Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Socrates Journal

Hey Randy, I think that you'll probably have to take Socrates Journal to AfD. It's kind of at the halfsies way of being promotional and it also looks like it's been re-created at least once, so odds are that even if is it deleted it'd just be re-created again. I'm also concerned that there's some obvious socking going on with the various editors, so I may open up an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the deletion/salting. I'm afraid you're right about the AfD, these people are tenacious. But as long as the articles they create remain as promotional as they have been up till now, G11 is just as fast as G4 :-) The journal is so clearly non-notable, that I don't really want to waste the community's (and mine!) time on an AfD if not really necessary... --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Changetrl

Hey Randy you previously deleted a page Numeer nabi i found few links for notability since ur on holiday so i add them please take a look Changetrl (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year

  • THanks for the wishes, I also wish you a happy and healthy new year. As for the Numeer Nabi article, I see that someone has already tagged it for speedy deletion. I'll leave it up to a different admin to evaluate the merits of that tag. In general, creating articles is one of the most difficult thing on WP. Please make sure that any articles you create show, using independent reliable sources that the subject is notable. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

List of unique county names

Hi. Could you please post the content of the deleted article into my sandbox or something of the like. I didn't get a chance to copy the info and I didn't expect it to be deleted so suddenly. Thanks. Shabidoo | Talk 17:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: There is a reason why it was deleted. It was OR, not an encyclopedic entry. Its debatable what is unique. And even if its not OR, its the same thing as creating a list of McDonald's meals and add it to a McDonald's article. Nobody will read the list either way, since lists are not always encyclopedic or helpful (at least the list that you created). Take a look at Category:Lists of airports to see what a list should look like, to meet the notability guideline.--Mishae (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this is not the first deletion debate on this article, but I'm having trouble finding the previous debate. Could you point me in the right direction? YBG (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(the following is unrelated to the thread immediately above) YBG (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kitty. Mishae this isn't the place to debate whether the article should be deleted or not. The discussion is over. --Shabidoo | Talk 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Shabidoo: Sorry, but I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't debating, I assumed that you are new and tried to explain.--Mishae (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
OK I see. No...I understand why the article was deleted...there was consensus, I just didn't expect it to be deleted so suddenly and I didn't copy the info in time before it was deleted. --Shabidoo | Talk 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Filippo Menczer

Don't get it why you say that {{talk header}} is not necessary. Just because there is no heated discussion doesn't mean that there wont be any. I for one use all the time in advance. Because really, who knows if a vandal will come? And by doing this revert, you are treating me as one! [1]--Mishae (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Mishae, I'm not treating you as a vandal and I'm sorry if you perceived it as such. Reverting is not just for vandals... As for the template, just clock on it in your comment above and then read the doc, especially where it says: "This template should only be placed where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template." --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, but I already did it to a ton of them and no one really bothered by it. So, I am shocked that you founded to be useless of an edit. :( Like, how do we know if the article will get heated in a near future? For me, every academic, politician, sports person, etc is a subject to OR edits. That's the main reason why I put this template, we need to protect BLPs, right?--Mishae (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There simply is no need for this, it's a waste of time. No need to go around removing them either (which is probably why nobody remarked about this before: nobody goes around searching for these things). Better save your valuable edit time for more important things. Like battling OR and BLP issues if they really occur (and the vast majority of bios luckily remain free of that). --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Plus, it says in that template thing: "However, this is not an absolute rule, and editors should use common sense when deciding its placement." Which means that if I feel that a potential article might become a controversy in a near future I should try to warn potential new comers that way, besides why not you take a look at the Filippo Menczer article right now, instead of reverting stuff that is as you said are not vandalic. I suspect that the last 2 refs there are not necessary since they don't talk about him.--Mishae (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Another thing to mention, I don't go and insert this template to every talkpage, I just do it manually by inserting this and WikiProjects as well. And if nobody goes around searching for these things, why did you?--Mishae (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Not so prickly... I didn't go "searching". That article was on my watchlist and I check all edits to articles on that list routinely. Just trying to save you some time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, thanks but no thanks. Since I put this template only on the articles that I create, and I don't put it on animals and plants since non of those will complain. However, when it comes to BLP in my opinion it is worth to put out. Plus, it reminds me how to be civil as well. Not that I usually not, but when there is a heated discussion, I can loose my cool without that template. I'm wondering if its O.K. to put the template after this edit?: [2]--Mishae (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

S. Jay Olshansky

I moved all the material that has no date associated with it out of the biography section and into one paragraph, below the lede, and referenced it to his website (the biographical profile in his book has the same text). I spent an hour looking for a profile of him published anywhere, and still have not found one. I am sure he is worth an article, he is mentioned in numerous current articles in Google News, but there is no real biographical profile of him anywhere that I can find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • That's a recurring problem with academics, where we can find sources about their work, but rarely about themselves. I'll have a look and see what I can find. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Instead of arguing with each other over what citations style to use, why don't we concentrate on the content of the article. Removing the quote parameter leaves the impression that there is an awesome biography of him in the citation when in fact there is just a sentence describing his title at the school. If you do not like the quote parameter, argue for the removal globally at the talk page of the template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sneha Thakker

Just wanted to draw your attention to this article because I just saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneha Krunal Thakker. The same article is created on GU wiki and we are also debating whether to keep or delete.--Vyom25 (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Martin (boxer)

Randy, could you please give this article another look. Ryan Martin has a plethora of encyclopedic information with articles from reliable sources for over 10 years. The page was deleted because people said he didn't meet NBOX which was very controversial due to his age groups (we can't make people older than they were). Being that this was being disputed for so long, others believed, including myself he met WP:GNG. Can we please bring the page back and specifically address WP:GNG, if it's absolutely been determined he doesn't meet NBOX? C.dunkin (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeat of arguments presented during AfD
  • It is reasonable to say that the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) was that the subject fails WP:NBOX.
    • Three established editors said the subject passes WP:NBOX: C.dunkin, Tony the Marine, and In ictu oculi.
    • Seven established editors said the subject fails WP:NBOX: Mdtemp, PRehse, Murry1975, Papaursa, Nonsenseferret, Jakejr, and Astudent0.
    • Three established editors did not mention WP:NBOX: Primefac, AntonioMartin, and Cunard.
    It is not reasonable to say that the consensus was the subject fails WP:GNG.
    • Two established editors discussed the sources and said the subject passes WP:GNG: C.dunkin and Cunard.
    • One established editor discussed the sources and said the subject fails WP:GNG: Jakejr.
    • Ten established editors did not mention the sources I posted: Tony the Marine, In ictu oculi, Mdtemp, PRehse, Murry1975, Papaursa, Nonsenseferret, Astudent0, Primefac, and AntonioMartin.

    The only editor who said the subject fails WP:GNG wrote:

    I would say he lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. These articles mentioned tend to be fight results or press releases for upcoming bouts (or be on websites of dubious reliability).

    I don't think these three sources (which I listed at the AfD) can be considered "fight results or press releases for upcoming bouts" or from "websites of dubious reliability":
    1. Bush, Ron (2013-09-07). "Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin to begin pro boxing". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      After more than 200 amateur fights and 12 national championships under various labels, Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin has gone pro. And he's hooked up with someone whose very name means coin.

      Martin, most recently a Golden Gloves 132- and 141-pound open participant, is set to make his professional debut in the 135-pound lightweight class on Sept. 16 at the Resorts World Casino in New York City. He has a promotional deal with SMS Promotions, owned by rapper 50 Cent.

    2. Wiedmer, Mark (2014-04-18). "Wiedmer: Martin on verge of boxing stardom". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      Ryan Martin was pushing a lawnmower around a Hixson front yard last September, trying to put an extra $20 in his pocket, when his cell phone rang.

      "It was [the rapper] 50 Cent and Tim [VanNewhouse]," he said. "They wanted me to box for them full time. I couldn't believe it."

      Assuming "Blue Chip" Martin improves to 5-0 following tonight's lightweight bout against Misael Chacon in Monroeville, Pa., the whole country could believe in him come July 2. That's when ESPN would televise a bout including Martin on its "Wednesday Night Fight" show.

    3. Shahen, Paul (2014-05-16). "Chattanooga's Ryan Martin featured in 50 Cent's new music video". WRCB. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      Pro boxer Ryan Martin goes from the ring to the big screen in 50 Cent's newest music video. The song is conveniently named "Winners Circle" and it makes sense because since Martin turned pro he's spent a lot of time in the winners circle.

      Martin signed with 50 Cent's boxing label SMS Promotions last year. The former West Side Boxer in Chattanooga is off to a 5-0 pro start with three knockouts.

    The Chattanooga Times Free Press is a reliable newspaper and WRCB is a reliable NBC affiliated television station. These articles are not "press releases" or merely about "fight results". They discuss the subject in detail and amount to "significant coverage".

    Please reconsider your close.

    Cunard (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

entirely localized or specialised routine coverage, we've established clearly this is a non notable boxer. Gng claim is ridiculous. I would be interested to see the results of SPI in this case. --nonsense ferret 12:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Entirely localized coverage? this makes me believe you haven't done your Due-diligence. C.dunkin (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Martin has been featured by every major publication/website in boxing, including Ring Magazine Here's a few others, just to keep it short. [1]

    The article notes:

    Why he’s a prospect: Martin had a very impressive amateur background during which he fought over 200 fights, winning 12 national titles to form a very solid base from which to start.

    Martin won the National Junior Golden Gloves title three times (2005-07), the National Silver Gloves (2005) and National Junior Olympics (2006) among other tournaments. He also competed in numerous international duels. His U-19 National title win in 2009 should be viewed as the biggest success of his amateur career. Early in Martin’s amateur career he was tabbed by then middleweight champion of the world Jermain Taylor as one to look out for.

    Taylor dubbed Martin “Kid London.”

    • [2]

    The article notes:

    In this interview, lightweight Ryan Martin (5-0, 3 KOs) discusses sparring with Yuriorkis Gamboa, meeting Mike Tyson for the first time, and his plans for the future.

    [3]

    The article notes:

    Rising prospect Ryan Martin is coming up on his first year of being a professional boxer and will try to earn his 8th career victory this Friday night when he takes on Engelberto Valenzuela.

    The Chattanooga, TN born fighter is the youngest fighter signed to 50 Cent’s SMS Promotions and he hopes to make great strides in his career with the backing of his promoter and manager Tim VanNewhouse.

    Like many young fighters entering the sport, Martin chose to align himself with a promoter he felt could help guide his career. His manager VanNewhouse took him to meetings with various promoters but they ultimately went with 50 Cent as they felt he could afford them exposure and opportunities no one else could provide.

    Boxingscene.com is the largest platform for boxing news and insider information (including scheduling/results).C.dunkin (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ "New Faces: Ryan Martin". ringmagazine.com. Anson Wainwright. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
    2. ^ "Ryan Martin Gaining Experience with Yuriorkis Gamboa". boxingtalk.com. Doveed Linder. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
    3. ^ boxingscene.com. Sandoval, Luis http://www.boxingscene.com/ryan-martin-working-great-with-sms-promotions--80808. Retrieved 8 August 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Request to all: please don't repeat the whole AfD discussion here... I am going to stick to the close. Anybody disagreeing is welcome to start a discussion at WP:DRV (but please read closely the instructions on how to do that, just repeating the AfD will not get you anywhere at DRV). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

COI

Regarding [3] and [4], these two editors have not edited those articles. I've removed your inappropriate messages, please be more careful with COI notices and please review WP:BITE. Dreadstar ☥ 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You left a redlink here, and really the user should not have been templated. Consider making a more personalized, friendlier comment next time. Dreadstar ☥ 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
All of these editors edited articles related to that society, all of them declared working for that society. The template I placed is the standard template for that situation, containing links to the policies concerned. If you feel those templates are bitey, you should edit them and propose that they be changed. --Randykitty (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that they edited articles related to their declared affiliation; but please show me where this editor and this editor edited Royal Society of Chemistry as you indicate in your message. Dreadstar ☥ 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected the redlink. And you're right that they didn't edit the article on the society. Perhaps I should not have put in a link at all, so that the message would be more general. But all of them edited articles on journals published by the society. Our welcome template for possible COI editors is much friendlier, but because they already had a general welcome template, that seemed inappropriate to me, so I used the "single issue notice" COI template. --Randykitty (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Your template and links were confusing and did not match the editor's edits, this is how WP:BITE applies and why I suggested a more personalized posting. Thanks for your understanding. Dreadstar ☥ 20:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I'll try to think of that next time I'm confronted with 4 or 5 new COI editors. --Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL! Feel free to call on me if you need reinforcements... :) Dreadstar ☥ 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately doesn't happen that often ;-) Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination)

Hi Randykitty. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

Hello. I thought we could save space by using double columns for the indexes. What do you think? Do you a like single column. Iss246 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is odd. It must be how I configured my PC's display. I see one column. If you see three columns, and you are okay with that, then I am okay with it. Iss246 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

    • Perhaps it depends on your screen size, I have a large screen. On my laptop I'll probably only see 2 columns. 30em is kind of standard and people only deviate from it in exceptional circumstances. --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I just reconfigured my screen. Now I have 2 columns. I could have 3 but prefer 2. Thanks for responding. I needed that response to figure out what wast happening on my display. Iss246 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jung Joon-young

Thank you for your concern about my editing for the article Jung Joon-young. I don’t agree that I have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject because I’m definitely not affiliated with any organizations or people I’ve written about in the article Jung Joon-young. I’m just one of numerous volunteers, who is particularly interested in this article.

However, I completely agree with that all editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. So I’ve tried to clean it up and fix it according to your suggestion. The revised article about Jung Joon-young might still not be perfect. But I have a firm will to make it better under Wikipedia Polices and guidelines.

Jung Joon-young is an apparently famous artist and is worth enough to be written. Would you check out the revised article very carefully and consider removing the tag from it? Or why don’t you help me improve it and let me know what to do to make the tag removed? JoanneJung (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, Randykitty. If your purpose of tagging on the head of the article is not to disparage it but to improve it, why don’t you respond to my request?

I’m not the creator of the article and it is made by numerous editors. However, I have a responsibility to fix it right. I think you also have a responsibility to reply and help improve it. JoanneJung (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, The article still seems overly long for such a minor performer; fans often have problems separating important, encyclopedic info from the trivial. I'm not interested in editing stuff like this. Most of the puffery seems to be gone from the article, so I'm fine with removal of the tag. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Hi Randykitty, I wanted to know if you thought this journal looked suspicious or not. It is published by Hindawi, which as you may know, was formerly on Beall's list but was later removed [5] On the other hand, it does have a (not especially high) impact factor. Everymorning talk 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hindawi gas its peculiarities (such as no editor-in-chief for any journal), but they are legit. The journal has an IF and even if it were much lower, we generally accept that as indicating notability. Of course, this doesn't exclude the possible existence of sourced criticism, but I have currently no time to search for that (I have been travelling with rather crappy Internet access and need to go through my watchlist before stuff "falls off the bottom" :-). --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty - I created an article on "Coastal Craft 65 Concord ' which has been removed as it was seen as possible promotional. I am new to writing articles and am trying to create pages for individual luxury yachts currently not found on Wikipedia, I would like to retry to post the details of this yacht with a less promotional verbiage. I appreciate the help and comments I have received so far and if you have any advise on making a better article , your comments are very much welcome. Please advise if I can recreate this title . Thank you !! 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdburgess (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (3rd nomination)

I have asked the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 21#Johnny Prill to restore the page history of Johnny Prill under a redirect to National Grandparents Day after you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (3rd nomination) as delete. I did not contact you prior to making this DRV nomination because you did not find my similar arguments for history restoration persuasive in the past, and I don't believe you have changed your mind. Cunard (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Onychium (entomological journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CABI. 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) 09:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Vani Bhojan

To whom it may concern. I would like to know why the Vani Bhojan page was deleted? She may not be that famous but she's still an actress and she's an up and coming actress with a lead role in a popular Indian serial. Could you please restore the Vani Bhojan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.9.115.223 (talk • contribs)

Please sign you name so that we know who is asking. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we can't predict weather she will or will not become famous.--Mishae (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, the rationale for deleting the article can be found at the deletion discussion here. If you want to have the article restored, you'll have to go to WP:DRV, because without any further information that this person is notable, I am not going to revert the closure. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey ...

Heard you were an admin ..... sorry. — Ched :  ?  04:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Afraid I'm not really sure what you mean, are you sorry for me for being an admin? :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Apink Member's Individual Page (Son Naeun, Park Chorong and Yoon Bomi)

Hi, I'm here about your recent deletion of 6 Apink's members individual page. According to WP:DELREV I have to discussed with closing admin and look for possible resolution. While for the other 3 members we have reached consensus to redirect them to Apink main page, I don't think we have reached the same consensus for Park Chorong, Son Naeun and Yoon Bomi in the discussion page. May I know why those 3 also get deleted?

The reason why I think it's hard to get a consensus for the discussion was because the afD discussion was consist of 6 individual with different notability. The user have later request for withdrawal and wanted to do it individually, but it was rejected so the discussion continue on the same page. I have re-read the whole discussion and conclude that most of the users have agree to Keep Son Naeun's page in particular because we think she is notable enough to get her individual page based on WP:ENT. There are also many users who agree to keep Park Chorong and Yoon Bomi's page because they also have notability outside the group. I hope we can find a solution for this. Thank you --Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, there were indeed several people arguing that these three had some independent notability. However, at least as many editors saw those arguments and still !voted to delete/merge all. I would recommend to merge whatever sourceable info there is to A Pink. Sorry that it took me a while to respond, but I was rather busy the last couple of days. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, long time no see again... I found this (what in my opinion is above-and-beyond) notable academic, but I can't seem to find his h-index. Can you be of help here? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, either there are several people with a similar name, or he has co-authored an impossible (and I mean that literally) number of articles... On Web of Science I get more than 1000 articles, with almost 29,000 citations and an h-index of 73... If only part of this is correct, you should not need the h-index or citation data at all, because then there should be lots of sources (interviews, awards, etc). --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • O.K. That should be good. I use h-index just to be safe. And no, I think his last name is not that common to have multiple people with different h-indexes. :)--Mishae (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Inter-American Journal of Philosophy

Hi Randykitty,

Thank you ahead of time for your help with this. I have a question:

Would it be better for me to begin a new entry for The Inter-American Journal of Philosophy and just write my own description of the journal, or challenge the deletion of the entry I began?

I'm the Chief Assistant Editor to the Inter-American Journal of Philosophy, and I would like for our mission statement to be posted on the wikipedia page.

Maybe it would be better to describe the journal in my own words first and then to quote the official IJP mission?

Thank you for your help! It's my first wikipedia entry so I'm learning as I go along.

Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diazk3 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, The version that I just deleted was a copyright violation and also overly promotional (not surprising given that it was copied from the journal's own website). I would council against re-creating the article for two reasons. First, as someone involved with the journal you clearly have a conflict of interest and although not impossible, it is very difficult to create a neutral encyclopedic article if you are involved with the subject. Second, and more importantly, we have strict inclusion criteria, not everything that exists needs an article on WP. For academic journals, it needs to meet WP:NJournals. If it fails that, you can see if it passes WP;GNG (but generally that is even harder). From what I have seen on the journal's homepage, it fails both of these standards, so article creation would appear to be too soon. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (written before reading RK's reply above) (talk page stalker) @Diazk3: As Chief Assistant Editor you should not be editing the article about the journal, as it's a case of WP:COI. But I'll have a go at creating a basic stub, because I see from the journal's website that it's indexed by Philosopher's Index, which is a good step towards "notability". Please read the information about COI which I've added to your user talk page. And if you are here to improve the encyclopedia, rather than to promote your journal, please don't restrict your editing to the single topic of the journal itself. If you're here just to promote the journal ... you shouldn't be. PamD 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi PamD, I don't think that indexing in Philosopher's Index satisfies NJournals, but let's ask @DGG:, as philosophy is not really my subject. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)--Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty and PamD -- thank you both for your guidance with my questions. Should I ask DGG ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diazk3 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Diazk3: No need to ask DGG separately, as the {{ping|DGG}} which RK used above will alert him.
I've just spent far too long putting together this little stub (partly because my computer is on a go-slow and I've had to wait ages for some responses from it) , so I hope it can survive!
A question for RK: the guidance on writing about journals talks about including the cover, but gives no advice on the equivalent for an e-only title. I wondered about consdering the title+banner image to be a "logo". Might have a go at that when the computer isn't misbehaving, but it might be something useful to include in those notes?
And a comment for Kim: that banner image is an amazing artwork: I'm surprised that there's (a) no acknowledgement of the artist, and (b) nothing written about it on the website: I can see it going south to north as left to right, with all sorts of images of the Americas, but some hints as to what I'm seeing would make it even better. Could I suggest that you (ie the editorial people) include some information about it on the journal's website? Just as print journals with interesting covers (well, perhaps I'm thinking more of magazines) will have a note somewhere inside the cover to give information about the cover image.
But the more important point for Kim: although you shouldn't be editing the article yourself, it's in order for you to mention on the talk page any Reliable Sources or other information which would help other editors to improve the article (and might give it a better chance of not being deleted as non-notable). PamD 19:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Philosopher's Index is all there is, really. It does show at least recognition that it's a bona fide journal, not a mailing list or blog. Scopus/ISI don't cover nearly enough in this field; other indexes are non-selective. The criterion of library subscriber count I like to informally use for publications of various sorts does not work for open access journals. I see no reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

RK: Thanks for tidying up the article. I've replaced the paragraph showing the Americas-wide nature of the editorial board as I think this is central to the journal's aims. Obviously listing the whole lot individually would be against the advice in the writing guidelines, but I think their countries merit a mention. On the language categories: I'd have thought it worth keeping the Spanish and Portuguese categories, and then the English for completeness: if someone is looking for a Spanish-language title in which to publish their philosophy paper, or in which to read, then the category would be helpful. But I'm not going to fight over that issue. PamD 12:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pam, we have a longstanding consensus in the Academic Journals wikiproject that we only include info on an editorial board if there is independent evidence that the board actually did something for the journal. The large mejority of editorial board members just lend their names to the journal and never do anything else. So unless there is evidence that these people are actively involved with the journal, I think that remark should go. As for the languages, current practice is to list journals only in a mono-language cat if the journal is completely published in that language (interpreting an "English-language journal ad one published in English, not other languages, too)", otherwise it goes into "multilingual". An alternative is, of course, to categorize them as multilingual and in the different mono-language cats. However, as this would concern a great deal of journals, I think we should have a discussion at the project talk page perhaps if we'd like to change that. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I really want to thank you for all of your help. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diazk3 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Ignatius

I would like you to reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Ignatius. You said, "we still need sources and apparently none have been found by the participants in this debate" - but I had found and listed two. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @StAnselm:, I had another look and looked specifically at the sources you listed. Google Books only gives a snippet view of the table of contents, so I cannot see how in-depth this is. In addition, many "Who' Who" editions are not really reliable sources, basically just listing biographical info provided by the subject. I don't know whether the Malaysian Who's Who is a reliable source (like the British Who's Who is, but unlike the Marquis versions). The reference to Embassy News is a bit problematic, too. I can't see the whole article and although it does seem to have Ignatius as its main subject, the whole article could very well be just one or two paragraphs. In addition, I don't know whether this is a reliable source, too. "Embassy News" seems like a very restricted subject matter, so this may very well be just a kind of newsletter. Also, several editors contributed to the discussion after you listed these sources, but didn't seem to be convinced by them. In short, I'm uncomfortable with reverting the delete closure. Given the uncertainties noted in the foregoing, I recommend that you take this to DRV if you feel strongly enough about this, so that other editors can evaluate whether the sources you listed are in-depth and reliable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many/Samuel Jacob Klein

Hi Randykitty,

I'm pretty much convinced that Samuel Jacob Klein is not now (nor in the near future) notable by Wikipedia criteria, so when you have time, could you delete it from my user pages? Thanks. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Access research articles

WHY WOULD ANYONE DELETE AN OPEN ACCESS RESEARCH PAGE SEARCH ENGINE WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE, JUST BECAUSE ONE CAN? Isn't WP all about making knowledge reach everyone and Open Access LET ME KNOW PLEASE... It is a project done by research students for students and without any commercials involved. Something very similar like Arxiv or DOAJ exists in the list and RockYourPaper was deleted by you. Any specific reason Mr. Randy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sngouri (talk • contribs)

  • I assume (since you don't mention it) that you are talking about your addition to the List of academic databases and search engines. I just reverted that again for the same reason: WP:WTAF (please read that link, I already gave it in my edit summary). Please have a look at that list again: all entries have a blue link to an article, it only contains databases that have their own articles. The one that youo added does not. SO: WTAF. Once it has an article that shows it is notable, it can be entered into the list, but not before. Hope this explains, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Noble Order of Saint George of Rougemont

Hi, Randykitty. This is just to let you know that I have finished rewriting the Noble Order article. It turns out that there was an online abstract of the Thiou book. Sorry I didn't find that earlier, it would have made your job easier. But now there is at least one reference for every paragraph, so I hope that addresses that concern at the AfD. I also left the current revival in, as it seems pretty harmless to me. And added some material that the original article glossed over, from F. Velde's wry and rather hilarious (to me anyway) description of the 1920's revival. If anyone wants to object to that they can do so on the talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

In helping, earlier, to affirm the non-independent status quo at the GM Church article, it's ongoing as well that Prof Church, pursuant creating a spousal Prof Wu article, now carte blanch cross-contributes as well. A literal case of what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Well, if our esteemed Wales of a founder can edit from rarified social events, articles on persons present based on his immediate personal experience, then tweet about it and have it is picked up by the NYT (see [6], page-searching "Jimmy"), then it is clear, isn't it, that some animals, such as Wales or geese, are more equal than others. My last word: all that transpires at Church is not above reproach. Cheers, no more to do or say. Le Prof.

Standard journal abbreviation

Hi Randykitty -- In your update on Lingvisticae Investigationes dated 19 May 2014, 19h25, you added Linguist. Invest. as the ISO 4 abbreviated title of the journal. But the first word of the title actually spells with v, and the LTWA site does not list Lingvisticae as having any abbreviation currently, so is this really the abbreviation prescribed by the ISO4 standard? -- EricLaporteEn (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. That was indeed incorrect. The LWTA site is not exhaustive, I think, so I have changed the ISO abbreviation to "Lingvist.", in analogy to "Linguist." --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian Law Journal

Since you nominated this for deletion earlier this month I thought you might be interested in the fact that it has just been recreated. I saw a few reliable sources so I'm not gonna tag it as G4, but I'm still far from sure that it's notable. Everymorning talk 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I know that it was deleted at the begining of January. I ask you to recreat it for the following reasons: 1) RLJ is one of the best academic journals in English in Russia. 2) It is the one legal journal that is indexed by different international databases like Heinonline, Urlich, WorldCat, etc. 3) It plays an important role in the Russian academic legal environment; 4) it is one of the Englsih platforms where it is possible to make dialogue on the international level. I hope that I explained, but I am ready to improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarik1949 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give us any suggestions?--Yarik1949 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

On 2015-01-04, over a month ago, User:Vrac listed Deeplink (company) for deletion. As the creator, I explained why I disagreed but felt ineligible to vote. It received one (other) Delete.
On 2015-01-12, User:Northamerica1000 relisted it. It then acquired a Speedy Keep and one more Delete.
You again relisted it on 201501-24. Since then it has received another Keep.
I believe that with two Deletes and two Keeps in over a month, (plus the original nomination and my non-voting objection,) it is maybe time to close with No Consensus.
If you agree, would you please do the honors?
And if you disagree, could you please tell me why?
Either way, thanks. --Eliyahu S Talk 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My bad, not your fault!

it apprears someone deleted a bunch of citations (newspapers etc. then, when you came along, it was all uncited. fixing the mess!!! Please accept appologies for mouthing off! It was not your fault, your deletions were based on what was left. I'll get these straitened out over the next few days. Herpetology2 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)herpetology2

Kazimira Danutė Prunskienė was born in Ostland

You deleted my edit of place of birth in this page

http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimira_Prunskien%C4%97

Please be professional and revert it back, as this is an accurate geopolitical entity in which this person was born

Thank you, and best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.18.13 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Nope, doesn't sound convincing to me. Attempting to put a Nazi flag on a bio for a former PM of Lithuania needs, I think, consensus on the talk page first (and I doubt you'll get it). --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's an analogy of the policy that is common on Lithuanian Wikipedia: http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandras_Stulginskis . The second president of Lithuania has both the flag of Russian Empire as it is official geopolitical entity of his birth, and the flag of Soviet Lithuania, as it is his official place of death. As of 1943, official flag used in Lithuania was the Nazi Germany flag. Please use logic here, not the feelings that is summoned by the sight of Nazi flag. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of PC, as if that would be the case, the Nazi flag should be deleted from all the Wikipedia entries that it is used in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.18.13 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

my pages

Please cease deleting random material based on your OPINION that seems to be restricted to your esoteric part of academia. You clearly have no background in our discipline, or you are clearly just deleting stuff to be a jerk. UPDATE: I have requested Wikipedia block you from my pages. I am posting this in accordance with their policies. Herpetology2 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)herpetology2

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is please block randkitty. Thank you. (This is a procedural notice; I personally have no opinion on the matter.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobo Ice Cream

Aaaaarghhh!. My stupidity, thanks for being so gentle. Fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I know people who never make any mistakes (and certainly no stupid ones), but that's not the people who keep this place going with lots of hard work, like yourself! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You're one of those admins that actually have a big part in keeping Wikipedia up and running, thanks for that. Since Saturday's Valentine's, please accept a box of chocolates too. Happy editing, :) AmaryllisGardener talk 03:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A journal page

Hello Randykitty, about a month ago I made last modifications to a draft page. However, it is still pending review. Would you kindly have a look at it and take the necessary action? The URL is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Aging_and_Disease_%28Journal%29&oldid=641813858 -- [User:Rogen123]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogen123 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Randikitty, Awesome. Many thanks. In fact I am the one to be thankful to you for your yeoman service. User:Rogen123 — Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Viscardi_(3rd_nomination). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 206.125.140.113 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of AfD is not to scrutinize user behavior, it's to decide whether to delete articles. Your improper comment in which you cast aspersions and which you now restored, is highly inappropriate. It contains no evidence, and doesn't contribute to the relevant afd discussion. Matter of fact, it's disruptive. It derails the discussion, fails to assume good faith, and casts aspersions. Either remove it or I will be taking this to ani. If you think you can pull off stunts like that just because you're an admin, think again. 206.125.140.113 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Aight, I'll assume good faith, assume it's a CIR issue, and educate you on why your comment ("looking at your own editing record, I have the definite impression that this is not your first account either") is inappropriate.
One, because it's at afd which is a place to discuss the notability, etc. of articles, and not your personal blog/rfcu/spi/the talk page of the guy you're accusing of sockpuppetry. Two, because it fails to assume good faith. Three, because it's accusing a user of misconduct while providing no evidence (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Four, because it sets a bad example. Admins are expected to lead by example, what example does your off-topic bad-faith-assuming unsubstantiated-accusations comment set for other users? Yeah.
Now you can't claim you don't know what's wrong with it. I'm generously giving you one last chance to delete the comment of your own volition. 206.125.140.113 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very generous of you, but I'm passing the opportunity. Next time you come here, please log in first. Any further IP messages will be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome. I've been editing on a casual basis for a few years now but only started in earnest in the past few months. Any idea what the current AfC queue wait time is? Adamfield (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

City & Community

You have twice reverted my edits and as a result, the entry contains outdated information. Hilary Silver and Brown University are no longer affiliated with the journal. The journal is now based out of Columbia University. One decision made by the petitioners, Freeman and Venkatesh, was to break from the standard editor-in-chief organization and instead utilize an editorial collective. I edited the entry to reflect these changes, but you reverted my edits. Finelinebilly (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • To make changes like that, they need to be backed up by sources. The only source that seems to be available is the journal's own website and the article reflects that. If that info is outdated, we'll have to wait until they update their own homepage. If you have an alternative source, post it on the article's talk page so that we can have a look at it. --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Barrie Pettman

Thank you for your edits. It would be great if you could create some of the red links.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your help with The College of Family Physicians of Canada. I truly appreciate it! J.B.M.D. 22:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

this is for you

  • Randykitty, I've blocked this individual indefinitely for the above threat. If you wish to interact with this individual and offer them unblock conditions, feel free to proceed without consulting me. Regards Tiderolls 14:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I usually let all comments posted here stand, but this is a bit too coarse. Thanks for blocking, I don't feel inclined to further interact with this user, so I'll let it up to another admin in case they post an unblock request. --Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

International Journal of Philippine Science and Technology

I had to remove the PROD template you put on this page because I proposed it for deletion before you, and as per WP:DEPROD after someone removes the prod template (even if they created the article) no one can add it back. I guess someone should sent this page to AFD now... Everymorning talk 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Darn, I missed that. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've taken it to AfD, although I hate doing that these days: often even after multiple relistings, nobody bothers to !vote and debates get closed "no consensus"... Well, can't be helpded, let's hope people will participate in this one. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you randykitty!

Thank you for deleting the National Enquirer Amanda Rosenberg article. If I knew how to give a barnstar I would!!!!! Wikimandia (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your blanking of ISITEP

Even though the article on ISITEP may leave room for improvement, the project is obviously not covered in the overview article on the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, so your blanking-and-redirecting isn't legitimate nor helpful. I therefor reverted your edit. Please follow standard procedures and nominate the article for deletion if you think it needed to go. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I have now PRODded the article. Let's hope nobody de-PRODs it, or we'll have to waste even more time on this stuff at AfD. For some reason, most EU-funded projects feel the need to create a WP article. We don't have the same problem with, for example, NSF or NIH-funded projects, even though those are often much larger and more notable (not that those are notable either...) --Randykitty (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello

As everybody, who is anybody, in WMF knows - "I" have 1,291 active user accounts -- incorporating 15 years of service and over 2,50,000+ pluperfect edits -- but am not using them because I am engaged in serious litigation after WMF sued me. 122.162.89.2 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Uploading a journal cover photo

Hello Randykitty! You had patrolled my previous page for Energy Technology (journal), and thank you for your help. I wanted to upload a cover image to the page, but I am having trouble. From looking at some similar journal pages, I tried to use the following:

{{Information |Description= Cover of "[[Energy Technology (journal)]]" (March 2014 issue) |Source= http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/ente.201490004/asset/image_m/mcontent.gif?v=1&s=a93510549ee4f4d34f2367a59d65e25b1ed7f3e7 |Date= 2014-03-14 |Author= Wiley-VCH |permission= {{Non-free magazine cover|image has rationale=yes}} }}

However, on Wikicommons it was not accepting this, and gave the message that the image as currently uploaded would be a likely candidate for immediate deletion. I wasn't able to figure out how to solve this by looking at the other instructions pages. I don't know if the fact that I am not yet an autoconfirmed user is playing a role here, but I thought it should still work. I would appreciate your help!

Jjuhlrich (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Journal covers can almost never be uploaded at Commons, unless they have been clearly released into the public domain (e.g., US government publications) or under a Creative Commons license. This has to be shown either by the cover being marked as such on the website where it was found (which itself should be clearly not a copyvio) or by the copyright owner confirming the release through the OTRS system. In general, it's not worth the trouble and I almost always upload covers directly here on the English WP where, in contrast to Commons,"fair use" is allowed. See File:G2Bcover.jpg for an example. To upload another cover, just change the name "G2Bcover.jpg" in the URL bar of your browser to the desired name and then copy the contents of File:G2Bcover.jpg, changing them where necessary, of course. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hakar Findi

There is a ref-and the creator actually already contested a prod I put up also. AFD possibly. Wgolf (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • A PROD can be denied, but a BLPPROD can only be removed if there is at least one reliable reference. A website of their family is not a reliable source, so I am going to restore the BLPPROD tag. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome-I did not make the page-but I did put a prod up for it before and it went crazy earlier-same with another one he made, which I will have to find. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here Abdulkareem Findi (which the other one was a speedy that someone said to take it to a afd to!) Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Added a AFD for him. Wgolf (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I have BLPPRODed Abdulkareem Findi. There is at this point absolutely no need for an AfD: if no reliable source is added, the article will be deleted after a week. You should have left the other article as a BLPPROD, too. There's always the possibility of an AfD in the unlikely case that a reliable source crops up. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Chimica Oggi - Chemistry Today

why i can't put in the table the image of cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo.teknoscienze (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Carol M. Swain

Hi. I don't understand your edit here or the explanation. My understanding is that we usually list the full location in the infobox, with town, county and state. Don't we?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am used to seeing that a lot. I think it's good to wikilink to the county and state because some readers may not know where they are located. It's a detail, but I thought that was standard editing. There may be no consensus on that--I am not sure how to double-check. Btw, if you are able to find third-party references about her television program, it would be good to add a section about it. So far I can only find her own promotional blogs/weblinks...but there may be articles about it in the local press. The trick is to find them.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I like simplicity... :-) I'll see whether I can find a ref. --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have found two third-party references about her talk show so far. I have added a small section with an expansion tag. It would be great to add a few of the guests and topics discussed, but that is hard to do as I am not sure that has been covered in the press. Let me know if you are able to find more please. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. I would like to revert your edit because it wasn't much information about each university, but it is indeed significant that she has only taught at private universities. It is also significant that she got tenure at an Ivy League institution. Moreover, readers who are not American may not know this, so it is useful to let it be known. It fleshed out the article a bit as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Readers who are not American are highly unlikely to even know what "Ivy League" means. And is there any source discussing the significance of the fact that she only worked at private universities? I personally don't see any significance in that fact, I must say, so adding this info is suggestive at best. In general, it is usually not desirable to clutter up an article with details that are not about the subject of the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not writing a history of both universities. It is just a few more words and it fleshes out the article and brings more context to her career, including both locations. Will you remove it again if I revert it?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not simply "a few more words". It suggests something for which we have no evidence and doesn't belong in this article. So, yes, I'd revert any re-addition. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
There are articles saying she got tenure at an "Ivy League" university; do you want me to waste an hour looking for it? We already know that Princeton is Ivy League. Obviously it's not the same to get tenure at Princeton than at the University of Iowa. or at Vanderbilt for that matter. Moreover, public universities have more transparent hiring and firing processes; they also allow unions, which a place like Vanderbilt does not; they are able to ban them because they are a private institution. It's not original research to say Princeton is Ivy League and that both universities are private.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

These are all things that are very relevant to our articles on these universities. I just don't see what this has to do with Swain. Yes, it can be sourced at which university she is/was. But have any of the things you mention (unions, hiring policies, being private, etc) demonstrably been relevant for her or her career? If yes, put in the refs. If no, it's not relevant. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting tenure at an Ivy League university is relevant to her career for the reason I mentioned above (harder than at a lesser institution like Vanderbilt). And yes, it's not the same career to teach at the University of Iowa or Stanford. The presence of unions would make her loss of tenure less likely. Besides, I would like to know why you don't want readers to know that Vanderbilt is in Nashville, Tennessee and Princeton in New Jersey, since you have removed that information.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Getting tenure at Princeton is relevant to her career, not getting tenure at "an Ivy League university". All the rest is info on the university (including where they are), not on her and not relevant. If someone wants to know where Van,derbilt is, all they have to do is click the link, simple! Speculation about unions ebing present/absent making tenure more/less secure has perhaps a place in an article on labor relations at US universities, but not here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want to censor basic information like Ivy League, private/public, or locations. It is the bare minimum. I completely disagree with you. It seems obscurantist.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that way. There's a ton of things we could say about Princeton and that all might have had an influence on Swain. But unless we have sources that discuss the relevance of all those things that can be said about Princeton, there is no reason to include them. It just suggests things that may or may not be relevant. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

username

Please note that "randy" means "prostitute" in the Hindi language. I thought there was a forum called UAA or something to prevent people from using bad usernames. But you appear to be an established editor despite the fact that your username is unacceptable. 223.227.22.145 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that titbit of information. There are probably very few words that do not mean something or other in any of the thousands of languages that exist. So while my username would (perhaps) not be acceptable on the Hindi wiki, it's perfectly acceptable here. Ever heard of Randy Crawford, for example? But feel free to report my name at UAA, if you're so inclined. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Church History

Ooooooooh! Oooooouch! Haha, so that was you! Yes, Church History is perhaps the foremost journal in the US in that area--old, venerable, traditional, widely cited and widely held. :) Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • One was me, but the notability tag was put there by the Red Pen. I had the article watchlisted, so that spurred me into action. I'm recovering from some intestinal bug that kept me up all night, and had a cat sleeping on my lap, so I couldn't do too much and just left the tag, although I suspected it would be notable. Just found another ref (indexed in ATLA), so I'll add that, too. --Hindi Ho (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

IPs who make troll votes at RFA

I've seen you welcoming these people and while I appreciate your friendliness, I think it's wasted on them because they are only here to cause trouble, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're established editors trying to prove an anonymous point (who else would display such an intimate knowledge of this place and use it so precisely, especially with no other history under that IP?). The latest one was trying to discredit gender gap initiatives. I've seen other people block these IPs but that's a waste of time too because they almost always seem to be dynamic and protecting the RFA page works better.

PS -- There is no "+" tab, contrary to your instructions at the top of this page; it's called "new section" in both Vector and Monobook. ekips39 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I put a welcome message for several reasons. One, I must admit, is being sarcastic... But also, many IPs are dynamic and at some other point in time it may be another person using the same IP. I think that for those persons, it's nice to have a welcome message. It can't hurt, at worst, I wasted a few seconds of my time. As for the "+" thing, the note at the top does say that depending on settings, this can be "new section". --Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ekips39: Please note that the comments you make on this page are visible to the IP troller in question. Avoid making such comments, especially the bracketed part of it, as they only serve to encourage them more. And RandyKitty, why have you pushed my post here into the archives extra fast... ah no, I see that you have deleted it. I wouldn't have bothered to inform you, were it not for the fact that "randy" is not a common word for "prostitute", it is a derogatory word. (It doesn't show up in Google Translate!) Regards, 223.227.167.217 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (Damn! My IP changed again)

Uploading a journal cover photo

Hello, I just wanted to say thanks very much for your help and guidance on this subject a bit more than a week ago. I have now gotten it figured out after following your instructions, but in the meantime the topic on your talk page has been archived. Welcome to the fast-paced world of Wikipedia! Thanks again. Jjuhlrich (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Note that I made a few small changes to your uploads (some just for the project -adding a cat and a project tag on the talk page- but one important one to the license tag). --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Experimental Parasitology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis. 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) 09:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Block which appears to have been a mistake

I see that you blocked Universedroid for username reasons, and in your block notice you invited the editor to create an account with a different username. In fact, the editor already had a request for change of username pending, so I can only assume that your block was a mistake. I have unblocked the account; please let me know if there is some reason why you think I was mistaken in doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that, but I don't understand why we should block as a violation of the username policy when the editor has requested a change of username to one that does not violate that policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, perhaps I went a bit too fast. However, at this moment I cannot find any active request for a change of username for this user. Do you see where it is? --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It may be a bit hard to find it, because it was first posted to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and then moved, and it is now atWikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Universedroid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit to American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Hello Randykitty,

I work for the American Thoracic Society, which publishes the journal. We are trying to keep the cover image on the page up to date with the current issue. The plan is to change is regularly. That was the only change to the page. I don't see any conflict of interest. Please revert to the cover I just uploaded.

Thanks, Sfulgione-ATS (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • First of all, if you work for the American Thoracic Society, then that is a pretty obvious COI. (Indeed, the caption you added to the cover image did sound kind of grandiose and not encyclopedically neutral). Second, you uploaded the image to commons. An anonymous editor, even one that claims to work for the copyright owner, cannot release a copyrighted image into the public domain. (Note that I don't want to cast doubt on your assertion, but from a leaglm point of view -which is what counts here- your claim cannot be taken at face value). Copyrighted coves can be uploaded locally (i.e. directly on the English WP here), under fair use. Just click on the current image, scroll down to the bottom of "file history", and you'll see a link there to "Upload a new version of this file". No need to create a new file and filename each time. Please only do this and do not add a caption to the cover in the infobox. Also, there is absolutely no need to upload a new image with every new issue. We cannot keep old versions under fair use, so this would create a lot of extra work for admins who would have to check regularly and delete those old files. The text is too small to read anyway and the details of the cover image are not that clear either, so it is enough just to update the image when the cover design changes. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about an edit I made

Hi RandyKitty,

I added an external URL to Pharmacgeneticstesting and thought it was a relevant edit, is there a specific reason that you think it wasn't applicable. Admittedly, I'm still getting the hang of this whole editor thing. It did take me two tries to get the formating straight...Either way thanks for your help, hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScienceFanMan (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad, bad journals

Hey Randy, I'm sure we have a list of bad journals somewhere, no? Have a look at this, and this, and this, and this (the latter knows of only one social science). My inbox is full of this spam. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • They're sometimes bad to the point of being hilarious. I sometimes get invitations to review papers for accounting journals... Of course, it's all fake, these guys are not interested in peer review, just in making a fast buck. Their arch-enemy is Jeffrey Beall. His is one of the only two blogs that I follow. Her also maintains a list of "predatory" OA publishers (a term that he coined). If the examples you list above are not yet on his list, you should email him. These clowns are often so amateurish that they don't just have bad English (almost all of those emails have crappy English), sometimes it seems like their English is non-existent (my favorite is the Integrated Journal of British. Sadly, these guys are doing a huge amount of damage to the OA movement. Also, their victims are disproportionally from countries with weaker research infrastructures, who get duped into thinkint that these are legitimate journals. Sometimes these journals suddenly disappear without a trace: there goes your expensive OA article! One of the worst offenders i OMICS Publishing. They sued Beall for $1 billion (that's right, a billion bucks) in damages for including them on his list. They don't only publish several hundred crappy journals, but also organize hundreds of crappy meetings every year. In hindsight, I think we (as in "we researchers") should have foreseen this nefarious side effect of OA publishing. While there have been fake print journals (financed by industry), it's not that easy to make a quick buck from a subscription journal. Those need to produce good quality issues, otherwise libraries are not going to subscribe. But nowadays it is extremely easy to register a website and, hey, you're in business as the International Journal of Bullshit... Most of these journals miss our inclusion criteria and none meet WP:NJournals. But some caused scandal, which got covered, so they become notable under GNG because of being bad. OMICS is one of those. Those articles need constant oversight, needless to say. OK, enough ranting for today. You touched a raw nerve... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links: I appreciate it. Sorry for touching that nerve. I do wonder if my colleagues get this much spam from them; I know that some of them don't, and I wonder why that is. Anyway, yeah, I'm reading Beall's blog now: a worthy cause. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Peritia website

Hi, just to explain the changes to the Peritia webpage which you reverted. The editors have been changed. Donnchadh Ó Corráin has retired and the new editors are Elva Johnston and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (as can be seen on the journal's official site http://www.peritia.ie). I have re-instated the changes I've made so that the page reflects the most up-to-date information about the journal. Thanks!Martian Express (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Martian Express

  • I was just writing a message on your talk page when I saw that you posted here, so I'll answer here. Your edits are more than just updating the editors (I thought I had left that in, but now realize that while I added Johnston, I mixed up Donnchadh Ó Corráin and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín. I'll correct that in a moment. I will also, yet again, remove the other edits that you made. They are unsourced and promotional. In general, per WP:Be bold, if an edit you make is challenged, you don't simply revert like you did, because that leads to edit wars. Instead, you take it to the talk page and justify why a particular edit is necessary. If you obntain consensus on the talk page, you can redo the edit. If no consensus is obtained, you don't redo the edit. Hope this explains. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough and thanks for the explanation. Those names have been confused before! If for any reason I ever wish to suggest further edits to the page, I'll make sure that they are adequately sourced as you outline. Thanks for you clarification. Much appreciated as I am new to wikipedia editing. Martian Express (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Martian Express

Great link - thanks again. Martian Express (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Martian Express

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_12&oldid=1143254544"