Jump to content

User talk:Kenji1987

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Kenji1987, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, thank you for the warm welcome! Actually, I have no conflict of interest. I am researching the topic (predatory journals) for a longer period of time now. I saw that Mario Capecchi was incorrectly listed as being unjustly added as an editorial board member. I know that Beall got this information from eCampus News, which later posted a revision notice. But, my contribution has been consistently deleted, because of assumed conflict of interest (so Wikipedia regulation postulate guilty unless proven?). I am fine with the current version in which Mario Capecchi was removed (but I feel less fine that David Eppstein has threatened to block me for what I thought was solid scientific reporting!). I do not know how to show you that I am just your average researcher trying to make Wikipedia a little bit more trustworthy (I still do not allow my students to cite Wikipedia though!), and given that you have provided me tips above, I will study them, and might come back to you at a later stage. Having said that, I still think you do need to read the article written by Jeffrey Beall. He mentions that several editorial boards members were unjustly put on the editorial board, and he mentions that one investigation has revealed that. When asked about which investigation that was, he mentions eCampus News in the comments section. The same eCampus New that posted a revision notice! I do not dare to touch the MDPI article now, for the fear of being banned or blocked from the site, but I sincerely hope you could look into this. Thank you Randy!
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at MDPI‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We will discuss this further on the Talk section.

Kenji1987, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Kenji1987! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

[edit]

{{help me}}

Please help me with the article on MDPI. It is stated that several Nobel Laureates were added on the editorial boards of MDPI without their knowledge. After doing research, however, several Nobel Prize Laureates confirmed on their academic CV that they are an editorial board member of an MDPI journal. They include Mario Capecchi (http://capecchi.genetics.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Capecchi-CV-11.02.18.pdf), Eric S. Maskin (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/curriculum_vitae_e._maskin_july_2019.pdf), and Steven Weinberg (https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~weintech/CVSW0416.pdf). As Jeffrey Beall claims that several Nobel Laureates have been unwillingly added as an editorial board member, shouldn't we actually mention the other side as well in order to maintain neutrality? I will await the reply of a Wikipedia editor before I make the edit, as I do not want to be blocked for edit-warring. I added this on the Talk page of MDPI, and it says it has been answered, but actually, no one addressed me. Does this allow me to make the change?

Kenji1987 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot edit war, even if you believe you are right. You need to establish a consensus on the talk page before making the change and even then, you shouldn't go over 3 reverts in 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Land (journal) (September 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Fails WP:GNG - requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The MDPI website is a primary source and therefore not an acceptable reference.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Land (MDPI journal) has been accepted

[edit]
Land (MDPI journal), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
great thank you! Will be coming with more pages. Kenji1987 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most MDPI journals don't meet our notability threshold, so don't go overboard with that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. But I wasnt planning to include MDPI journals. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Predatory publishing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindawi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on OA and the WP environment

[edit]

I think your views on OA and suggested changes are quite sensible, but don't expect to make any real change around here cause you see there is a posse of admins with opposite views who guard those pages very closely and at the end of the day the bigger/more experienced crowd will always win on WP. The funny thing is IRL my views on these issues are much more nuanced than my WP opinions would suggest, but I am really not a fan of the acrytical cult-like worship of Beall's list and blatant anti-OA stance that are seemingly so prevalent around here. Case in point: Beall's page has well-sourced section on criticism to his list, but "somehow" there is no mention on it in the lead, even though the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. Go figure! Anyway, you wrote that you find the atmosphere here is toxic and unwelcoming, and unfortunately that is precisely the way WP often feels like. Nobody can help you so if it gets too nerve-wrecking I'd strongly suggest you take a break from editing, or leave WP altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kenji1987_WP:NOTHERE We have reached the point that they try to get me banned now. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Seeing how much time and energy you spend on arguing I am pretty sure you do not have a COI, or maybe you are the least efficient paid editor ever. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your advice and took a break, exactly, because of the time and energy spent arguing. cheers! Kenji1987 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reaching out to me. Same here. I added Beall to the PLOSOne page to make a point, but then admins were more hesitant to add this, because PLOSOne is the very symbol of open access, sharing knowledge, etc. or WP in short. That Beall called PLOSone a scientific spammer ruins this image for them, but that is what you get if you uncritically accept everything that Beall wrote 3 years (if not longer) ago. The guy did some good work, but completely lacked transparency, was literally a one-man army. But I am sure you know all about this. Kenji1987 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I do. Unfortunately (in this case, at least) WP is based on available sources, not on expertise or reasoned discussions. Beall made a lot of noise and received a lot of attention considering the technical nature of these issues, to the point that years later most of the sources still come from - or revolve around - his work. Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kenji1987, PLOSOne has published some absolute dreck. Nothing compared to MDPI and Frontiers, and it hasn't engaged in their thuggery against critics, but it's far from popular with those of us who care about source quality. Guy (help!) 08:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beall called them a scientific spammer and nothing more than a digital repository. Either you Beall or you Bealln'tKenji1987 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:Kenji1987_WP:NOTHERE

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --JBL (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied, good that you started the discussion, we can now see where I stand Kenji1987 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ong Soo Han (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR, requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable reference.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pity as there is a Germany wiki page for this actor. Kenji1987 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ong Soo Han

[edit]

Hello, Kenji1987. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ong Soo Han".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead delete, can't be bothered. Wikipedia is a messed up website, in which different standards prevail. I have absolutely no intention in adding anything to this, with the current culture here. So delete it, quickly. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JBL (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JBL for announcing this. Wishing you bests of luck in your endeavours, and please do not hesitate to contact me for further inquiries, if any. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Kenji1987. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to MDPI, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Kenji1987. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kenji1987|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Bjerrebæk (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I have nothing to disclose as I am not compensated, directly or indirectly, by MDPI or any other organization. I simply ask you to provide the relevant sources, that means no primary sources, such as with your recent MDPI and Donald Trump edits. Kenji1987 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI edits

[edit]

Hi Kenji. I'll start being perfectly clear that this is not an expression of concern regarding edits, even if a COI might be present. I think your edits have been fine throughout the time I've watched the various publisher pages. I was just curious if you do have any sort of tie to MDPI? It's striking that you're so regularly updating the page with minutia about total journal numbers, status of # of Level X journals etc... You clearly follow the company very closely. Could I respectfully ask you to disclose any information relevant to a potential COI?

Likewise, happy to disclose that I am MA Hanson here: https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=lfL-37cAAAAJ&hl=en (my Wiki commons IMG uploads also make this no secret, credit to "MA Hanson"). I have never published with MDPI or reviewed for MDPI. I do have one article in a Frontiers journal, and have reviewed for Frontiers on a couple occasions (relevant to the controversial publisher Wiki pages). --Crawdaunt (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crawdaunt, thank you for your introducing yourself here. I have no connections to MDPI, so nothing to disclose. I have done research on the topic of predatory publishing, and I wasn't happy with the Wikipages of MDPI and Frontiers. On MDPI, there was this persistent idea that Mario Capecchi, a Nobel prize winner, was wrongly added as editorial board member, though the original source did not mention anything about this. When I tried to remove this, some people asked me the same question as you, people were persistent that this information needed to stay on the Wiki page. Eventually it was removed, but I realized there were some endemic problems related to same of the pages here. Believe it or not, I have also been questioned about working for Frontiers at some point. I have added some controversies as well on the MDPI page, and I am also editing some other pages related to the subject, Scientific reports in particular. But now I largely abstain from editing, as I found it too stressful, though I do make small edits here and there. My personal opinion about scientific publishing is that most major scientific publishers, including MDPI and Frontiers, are largely corrupted. However, the way how some publishers are analyzed is a bit problematic, even borderline racist. For instance this paper: "Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)", specifically mentioned the following characteristic belonging to a predatory publisher: "predominance of editorial board members from developing countries" and discusses that it is problematic that "there is no specific limit to the number of editorial board members from developing countries that is considered a proper way of distinguishing between legitimate and predatory journals". Which is completely absurd to me, and racist (see here: https://academic.oup.com/rev/article/30/3/405/6348133). Or Jeffrey Beall which deemed the entire city of Bangalore to be full of scammers, is another example, or this persistent idea that MDPI is a Chinese publishers, because the CEO has a Chinese ethnicity (and the fact that they have many offices in China doesn't mean a thing, all the big publishers outsourced the "lower-end" jobs to developing countries, Elsevier chose India, T&F mainly Philippines). I find this concerning. I am not a big fan of MDPI (believe it or not), but I am not a fan of Elsevier either (for example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/elsevier-publishing-climate-science-fossil-fuels). So yes, initially I tried to make the Wikipages a bit more balanced, but I stopped doing that, except for modifying some facts and figures. I am not a fan of Frontiers either: they keep asking me to review articles I have absolutely no specialization in (I never reviewed for both publishers). Does that make them predatory? I'd rather blame the over-worked editorial assistants who have a certain quota that they need to fulfill. It is of course absurd that MDPI only asks you to review an article within 10 days, but I find it equally absurd that it takes 2-3 years for some other publishers/journals. So yes, sorry for writing more than you asked for (you just asked me a simple question), but this is my talk page, and I wanted to clarify how I look at these things, and also why I stopped editing (too stressful). I know you are not a great fan of MDPI, but in terms of editing, you do a fine job. I think the only solution is to bring scientific publishing back to universities and scholarly societies, and make everything green open access, no one pays, not the subscribers, not the authors, if any authors need to be paid for their work (and keep their own copyright, because you can better pay in money than pay with your intellectual property, which you give away without any hesitation to a greedy publisher, just to advance your career). Cheers. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kenji1987&oldid=1187231059"