Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Altmetrics

Thanks for your attention to the Altmetrics page. I don't mind your reverts of some of my recent edits (I was not fully aware tweets cannot be listed as information sources; it does not make sense to me (I do not see why that would be less reliable than any other webpage), but that is irrelevant; if that is the WP standard, I only wish to adhere to it), but have a complementary question. Right now, the ~400k number is based on info from a tweet; if a tweet is not a valid source, should the fact not be removed too then? Because it sounds to me it now introduces an unclaimed fact into the article, basically violating another WP practice. What is the logic here? Egonw (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Tweets are not considered a reliable source because there is no editorial overview. This is also the reason why most blogs are not considered reliable sources either. Newspapers that have a reputation for bad fact checking (mostly tabloids) aren't good sources either. Academic journals are almost always very good sources (there are exceptions), as are most newspapers. If a very respected publisher puts information on their website, we often use it, too, as long as it is uncontroversial, even though the source is not independent. Can the 400,000 figure perhaps be sourced that way? Although an independent source would be even better. These companies are all quite new and competing with each other, so they might "round up" such figures a bit. The number given for Altmetric.com is not ideal either, looks like OR. You're right that I took out the "tweet references", but left the stuff that it was supposed to source. There's a lot of unsourced material in the article (some paragraphs have not a single reference) and removing all the unsourced stuff would gut the article. I have put a tag on the article that more references are needed. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, the 400k was sourced. I asked the people behind the website, and the tweet was their answer. But if you feel these resources are not reliable enough (and you should really know better about the quality of academic journals, if you would apply clean logic), then the logical conclusion would be to remove the table in its entirety. That only makes sense. Then again, that's basically what you say too. I started this article just for that reason: to aggregate information from sources; I thought that some source would be better than not at all, but appreciate "we" need to try harder. Oh, and I will tweet your request for more independent references. Egonw (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, "some source" is not better than none at all, because it gives the impression to the reader that all is in order. This way, people will see that a source is needed and may contribute one if they know of one. Of course you're right about academic journals, I am fully aware of their limitations, I was just voicing WP usage. Sourcing is not always easy... --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

To revive an old discussion, I still think altmetrics do not include citations. Haustein, a leading expert on altmetrics, said in a keynote: "The common denominator of altmetrics is that they exclude ‘traditional’ citation-based indicators". (page 4) Alperin (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • There's a difference between "citations" and "citation-based indicators", more particularly "traditional" ones. An impact factor is such a citation-based indicators and while clearly in the realm of bibliometrics, the IF is outside of altmetrics. But apparently the same cannot be said of citations. Indeed, in "traditional" bibliometrics, citations were often used in aggregate form (such as an IF). It's only recently that we have gotten the tools to look at these things individually. In any case, in my reading the quote from Haustein means that non-traditional citation-based indicators can be included in altmetrics. --Randykitty (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Electrochemical Society Awards

Hi Randykitty, thank you for the message and for the helpful information. Just a quick question -- the IEEE lists their awards on their wiki page, so I was trying to include some of the same information for The Electrochemical Society. Was the list deleted because The Electrochemical Society's awards don't have their own wikipedia entries like the IEEE's do? Can you please explain why the IEEE can have this information? (I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious about what the difference is so that I can avoid having my edits removed in the future)

Thanks!--Missconstreu (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • When I have some time, I'll have a look at the IEEE page, but in general, what is done at other pages is not always a good guide of what should be done. We call this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, if you're in a bad mood WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). There are millions of articles here and not all are in good condition. WP is a work in progress. What it not is, is a webhost. If awards are so major that they are notable enough to have a separate wikipage, then there could be a link to them from the main article. Many of the awards that you listed looked like they were pretty local and so it seems doubtful that they would meet our inclusion criteria. But all depends on whether in-depth independent reliable sources are present. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Madura_Kulatunga

Hi Randykitty, I create new draft article about subject Madura Kulatunga at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Madura_Kulatunga This article is created according to Sri Lanka national newspapers. I properly did citation to all the sentences.

Now my draft have this error "read more like an advertisement". I kindly request you to edit my article and correct those errors. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.104.181 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Jo Kamminga

The du Cros book is the definitive text on the practice of archaeology in Australia and is clear on the importance of Kamminga's role in stone tool analysis. The documentary 'The Incredible Human Journey' in DVD and book form shows the importance of Kamminga's role in establishing the antiquity of human settlement in Australia. There do not seem to be online versions, but both can be purchased through Amazon.Garyvines (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Light Railway Research Society of Australia

Hi again Randy Kitty, there are over 30,000 wikipedia writers and over 1000 editors, but you still want to focus on everything I do. I feel like you are stalking me and it makes me feel uncomfortable. While you clearly know all the rules and apply them rigorously, you are not helping me get better at the writing process, just upsetting me. If you keep it up I think I will probably give up entirely on Wikipedia, just the situation that Piotrus pointed out in the article you referred me to before. Why can't you just let some of the other thousands of uses take over in my case?Garyvines (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Please explain to me what is problematic about my edits to that article. As far as I can see, I:
  1. Corrected the formatting (bolding, italics)
  2. Added valid wikilinks to other articles of interest to readers
  3. Corrected the order of sections according to WP:MOS
  4. Did a small grammar correction
  5. Removed a rather trivial remark about a closed discussion group
  6. Added the "official" template to the EL (which a bot will add to the Wikidata item that I created, see here)
And, yes, I also added a template that third-party sources are needed, which I guess is what irritates you. All sources in the article are published by that society. No third party sources also means no notability shown. If you had added sufficient sourcing, I would not have added that tag and then what is the problem? As for your complaint about me "following" you, I did not get to this article through your edit history, but because I have Norm Houghton (historian) watchlisted, so I simply got to this article when you added a link there. I'm getting a bit tired of your constant complaining that I am hounding you. If you think that what I am doing is inappropriate, file a complaint at WP:ANI (but beware of WP:BOOMERANG). --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not your edits and tags that irritate me, they are actually all quite reasonable. Its just that you are clearly monitoring everything I do - I presume by checking my edit history or some other watchlist function of Wikipedia I don't understand. This makes me feel uncomfortable to feel that whenever I create an article,the same Wikipedia editor will be the first to look at it every time. And since there does not seem to be a natural fit between our interests (I can't imagine that you really care about some archaeological and historical subjects in Australia), then your interest must be in me and that just seems creepy. Sure your edits of my articles are a small part of your overall Wikipedia editing, but they are a large part of the edits on pages I have created. How else would you even know that I created the Light Railway Research Society article? Since you are so keen on the WP policies, I looked up Wikipedia:Talk page stalker and WP:HOUNDING, and would judge that your interest in my editing can be characterised in these ways. A good editor encourages and assists their writers in a collaborative manner, not just tells them its no good. This is the opposite of the colaborative experiment that drew me to Wikipedia in the first place. There are other editors, including specific project teams, who will add useful suggestions, categories, info boxes, tags and even help find the right sources to demonstrate notability. There is a community of people wanting to add content and improve information on Wikipedia, who take my edits as good faith. If you jump on everything (sometimes in a matter of hours or minutes after I create them) and want to delete them, it discourages not just me, but the others who might be able to assist. Like I said, there are thousands of people who could be checking and editing what I write, so how come it is always you on my case? I won't file a complaint at WP:ANI because I know your understanding and ability to use the systems will mean I wouldn't have a chance, so I am simply asking you politely to simply stop looking at my edits and leave the task of putting me right to someone else. Garyvines (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I explained to you above how I got to the Railway Society article. I fyou don't want to believe that, that's your problem. My main editing interests are articles falling under the purview of [[WP::WikiProject Academic Journals]] (which includes learned societies), magazines, and academic bios (in that order). When I see a problematic article, I clean it up (as I did with the railway one) and, if justified, tag it for improvement. I am indeed not a specialist in Australian archaeology, but you apparently are, so you should know where the sources are. Apparently you don't, so that's a problem. Take Johan Kamminga. The sourcing there hardly shows notability. But a search on JSTOR easily finds a bunch of book reviews, making him pass WP:AUTHOR. A search on Google Scholar shows that he is highly cited (especially for a low-citation density field like archaeology), making him pass WP:ACADEMIC#1. If you don't have access to JSTOR, you can ask for a free account at the Wikipedia Library here. There are other resources available at the library and you might have a look at those, too. Using some real sources, you could then get rid of things like the current reference 2 (which is neither a good reference nor shows any notability). You could use GScholar to limit the list of publications to the three most-cited ones (three is more usual in academic bios). As for the rest, I have told you before and I repeat that I am not stalking you and once you start sourcing your articles adequately, I'll be out of your hair. But you really cannot ask an editor to stay away from "your" articles. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thankyou for all this good advice, it would have been nice to get such help at the beginning of these discussions instead of the 'snide remarks' you admitted making yourself or the "(but beware of WP:BOOMERANG)" which sounds like a threat.Garyvines (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Open Medicine (journal)

Dear Randykitty, I'd like to raise the issue about periodicity of Open Medicine (journal) publication one more time. Please don't consider me annoying, since it is very important to spesify the correct information. This journal in fact isn't bimonthly, although 2010 - 2014 it indeed published 1 issue per two month. Hovewer it still has 1 issue in 2015, no issues untill June. That's why we cannot be sure in it's bimonthly periodicity, since Open Medicine should have 2 more issues in current half-year (in March-April and May-June). The information about it's ongoing way of publishing is also indicated in the instructions for Authors. Please refer to the first paragraph this PDF file: [1] . I hope these facts are sufficient. Thank you. Floraljay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Indeed, "we cannot be sure". Many journals experience some delays when they go through a reorganization, and that may be the case here, too. The last reliable info we have is that the journal is bimonthly. If that has changed, we can change it in our article as soon as we have reliable information that this is the case. As long as the journal doesn't adapt its website, there really is nothing we can do. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Journals

I was never very familiar with the whole scientific publishing scene (at least in my country) and after college I ended up as a software developer instead of a biochemist so my scientific "career" was very short, but I am seriously amazed at how broken that whole industry is, and how amusing the "publishers" are when they try to squirm out of the messes they get themselves in. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I know. I'm just editing International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology, where the publisher regularly tries to clean up their mess. Same with the "chocolate" story... Up till about 15 years ago, things were much calmer. It's the Internet and OA that got us here. Without Internet no OA. And OA is a noble ideal, but an unanticipated side effect were the predatory publishers (which, in retrospect, seems like an unavoidable development). At this point, OA seems to be the future, but the industry (and its users, the scientists) will have to figure out a way to weed out the bad apples... --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Chungara (journal)

Hi Randykitty, I'm from Chile, and yesterday I tried to complete some information about Chungara (journal), basically I tried to fixed to correct journals name, because officially isn't "Chungara (journal)" or "Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena" (see here), the correct name is "Chungara Revista de Antropología Chilena". Additionally I tried to add information about it's academic dependency from the Departamento de Antropología (Anthropology College) from the Universidad de Tarapacá and finally some information about the main topics addressed by the journal. I appreciate your initial contribution and I'm just trying to contribute and elaborate about the article. Csuasnavar (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take talks about changing the name of the page to talk:Chungara (journal). So far I see no reason to change the name. Dentren | Talk 12:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Read again: they don't propose to change the name of the article, just a small correction to the name in the lead, which has been done. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

AceXL

Hi Randykitty

I believe you had deleted the AceXL page due to the page being written like an advertisement. I was also informed by wiki that the username AceXL Limited is unacceptable as it represents an organisation.

Could you please provide some advice on how to create a suitable page which does not violate the advertisement condition. The page stated the truth and I don't see how stating the truth can violate the advertisement rule.

I am new to wiki so could you advise on how to create a page which represents a organisation?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron 2015 k (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No, I deleted that page because you, as the sole substantial contributor, had blanked the page (see WP:CSD#G7). If you want, I can restore the article, but then you'll have to deal with the promotional stuff and the article definitely was promotional (for example: "They seek to revolutionise teaching.") Hence it would most probably be deleted within minutes as spam. Article creation is one of the toughest things to do here on WP, especially if you are involved with a subject that you want to write about (you may want to review WP:COI). I have placed a "welcome" template on your talk page, with a lot of links to policies and guidelines that may be helpful. Apart from avoiding peacock and weasel expressions, you also have to show that a subject merits inclusion in WP by being notable (a word that has a very special meaning on WP, see the preceding link) because it has been covered in independent reliable sources. This is also something that your article failed to do (it did not even have a link to the organization's homepage, let alone third-party sources). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

De Gruyter Open

Hi Randykitty. Recently the De Gruyter Open (formerly Versita) article was linked to Walter de Gruyter as its imprint. Hence, if there is no possibility to create a separate article related to De Gruyter Open, I'd like to ask how DGO may be added to Category:Open access publishers ? This category can't be added to Walter de Gruyter article since Walter de Gruyter publishung house specializes on different publishing models, although the only specialization of De Gruyter Open is Open Access publishing model. And, I suppose, this publisher has a lot of important open access publications (journals with Impact Factor among them) and is worth to be added to this category.

Please advise if I addressed this request wrong. Thank you. Floraljay (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.216.94 (talk)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey, do you have an opinion on Mens Sana Monographs? I'm about to block the creator for a spammy user name, but there's a bunch of associated articles--Swara Sampada, Ajai R. Singh, Shakuntala Singh, Anshuman Ajai Singh. A veritable walled garden. It will be interesting to see if the autoblock irritates someone. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • A walled garden indeed! I pared down the Mens sana article, which contained a lot of puff (like the bios you link to above). It's a very minor journal, but I checked and it is indeed indexed in Scopus, so that it meets WP:NJournals. Technically, that makes the editor meet ACADEMIC, but that bio is so puffed up, that I think TNT applies. --Randykitty (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you did a pretty good job paring it down. Thanks Randykitty. I hope your summer is an actual summer, with wine and food and naps and doing nothing all afternoon but smoking cigarettes on the deck, with a view over the river--if that's your thing, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wish that were true... Weather is unseasonally cool and rainy right now (although we had >90F last week). Reviewing a pile of grant applications did not really help either. But that's behind me fortunately, so I can concentrate on more fun things now, such as wine and food and naps (no smoking, though...:-). And tomorrow we're going on a pub crawl (there's quite a few Irish pubs here and Kilkenny is my favorite beer). Hope you can say the same about your summer! --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Pharmacological Research

With regard to the edits you made to this page, I thought you might have missed the journal's NLM catalog entry [2], which says it is published by Academic Press. Do you consider this to be a reliable source? Everymorning talk 16:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Not really. While it is useful, it often is outdated and not always correct (LCCN numbers are frequently incorrect, for example). I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that Elsevier is integrating the Academic Press journal portfolio in its main imprint, because this is not the first journal I have seen that used to be published by AP (hence the mention in the NLM catalog), but don't mention AP on their website any more. And where visible, the covers now have Elsevier on them, not AP. In the present case, the cover gets a bit blurry if you increase the size, but it looks to me like the logo in the upper left hand corner is the Elsevier logo and I don't see AP mentioned anywhere any more. Unless there's another source than a library catalog (to be fair, other libraries -like university libraries- are often much worse than the NLM one, which has of course much more ressources than the average university library), I think it's best to follow the journal homepage and give "Elsevier" as its publisher. Perhaps we should also go through the AP journals cat to see which, if any, are still published under the AP imprint. (It's still used, but I only see it on books nowadays). --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

MDPI

Hello, concerning Entropy(journal), MDPI listing has a history of controversy, with both sides of the argument, so it is worth indicating the controversy and the reports that say that the journal meets the standards. Limit-theorem (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Yep, feel free to add that. I'm not completely convinced yet that the controversy about the publisher (which is covered in the article on MDPI) should also be covered in each article on every journal that they publish. Perhaps in the journal(s) that sparked their being listed by Beall, but not others. I just reverted because the reason you delete this info was incorrect: Beall's blog is regarded as a reliable source. It's one of the (few) exceptions to the rule that blogs are not acceptable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, regarding MDPI page, I am trying to include an important updated information on the issue of their questionable actions that was recently released in a reliable source (Beall's blog), but Joel B. Lewis keep removing it. Isn't this info relevant to the topic? Should it be included in different words? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.217.71 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I would remove it, too. The wording you are using is highly tendentious and not encyclopedic. Also, it doesn't really belong in the lead but farther down in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

About the article you deleted: Alex Andreopoulos

Well, since he is currently the bullpen catcher for the Toronto Blue Jays, bullpen catchers are baseball coaches (see coach (baseball)), and according to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), anyone who has served as a coach of a particular MLB team are presumed notable, hence this sportsman is presumed notable, and this article should be undeleted.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

References column width

Hi! You might wish to contribute to the discussion the References column width at User_talk:Jochen_Burghardt#Philosophy_of_mind (sorry for the misleading section title). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

IEET Templates

I removed the COI template because a COI check by an admin came up negative and even if there was a COI the majority of my edits were removed. The "references only mentioned in passing" was removed because those references were removed. I mentioned this in the talk page. Can you please explain at the talk page why you think both templates should stay? Waters.Justin (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semina scientiarum

Hi! I have added two external links which are not primary sources and also are not associated with the subject (international databases: CEJSH, Index Copernicus). I hope it helps and now my article is acceptable for Wiki society. Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.7.122.224 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Law & Politics

I reverted your change of the citation style on Journal of Law & Politics back to the Bluebook style. See WP:CITEVAR. Bluebook was the first style used and consensus is needed to change it. Also be aware that the use of smallcaps is per the citation style and accepted under WP:SMALLCAPS (at the next to last bullet in the section). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Bluebook is not used often at WP, and most editors are not familiar with it and its quirks (especially from the academic fields instead of a legal writing background). I usually run into the same issue when taking an article to good or featured status, so I'm used to it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Op zijn elvendertigst

Hey Randykitty, I have written up, with my usual thoroughness and diligence, two stubs--Révue Bénédictine and Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. They've been around forever, they're highly reliable (though the one is Jesuit...haha), and they're notable, but of course with journals that can be hard to prove (at least for me--I have to rely on sources, can't do fancy citation indices and stuff). If there's anything you can add, I would greatly appreciate it. Heat index today is 106: come by any time you like. I'm staying inside. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

106, Professor? Child's play... Tiderolls 17:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Going towards Pakistani temperatures, looks like... Added infoboxes and cleaned-up the Wikidata entries. Fortunately, one was in ATLA and both were in Scopus, so that was an easy meet of NJournals. For humanities journals it can often be hard to show notability, although I rarely take a journal that has been around as long as these to AfD. I have links to some of these databases on my user page. Staying inside myself, too: too many mosquitoes on the prowl... --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of history of I'm Always Here

Hello! After an AfD of the article I'm Always Here, the article was deleted and then redirected, but some editors suggested a redirect (implicitly keeping the history). I would argue the song meets the notability criteria as one of the remixes charted in seven countries and reached #4 in the UK. Would you consider restoring the article history so someone may work on the article in the future? --Bensin (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually, the one editor !voting redirect mentioned that the information was already present in the Baywatch article. Seems like undeleting the history would go against the AfD consensus. However, I can userfy the article to your userspace, so you can work on it there. Let me know. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The information is not present in the Baywatch article and to my knowledge it never has been. It is unfortunate I was not notified of the AfD-discussion at the time. Notifying creators and involved editors should be part of the AfD-process. Userfy is OK if you are reluctant to undelete. Please keep the history. Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
...adding a reminder here in case you forgot. Thanks for helping. --Bensin (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks again! --Bensin (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Science books

You might wish to weigh in here -- hopefully not in opposition: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 24#Category:Science books. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In re that Mexican Sociology journal

It's not a well written article, but it seems as if it's a real academic journal. I've slightly modified my motion on the AfD to "delete" or "userfy." Perhaps the author or one of its patrons could work on it and make sure it passes before moving it into article space. Just thought I'd alert you to see if it sounds like a good resolution to you, too. One wonders, by the way, if there is an article on the journal in the Spanish language wiki and why .en would require an article before it does. Oh, well. One wonders many things, including why one's students always "wander" why one marks their writing errors. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Tax Analysts

Hi there. I see you deleted Tax Analysts some time last year. If I recall correctly, the page used to have a fair amount of useful material, though I'm not sure what it looked like when you got to it.

Would you mind sending it to my userspace so I can see what can be salvaged? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Initialisms

Re European Intellectual Property Review. It was niggling at me, and my curiosity got the better of me....what's the reason to remove initialisms? Widefox; talk 09:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Initialisms are useful if a long expression is used repeatedly in an article. In the present case, however, I really don't see any use for it. The only people who might not be able to figure out the initialism for themselves would be illiterate people, not really our readership, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I hope that your trust in me will not prove to have been misplaced. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about alternate titles for academic journals

Hi Randykitty -- First and foremost, I want to thank you for your many careful edits of the academic journal pages I have created. Your eye for detail has improved them tremendously! I noticed that for the article about Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, you deleted the section listing the alternate title the journal used for its first twelve volumes. My understanding was that journal article pages should list alternate titles, but is there a specific protocol for when articles should include alternate titles? Some libraries index the first twelve volumes of the journal under the alternate title, so I think it might be helpful to include. However, please let me know if there is a policy for this. Thanks again for your help and guidance! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • We sometimes have a separate section for journals with a complicated history. If there's only one previous title (and even more so when the only change is the addition of a subtitle), we include it in the "history" section if there is one, or otherwise even simply in the lead. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

You deleted my page "Maurice Carpenter" on May 19th and I wanted to see what I needed to do to have it reinstated. I am unsure why it was even deleted. Thanks!! Luckyleftyllc (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • It was deleted according to policy that biographies of living people (BLPs) need to have at least one reliable source verifying at least some of the info in the article. To have it reinstated, that is what is needed: sources. If you think you can add those, I can move the deleted article to your userspace so that you can work on it. Let me know. --Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice for The Urban Lawyer

Thanks again for all your help editing and improving the journal articles I have been working on this last month! I am writing because I was hoping I could get your advise about how I can improve the article for The Urban Lawyer. I see that you helped Genes, Brain and Behavior achieve GA status -- my hope is that I can one day take The Urban Lawyer to GA status as well. I've tried to follow the model of Genes, Brain and Behavior as much as possible, and I've also followed the guidelines in WP:JOURNALS/WG. I know you have already made several edits to the article, but any general suggestions you have for how to improve it would be much appreciated. I hope you are enjoying the holiday weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Would be nice to have one more GA article in this project :-) I don't have much experience with GAs, given that most of my contributions have been in the are of academic journals, where indepent reliable sources are often quite rare. That's a problem in this article, too. We usually require an independent source for things like circulation, which is here sourced to the journal itself (and if I click that link, I don't see any circulation totals at all, so this fails verification even for that primary non-independent source). It would also be nice if more of the references had online links if available (but print sources are perfectly fine if an URL is not available). In general, it is extremely important that everything is sourced and that the sources actually verify the claims made. That's about the advice I can give right now, you could also try to ask the GA reviewer of Genes, Brain and Behavior for their opinion, they were very helpful with that article and have more experience with that than I have. Hope this helps a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much for your feedback! Finding independent reliable sources has definitely been a challenge for this article. I have scoured the internet, JSTOR, Westlaw, LexisNexis, and HeinOnline looking for everything that has been written about this journal, and I am fairly certain I have included all relevant information that exists in secondary sources. Unfortunately, many of the sources are stuck behind paywalls -- and even if you have access to Westlaw or Lexisnexis, your subscription may not give you access to those particular sources. Nevertheless, I will go through the sources over the next few days to put in as many links as I can. I also fixed the link to the citation for the circulation totals, so that should be working now. I'll also get in touch with TLSuda (the GA reviewer for Genes, Brain and Behavior) to see if they have any advice. In any case, I truly appreciate your willingness to lend a helping hand and offer advice :-) It is a rare quality around here! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have access to JSTOR, HeinOnline, LexisNexis, and Westlaw through an affiliation with a university, but I have never used Highbeam -- I'll check in with the library about requesting access to it. I also tried searching through Google Scholar, but I didn't have much luck there. I'll definitely keep looking though! I also reached out to TLSuda to hear what they have to say, but I haven't heard back yet. I will certainly let you know if anything else transpires. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops!

Regarding this, I guess my first clue I was too late was the pinkness of the background and the "do not modify" at the top? Not one of my finest, most aware moments! Thanks for not calling me an idiot in the edit summary (you would have been justified in doing so) :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

'cratty comment

I thought you were talking about this editor. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Activity levels

I think this is probaly what you are looking for. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hijacked journal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacker. 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) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Better Box

Thanks! I had wanted that box and could not find the template. The one I found was on a page that said, "Do not use this template..." But I really wish you would have told me before you deleted the picture so that I could have had one up right away to replace it. I've flagged the former picture for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777desha777 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't worry, took me only a coupe of minutes. BTW, the new picture needs a source (not "digital" or something like that, but where you got the file: website, own work, etc). It also needs proof of permission: you list Silbermann as the author. If that is the case, only Silbermann can release the article under CC and you'll need proof of that ("will be provided upon request" is not acceptable, I am afraid). I tagged the file for this, which gives you a week to get the necessary formalities done (perhaps you'll need to go through the OTRS system. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Lab Consulting

I'm a tad confused by your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lab Consulting. You closed stating that you would userfy the article, but deleted it outright instead of moving it to preserve the page's history. Was there a reason for that? The reason that multiple editors (including myself) advocated for userfying was to preserve page history. ~ RobTalk 14:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed that you restored it. Nevermind; I guess you were in the middle of userfying. ~ RobTalk 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It was a bit muddled, because I didn't pay enough attention and also restored two version from 2010... Should be OK now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Patty Walters Deletion

Hi,

In response to the deletion of the Patty Walters article, the individual is a notable musician because of his solo work on YouTube which gained him significant recognition in various articles, both printed in magazines such as Kerrang (scans of one of the three printed journal articles, which discusses Walters in-depth, that had been used as a source can be viewed here) and on various online articles, and his work with other bands (such as Sunrise Skater Kids and As It Is). Additionally, there was not a single source in the article considered unacceptable per Wikipedia guidelines as some on the AfD page had tried to say, the majority of which were secondary sources. Also, on the AfD page for the article, five people cast a vote on whether or not the article should have been deleted with an outcome of three voting that it should be kept to two voting that it should be deleted; the majority of those who voted on the AfD page voted for the article to be kept. Walters is a notable individual who has been recognized in-depth in a variety of articles. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, please note that AfD is not a vote. As I said in the closing statement, it was my informed opinion that the delete !votes had the stronger arguments. Of course, if you disagree with my close, you can take this to WP:DRV. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, I will take the article to WP:DRV. I do not feel that the reasons for deletion were stronger arguments, they said that Walters needed to be discussed in-depth in a reliable article (which he was in various articles such as the one that I mentioned above), that the sources provided were not reliable (however I rebutted each individual claim on the AfD page with a Wikipedia policy), and that Walters is not notable, however he has done much outside of As It Is, most significantly working on YouTube to the point where his YouTube work was significant enough to receive recognition in various articles, as well as other collaborative works outside of his band. Thank you. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Patty Walters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patty Walters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the housekeeping

A celestial body deleted from the list of planets for you!
Thanks for the deletion binge this morning! —jameslucas (" " / +) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Also thanks from me for your help on my first article! FelixNaumann (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Journal mill

Hey Randykitty, hope you are well. We're hitting 100 degrees here for the next two days.

Every time I get mail from one of these pay-for-play journals I check to see if we cite them anywhere. Today's spam was for "International journal of humanities social sciences and education" (no punctuation, haha), and I found one article from that journal ($100 for online submission outside India) cited twice, in Alikhan Bukeikhanov and Leninshil Zhas. So I look at those articles and I'm thinking, well, you know, it's on some Kazakh topic, there's not much scholarship in English, we should treat these things on a case-by-base basis, etc--and then I look at the article itself. It's written by "Zhamiga T. Tanatarova, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Vice-rector for Scientific Affairs and International Relations, Kh.Dosmukhamedov Atyrau State University, Atyrau, Kazakhstan", which sounds wordy but legit. So far so good, and just when I'm about to allow it, I read the first two lines.

Attention to the history of various complex periods suffered by Kazakh people, carrying it to future generations is the main task of historians. Manifestations of supremacy of command administrative system during the period of the Soviet power, its multiple faces must still be studied in detail and put forward for public discussion.

I cited the second sentence lest the English of the first one wasn't atrocious enough, but the first sentence already makes clear that we're dealing with a theory of historiography that does not pass muster anywhere but in one place. Anyway, I'm going to remove this. Sad since, as I said, there are so few sources on such topics. And I'm going to browse around for "arcjournals". Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad. But in general, these "journals" publish only crap. A while ago, one outfit accepted and even published an "article" entitled "Take me off you fucking spamlist" or something similar and the body of text was just the same phrase repeated over and over again... --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In other news, I've been personally and individually selected by Faculty Row for inclusion in their Academic Hall of Fame! Check it out--I'm one of America's Top Professors! Beat me to that, Mr. European neurosurgeon. I'm gonna celebrate with a big old can of Miller Lite. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I'm impressed. Although perhaps you didn't pay your dues, because using their search facility, it seems they already have thrown you out again... Here it's not a 100, but getting close and I just had 2 pints of cold Kilkenny's with a good old Canadian friend :-) --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Saving the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum page

Hi Randykitty, I'm writing so that the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum page may be exempt from deletion. I am the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum Editor in Chief, able to use the Forum's information where and how I see fit. I have not infringed on any copyright by using the Forum's information page as the basis for the wikipedia page entry. You may see the information used on the wikipedia page is the same as the "About" section of our Forum site page, found here: http://bciptf.org/?page_id=30. Please let me know what steps are needed to allow for the wikipedia page's existence. Thanks Baywalker4

  • Indeed the text of the wikiarticle was the same as in the link you give. That webpage also has a clear copyright statement. Unfortunately, I have no way of verifying that you are authorized to release this text under a CC license. There is a mechanism for this (WP:OTRS), but even if you'd follow those procedures and donate the text, it would still be unusable, because it is not neutral and encyclopedic. If not for being a copyvio, I would have deleted it as promotional. If you want to give it another try, use your sandbox and also read WP:NJournals.
I see that Ubiquity has given you an excellent and extensive answer to your questions already, so I will leave it at this. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Aggression and Violent Behavior

I noticed you removed descriptions of this journal as a review journal despite the fact that its website says that it is a review journal right in the title. Can you explain why you did this? Thanks! Everymorning talk 14:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Because in that very same phrase, they contradict this by stating that it is a "journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs" (my emphasis). The latter doesn't sound as a "review" to me, but as a research report. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Max Read listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Max Read. Since you had some involvement with the Max Read redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GamerPro64 02:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

king mez

king mez article you deleted today was just recreated again. could use some salting methinks. 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry

Hi, I'm very confused as to what's happening here but a page I created got deleted and I'm not sure why. Please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshheirs00 (talk • contribs)

  • I assume you're talking about the article King Mez. That article was deleted after a community discussion. Re-creating it like you did is inappropriate and if you keep doing that, the result is just going to be that the article will be "salted". I see that you already have gotten more advice on your talk page. WP:DRV is the way to go if you disagree with the outcome of the deletion discussion or if you feel that there are new elements that would justify creation of this article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vikalpa SAGE

This is an interesting case. The user page is a clear violation of a promotional user name, but the page itself may be of a notable journal (once trimmed of promotional content). What do you think?--I am One of Many (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to improve British Journal of Sports Medicine page - I am the Editor (I appreciate potential conflict of interest there but I was trying to be factual)

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. The British Journal of Sports Medicine page is a STUB and I would like to improve it. I was trying to use Harvard Business Reviews as a template. I can get fully certified permission to upload an image. Can you help me understand what I did wrong? Thanks for your advice. karim

  • Please see WP:JWG for some tips on how to improve/write neutral articles on journals, even if you have a COI. You can also have a look at our (few) "good articles" (such as Genes, Brain and Behavior), to see how to improve an article. As for images, the writing guide has instructions on how to upload them under "fair use", no official permission needed. A bit short on time, but hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding scientific journals

Hi Randykitty. Thanks for your kind remark. I have modified the Category:Natural science journals redirecting it to Category:Scientific journals. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Mez

Freshheirs00 has asked for a deletion review of King Mez. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Industrial Psychiatry Journal

I was about to PROD this (not in Scopus or PubMed, no IF) but I wanted to get your opinion on whether the listed databases (EBSCO databases, ProQuest, and Expanded Academic ASAP) are selective. Everymorning talk 03:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm afraid those databases are not selective enough to meet NJournals... I'm surprised that a journal that has been around so long did not at least manage to get into Scopus, which really is not all that difficult. --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous frequencies, etc

Hallo Randykitty, apropos of British Journal of Sports Medicine but with wider relevance: "Bi-weekly" is ambiguous to me (either 26 or 104 times a year), and, according to Wiktionary, is particularly ambiguous in British English. It's probably best avoided, just like dates in the form 6-11-1952 (6th November to me, probably 11th June to many readers). I used "24/year" as per the journal's home page. I've also replied at length to the editor's request on my talk page for help (all I'd done was fix a typo and make a redirect to turn blue a red link, having noticed his plea on this page), and uploaded a cover image for him as a Good Deed.

It might be useful if the notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Cover mentioned which non-free description to choose: I opted for "magazine cover", athough conscious that academic journals and magazines aren't the same (as per the "which infobox" problem from using HBR as a pattern for BJSM)! The resulting record here doesn't look much like the record given as an example - presumably the upload wizard has included different fields over time. Might that be usefully updated - giving a more current uploaded file as an example? Sorry, should probably be making these suggestions at the Journals project page not here ... ! (Third point: the infobox documentation doesn't say anything about image size. I copied 200px from BMJ, as the unsized image came out too large. The Genes, Brain and Behavior GA you mention above has a naturally small image, no size specified.) PamD 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi; sorry for the slow answer, I'm currently pretty busy in RL. We have two categories (Category:Biweekly journals and Category:Biweekly magazines) with together almost 300 entries that all use "biweekly" in the sense of "every two weeks". How should those be better named? Thanks for your suggestions for the writing guide, when I have more time, I'll integrate those. I myself always use the "magazine cover" template, as there is no difference for fair use for magazine or journal covers. The image gets sized automatically at 200 px, unless it was not uploaded in lo-res, then you have to specify it as you did, until somebody gets around to rescale the image (fair use doesn't permit hi-res). --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there exist both Category:Biweekly magazines and Category:Fortnightly magazines, which appear to be defined identically! (And Category:Bi-monthly magazines with a hyphen, just to add a little inconsistency). The various categories (for journals, newspaper, magazines) all have notes about their content, including defining "bi...ly" (I've just added one to Category:Bimonthly newspapers which didn't have one). I note that there is Category:Biannual journals, defined as 2 issues/year - ie using the "Bi" prefix in the other sense - where perhaps every two years would be "Biennial", which is a bit subtle! Possibly Biweekly would be better renamed as Category:Fortnightly journals, though I struggle to find a short clear alternative to "Bimonthly". I still think that in the infobox it's clearer to say 6/year, 24/year, 26/year or whatever, rather than use the ambiguous term there.
The image I added to BJSM didn't seem to get autosized, but perhaps I only looked at it when "Previewed" rather than saved, and changed the size manually before saving it. Would that explain it? When I first looked at infobox with image added it was far too wide. PamD 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No, normally preview will give you what you see after saving. I just checked and id does indeed display too large if the size isn't specified. I tagged it for downsizing and a bot will come by at some point, but at just over 50 Kb, it might not even do that. Strange. Didn't know about the "fortnightly magazines" cat, but I guess they should be merged. We also have Category:Japanese semimonthly manga magazines, but "fortnightly" seems clearer to me and I think it could be used in the infobox without being ambiguous. Bimonthly (and bi-monthly) remains a problem, unless we'd go for the awkward "Journals/magazines published every second month" or something like that. Never really noticed that "bi" was used in different ways for "biannual" and "biweekly/monthly"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: just see we also have Category:Semimonthly magazines, to distinguish between those published twice a month (24/year) and those published every two weeks (26/year). For journals, those are combined... --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

EPW

Greetings. I just saw this edit of yours, and I was wondering why you removed the category; "social science journal" is as accurate a descriptor of EPW as I can think of, and I frequently use it as a source on the 'pedia, so I know it well. Could you please explain? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • That cat should not contain any journals, but they should be put in appropriate subcats, which I have now done. I have cleaned up the article, removing some unsourced puffery and making clearer that this is not just an ordinary news magazine but a peer-reviewed academic journal, indexed in sources such as Scopus. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, that makes sense. I think I saw your edit after you removed the parent category, but before you added the new one, which is why I was a bit mystified. Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I got to the article via the "social science journals" cat, so that was the first edit, then went through the whole article and references and that took a while... I don't like to make many successive small edits. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romance Studies journal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance. 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) 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ask for help to userfy an article

Hello again! And thanks for helping me last time. Could you perhaps help me with userfying this article and its history? It was deleted 17:53, 29 March 2008 after this AfD disucssion. It was a close vote with a slight favoring keep. I'd ask the closing admin, but they appear to no longer be active. --Bensin (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The article that was deleted on 17:53, 29 March 2008 (see link to log above) was overwritten with new content. So I need the content (and history) that was deleted on 17:53, 29 March 2008. --Bensin (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal of American College Health

I noticed you changed the publisher to Routledge, but This link says it's published by Taylor & Francis. What was the source you had for changing the publisher to Routledge? Everymorning talk 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The journal's homepage: just below the cover image is the imprint under which it is published. Routledge is, of course, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, which employs several imprints (apart from Routledge, also Taylor & Francis, Psychology Press, CRC Press, and Garland Science). So it is published by the T&F Group (as the link you gave above says), but not under its T&F imprint. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL

I found some troll edits on the history of the article Daina Taimina by user Misteranarcy420, and he made VERY disrespectful edits on William Thurston, a person I've personally met and whose work I admire very much, so it made me really sad to see such evil defamation there. I want to request that his edit summaries be hidden and also the content of his edits. Can you do this? 1croonjosie (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Good catch! I also revdel'ed some similar edits on John Hopcroft. For good measure I have blocked the account, although given that their last edits were over 2 years ago, it is unlikely that this troll will ever return. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 1croonjosie (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Easy to find"

I noticed you often add bibliographic information to the infobox of journal articles, and that when doing so you often describe the information in question as "easy to find". E.g. here and here. I wanted to know what the website is where you are finding this information if doing so is indeed easy. I looked at the JACH NLM catalog listing and I didn't see the OCLC, for example, so that's apparently not it. Everymorning talk 17:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Go to the source, not the NLM cat (their LCCN numbers, for whatever reason, are more often wrong than not). In the infobox, click on the print ISSN. That'll take you to WorldCat. The OCLC number is the last part of the URL (it's also somewhere in the text on the screen, but taking it from the URL saves time. For the LCCN, copy the print ISSN and paste it in the search box at http://catalog.loc.gov/ and hit enter. If there's a LCCN, it will take you there (not all journals have one though). Their info for a CODEN is usually correct (can't remember ever getting a wrong one). If it isn't there, go directly to CASSI here and again use the print ISSN (some databases don't have the online URL, I guess in time that'll change...) In all, takes two minutes to get the necessary info :-) Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

SAGE Publications

I don't understand why you're feeling me I can't put the publisher's name as SAGE. That's the way the company itself does it. It's an abbreviation. This makes no sense to me. It'd be like writing Fbi. Cicarlson88 (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Biographical Articles

I noticed that you have been very involved on the Talk pages of Behavioural Genetics, the Journal of Comparative Psychology, and other related topics. I wish to begin an article on Jerry Hirsch, an animal behavior geneticist who was intimately involved in the early development of the field of behavior genetics. He also became a very controversial figure beginning in the 1970s because of his fervent opposition to some of the claims made by those studying heredity and racial differences (and similar subjects). I'm hoping that, as I develop this article, you will be able to help me with making sure it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. I also should point out that he was my dissertation advisor, so unconscious bias when writing the article is a potential problem.

However, I don't think there is a conflict of interest given that I graduated in 1987, no longer am a behavior-genetics researcher, and Professor Hirsch died 7 years ago. I simply noticed that there was no article about a man who had an important influence on the development of behavior genetics. JRicker,PhD (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, I have occasionally also played with the idea of starting a bio for Jerry Hirsch myself, but never got around to it. He definitely meets our inclusion criteria. I am familiar with his work and his criticisms. He was right about many things, although he sometimes would go over the top (in my opinion) and I most certainly think that if he had formulated his critiques in a less virulent way that people in the BG field might have actually listened to him. As it was, Jerry Hirsch's influence on BG as a field was much less than what it could have been and I don't think his influence is even noticeable any more today. There's a recent book that may be helpful, perhaps you already saw it (Misbehaving Science by Aaron Panofsky), giving a good idea of how BG got stuck in the "variance partitioning mode" that Hirsch so abhorred. Ironically, I think that he unwillingly contributed to the entrenchment that took place. I see that you already started in your sandbox and that you already have the obit that Wahlsten wrote. I'd have to check whether there were any other obits (Behavior Genetics?) Regardless, there are sources enough. There's Tully's article in PNAS about the "Hirschian" vs "Benzerian" approaches, for example. And I once heard that the BGA was actually founded in Hirsch's living room? Not sure there's a good source for that, though. I've placed your sandbox on my watchlist and will keep an eye on your advances and chime in if I can be of any help. Don't hesitate to post here if you have a question, I'll be glad to help. --Randykitty (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with much of your overall assessment of Professor Hirsch, although I think his influence continues today in ways that are not easy to see for a number of reasons. Most important, I think his polemics alienated many people (and not only those he criticized), so that his accomplishments, especially as an organizer and advocate for BG in its early days, are not discussed as much as they probably would have been. But as you noted, his vilification of those he disagreed with also may have added much fuel to the fire. As for your other comments: (1) yes, I've been reading Panofsky's book; (2) there are a number of other obituaries; (3) I'm very familiar with the Hirschian/Benzerian issue (I remember reading the paper when it first came out, and a discussion also appears in Seymour Benzer). I don't think I've ever heard the living-room anecdote before, but it sounds a bit like an "origin myth"; and Hirsch's living room was pretty small :-) Thank you for responding and for your willingness to help. JRicker,PhD (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I remember seeing that article. Gottesman is still around, as is Richard Rose. At least this article can be used to surce the fact that Hirsch "co-hosted" this meeting. Looks like Osborne was the person who took the initiative, though. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for inspiring me to look more closely at the founding of the BGA. It should help me in another project I'm working on. I've just read the paper by Osborne & Osborne (1999), which contains reprints of short updates published in Social Biology from 1969 to 1973. As I suspected, the living-room anecdote is an "origin myth" that, if Hirsch actually said it (did you hear him tell the story?), was the result of a false memory he constructed over the years (if I find anything about an informal living-room meeting, however, I'll let you know here). The planning for the eventual founding of the BGA apparently began in 1966 after Dobzhansky, at the 3rd Princeton Workshop Conference (the American Eugenics Society was funding this series of conferences) mentioned the idea. Over the next several years, informal and formal meetings were held. The 1970 meeting mentioned by Gottesman seems not to have been an informal one. Here's the relevant information from the Osborne & Osborne paper (I'll put the reference in my Sandbox): "It was decided that a formal organizational meeting should be held, and Jerry Hirsch offered to host such a meeting at the University of Illinois, Urbana, on March 30, 1970" (p. 210).

      The initial organizational meeting for an association of behavior genetics was held at the University of Illinois on March 30, 1970 with Jerry Hirsch as host and R. D. Bock and R. J. Rose assisting in the arrangement of an agenda….A group of seventeen individuals participated in the organizational meeting at the Illini Union. Three others who had planned to attend were unable to do so because of airline strikes. Present were Gordon Allen, V. Elving Anderson, R. Darrell Bock, Jan Bruell, Arthur Falek, Irving I. Gottesman, J. P. Hegmann, Kenneth E. Henry, Leonard L. Heston, Jerry Hirsch, Arnold R. Kaplan, Seymour Kessler, John C. Loehlin, Richard H. Osborne, Richard J. Rose, Steven G. Vandenberg, and George Winokur. R. H. Osborne acted as informal chairman for the meeting. (p. 211)

      JRicker,PhD (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I actually heard this story not just once, but several times from Jerry himself. And it never was my understanding that this had been an informal meeting, his words were "BGA was founded in my living room". But perhaps it was indeed a false memory and the actual meeting took place in a university meeting room. Most likely, at least some of those people could have been invited to Hirsch's home for a social gathering and he later mixed up those memories. Seventeen people would be a crowd for any living room and if his was indeed as small as you say, then this is what must have happened. --Randykitty (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The last time I will clutter up your Talk page :-) Your comment suggests that both accounts are correct. I spent 10 years in Hirsch's lab (as an undergrad and grad student). He always entertained visiting guests at his house. He probably invited participants over on various nights after meeting at the Union. They would have continued the day's discussions in his living room (and kitchen and dining room). I suspect he was using humor to describe the founding of BGA. In essence, BGA was founded in a meeting room in the Illini Union and at his house :-) Again, I won't clutter up your Talk page anymore. Thank you JRicker,PhD (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for the help you've given me so far on my first article. I'm spending the month of August trying to develop my Wiki expertise. I appreciate your assistance. JRicker,PhD (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Journal

Re this edit - is it not just as encyclopaedic to mention a journal's previous ISO abbreviations as to mention its previous names? Template:Infobox_journal/doc does not forbid this. --Kwekubo (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • There's no formal injunction, but it clutters up the infobox. Personally, I also don't think that old abbreviations are very interesting at all (even though there should be redirects from them to the article, in case someone cites an older article). In any case, we don't list those abbreviations in any other journal article that I am aware of (and I've seen thousands... :-). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese Chemical Letters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese Chemical Society. 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) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cognitive Psychology

I was going to create a page on this journal. However, I ran into a problem with their ISSN. All the sources I could find including their own website say that the journal's ISSN is 0010-0285. But when I previewed a version of the infobox with that ISSN in it and then clicked on the corresponding link to Worldcat it took me here instead. Do you have any idea why this might be the case? Everymorning talk 14:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Strabge, never seen anything like that! The ISSN mentioned for that journal is quite different. The OCLC number you're looking for seems to be 1411264, which does mention the correct title and ISSN. No clue why WorldCat is acting like this... --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Avdhoot Baba Shivanand

Hi Randykitty,

Thanks for clarifying on my talkpage and helping me as a new user. So I had created the article with pure knowledge that I had as an article about Avdhoot Bba Shivanand was not available on wiki. I was like how can there be something not available on wiki. Thus with a very pure intent of starting a draft on wiki and letting the community edit and lead I initiated the article. But its deleted :( and it says its advertising :(

Can I get help to edit and remove the sections of advertising such that we can bring the article back?

thanks ~~gaurangkatyal~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurangkatyal (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, I just had another look and there is really nothing salvageable in the deleted article. Please read the linked guides, guidelines, and policies in the welcome template on your talk page, especially those applying to buiographies and those about adhering to a neutral point of view. I recommend that once you have digested that, you start again and properly source everything that is claimed in the article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

help needed with notability Nigel D. Oram

Dear Randykitty,

you have added a notability tag to Nigel D Oram. Could you please assist in editing this article and if necessary finding suitable sources to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia Policy. thanks. Garyvines (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Before tagging, I searched the Web of Science, which only gives a handful of citations to works by Oram. WoS is not always very good in areas like archeology, so I also searched Google Scholar, which gives some more citations, but again nothing that stands out, even in low-citation density fields like archeology/ethnology/etc. A Google search for "Nigel D. Oram" gives just 29 hits, 7 of them WP related. One is to a review of one of his books, but that's all I found. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A search on "Nigel Oram" gives far more results in various areas - not all the Australian ethnographer, but many are - - I see quite a few books and citation in a search on Google Books and nearly all the 160 results from Scholar for "Nigel Oram" are the subject. Any chance you could follow up? thanks Garyvines (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The number of GScholar hits is not important, that just reflects how many items (articles, books, etc) the subject has published, not whether they were noted. The latter is indicated by the number of citations, which are too low to indicate notability according to WP:PROF#1. But if you see good sources discussing the subject in depth, by all means add them to the article and if satisfactory, I'll remove the notability tag. --Randykitty (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

psychz network

can you just highlight the lines that you think are promotional in my article.Earlier when i posted my article i was only informed about the issue that were, there is no category its orphan and links are not appropriate we provided links as well as category and now you just deleted my page by saying that its promotional.So please kindly highlight the promotional lines for my guidence so that i can rewrite it again. Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracechilcott (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The whole tone of the article is promotional (from the prominently emphasized uptime to which customers it is suitable for to way "you" can choose for options). There's no real sourcing either (the company's own website, a press release on Yahoo Finance and a brief profile on the website of a partner). Article creation is one of the hardest things to do here on WP and articles on companies are the most difficult ones. I recommend that you start editing other articles in your area of interest/expertise before trying this again. I have placed another "welcome template" on your talk page, this one with more links than the one that was already there and suggest that you read at least some of the guidelines/policies (especially those on reliable sources and notability in the WP sense. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Woman Studies

It's indexed in SCImago Journal Rank (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100286987&tip=sid&clean=0). Does that imply indexing in the Science Citation Index like the SCImago article says? Because I would be surprised if a feminist journal was indexed in a scientific journal database...

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The data that SCImago uses and on which they base the statistics they calculate for journals, come from Scopus. So if a journal is in SCImago, it implies listing in Scopus (can also be verified directly, see link to Scopus journal list on my user page). The same does not go for the SCI: listing in SCImagi does not imply listing in the SCI (or the SSCI). According to the TR master journal list, Canadian Woman Studies is not indexed in any of their databases, not even the SSCI. --Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, Randykitty! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avengers of eXtreme Illusions

Hi. Hate to bother you. I'm relatively new to the AfD process, and am trying to figure out how to best contribute there, so I take a look at the reasoning behind closure decision. When you closed this discussion, you said the result was "Keep", yet in your statement you said "The two sources highlighted by Luckynumber78 are too brief to qualify under GNG." The statement seems to be a rationale not to keep. What am I missing? Anyway, thanks for your help. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_14&oldid=1081891188"