User talk:Tansyderby

Welcome!

Hello, Tansyderby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Journal of Medical Economics. 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But do not also use the term "crap" and other dirty words to describe an objective piece of information. Words like yours do not have any place in WP. Indicating the objective ranking of a journal is not crap.Tansyderby (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Top-ranked journal" is not "an objective piece of information" or "objective ranking". Calling "crap" for what it is, is not a personal attack. Calling another editor an "idiot" is a personal attack and can lead to being blocked from editing if repeated. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"'Crap' for what it is" is your personal opinion. In the same way that "idiot" is my personal opinion. Either we both get away with them or we both get suspended. Nothing in WP:NPA says "crap" is not a personal attack or that "crap" is a holy word that you or any editor can use. Thanks.Tansyderby (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Crap" was a comment on content. "Idiot" is a comment on a person. That's a big difference. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that is your personal opinion. I (and I am sure other people, especially from other cultures) would also consider "crap" as a direct, personal, uncalled for attack on a person, as in saying "you are full of crap" in an indirect way. That is the reason why many Americans are hated abroad. American language, as opposed to other forms of English, relies (happily) on metaphors and idioms so that they will not be faulted for a personal attack. So "crap" is close to that famous American idiom, "a monkey on my back," which is offensive to many Asian and African cultures. You can use that same expression in WP and say that is a comment about a journal revision, etc., never an attack on the person, but they will not buy that in many parts of Asia or Africa, where the monkey is highly regarded, if not revered.Tansyderby (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to educate you on how it is used on WP, not Africa or Asia, because it will make your life easier here if you understand WP:NPA. My use of "crap" will not raise any eyebrows if you take this to WP:ANI, but your use of "idiot" will get you blocked from editing at the same venue. Take the advice or leave it, that's up to you. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your education, but I am also educating you because nothing, ABSOLUTE NOTHING in WP:NPA, or anywhere in WP, permits you to use and get away with "crap" which is personally and directly offensive. So, like I said, either we both get suspended or we both get away with the use of our preferred terminologies. It is just a matter of context because WP editors will not just say I get suspended for saying "idiots" and they will close your eyes and say you are the "good guy" for saying "crap." They will ask what provoked the use of "idiot"? Yes, I might get suspended, but so will you.Tansyderby (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to try your luck at WP:ANI. Any response to my question in the section below? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have repeatedly said to you, and I am sorry but I cannot further waste my precious time on this anymore (since I do not get paid for this when I earn $344/hour in my current profession): "ABSOLUTE NOTHING in WP:NPA, or anywhere in WP, permits you to use and get away with "crap." Neither that word (or mine) is not even mentioned in your WP citations. So we can either both try our luck in using them as we have, or simply move on and have a great lunch in an hour or so. No need to further try my luck, because the editing of that journal is long, long done and I do not intend to go back to that volunteer non-paid editing work, when I could easily get $344 an hour, or more, for all these discussions with you if I only spent it in my professional setting. So that is my last and final response to your question.Tansyderby (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Medical Economics

If you look closely, the citation info from Scopus (which is what SCImago uses) is referenced in the article. In order to say that a journal is "highly ranked", you need a reliable source independent of the journal that says exactly that. Without such a source, a claim like that is simply unjustified promotional language. As for the h-index: while it is used frequently (for better or for worse) to evaluate individual researchers, very few people (if any) pay attention to this index for journals. So, if available, we present impact factors in journal articles, but not other metrics. (Again, for better or for worse, the IF is something many people find important whereas hardly anybody pays attention to other metrics. That may be regrettable, but WP follows usage in the real world and does not advocate changing anything). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The JME has a high impact factor of 1.48 which I just put in to replace the h-index and following your comment that "if available, we present impact factors in journal articles." Thanks.Tansyderby (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last edition of the Journal Citation Reports does not list the journal, so it has no impact factor (although it probably will get one in the future, as it is in the Science Citation Index Expanded). This again confirms the unreliability of ResearchGate as a source for impact factors. And you added again the "top-ranked journal" bit, which is promotional and not sourced to any independent source, but apparently just your opinion (see also WP:SYNTH). Even if this would have an IF of 1.5, that would almost certainly not make it rank in the top of whatever category you might want to place it. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top-ranked because most journals, in any field, do not reach an impact factor of even 1.0 or an median h-index of 36 like the JME. But will remove from now, as we realize the impact factor is way outdated from 2011 and a new, much higher one (as the journal ages) should be available soon. Also removing editor affiliation which is not done with other, comparable journals like the Journal of Health Economics, besides the fact that he is no longer at that university. Tansyderby (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the vast majority of journals, we do list editor affiliations. (But not links to their homepages unless particularly relevant to the journal). If that info is missing in a journal article, it should be added (or sometimes it is not there because it is unknown). BTW, what do you mean with "we realize"? Are you a group of people? And an IF of 1 is quite low, in almost any field except mathematics. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, depends on whose perspective. If you look at the median IF of most journals, they do not reach 1 or 0.99, so 1.5 is quite high, and 3.0 is very high. If you look at it from the point of mathematics, or econometrics (math-based), above 1.0 is high. Now if you use other standards, it might be low or not too high. It really depends. Point is: Any ranking or factor will not say this score is excellent, that is very good, etc. This is not a high school GPA system where grades have letter or descriptive associations.Tansyderby (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly because it is a matter of perspective, we require an independent source before you can use words like "top ranked". And could you please respond to my question about your use of the royal "we"? I'd like to know whether I am dealing with a single person or a group. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask one more time: are you a single person or editing on behalf of a group? If a group, which one? If a single person, why refer to yourself as "we"? --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery

You are welcome to comment at Talk:McGill University#Gallery of rich and famous. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at McGill University, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What disruptive editing? Explain. I merely restored the images under Notable People that you deleted and kept deleting because there has been no resolution on this issue and because you are just doing this deletion for McGill University, correct? Why invite me/anyone to comment on the Talk Page about this issue if you will just unilaterally delete without the benefit of consensus and discussion. So explain what editing I have made other than to revert to the original section on Notable People.Tansyderby (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Tansyderby. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page McGill University, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You stated at Talk:McGill University#Gallery of rich and famous that you edit on behalf of McGill alumni, and you have edited articles of McGill alumni, such as Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Harold Tafler Shapiro, and David H. Hubel. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you Magnolia677 will not stop imagining and accusing me of a fictitious conflict of interest because the "edit history" of McGill University clearly shows that : 1) you were the one who deleted and kept deleting the notable alumni images; and 2) you could not give anyone in the Talk page any reason why you deleted all those images ONLY for McGill University and not any other images of notable alumni in any other WP university article. That is clear and pure conflict of interest solely on your part.

I already said in the Talk page of McGill University that I have nothing to disclose since I have no conflict of interest, I am not paid as an editor, I am not an employee of McGill or any McGill alumni, etc. WP can easily verify that my user name is not for a paid editor. You are free to report if you wish and they will not find any interest conflict on my part. No public university or alumni pays to edit for WP. Keep in mind, too, that McGill University IS A NON-PROFIT, PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT-FUNDED UNIVERSITY and will never do any marketing or promotional campaign anywhere, anytime, especially through WP. As a public institution, anything and anyone that McGill pays for is publicly disclosed, and you can go check that for yourself. So you are obviously imagining way too much with this supposed conflict of interest if only because you are running out of excuses to delete images of McGill's famous alumni. Just because I edit McGill does not mean I have a conflict of interest. I also edited other articles unrelated to McGill. You just cannot accept that a viable consensus/solution has been reached in the Talk page of McGill University for posting alumni images in the List of university people of any university so you keep on making up this conflict of interest theory. Respect and recognize that consensus and move on. Otherwise, I will seek arbitration to suspend you as an editor. Do not undermine the consensus established there in that Talk page by harping on some conspiracy theory that you based on innuendoes and lies you just made up. I can see from your pattern of editing that you are really the one who has a conflict of interest. Tansyderby (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harold Tafler Shapiro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald O. Hebb, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BA and MA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]