User talk:Randykitty/Archive 18

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

Sithu aye

Hi, can you please undo the delete of his article?

Here are the references that prove he is significant right now: http://www.itdjents.com/reviews-2/review-sithu-aye-set-course-andromeda/ http://www.itdjents.com/frontpage/weekly-featured-artist-sithu-aye-full-album-stream/ https://www.djentmag.com/philosophy/sithu-aye-set-course-for-andromeda/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaziqta (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but none of those sources seem to be what we call reliable sources contributing to notability. Adding them to the article would just result in it getting deleted again, either as A7 or after a deletion discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Sithu-Aye/34429/ http://www.metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=9262 http://www.metalunderground.com/bands/details.cfm?bandid=12679&tab=news http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/plinisithu-aye-i-independent-music-review/

That guy is notable, man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaziqta (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but those all look to me as user-contributed stuff, which is not admissible as a source. Take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. If the people there are fine with restoring the page, I have no objection to that. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the advice, I am glad you are keeping it tight, guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaziqta (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sanam Johar

Hi Randykitty,
You deleted this page less than 24 hours ago, but it was back up in less than 90 minutes. I removed the peacockery [1] before I noticed it had been deleted twice recently. Is it improved at all? 220 of Borg 00:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for letting me know. It was deleted twice, once as A7 (no credible claim of notability) and then G11 (spam) by me. Neither A7 nor G11 seems appropriate this time. I had a look at the sources and they're quite meager, mostly just a single paragraph with some trivia. Also, I have no idea how reliable those sources are. The article could do with some more pruning (e.g., know for his cool behavior... Really??). Perhaps it should go to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Sanam Johar. It actually appears to be a copy-vio, but I couldn't template the page because the website is black-listed. (Not so cool ...) 220 of Borg 10:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I could check that website and it is indeed a copyvio. I have deleted it accordingly. Thanks for noticing this! --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
'Evil deed' for day done, relaxes in secret lair, laughs evil mastermind laugh (bwah ha ha). Plots Total World Domination. Edits Wikipedia. 220 of Borg 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

AFD

Hey Randykitty, or Randy, or kitty? Anyways, I've just been stubborn to ask this either because I forget to ask it until a CSD/PROD is reverted under reasoning (whether I see it get reverted or not) or I'll type something up about it and then back down because I'm not bold to ask or I'm just lazy; but how soon should you tag an article for AFD after its initial creation? For instance, should you wait for the articles creator to fill in bare information that might be subjected to an AFD for about a week or so? For now I'm done with NPP, as I believe I'm not right for the job (since I can't cram education and Wikipedia both at the same time, stressful) and because of the new Proposal that I'm sure would deny me entry, and most some other Twinkle/NP Patrollers that are newer to NPP. Adog104 Talk to me 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • With speedy deletion, it's jusually good to wait a little bit and not tag an article within minutes of being created (unless it is obvious vandalism, copyvio, or an attack page). For AfD, there's no set rule. Usually, I try PROD first, but sometimes you just know that the article creator is going to contest it. In that case, you can go to AfD immediately. No need to wait for the article creator to fill in blanks. Provided, of course, that you first do your duty under WP:BEFORE. Only if you cannot find good sources yourself should you go to AfD. As this generally takes some time, that usually also solves the problem of going to AfD too fast... Any particular event that made you ask this question now? Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mostly with any PROD's or CSD's that I place that are declined by someone that has prior, and better, knowledge about NPP than myself (which I blame myself, knowing that I messed up by overlooking things that I didn't fully understand or consider). Also probably when you know it's obviously an autobiography for a business, band, individual person, etc., that social media and WP:PRIMARY sources are their suffice way of referencing their articles (which wouldn't pass WP:GNG). I already talked to Oshwah about it, but I didn't want to bother him, what not with his RFA at the moment. And yes, this helps a lot, thank you! 😃 Adog104 Talk to me 20:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rajan Saxena

I need help with a page. There is a mistake in an entry on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Padma_Shri_award_recipients_(2000%E2%80%9309) on Padma Shri awardees. The name "Rajan Saxena" under the Padma Shri awardees for the year 2004 points to the wrong person. I have created a stub for the real person but do not know how to change the link since its a sorted list. The real person comes as "Prof Dr Rajan Saxena" I added the prefix to differentiate from the other "Rajan Saxena who is a non-medico. Abledoc (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I have moved the article to Rajan Saxena (physician), as we do not include academic titles in article titles (in fact, we do not even include them in articles, just saying that "John Doe obtained an MD etc", not "Dr John Doe"). To link to such an article without the "dab" (that is the part between parenthesis) appearing in the text, we use a pipe: [[Rajan Saxena (physician)|Rajan Saxena]]. This renders Rajan Saxena. By the way, please have a look at WP:PROF. In order for an article to be kept here, the subject needs to meet our inclusion criteria. Just saying somebody is a professor is not sufficient. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Prof Rajan Saxena becomes notable by virtue of being a Padma Shri awardee. Abledoc (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that a Padma Shri alone is enough to make someone notable. Perhaps you could ask at the India Wikiproject. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I went through the Notability criteria for academics. Therefore, I suppose some one who has headed a major department at one of the "Institutions of National Importance" in India (they are AIIMS, PGIMER, SGPGIMS, and JIPMER in the medical field). I also suppose, those who have been granted membership of the "National Academy of Sciences" India also would be notable, as would those who have been awarded prestigious "Biosciences" award of by Indian Government agencies irrespective of their news coverage. (Some of these people avoid publicity). Also for that matter, Presidents of National Societies in India also would be notable by academic criteria. How to mention these criteria since it may not be appropriate to give notability criteria in the body of the article but might be useful to add them in some form to be read by reviewers.Abledoc (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Heading a department most certainly is not enough in itself to make someone notable according to WP:PROF. The award might be, if it really is a very major award. The "alphabet sour" ( AIIMS, PGIMER, SGPGIMS, and JIPMER) is, again, not enough in itself, as is being president of a society, unless it really is a very major one. Being a fellow of a National Academy does meet WP:PROF. It is not necessary (and indeed would be improper) to add the notability criteria to the article. Normal readers don't need them and people doing new page patrol should be aware of them. As the article is now, it risks being proposed for deletion, because it doesn't make clear why this person is notable. If he's a member of a National Academy (and you have a reference for that - usually not too difficult as almost all academies list their members on their websites), then you should add that to the article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Spoilsport

Spoilsport :-P [2]. It is the "shill gambit" beloved of bullshit artists everywhere but you're right that the target was wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know. Always blame Big Something (Pharma, Government, whatever). Afraid though that we don't have enough material to start the "Big Publisher conspiracy theory", although I'm sure there's lots of people that are wiliing to believe in a "Big Elsevier conspiracy theory" :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It's Big Science, the same people who suppress free energy devices, the EM Drive and cold fusion, and promote the global warming hoax. Busy guys. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You forgot the chemtrails! :-D --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ISE Education Media

Hi Randykitty i really need your help, you have requested and deleted my article ISE Education Media with shown reason (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11) but i was really trying to update that page with my slow net connection, some time even i have to login again to do edits. And there is some misunderstanding happened in between too, removing db on not logging in to account. can you please specify, what all do you see as problem for adding A7 and G11. Really i used some of the info from there webspace to create the article, ISE Education Media is conducting lots of carrier & study events and fairs in india and outside india. Second thing is the deletion process is completed too fast just with in 3 hrs after starting the article, i didnt get time to add reason on article talk page or dont even get time to add referral links from reliable sources. i didnt see this as good support for a beginner like me, pls do some helpful things if possible. i wish to begin ISE Education Media article page again, pls support me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn212 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The best way to go for you is probably to create a draft (see WP:DRAFT) and go through the article submission process. People are a bit more patient with drafts and the AFC volunteers are usually very helpful. Basing an article on a company's own website is generally a recipe for a biased, promotional article and it doesn't contribute to meeting our inclusion criteria. What you need are third-party sources that cover the company in-depth. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK so now can i use back that link for my article related to ISE Education Media, and i have news sources from reliable medias, copying the exact matter also may lead to deletion naa (i think so), thats why i used a mixed content from both webpage and online news medias. i refer some wiki pages before creating this, some of them dont even have any referral links but they are doing good. any way thank you for your reply. i think i may get your help in future :D tcre. Unicorn212 (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

SpringerOpen press release around J.Cheminformatics

Hi Randykitty, first thanks for your updates to the journal page! I just got informed by the associate editor that he put a blog post about me and Rajarshi have become Editor-in-Chief: http://blogs.springeropen.com/springeropen/2016/09/08/new-editors-chief-journal-cheminformatics/. For obvious reasons, I will not add that to the page, and leave it to you to decide if it is useful as reference in the page. Grtz, --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Biochemist7

Hi, please unblock this user. His username was changed by me. Thanks. Jianhui67 T★C 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yale Law & Policy Review

Hello. You keep deleting my section entitled "Notable articles/authors" and I don't understand why. I copied the format of the Yale Law Journal's Wikipedia page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_Journal). Why do you keep deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrp609 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

NYU Law Review has a similar section as well - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_University_Law_Review

Vrp609 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I understand that yuou get confused that what seems acceptable in other articles is not acceptable here. The operative word here is "seems". There are over 5 million articles on WP and it is unavoidable that some (or even many) do not adhere to standards. That's not a problem: there's no deadline. However, that other stuff exists is not a reason to let any article go to the lowest common denominator. What you have seen just means that the articles on the Yale Law Journal and the New York University Law Review are in need of cleanup, too.
To include a section "notable articles", it is not sufficient to list articles whose authors are notable. What is needed is an independent source that establishes why certain articles are notable. In addition, the list needs to stay at a reasonable size. What we usually do is list 3 (or at most 5) of the most important journals. The criterion needs to be something different than "I think this is important". What we editors think is unimportant. An acceptable criterion could be the most-cited articles from a journal, or articles that generated a lot of discussion (as verified by independent reliable sources). I know this may all seem a bit daunting, but I would strongly recommend that you link the guidelines and policies that I have linked to in the preceding sentences. Some understanding of these guidelines will make your life here much easier. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest we do that at the talk page of the article, that way the discussion will be easy to find also for other editors of that article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Now you cherry-pick

How is that piece of information trivial in the face of your nomination for speedy deletion on the bases of notability. Is that tactful move, because it looks to me as if you are really trying to give reader impression that article subject is not worthy bothering at all. Since I really have no experience in writing or editing on this subject myself (how you reference academic journal anyway ?!?), I really hoped that someone more versed could pick-up from where I left and improve it. In that sense, someone could notice information which you deleted as "trivial" and think maybe publication isn't that obscure and is worth an effort so that article could be salvaged !?--Santasa99 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Which speedy deletion are you talking about? --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty

I want to delete the Wikipedia of the journal which I was created, and everythings related to it in Wikipedia (Project page and paper), and in addition to that my account. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmadSaleh (talk • contribs)

  • The article on the journal has been deleted, I don't think there was anything else. To have your account deleted, you can use your right to disappear, although it is probably just as simple to just stop editing. In the latter case, it will be easier to return if you change your mind. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Randykitty. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

Hi Randykitty - I was just wondering about Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Do you have any idea why it's (still) an essay rather than a notability guideline? Has there been resistance to using it? StAnselm (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It has been proposed as a guideline in the past (if you're interested, you can wade through the talk page archives). There was significant resistance, but irreconcilable. One group of editors opposed it as being too stringent, most of them arguing that if a journal could be used as a reliable source, then we should have an article about it. The other group of editors opposed it as being too permissive, arguing for a more stringent application of GNG. So it remained an essay, but has been used with fairly little opposition in AfDs. The most frequent opposition I see comes from newbie editors (most frequently with a COI), who at some point discover the difference between "guideline" and "essay" and then argue that NJournals should not be applied. I then explaine to them that in that case, they need to meet GNG which is much harder, which usually settles the matter. Sometimes a journal gets taken to AfD by a more experienced editor who argues that NJournals should not be applied, but in general enough editors knowing academic journals show up to !vote "keep". So in practice, we use it as a guideline.
Now this was all years ago and one might wonder whether things may have changed. Since then, there has been a shift to apply notability guidelines more stringently, so the "RS camp" may have become much smaller (if it still exists). Perhaps we should try again. personally, I'd first make some changes in the guideline. To start with, it recently was pointed out in an AfD that NJournals actually does not say explicitly that indexes/databases need to be selective, which I think should be corrected. I would also do away with criterion #3. If a journal has a significant history, that will show through coverage in RS, so then GNG is met. As it stands, all too often people argue that a journal has a historic purpose because it is "the only journal published in Liechtenstein covering research on the right hind leg of the Patagonian cockroach"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
To add a different take on the situation, I also believe that what had been proposed wasn't quite the right policy. Things have evolved in the last few years, and I think with a couple of updates (making this about selective databases, rather than major databases), it could pass as policy. WP:NASTRO based itself heavily WP:NJOURNALS, by following the 'selective database' idea that's present (but not emphasized) in WP:NJOURNALS. This turned into astronomical objects needing to be featured in selective catalogues of stellar objects to be considered notable. Then with a few clarifications that NJOURNALS doesn't override WP:GNG, but rather clarifies it in the context of academic serials, that WP:INHERIT and WP:V still apply, and a little guide on 'best practices' for what to do in the case of a non-notable/borderline notable journal (merge entry to its publisher/affiliated society) we should have something very workable and much more solid.
However, unlike Randy, I wouldn't do away with WP:NJOURNALS#C3, because that ones covers historic and defunct journals like Journal of Indigenous Studies. The article content isn't what it should be, but we definitely should have an entry on that journal, as its a contributions to Cree culture/Indigenous studies in Canada during the mid 1990s makes it notable, IMO. However, C3 does need to be tightened up/clarified to disallow the but it's the only journal with this extremely narrow scope in my country argument. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash that discussion, but, frankly, I would cite the same article as an example for why we need to do away with criterion 3. Notice the similarity between "only journal on the Patagonian cockroach" and "only journal to ever publish articles in Cree". Without sources that establish that anybody ever noticed this, this is not a reason to declare a journal notable. That article is a prime example of a drummed up badly sourced piece on a non-notable publication. It's the only journal article that I am aware of where the contents of different issues are described, without any independent sources (i.e., a bunch of primary sourced OR; note also that this is only possible because the journal failed and folded after only 6 issues; you'd never be able to do this with a journal that had had some measure of success). It is also the only journal where the handful of citations that it ever garnered are described in detail. If this constitutes a notable journal, then we should just do away with NJournals and accept every publication that calls itself an academic journal as notable. --Randykitty (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for all this. I'll keep it on my watchlist in case anything happens. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Right circular hollow cylinder for deletion

Hello. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Right circular hollow cylinder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right circular hollow cylinder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. — Anita5192 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

OE-lite was deleted

I see that OE-lite have been deleted by you, with the following comment: "(Expired PROD, concern was: Non-Notable software. No third party reliable sources)".

How come, there was links to the actual active Open Source project and Gitter-forum of OE-lite, the most reliable sources that can exist as it is the actual work and discussions of the Open Source project. There where also links to different public webpages with information about the project - seems like "No third party reliable sources" is somewhat a weak claim.

On the "Non-Notable software" it was not possible to link from the relevant projects that OE-lite have spun from and contributed to as maintainers at Wikipedia emidiately deleted the links at they where to a "Non-Notable software"-page. Quite impossible to add the relevant links for Notability then.

With the discussion above is it possible to undelete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mads.dore (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Before deleting I checked the sources (and I just re-checked them again) and I agree with the PROD that none of them constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. If you insist, I'll undelete the article (you could have removed the PROD yourself before it expired). However, I'm pretty certain somebody will the take it to AfD and I estimate its chances of survival to be very slim. --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

PetMeds was deleted

Hi RandyKitty, I've read through the Wikipedia process and believe I'm following the correct procedure in posting a discussion with you on your page. Since the PetMeds page was marked for proposed deletion and we're still in the window before it expires, can you remove the PROD and open it for discussion? I don't see where/how to remove the PROD and can't find the original content to verify sources of notability, but would like to review and work to include reliable sources if needed as this is a notable commercial business. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.65.158 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Restored. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nepal Mathematical Society Newsletter -- procedural deprod

Greetings. I removed your prod on this article because I had prodded it previously and the prod was contested (by an IP--likely a logged-out edit by the author). I meant to take this to AfD but never got around to it...feel free to do so yourself if you like. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oops, should have checked... They don't even have 100 members, I'll take it to AfD now. --Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Re revert of Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy

Hi Randykitty. I wish to disagree with your revert of my placement of Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy in the Category:Applied microbiology journals. In the article it says:

"This journal ranks #28 of 144 in the Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology category"

DadaNeem (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  • So should we then also categorize it as a biotechnology journal? When looking at the journal's scope, I don't really see anything related to biotechnology or applied microbiology (something usually associated with things like making yogurt or using bacteria to synthesize something and such). Our cats don't really run parallel to the ones used by Thomson-Reuters. I agree that "immunology" doesn't seem very appropriate, either. Looking over the different specialty cats in Category:Medical journals, the most appropriate ones seem to be "pharmacology journals" (given the emphasis on drug development) and "regeneratie medicine journals" (because of the stem cell part of the scope). I've re-categorized the journal accordingly. Hope you can agree with this. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Delving into the last two issues of the journal, I'm inclined to agree re ?ing the Thomson-Reuters cats relevance to wp cats, but find many articles related to immunology. (of course biological therapy --> Immunotherapy) Therefore I think that cat can be restored. Regarding the updating of Rankings, Impact Factor etc, I can do that. Would that be agreeable?

In general regarding "Applied microbiology", in addition to the productive uses of Microbiology, it seems to also include Food quality, Medical Microbiology and I imagine will grow in the direction of Human microbiota and therapies that may ensue ... DadaNeem (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sapiensalus36

Hi there; you recently sofblocked this user because of the username. I expect I am being seriously unintelligent, but I cannot see how or why it is promotional? Possibly it may be an example of a UK/US divide? could you take a moment to explain, please.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Check the logs—at the time of the block the username was User:Gssr.eic, which is very clearly a reference to Global Security Studies Review . ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Conceded. Not obvious though, wqhen I came upon it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pulsus Group

We need the business model should be placed at Pulsus Group article. It is important, with your permission I am keeping, please edit if you need proper style Jessie1979 (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • It is already stated that this is an OA publisher, so the business model is quite clear. But I'll leave it in and just reformat and correct the English. BTW, are you in any way connected to OMICS? --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am a scholar at Andhra UniversityJessie1979 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I know this company they come to Vizag to establish off-shore unit in Vizag in association with Andhra University, some how it was missed later hi-jacked by OMICS!!! Jessie1979 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I did the edits as per as per talk :WikiProject_Academic_Journals Jessie1979 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NJOURNALS

BTW, if you could drop by and take a look at the tentative new version and give your feedback, that'd be great. We won't get consensus with your input, but it'll likely shape the RFC we'll need to have on it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I saw that, but I need some time to have a good look at it (and the discussion) and at the moment I am at a meeting, which doesn't leave me much time for WP. As soon as I can I'll have a look. Whether I'll turn out to like your changes or not, I appreciate your efforts! I agree that NJournals could use an overhaul and it would be nice if it became a guideline instead of just an essay. --Randykitty (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Journal Editors

All of the top academic journals in finance have experienced rapid growth in the number of papers submitted. The top-three finances journals get TRIPLE the number of paper submissions of 20 years ago. They have responded by switching from a single editor-in-chief running the show to team of top editors. Each of these top editors has FINAL EDITORIAL AUTHORITY to accept or reject their share of the papers. In most cases, the quantity of papers each top editor is handling today is greater than the quantity that was handled by the single editor-in-chief 20 years ago. For these reasons, I think that pages for the Review of Financial Studies and most other top journals should list all of the top editors. Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.75.217 (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Dear Craig, many journals have multiple editors with final editorial authority. PLOS ONE has several thousand. Nevertheless, we only list the editor-in-chief. Like editorial board members, other editors may be mentioned if there are independent reliable sources discussing their role/impact on the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty, PLOS ONE as a mass, multi-disciplinary, open-access journal is in a totally different category. I will only speak of my own field of finance. Among top-tier finance (and economic) journals, ALL of them have converted to multiple editors with final editorial authority. There are no exceptions to this practice. "Just listing the editor-in-chief," seems like an arbitrary rule that is out-of-step with the times -- at least in finance (and economics). Maybe things are different in other fields. I would like to politely request reconsideration of this policy as it relates to finance journals. Sincerely, Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.72.39 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Many journals have multiple editors-in-chief an then we list all of them. Some journals have a group of editors who make final editorial decisions but with one person listed as chief editor (or managing editor, or whatever title they use) and then we list one. This particular journal singles out one editor as chief, so we list only one unless there are sources documenting the role of the other editors in guiding the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty, Why? Both of your responses have stated a rule of just listing the editor-in-chief(s). But you have not justified WHY that rule makes any sense. And who is "we"? Do you have any evidence that multiple people have discussed this subject and arrived at a consensus on this rule? Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.74.62 (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • It is the role of an editor-in-chief to determine a journal's editorial policy, hence we do not require a source documenting her/his role. However, we do not list any other editors, editorial board members, editorial assistants, associate editors, etc. unless we have independent documentation that these persons had a significant role in the development of the journal. See our journal article writing guide and the repeated discussions on the inclusion of editorial board members, for example. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Neuroquantology

Hi Randykitty, first, I am sorry to not be quite familiar with the rules of wikipedia yet. (I need an account too I know ;) ). Here, my point concerns the question of the (non-)scientificity of the "Journal of Neuroquantology" and more generally of the necessity of sourcing a non-statement. I mean: I think a source is needed when we state something, and not when we DO NOT sate it. In this case, we need a justification when we write that something is scientific. If we do not say that xyz is science, we do not add any justification... The burden of the proof is supposed to be the responsability of the one that wants to try to explain why neuroquantology would be a scientific journal.... There is no such thing for now, except some unjustified pretension from the owner that makes money with the "journal".

Seriously, it pretends to be quantum physics and something loosely related to neuroscience ? But it is not the real content of the publications which are only simply laughable. We can refer to some quantum physics books or neuroscience stuff in you really insist for the obvious... It is actually not peer-reviewed... it is reviewed by people ignoring anything of the related subjects.

I would like also to explain in more details why and how this pseudo-journal is usually considered as pure bullshit from the viewpoint of scientists, but I agree with you that on this point I will need some sources since I need to be polite ;) It is just that for now I have not so much time to rewrite the article from the very beginning... and in the while, I think it would be better to just remove some of the most ridiculous unjustified pretensions. Thank ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.222.144.202 (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, the journal is included in several indexes of scientific journals. So the adjective "scientific" is adequately sourced, me thinks. All the rest is our opinion, which is inadmissible as a source (see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). The same goes for the "peer-reviewed". Said databases only include journals that are peer-reviewed, hence that is also sourced. Perhaps the reviewers are incompetent as you say, but in order to write that, we need more than just our opinions, we need reliable sources that say so. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary water

  • You need to email us the final version before the totally biased decision to re-direct was made. Plenty of supposedly "fringe" topics exist on Wikipedia--and many have now become much more balanced and mainstream (ref: Abiogenic petroleum origin, which was mentioned by one of the commenters as "fringe"). Fascinating to note that nearly all those who commented are from the UK, France and Canada... Wikipedia appears to be dominated by self-righteous Euro-scum.BurrME64 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)BurrME64
  • Sorry, I don't need to do anything and most certainly not for somebody who so clearly assumes bad faith and insults fellow editors. --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Candyland (musician)

Hi there. I see that this article was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician), yet its still alive. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Deleted, editor advised to go through DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Candyland (musician)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Candyland (musician). 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Candyland (musician)

Good morning Randykitty! If Speechless (Candyland song) still exists, then I strongly believe that Candyland (musician) should either be created, or should be a redirect to that song. With that said, could you please move Candyland (musician) to my user space? I can post a request at WP:REFUND if you need me to. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have userfied it at User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician). It would probably be best if you go through WP:DRV before restoring it, though. --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Sorry about that, I saw the restored article before I saw your message. The AFD said "Given the extensive reference bombing, I am applying WP:TNT. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article", which is exactly what I did. But, if you insist, I will go through WP:DRV. If this gets accepted, can you please restore the short article that I wrote, so that I do not have to rewrite it? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I realize now that I was not completely consistent in what I wrote, sorry about that (long day yesterday...) I've temporarily undeleted the article for the purposes of the DRV. If that ends favorably, all you need to do is remove the template. Given the new version, shall I delete the version in your user space? --Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SAGE Open

At 09:03, 27 September 2014, you moved SAGE Open to Sage Open, with edit summary "Randykitty moved page SAGE Open to Sage Open: per WP conventions." I note that the real name of the journal is SAGE Open, as can be seen at SAGE Open. Moreover, the publisher is SAGE Publications. WP:TITLETM does say

Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.

Whatever this may mean, in Wikipedia, we find:

  • UNICEF, which is a name and not an acronym (even if it was originally).
  • ASAPROSAR, not an acronym.
  • PLOS ONE, a journal; "PLOS" is an acronym for "Public Library Of Science" but "ONE" is just style.

I believe that when an organization or academic journal goes by capitalization other than sentence capitalization, Wikipedia should title the article by the entity's own capitalization style.

Please point to the WP convention(s) that helped you to decide on this move. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Have a look at the talk page of the SAGE Publications article. At the time, there was a consensus that we should use "Sage", not "SAGE". Consensus has changed since then and SAGE it is now. The Sage Open article just didn't get moved back, so feel free to move it to SAGE Open. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I added to SAGE Open: {{Db-g6|rationale=[[Sage Open]] should be moved here; see discussion at [[Talk:SAGE Publications#Requested move 14 February 2016]]; see journal name consistently capitalized at the {{official website|https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal/sage-open}} and elsewhere}} —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't realize you couldn't move it. I've taken care of this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Candyland (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Candyland (musician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Randykitty.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Levenslied

Hello, I am from Utrecht and this weekend in my town a yearly Smartlappenfestival is taking place, which is similar to a Festival van het Levenslied. When googling on both terms I found many, many of these festivals. In fact just quoting these two towns may be observed as linkspamming and falsely claiming exclusivity. I don't think it'll be such a nice idea to add 30 cities or more organizing similar festivals, don't you think? Instead my idea was: let people google on "Smartlappenfestival" and "Festival van het Levenslied" themselves, and let's avoid the creation of a Wikipedia which is a portal for queries. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Here at WP we don't go by what we know, but what reliable sources say. If you have a source saying that many cities organize such festivals, then we can modify what we currently have. Lacking that, we stick to what is verifiable. Hope this explains. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It does, but why didn't you contact me before you took your action? Please regard the guideline on rollbacking edits. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • If you look carefully, you'll see that I didn't use rollback and gave a justification for my revert. You replaced sourced content with unsourced stuff. That's justification enough for a revert. It was not vandalism, so rollback was not justified. That you're an anonymous IP editor has nothing to do with this reasoning. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've been taught my lesson. Thank you. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Signos Magazine

Hi. I've declined your speedy as the author has done a revision and it no longer looks like promo to me. Peridon (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Randykitty. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician). 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Randykitty. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Undo of additions to IEEE Software

Apologies for not having adhered to the guidelines in our journal article writing guide which I just came across. The edits were motivated by the fact that IEEE Software is not a pure research journal, but positions itself as a magazine targeting practitioners. Hence, a list of departments and additional links (to other Wikipedia pages and external sites) should be useful for readers from practice/industry, to get a feel for the content of the magazine, and the differences to journals such as TSM and CACM.

Anyway, this assumpttion might be wrong. That said, I am not sure whether your edit summary meets general Netiquette and Wikipedia guidelines, see for instance your commeent on this page from 6 November 2016 (UTC) (in section User talk:Randykitty#Primary water — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.146.174 (talk)

Mentioned you

Since you seem to lack the competence required to see the problems with the directions given at WP:NJournal, I have mentioned your obstinance as a reason to delete the essay.

Regards,

jps (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

revert of my edit to Economic Botany (journal)?

Re the revert of my edit to Economic Botany (journal). I agree that Society for Economic Botany merits it's own page but while it doesn't have one this is the best that's going. Please note that the Society's website is provided in External links, before my edit.😀 ie I stand by my edit as a temporary measure, until the Society has its own page. DadaNeem (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It needs it own page. Delinking it will cause a lot of work later once that page is created (i.e., somebody will have to search for those mentions), so it's best to leave the link in place. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    • It does need it own page. However the work to integrate the Society for Economic Botany page would be trivial, besides writing the actual page: only to overwrite the redirect with the Society for Economic Botany page and make the link on the Economic Botany (journal) page, instead of the bolding. Other pages would be like the wikilink I made on Paul Alan Cox with no alteration required. DadaNeem (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It would have been better not to create the redirect at all. That way, at some point someone would notice the redlink and realize that there's an article that is needed. With the redirect, bolding or not, this is not obvious any more. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Instead of continuing this rather pointless discussion, I took half an hour to create a stub for this society, so the issue is moot now. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to undelete page: I Liq Chuan

Hi, you deleted this page on 7 January 2015, citing the reason for deletion was "Non notable martial art". The page was recreated and subsequently deleter by user Mojo_Hand. I first contacted Mojo_Hand, who referred me to you.

Details here:

Firstly, I must declare a conflict of interest: I am an I Liq Chuan practitioner and instructor. Nevertheless, the information I provide below is independent and verifiable.

I'd like to submit a number of sources that I hope will demonstrate that I Liq Chuan meets Wikipedia's notability criteria:

  • I Liq Chuan was the subject of an 84-minute documentary, Kung Fu Abroad, produced by, and aired on, China Central Television (CCTV) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmozVFlK6QI&t=2286s)
  • Martial Arts author and video blogger Alex Kozma interviewed I Liq Chuan founder Sam Chin in the Flying Monk podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoziJVkRT0)
  • Lyn Halper describes training I Liq Chuan with Sam Chin at the Chuang Yen monastery in New York, in her book Adventures of a Suburban Mystic: A True Story of Spiritual Transformation
  • Jess O'Brien profiled I Liq Chuan and interviewed Sam Chin in the book Nei Jia Quan: Internal Martial Arts
  • I Liq Chuan practitioners Lan Tran and Nancy Watterson presented a paper entitled Mindfulness, Metacognition, and Martial Arts: I Liq Chuan and Arts of Awareness at the The 2016 Martial Arts Studies Conference, held at the University of Cardiff, 2016 (https://mastudiesrn.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/2016-mas-conference.pdf)
  • Magazine article: Awakening and Harmonizing - The Art of Sam Chin, Qi Magazine, Issue 41, February 1999
  • Magazine article: The Matrix of I Liq Chuan, Kungfu Magazine March/April 2005
  • Magazine article: Finding the Center: I Liq Chuan’s Three Essential Qualities for Offense and Defense as One, Kung Fu Magazine July/August 2014
  • Sam Chin is Vice director of the Technical Commmittee (https://www.wfmaf.org/en/about-wfmaf/committees/) and 9th duan rank holder (https://www.wfmaf.org/en/dan-rank-duanwei/dan-rank-holders/) with the World Fighting Martial Arts Federation
  • Sam Chin is recognized by the USA Wushu Kung-Fu Federation as a Hall of Fame Outstanding Master (http://www.polariswushu.net/halloffame.html)

I Liq Chuan practitioners have also had success in national and international competitions. I Liq Chuan founder Sam Chin won the 1978 Malaysia Selangor heavyweight kickboxing championship (http://www.polariswushu.net/halloffame.html). I Liq Chuan practitioner Daria Sergeeva won

I Liq Chuan is small but growing, with schools in around 20 countries, and new schools starting every year (http://iliqchuan.com/official-i-liq-chuan-schools-around-world). In addition, Sam Chin, the founder of I Liq Chuan, has taught workshops at public martial arts events including 2016 Saratoga Martial Arts Festival (http://www.saratogafestival.com/chin), 2016 Martial Arts Collective Society Gathering in Sacramento (http://www.stillnessinmotion.com/gm-sam-fs-chin-workshop---october-3rd-2016.html), 2016 Tai Chi Gala, New York (http://taichigala.com/workshops/)

I would like to ask if you would reconsider reinstating this page on this basis.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingmint (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, I find it difficult to evaluate your sources. They seem more to establish notability for the persons involved than for I Liq Chuan itself. However, martial arts are not my domain and when I closed the AfD, I just determined consensus and I have no opinion on this matter myself. So I'll restore the article and expect you to expand it with these sources ASAP. I will notify the participants to the previous AfD about this restauration and if your sources are considered inadequate, they might decide to take it to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
These sources are terrible and do nothing to address the AfD but more importantly there is Draft:I_Liq_Chuan which has more content. My feeling is that is where the work should be done. Your opinion please.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Peter, as I said above, I also have doubts about these sources. In any case, I really have no strong opinion either way here. I don't know much about martial arts and my only involvement here is that I closed the AfD (almost 2 years ago). I didn't know that draft existed, but if necessary a histmerge can be done. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I am happy enough that the article gets worked on - I think that the article should be only be in Draft at the moment. There is really nothing in the mainspace article that isn't in the Draft so I was going to change the article to a redirect.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Be careful, though...

I agree with you about WP:NJOURNALS, but just be careful about your reversions. I think you made about six in a 24-hour period. This certainly isn't worth being blocked for. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, you're right. Because it was different people and different things, I didn't think much of it. Thanks for the heads up. --Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Undo of deleted content on Ufahamu page

Hi! Would you mind elaborating on why my content was deleted? I just wanted a little clarity so that I can proceed with edits. Thank you in advance! Blackipedia (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Blackipedia

  • Read WP:JWG (and WP:MWG). We do not add lists of notable authors to articles on journals or magazines unless we have reliable sources that discuss in-depth how and why a particular is important for a journal. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bah

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm glad DGG is involved. I'm reading your comments again, but please also re-read mine. I suspect that we have not yet arrived at a mutual understanding of our points of difference, so I'd like to keep trying until we do as I have no wish to pick a fight with nice people like you. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I think that we actually are closer than you might guess. My personal opinion is that Scopus has become too inclusive and on occasion have talked with DGG about this (should be somewhere in his talk page history; I see on your talk that he's -perhaps- slowly edging towards that position)). However, up till now it is the consensus at the Academic Journals project that inclusion in Scopus is enough to confer notability. And in a sense I'm loath to drop Scopus, because then the practice would become that whatever is in the (Social) Science Citation Index is notable and nothing else. I'm not sure we should hand over the "keys to WP" to Thomson Reuters (or whatever their name now is). Ideally, we would apply GNG to any article. As DGG points out, we make already a lot of exceptions. Personally, I'm not at all agreed that any high school is notable, for example, but that is not the consensus and when I see a school article A7ed or PRODded, I remove that per community consensus.
Within the journal project, I'm probably the most deletionist of all regulars. I'd love to tighten NJournals. But there are already too many journal articles that do not even meet NJournals (The Rutherford Journal, Criterion (journal)). Changing NJournals is not uncontroversial. If you look through the history of NJournals, you'll see that it was attacked from both people who thought it was too inclusionist and people who thought it was too high a bar. So although I'd like it to be more stringent, I've come to see it as a workable compromise and in the past couple of years, this is what mostly had been practiced. Of course, this compromise only works if we adhere to it. So although I'd like NJournals to be more strict, I apply it as good as I can. And one thing really is a no-no to me: using my own personal judgment. I have a good knowledge of academic publishing, so sometimes I know something to be a certain way or I know that something is incorrect. But once we start using personal knowledge as a guide, WP will rapidly go down the sewers for what I know may not be the same thing that you know. To parapharse: "It's the sources, stupid". If it is in a reliable source, I'll report it. If it's not, I won't include it. That's why I don't start evaluating journal articles myself, because my personal opinion does not enter at all into determining what's notable and what's not.
I don't think there's much hope for tightening NJournals. I don't even think that the current version stands much chance for being accepted as a guideline instead of just an essay, for the same reasons as before. But of course you're free to try changing the consensus there, but I think it would be fighting windmills...
Anyway, I agree with the sentiment you express above. I don't want to get into a fight with you as you're very high on my list of "excellent editors/admins". We just happen to disagree on this point. Let's continue the discussion, although we may be nearing the point where we may have to agree to disagree... --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rexnord Corporation

Could you please undelete Rexnord? Not only is it a public company on the NYSE, but if you look it up on Google News, there is a lot out there. I am aware of WP:NOTNEWS, however people will be reading USA Today and googling Rexnord. We want them to find an article about its history and main assets on Wikipedia. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • There's no use in undeleting that. It was deleted as nonsense and it really is that (it's a note posted by someone with their name and address asking for help in installing a grid coupler...) It doesn't even mention Rexnord... So I'm afraid you'll have to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you please redirect Rexnord to Rexnord Corporation? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Done, although it wasn't salted so you could have done this yourself, too :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What is your academic background?

Please let me know what your academic background is. I would like to know how you came to your editorial conclusions about academic journals. What degrees do you have? Do you work in academia? jps (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree with jps. I have the same question to Randykitty in relation with adhoc deletes in AIAA Jbrucb (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As a matter of principle, I do not give any personal information, not even my gender. And I strongly suggest that you tone down your personal attacks on me. I don't like to be called incompetent and I like it even less to be compare to Randy in Boise. One more attack like that and off to ANI we go. --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Matter of what principle' I do not think Wikipedia has any guide lines not to disclose users' qualifications. I have PhD in Aerospace Engg with 25 years experience. Qualified to edit AIAA. You delete edits in adhoc without any discussions. Jbrucb (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly, nobody forces you not to disclose anything. However, the opposite doesn't apply: nobody forces me to disclose Anything. In addition, my three Nobel Prizes and 6 PhDs really mean nothing here. It's the arguments that count and should do the convincing, not appeals to authority and Father Knows Best. --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I call shenanigans here, then. I have reason to believe that you are pressing an agenda with respect to academic journals without actually having the necessary academic background to evaluate the reliability of said journals. This is very bad. You basically invented policy out of thin air and are trying to get it imposed at Wikipedia. It's terrible! jps (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I warned you. Accusing me without any evidence that I have an agenda is yet another personal attack. I'll prepare a notice for ANI. From now on, you are not welcome on my talk page any more and any further posts of yours will be immediately deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I know who Randykitty is, and jps, let me tell you you are wildly off the mark here. There is no agenda, WP:NJOURNALS has been written by several members of WP:JOURNALS (Randykitty being only one of many) and has evolved over the years to reflect current practice. Back off with the personal attacks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

AIAA

Please do not delete edits based in highly reliable sources such as AIAA. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrucb (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  • So do your sources say that they violated guidelines and such? Of course not. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

---Thanks for suggestion. The word 'violation' is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.202.125 (talk • contribs)

  • Please stop adding this controversial stuff, containing accusations to living people (hence violating our WP:BLP policy). Your criticiss are not supported by the references that you give. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • They are not 'criticciss'. The wording are modified by a user as per your observation. Please read the references tell where above statements contradict them. Please do not delete facts. Wikipedia is about facts. If the topic is related to technical matter user should consult technical experts before taking action such as deleting. For e.g 'ROM' is a well known term in aerospace. If adhoc deletion continues without discussions it will be reported to Admn. Thanks Jbrucb (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please do report it, that saves me the trouble. This is where you need to go: WP:ANI. None of your sources says that a recipient needs to be "recognized by Ashley in his last classical paper on aeroelasticity". Stating that "The first recipient was not only a member of technical committee but he was also the chair of awards selection sub-committee" is suggestive of impropriety and nowhere is any impropriety suggested in the sources. I'm going to remove this once more. Before reverting, please read WP:3RR (logging out and reverting as an IP doesn't really work, you know). If you add this information once again, you won't have to file a report at ANI, because then I will do so. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • All recipients had done years of research before Ashley wrote his famous review paper on Aerolasticity. Stating the facts he did not include their work is a fact not POV. In technical area we do point-out short comings of work by others (living or dead) but it is not a criticism.Jbrucb (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please visit this. As I understand one is expected give summary from RS not duplicate word by word. Please do not delete without discussions. BTW: Please restrain from making sarcastic comments such as 'that saves me the trouble' Jbrucb (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That is correct, you're not supposed to copy things verbatim. Neither are you supposed to come up with your own interpretation of sources. This source says that Friedman chaired a committee and got the award. It also congratulates him with the "well-deserved honor". Nowhere does it say that anything inappropriate was going on, which is what you wrote. Nowhere else does it say that recipients need to be cited in anything that Ashley wrote, either. They also weren't cited by Einstein, I guess. That's a "fact", too. You're inserting accusations and aspersions that are not supported by the sources. If you have a beef with the AIAA, take it to them, but don't fight things out here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

History of Asperger syndrome

The Australian IP editor went right back to edit warring when the semiprotection expired,[3] this time from his Telstra Internet account.[4]

Despite claiming to not be sockpuppets, [5][6][7] I find it to be an amazing coincidence that three IP addresses registered to the State Library Of Victoria in Australia[8][9][10] all decided independently to edit the same page, engaging in the same edit war,[11][12][13] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry, but I cannot look into this right now (traveling...) Perhaps Drmies can help. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I semi-protected for two weeks--I do not mind extending that if need be. Happy travels, Randykitty. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • For the record, I have NEVER used the State Library of Victoria. I don't even know where it is. The semi protect has stopped rightful sources from being added, and Guy Macon is trying to apply WP:MEDRS when two established users showed him that it did not apply. He is applying his own opinion over the sources and that is outside WP:NPOV. As long as the sources pass WP:RS there is no reason why they should be removed. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

impressed

I was impressed with your honesty on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination) page, I was thinking that, but have said enough.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

petmed

thanks for your note & kind words at my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. You do great work at the COI noticeboard and I hope that our disagreement about NJournals will in the end result in a compromise that we all can live with. I know that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, so at worst we may have to agree that we disagree. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Common Sense (Scottish magazine)

The article looks somewhat improved; perhaps you could revisit and consider removing some of the cleanup tags? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I finally got around to having a look at this. I don't think that library catalog entries, some in-passing mentions, and a few blog posts do much to establish notability. The majority of references are still to the magazine itself. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pascalle

The page you deleted I feel was unfairly done. The page was not self promotion nor was it spam. After spending hours writing and research credible sources for information on a very talented public figure whom I admire and became a fan of after hearing her speak at our school about being bullied (which is something dear to my heart, and why I took it upon myself to add her on wiki. To me she's much more than an artist. The page was deleted simple because roughly a year I opened a wiki account under PascalleMusic because I wanted to add her back then and never found enough time to learn the wiki coding, months went by because I did not understand the system, nor was I aware that your user name and page name may not have the same name as it's a conflict of interest. I kindly ask you to reconsider and restore the page, that I took pride in working on, and in some sense was my Christmas gift to her. I feel like not having the page up is not only a disservice to the artist, but in some sense it's also penalizing her. All night I've been trying to figure out how to change the user name but have been unsuccessful thus far, but once again I ask you to please reconsider. --Pascallemusic (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I have no clue what you're talking about. I did not delete anything, I only tagged Pascalle for deletion as spam (the tag has been removed since, see below). Your username has not much to do with that, although it does indicate that you have a conflict of interest or, at the very least, indicates you're only here to promote Pascalle. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've removing the speedy tag you placed as the article did not seem promotional to me. I would not contest a {{Db-person}}, however. Avicennasis @ 12:45, 27 Kislev 5777 / 12:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, Avicennasis. Funny, I would never delete this as an A7, because there are credible claims for notability. I do, however, think that this is a purely promotional piece (all kinds of POV expressions: "love for the camera", "vigorously working", "Pascalle’s Music is new, it’s fresh", "The crowd’s response was great.", unsourced name dropping, etc, etc)... --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I could see your point, it definitely needs some copy-editing, but it read more to me like a bad article than, say, a promotional press release or something of the like. I guess just a difference of opinion there. Avicennasis @ 13:09, 27 Kislev 5777 / 13:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • RandyKitty I'm late in viewing the updates... Reason why I said t was unfairly deleted was due to the page going down for a few minutes. Thank you ALL very much for reconsidering. I can understand why you may have been triggered by certain phases, but please know that many of those phases I received from other web pages. I"m still learning the codes that you use to cite, etc. I do intend on contributing more articles in the future, so hopefully I"ll get better at citing and coding and this type of misunderstanding wont happen again. --Pascallemusic (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look

Talk about coincidences... I just commented on an AfD you started, and then went on to AfC, where I am declining an article due to lack of notability. In that article, there is a wl to Humanity & Society, which I also don't see as meeting the notability threshold. You're one of the folks that I used to ask when it came to academia and journals, and I looked at the history of the page, and sure enough, you tagged it for notability back in 2014. It hasn't been improved since. Would you mind taking another look? I think I should submit it to AfD. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 19:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I checked the Thomson Reuters master journals list and Scopus and this isn't indexed in either one. Its homepage doesn't mention any indexing at all, so unless a Google search would render some sources, I'd say that this misses GNG and NJournals. So, yes, AFD seems appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Onel5969 TT me 20:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pirosmani (journal)

Hello, I just noticed that the article I created for this journal was marked for speedy deletion and before I noticed it, it was deleted. This is a Turkish-Georgian journal for which Wikipedia articles in both Turkish tr:Pirosmani (dergi) and Georgian ka:ფიროსმანი (ჟურნალი) have been up for a long time. I created the English article which has now been deleted. I would like to know why this article was deleted, even though it has references. Furthermore, the image I had uploaded was marked for copyright violation but it is an image I made of the first issue of the journal that I own. --Mahrujan (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Different language WPs have different inclusion criteria. I have no idea what the Turkish or Georgian WPs' criteria are and whether or not a subject has an article there has no bearing on whether or not it should have an article here. The article on Pïrosmani was originally deleted after a deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirosmani (journal)). In order to re-create an article deleted after such a discussion, you need to add significant sources that were not considered in the deletion discussion. A YouTube video is not an acceptable source and a link to the journal itself is not independent and does not establish notability either. Hence, the article was tagged by me for speedy deletion (under G4 and after being checked by another admin, deleted accordingly. As for the cover image, I cannot find anything about that, but just claiming that you made it yourself is not enough. To donate copyrighted materials to WP, you need to go through WP:OTRS. However, your note above ("the journal that I own") indicates that you have a severe conflict of interest here (and you should probably read WP:PAID, too). It would be best if you would refrain from editing anything related to this journal. If ever it becomes notable (by meeting either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, drop me a note and I'll create a neutral article on it. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Let me first clarify a misunderstanding. I did not say that I own the journal (that would certainly be a conflict of interest). I was merely trying to indicate that I made the cover image of the first issue of the journal that I have in my library (ie. my personal copy which I own). I have had nothing whatsoever to do with the publication or distribution of this journal and my contribution of the article cannot be considered a conflict of interest. With regard to your estimation of the journal's notability (or lack thereof), it is indeed difficult to prove in English the notability of a publication produced by representatives of a minority population (ethnic Georgians) within Turkey. The YouTube video is in fact highly notable within the context of the country because it is an interview that CNN Türk conducted with the editor of this journal. They made the interview because they recognized that this bilingual Turkish-Georgian journal was one of a kind. I decided to contribute this article to Wikipedia because the journal is an important resource for anyone interested in ethnic Georgian culture in Turkey and there is almost next to nothing to guide one on this subject in the English language. I have some extra references that I believe support the notability of this journal and I would be happy to add them to the article.--Mahrujan (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If the image was a copy of the journal cover, then that is a clear violation of copyright. If you're not directly involved with the journal other than subscribing to it, then you would indeed not have a COI. However, our inclusion criteria are quite strict, so you'll need some very good sources to overrule the AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have read through the General Notability Guideline. I would like to emphasize that the YouTube video of CNN Türk is a reliable and independent source (it is not a "press release", nor "advertisement": it is news coverage). I can add three more secondary sources which are also independent and reliable. These are in the Georgian language but, as the Guideline notes, sources do not have to be written in English. Together with the CNN Türk video, which is in Turkish, I think these should suffice to establish notability. I would, therefore, like to ask for the restitution of this article. Since this is a culture-oriented publication addressed to a broad audience (ie. not an academically specialized audience), perhaps it could also be re-titled Pirosmani (magazine).--Mahrujan (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You will have to ask the admin who deleted the article to restore it. If you indeed have sources that discuss the periodical (not just its editor) in depth, then I have nothing against a re-creation. --Randykitty (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • How can I find out the admin who deleted the article? I looked around but couldn't find this information.--Mahrujan (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If you click the link in the header of this section, you'll see the deletion log and the two admins that deleted the article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Randykitty!

Happy New Year!

Randykitty,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

  • Thanks, and the same to you! --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


hello

whats your problem with the west australian naturalist? please stop removing valid material JarrahTree 09:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • JarrahTree, please have a look at WP:JWG. We only mention notable authors if there's an independent source documenting the impact such a person has had on a journal. It is not enough that they published in a journal. Otherwise, especially with journals that have a longer history, such lists would tend to become completely idiosyncratic, based on the judgment of individual WP editors about what constitutes a notable author and which ones should be included or not. And, of course, the fact that somebody who was member of a society and published in their journal also published in a newspaper is really rather trivial, don't you think? --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
No - as an english editor, you might not fully understand the context and nature of colonial and post colonial western australia.. the membership of the nats is very specifically a very small community in Perth - I find your editing of the article very unhelpful. JarrahTree 09:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ping failed like most things like it - and I am sure your insistence on your argument might look ok from where you are looking at things. I beg to differ - the specific reference to Gluaert and Serventy is an important part of expanding the article - removing the material is of no help. The library where I can clarify the issues that I have started in the article is not open until 10am tommorrow - due to public holiday. I find the removal of material may seem to you a valid exercise - however the journal - (I used to have a full run of the journal), is not in my reach to clarify issues that I have raised. Have a happy new year and I hope we do not have to have conversations like this too often, cheers JarrahTree 09:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

KJIVA Spam

Hi, the sockpuppet account Jerrysoko who is disrupting the KJVIA pages, has nominated my userpage for deletion because I nominated KJIVA for deletion. Is there a way to remove the deletion tag? ALSO, is it possible to lock my user page for vandalism User:Scorpion293? As I believe there is going to be some annoying behavior from the subject KJVIA for getting his wall garden deleted. Thanks! Scorpion293 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like it already has been taken care of. --Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_18&oldid=1140283144"