User talk:Sunday9pm

testing the talk page sunday9pm (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Urban informatics (July 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * Draft:Urban informatics may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Sunday9pm Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_kenneth&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Sunday9pm reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Daniel kenneth (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Urban informatics
Hi Sunday9pm. First, thanks for the useful article on urban informatics. But could you fix the references in it if you get the chance? You can't use a book as a reference to itself - for example: there is the work of the late William J. Mitchell, Dean of the MIT School of Architecture and Planning, and author of the 1995 book "City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn. cites the book itself and that won't work because all it does is attest to the existence of the book which doesn't really indicate its important. You need to find some other reliable source that refers to this book and supports "precursors to this transdisciplinarity of "people, place, and technology." I assume the Foth cite does that and - if it does - it should be moved to where the city of bits citation is. There are many such examples in the article. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

IGI Global
Books published by IGI Global are not acceptable as sources here. IGI Global is a vanity press. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your entry on my talk page, Guy. It may be better if you place your comment on the Talk page of the Urban Informatics article itself. Fair enough that IGI Global in general is a vanity press publisher, however, if you access the research book chapter of the reference you are trying to remove, you will realise that this is study is respectable and peer reviewed research – so I don't see a reason to apply some dubious universal filter to remove everything from IGI without first checking the merits of the actual material. sunday9pm (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it may be better if you check my user page and edit history: . You are a single-purpose account displaying distinct ownership tendencies, I have edited many thousands of articles and I specialise in dealing with poor quality academic publishing. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I did visit your user page, Guy, and I see you are on a personal witch hunt to remove vanity press references. Good on you, but I do not see the merit in your practice that is akin to running a bot. I prefer to actually validate the merits of the research work rather than to apply rules without thinking first. sunday9pm (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a witch hunt - or at least of it is, it's because they are literal witches. And they are rules. And I did think first. So now we have arrived at the point where I begin to suspect you are one of the authors. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not one of the authors. I do edit in my area of expertise rather than in a shotgun approach across all of Wikipedia. And in all of this, so far you have only provided a link to the Wikipedia article on vanity press. Can you point me to a Wikipedia rule page that says articles by those publishers cannot be cited at all? Furthermore, your accusation of SPA applies to you more than me: "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic" – your user page Guy proclaims how many edits you have done all with one single purpose. I also found this interesting to read, you may, too: WP:BITE sunday9pm (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You edit one article. And you revert changes within a couple of hours even though you have not edited for weeks. See WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)