The abbreviation WIPR is common for "World Intellectual Property Review" and should therefore remain IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I read BOLDSYN (which deals with bolding, not content) it means that if an abbreviation is mentioned in the lead and if it is common, then it should be in bold. If there were such an abbreviation in this case (something like "WInProRev"), that could be added. WIPR is just a simple acronym, not used in the rest of the article. No need to put it there and even less to bold it. However, "no need" doesn't mean "shouldn't", so if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it back. --Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I think the abbreviation should be mentioned, so I have added it again. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejuvenation Research
Could you please explain why my edit on this article was "unnecessary". The quote on its own is clearly negative, the article is not. A quote should be representative of the tone of the article. Feyre (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole bloody article is contentious all the time, so please take it to the talk page there if you feel something is amiss. --Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

MLearn
I object to the AFD PROD on the MLearn conference page. I started on improving the page and wonder what is required to settle the issue (and remove the AFD). (I hope this is the correct way). Phish108 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you can remove a PROD tag, but not an AFD tag. If you object to the deletion, you should post a !vote on the appropriate discussion page. However, first read the appropriate policy page, because !votes that are not policy based are bound to be ignored. I see that you have worked on the article (but from comments on the talk page, I surmise that you also need to read our conflict-of-interest guidelines), but I am afraid that this still does not show any notability in the WP sense (which has nothing whatsoever to do with good/bad/meriting/important/etc). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A good education on Wikipedia process
Hi Randykitty, as my first experience with the AfD process I have to say I am impressed. Consensus on polarised issues is never easy. Thanks for your contributions, especially regarding process. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yes, WP process can be confusing and not a little bit daunting at first. But generally one get's the hang of it rather fast, because there is really some logic to all the madness :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

wow you really know a lot!!!
I am impressed! Just give me some time - I am slowly building the page. It is a big lab with many researchers and it is not likely to disappear soon. In addition, there is a number of labs of CNRS that have pages on wikipedia e.g. * Centre d'Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy, Institut d'astrophysique de Paris, Institut de biologie moléculaire et cellulaire, Institut Jean Nicod, Laboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie, Laboratoire d'Informatique, de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier, Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems,  Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6, Laboratoire d'informatique pour la mécanique et les sciences de l'ingénieur, Observatoire océanologique de Banyuls-sur-Mer, SOLEIL, Mistrals. Thank you very much! And as I said: I am very impressed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inocinnamon83 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nature, nurture, various associated terms
Hi, Randykitty,

I see one editor on the talk page of the article now known as Nature versus nurture has proposed a rename to Nature and nurture, which of course is a change I could live with. After looking at your user page, I see that you are quite astute about process here on Wikipedia and also an advocate of using reliable sources, so I'd especially appreciate your suggestion of any sources that would help guide all of us editors to a policy-based consensus on which of the several possible terms serves best as the article title among all the terms already set as redirects. Thanks for any suggestions of sources you have. (P.S., I was able to find and download several of the sources you mentioned on Behavioural genetics on my last visit to my university library, and could obtain the rest as needed gradually by interlibrary loan. Thanks for those suggestions.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Muench
I suggested the article on Gerald Muench be deleted, primarily due to a lack of notability. I don't appreciate having my suggestion called "unhelpful" (on the IP talk page). I also don't appreciate the ignorant assertion that I carried out any vandalism (ever). As it happens, I am using a new IP, and was curious whether anyone had made any previous WP contributions from this IP. Only one, which was the article on Gerald Muench. I did not check what the edits were, and as far as I'm concerned they're irrelevant. I stand by my proposition the article be deleted. —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC))
 * Wow, what a coincidence! There's an IP whose only contribution ever is to vandalize the Muench article. And then 6 months later apparently somebody else gets that IP and their first contribution is to put an (invalid) AFD tag on the very same article! And we have over 4 million articles! I'll remove that tag again, because starting an AFD implies a lot more than placing an AFD tag. The warning not to remove it only applies to real AFDs, which only can be started by registered users, not IPs. So if you want this article to go to AFD, you'll either have to find a registered editor willing to do this for you or register yourself (and then people won't think you're a vandal because somebody else using your IP did something silly). --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As Shakespeare says
"bear with me ..." (Julis Caesar) I spent a long time now re-editing the Tausch article (until around 2000) and also trying to fix the reference, our passionate critic of Israel, Wikipedia colleague Abdelwayyed (hope that's correctly spelt) has made in the Arab Center of Policy Studies and Research article. When I finished, I saw that, possibly, yet another Wikipedia catastrophy is around the corner, namely the message on the screen that again colleague Randykitty is again reviewing user John de Norrona. The outstanding sources for the last decade of the Tausch research will be improved, commas etc. here and there will be fixed and then I hope to be able to move to other BRICS related articles. All these tildes, commas, > and < etc are all very complicated, and a problem for a beginner is also that before you finished your work, others already start to change it. So please accept my Shakespeare quotation and give me time until say, the beginning of next week John de Norrona (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC) John de Norrona (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit to being puzzled: as far as I can see, I haven't edited any article that you have worked on since at least 11 days, so I have no clue what you are talking about. I certainly have not edited the article on that Arab Center. As for your edits to the Tausch article, they are disproportionate. Please pare things down. Also, beware of original research. Some of that text just reads as if you know what Tausch is thinking. Unless you have independent reliable sources, you should not make such inferences. BTW, even if I were "reviewing" your edits, why would that be "yet another Wikipedia catastrophy"? --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

For the time being please do not do anything with the article I am WORKING ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (John de Norrona (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that and I haven't interfered with your editing, just bringing the problems to your attention. I'm afraid that I have to say that the article seems to be getting worse with every single edit... Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also keep in mind that we're talking here about a minor academic, whose bio was deleted a couple of years ago for not meeting WP:ACADEMIC and recently just scraped by that guideline. Reading the article now, this is a giant of diplomacy, political science, and whatnot. Some of your "references" are actually assertions, and unsourced ones at that... The article needs paring down and toning down, no need to fawn over somebody, just neutrally report what others have said about this person, not what he himself thinks about himself or what you think about him. --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and help, and I hope that the article in its new form with independent sources etc. is now corresponding to Wikipedia standards Best wishes. PS the catastrophy word was just a joke. It referred to these red signs bubbling up when you don't run insert the reference signs. Please tell me what you think now John de Norrona (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

International Policy Digest
Similar to the question above regarding Rejuvenation Research, why is it that Wikipedia demands that new pages have a large amounts of content before being considered and then, only later, have someone come through and gut everything out of the page, deeming the information as 'fluff' or 'unnecessary'? If it's unnecessary, then why are individuals instructed to provide the content in the first place; why spend the hours gathering information just to have it all deleted, again? There's a reason why this project is circling the drain and its because the time and effort people commit to bettering the project is completely gutted by editors. If the information on a page is unnecessary, then do not instruct users to provide the content in the first place. You can respond if you want. I'm done with this organization and will not read the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpsilonRed (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. A project with over 4 million articles on any subject imaginable does tend to become complex. I'm not sure what you are referring to above when you say that "Wikipedia demands that new pages have a large amounts of content before being considered". I have not looked at every edit to that article in detail, but what I see is requests for sources, not expansion of content. There is no problem with articles being brief, but there is a problem with articles that don't have sufficient sources, because readers need to be able to verify content in independent sources and articles have to show that their subject is notable. Creating new articles is one of the more difficult things here and, looking at your edit history which consists exclusively of edits connected to this magazine, it is even more difficult if you are connected to a subject or otherwise feel very strongly about it. Inn general, it is better to start with smaller edits to existing articles in order to get a feel for how things are being done. After a while, things will become clearer and you'll know better what is needed/not needed when creating an article and I guarantee you that editing here can be very rewarding, if you make the effort to get through the difficult beginning. Many editors, myself included, are more than happy to help you if you post a query on their talk pages. I hope that despite the above you'll read this and decide to stay. --Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/People's Republic of Zhongtai
Why did you close the same day as created? Why Speedy? It made me delete in haste (my fault) while working on other CSD cases. It was brought to my attention that I was in error. I concur and restored. This may be material for AfD, but then it has to be given time and discussed. that's what the AfD is for. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 14:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Read the article. It's a clear attack page, with unsourced claims of the restaurant being in violation of health regulations and being the ridicule of the whole of China. The restaurant owner is mentioned by name (making this a BLP issue). Claiming that a restaurant does not adhere to health regulations is a business killer, so something like that should not go to AFD, but speedy deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To use a hyphen or not?
Hi, I thought I'd alert you to this discussion, initiated in response to the Open access journal article being moved (again!). - Lawsonstu (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

playmates 2014

 * Hi there!


 * Thanks for rolling out the welcome mat. :)


 * I have a few questions / remarks regarding the MoS / your edit:
 * I only took a quick look at the MoS pages and then gave up - so sorry for asking something I might've found easily.


 * 1) The other PM pages currently have each PM's info box next to the article.
 * a) I didn't see the part in the MoS where it says it shouldn't be like that. Would you mind pointing it out to me? Thanks.
 * b) Imagine how this will look like when more PMs have been added. Imo the page already looks a bit sh1tty now, with more PMs it will be horrible. All of the articles will be at the top of the page while the info boxes will continue much longer. As long as there isn't a definite rule regarding this I'd prefer the former layout.


 * 2) Some of the other PM pages had their ToC removed just recently. Now I don't really give a monkey's, but my understanding was that that change was according to the MoS.


 * 3) IIRC there was some recent discussion regarding linking to each PM separately on the PB blog and what consitutes official pages and such. And I think your approach isn't quite according to wikipedia rules. Just sayin'.


 * 4) Unrelated to the article: How can I force text into the next line without indenting?


 * Cheers, 84.175.208.207 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm removing this list from my watchlist, it's trivial and unencyclopedic. As far as I am concerned a lot more is needed to become notable than shedding your clothes in Playboy, but I realize that I'm in the minority here and that the testosterone-driven adolescents will have the upper hand here, so I'll just refrain from editing that stuff further. As for your point 4, you can do that by leaving a blank line between the preceding text and the text you want unindented:

Like this. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with your sentiment regarding notability of PMs.
 * What I meant in point 4: A way without adding half a line of empty space between my two written lines.

See the difference

in those 4 lines? 84.175.208.207 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. No, sorry, I have no idea. Try the HelpDesk. --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archives of Oral Biology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BIOBASE (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) 09:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Randykitty.!
hi, thankyou Randykitty for your welcome on wikipedia. I have read your message and certainly i will ask you for any problems and queries. As you are a experienced and senior member of wikipedia. Thankyou again Randykitty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamusman (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect, i have created Uet Ksk campus so that the students who want to get admission here could have a little overview about this campus, No doubt it is a sub campus of Uet Lahore but it has become now a important university campus and needs to be on wikipedia. Moreover it has now about 1000 students and this is significant number of students in an engineering university, it has its own notability and significance so people want to know about it and i hope you understand the situation. One more point it was established in 2006 and now it's been 8 year of its existence, this is enough time and now there should be its wikipedia, both places where Uet lahore and Uet ksk campus are almost 36 kilometers away from each other and have different environment. One being fully established and one in the process of development. Uet ksk campus has its notability because it is in Kala shah kaku, surrounded by many important places mentioned in Kala shah Kaku wikipedia. In future the Uet ksk campus will be a heavy and main centre for Engineering and research. I just wrote wikipedia of Uet Ksk campus so that people/students may find this helpful and had a glance before getting admission here. Also i apologize for my inappropriate and incorporate behavior, as you i am new at wikipedia and getting it's rules with time. Hope you understand this and help me out in this matter. Thank you --usmanaslam (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you have posted this also on the discussion page, which is the appropriate place for discussing this issue, so I will respond there. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes i have posted it there but my this message includes apology for my behavior. One thing i would say that this article is just for study guideline and purely related to the study. This is not for my own publicity or neither it benefits me. So i hope that you being a senior member looks into this matter fairly. have a good day.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamusman (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Journal Appreciations for Rejuvenation Research

 * Several users before me have removed the appreciations comments for the page on Rejuvenation Research, and I have tried a few times now myself. It is clear that there are a significant number of people who feel the inclusion of the commentary is unfairly denigrating to the journal. I am confused why you have reverted their edits as well as mine, and was hoping you could explain to me why you feel the commentary should be included. Mostly Translucent (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding List of accounting journals‎
Hey Randykitty! Just a quick thank-you for your cleanup edits over at List of accounting journals‎. -- Well-rested Talk  16:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Academic imperialism
Over 3k hits on Google Books suggest this is a notable topic. I'll see if I can expand it, it could make for an amusing DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds like it :-) Have fun! --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Note
Note that I have made some comments in the Talk page of article about the site connected to the DIO astronomical journal, with a reference to the www.dioi.org site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.176.183 (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592936558 your edit] to Biozentrum University of Basel 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) 09:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * * Thomas A. Bickle (1991–1993)

PRAXIS Article modifications
Hello Randy, I began working on the article PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security. Thank you for your contributions. I added a reference to correct the year of foundation, and I se you have reversed that. Could you please explain the rationale? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:55, 31 Jan 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained that in the edit summary. You added a reference to an article in the first issue, giving 1981 as year of publication. However, there's no way to verify whether that year is correct. If I look at the volume numbers, 1985 seems to be the year of first publication. Where did you get that reference and is that a reliable source? --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I did not notice that explanation. Thank you. What I did is to look for the journal itself, I found the first issue, and I referenced it with the newly found info. You are right that other indirect info strongly suggests 1985, alas, for some reason, the first issue was indeed printed in 1981. (talk) user:Al83tito 18:30, 31 Jan 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Randy, I hope you are not too busy. I have a question for you, actually two. First, I have followed the guidance you pointed me to and I read WP:NJournals, based on that, I have added some more analysis on the notability of PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security, in its talk page. Could you kindly review it and weigh in? Thank you. Second, I am seeking your advice on something else. According to the WP guidelines on writing articles on journals, it is recommended to write a list of Editors-in-Chief. How do you go about referencing that? I believe using the journal itself is an admissible source for this kind of info. But how to cite it? It feels unnecessary to be entering an in-line citation for each Editor-in-Chief, referencing multiple volumes of the same journal. Is there a better, more advisable way? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 22:33, 5 Feb 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy of education page concerning Thales of Miletus
Please cast your vote to keep for Thales of Miletus on the Philosophy of education page. Stmullin (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you left me this message as I cannot remember ever having edited that article. WP:CANVAS? --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Work and stress
Hi Randykitten. Just a quick note. Restored opening sentence to article, established through consensus and settled on in October 2013. Not sure why the article needed to be restructured to be honest? Was not looking for "word for word" either as you said. Anyway, hope we can move on now. I'm fine with other changes made recently and will bow to consensus. Not worth the debate either. But we do need to ensure the article lede at least, is based on what the reliable source (publisher) actually says.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Randykitten. You seem to have a lot of experience with editing journal articles, and respect your objective opinion. A 2006 source from a professional society newsletter has just been used, instead of the actual publisher's current 2014 reliable source. Can you please consider my comments above, and on the talk page, regarding prior consensus in 2013 for the lede, reflecting what the most reliable source says, (albeit not word for word) not a source which is 8 years old. I just want to move on, but want this article to be based on the best reliable sources available for readers. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this discussion on the talk page of the article, I'll respond there. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Randy, you prodded this so I didn't prod it again but nominated it for deletion: Articles for deletion/Adam Weinstein. Cheers, Stalwart 111  02:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Industrial/organizational psychology
Could you weigh in on a discussion on the industrial/organizational psychology talk page. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that was the discussion I was referring to the other day when I suggested on the talk page of Work & Stress that you seek assistance with dispute resolution. Asking for a third opinion (see WP:3O could be a start and if that doesn't work you can escalate to the next step. The W&S discussion was enough for me for a while, I don't intend to get involved at the other article, too. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Gonomot
Please see: Talk:Gonomot

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

mol bio
Could I have your opinion on a rather interesting situation, on my talk page about Ariel Fernandez. I think I'm judging the notability correctly, but it has been decades since I taught protein structure.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)