Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Randykitty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Dear Randykitty -
I am new to Wiki and I am the journal editor for the society and I will finish my last term in Dec 2020.
Can you at least allow me to post the updated impact factor that was just released?
Thank you and others for editing and formatting the page.
Christopher Tang Editor in Chief MSOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christangucla1 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Christangucla1, I have corrected the reference for the IF. In principle, there is no problem with neutral edits, but being as closely involved with the subject as you are makes it very difficult to remain neutral. If you have changes to propose, the best way to do that is to post them on the article's talk page (with reliable sources independent of the subject that document the statements made. An uninvolved editor will then check things and if justified make the changes. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Randykitty -- thank you for allowing me to do this. I was curious that you did not even allow me to state the mission statement of our journal -- which is factual and neutral. I do not know how to do talk pages, and I am a volunteer trying to help the journal since I got someone to set up the page for me since I strated my term in 2015. It is OK, I hope you will allow our society to replace our new design of the journal. I will not touch the wiki page anymore. Thank you, Christopher Tang.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christangucla1 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Christangucla1: see WP:JWG for our guidance on how to write articles on journals. It will, amongst other things, detail why we don't include mission statements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Randykitty -- thank you. I shall let the next editor and the community to do this. I am too old to do this. Thank you. Christopher Tang.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christangucla1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Randykitty - I object to the deletion of The AWA Review page. Please note that the Review has dozens of "what links here" citations from within Wikipedia articles. Surely some readers of those articles will wish to find out more about the journal cited. FLAHAM (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but number of incoming wikilinks is not a criterium for establishing notability. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals to get an idea of what is needed here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
You have repeatedly undone an edit of mine, without adequately explaining why. Please indicate what policy or guideline you think mandates your revert. 51.7.17.136 (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your edits have been reverted by two different editors (me and Joel B. Lewis). Your edits are simply not an improvement and partially incorrect (Beall is known for his blog, but is not maintaining it any more). So I guess it's you who has to explain why you are edit warring against multiple other editors. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK well, that's an attempt at giving a reason, at least. However, "simply not an improvement" is too vague to be useful. And if my version was partially incorrect, it inherited the partial incorrectness of the previous version, which you restored. Here is your version:
- Jeffrey Beall is an American librarian, best known for drawing attention to "predatory open access publishing", a term he coined, and for creating what is now widely known as Beall's list, a list of potentially predatory open-access publishers. He is a critic of the open access publishing movement, and is especially known for his blog Scholarly Open Access.
- Where in that does it specify that he no longer maintains his blog?
- The other obvious problem is the use of "best known... widely known... especially known..." which is a) horribly repetitive, and b) begs the question in each case "to whom? and so what?". This is a general interest encyclopaedia, not an academic publishing encyclopaedia. You should describe the facts; describing what you think some unspecified group of people might know about the facts is a waste of time. 51.7.17.136 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK well, that's an attempt at giving a reason, at least. However, "simply not an improvement" is too vague to be useful. And if my version was partially incorrect, it inherited the partial incorrectness of the previous version, which you restored. Here is your version:
RandyKitty, this is the banned user WP:LTA/BKFIP, there is no point in talking to them. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't know this one yet. I'll protect the article for a while. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, they'll probably come back later but maybe not for a while. They're a frustrating example of an editor who clearly could be a net positive if they were willing to adopt a collaborative approach, but seems more interested in picking fights.
- On a totally unrelated note: I was puzzled by this edit: the other user did two things, changing a date and adding a reference. Perhaps you overlooked the date-change part of the edit? (Their reference is not great, but it does support the date they changed it to.) --JBL (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for catching this, I had indeed not seen the date change, which was indeed false. I only wanted to remove the reference (we don't do that for the other journals either -it's in their respective articles- and a press release is mildly promotional, of course). I have corrected the date. --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Judging from the timing and the edit summary, this was just intended to revert this, but it also removed two other sections, by reverting this previous bot edit. You may or may not think it worth correcting. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sjeez, did I really do that? I've corrected it, thanks for your vigilance! --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this recent contribution. For future reference, could you kindly point me to the relevant ruling in the Manual of Style? Best wishes, Tim riley talk 19:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, I can't because it's not in the Manual of Style (it's a content issue, not a style issue). Try WP:ELNO#9. It's actually pretty logical. If people are logged-in on Google, the results they get are modified based on their search history. So the same search can give me different results than it gives you. In addition, the results may change over time as new things get posted or older sites go offline. Hope this helps! --Randykitty (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thought i'd find it for you. The link in question is this link from 2010. The one small section near the bottom is what Verabo calls the "unmasking in the media". That's the only link. Good call from you to ask about that investigating team thing nobody mentioned COI or WP:PAID in the AfD. Glad to know that someone is paying attention. I'd also like to know who Verabo's team is related to. HM Wilburt (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty,
I am writing to ask why the article I created Nana Kwame Bediako was deleted?
Bediako is very famous in Ghana and indeed Africa and is developing a noticeable profile in the United States and the United Kingdom as well. He has been quoted and covered by major media outlets and leading Inteligencia. I would respectfully ask that you reinstate the article so that it can be further worked on and developed and so that any issues can be addressed.
Kind Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJHIGH910 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- You mean User:GJHIGH910/sandbox? This was deleted by RHaworth as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! HM Wilburt (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
Administrator changes
28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. You recently deleted this page. Please can you restore a copy of it to my sandbox so that I can continue to improve it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbristow (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to undo the decision made at the AfD. If you have sources that were not taken into consideration in that discussion or if you feel that I did not correctly determine consensus, you can go to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You have repeatedly undone an edit of mine, see this, without adequately explaining why. Please clarify which of the content violates which policies, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV? --Perry520 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you read those guidelines, it should be pretty clear what is wrong with your additions. Try writing without having your personal opinion color your writing and restrict yourself to what your sources actually say. Also note that Facebook is not an acceptable source for anything. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have new additions that confirms the policies. Why is the page protected? Can I request edits to the semi-protected page? BTW, I've seen Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Facebook, Myspace and it states "the official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject", why do you consider the official Facebook an unreliable source? Or how do you verify that it does not belong to the subject? --Perry520 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- You can propose changes on the talk page of a protected page. An "official" Facebook page can be used to source uncontroversial info about a subject (the subject that controls the Facebook page). You are interpreting what is going on on that page, that's OR/SYNTH. The page has been protected because of vandalism (by you and an anonymous IP). --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm trying to provide new and useful info, why am I considered as vandalism? Yes, I proposed changes on the talk already. How should I write down the sentences? I have the references for the event too and has already put the references down in the article, so they are not my own opinion about the event. You can look up the news. The news is pretty clear about the event and I just put more related sources and rearranged the sentences. --Perry520 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
is there an increase in the frothing/raving mad lunatics hounding you an others these past few days/weeks? Seems worse than usual. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that, too. Perhaps it's the diminishing oversight with all those admins resigning... And many of those who are still hanging on wasting lots of time discussing (or just reading like myself) the stream of posts on FRAMBAN... Or the heatwave in Europe. Or perhaps it's getting full moon? Anyway, if others who are not admins need relief from the frothing ones, let me know and I'll protect/block when necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Randykitty,
I just wanted to ping you and understand your rationale for closing that discussion as delete. I don't care about a WP:REFUND, and I have zero interest in a WP:DRV as I very much trust your judgment in the matter, but I thought that I had hopefully found enough in the way of reliable sources to at least further the discussion and at the very least get a re-list for additional comments. I agree it was a weak keep !vote with only two sources, but it was something, and I didn't find the deletes all that compelling either. Again, I'm not questioning your decision, just trying to understand your thought process. As far as I am concerned the matter is settled. CThomas3 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, well, as closer it is not my job to evaluate the article or any sources that are there or came up during the debate. If I'd do that, I'd be giving a supervote instead of evaluating consensus. There were two clear delete !votes. I ignored the SPA !vote, which was not policy based anyway. So that left your !vote, which was "keep", but only weakly so. I read what you said about the sources that you found and got the impression that you found some stuff, but not enough to pull this over the line, ending your statement by saying that you didn't find anything else. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said, but having two deletes against one weak keep, I went for delete. Also, it didn't look like much more debate was forthcoming, so I didn't go for a relist. Having said all this, if you find sources that are good enough tpo pull this over the line, let me know and I'll undelete the article for you so you can add those sources. With additional sources, it should not be eligible for speedy deletion as G4. --Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's fair. That's really all I could find, and in the end it probably isn't enough to save it from deletion. Thanks for explaining your thought process. If 42Gears ever does become notable then those sources would be valuable to whomever recreates the article, but I don't think it's worth doing at this time. CThomas3 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Since I watch, I noticed you have gotten into another case with User:The Banner. This user has a long history of causing problems. Don't take my word for it, I invite you to look it up. I've also kept records of some of that history, but its not about me. I think he has a personality disorder incompatible with wikipedia's collegial function that is not likely to be cured. I obviously am awaiting the day this guy finally gets banned from wikipedia permanently. As you deal with this new case, please do not think it is a minor new case. This is a long standing, repetitive problem.Trackinfo (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't care about any other problems you may have had with The Banner. (Although I note that they have a clean block log since 2015). I issued an edit warring warning, but that was more to balance things than because I think they were at the origin of the conflict. We currently have enough drama on WP, so let's not start another one here. Meanwhile, please read WP:NPA lest you suggest again that other editors have a psychiatric disorder. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
G'day Randy, i feel that the handling and the order of things surrounding this AfD weren't appropriately processed. Therefor i am thinking of either recreating the article or re-opening the AfD. But before i take further steps i would appreciate your input on this matter.
The result of the SPI check confirmed that Verabo and Multichill, who based their votes and arguments mostly on sockpuppetry and conduct, were wrong. However, they neglected to revise their position. Verabo continued her pattern of disruptive behavior, bordering on harassment. So i submitted a blockrequest against Verabo. But you closed the AfD before my blockrequest was processed. It was closed with the reasoning that the AfD was over so her disruptive behavior couldn't continue any longer. If you hadn't closed the AfD before my blockrequest Verabo would have been blocked or removed entirely. Stopping her behavior and negating her comments, which later turned out to be COI. After the closing of the AfD you asked about COI and WP:PAID on Verabo's talkpage. She confirmed on her talkpage that she works for a film company and was paid for it. Verabo should have disclosed that in the AfD, but didn't.
So after the AfD is over it turned about that Verabo was a single-purpose account who should've disclosed the COI. Both Verabo and Multichill didn't revise their vote after the SPI check proved them wrong. And most likely Verabo would've been blocked if the AfD was ongoing, nullifying her paid comments. Also take into account that user InvalidOS revised his no vote after checking the article. You can see his diffs here.
The disruptive behavior, the undisclosed COI, the substracted no vote from InvalidOS, the blockrequest that was submitted but couldn't be processed, it feels like all these issues interfered with the AFD or with the execution of its decision. I feel the AfD should've remained open for a bit longer so all this could've been resolved. But it wasn't. We never got to discuss the real content because of the conduct. I'd like your input as to how we move forward with these issues. Thank you in advance. SimonRichter1337 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- 1/ Your "blockrequest" would never have resulted in Verabo or Multichill being blocked, they didn't do anything deserving a block. 2/ Verabo may be a SPA, but you also seem to have an unhealthy fixation on this article. 3/ Read again. Verabo nowhere admits to being paid for their editing. 4/ Working in the same field does not necessarily indicate a COI. The verdict is still out on whether Verabo has a COI or not. I tried to engage in a conversation with them, but that didn't really work out because of some interference by another editor. 5/ That they were wrong about an SPI request does not mean that they should have changed their !votes in the AfD, those are separate things. Conclusion: I'm not going to re-open the AfD and stand by its close. 6/ Although different wikis have different standards, I do note thatan article on this subject was also deleted from the Dutch wiki, who I assume have better access/understanding of sources written in Dutch. You should in no case re-open the AfD or re-create the article: the AfD was closed by an admin as "delete" and the decision stands. If you want to challenge the close, you may go to deletion review. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. A while ago I added the list of staff/officers of the Amerasia Journal and you removed them; I’m relatively new to editing Wikipedia so I’m happy to trust your judgement on the matter, however I’m hoping you might be able to tell me why they were removed simply so I do not repeat the same mistake again elsewhere. Thank you for your time, and thanks for cleaning up after me! Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Neighborhood Nationalist: See WP:JWG (and WP:JWG#NOT in particular). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Red Haircrow. 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.
Greetings, I made response and attempted to discuss by posting to your talk page, and am now creating a post for deletion review. I cannot ascertain if any response was made by you to my message on your Talk page since the page has been revised. I believe a revised page relisted with updated information or the allowance of recreation should be considered. Even since my post on your Talk page March 5, 2019, there has been additional significant references and sources, and the opinions of self-promotion and conflict of interest are unsubstantiated and incorrect.
Contributingauthor (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hoi Randykitty--is this one legit? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you mean this one: academicjournals.org/journal/IJSA, that is definitely a fishy one. Certainly not notable. Its publisher, Academic Journals, was on Beall's list. Most of their journals publish just a handful of articles every year and the editors/editorial boards are the usual crowd of nobodies.
- Now that you're here, could you perhaps have a look at the recent history of The Lancet? They published an article listing Taiwan as a province of China and a bunch of SPAs/IPs are trying to insert a huge paragraph about this into that article. You don't need to do anything, I can handle it, but I'd like a second opinion on whether or not I am being too harsh there. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I can understand that you don't want the list of conference editions, but why can't we keep the websites at least? They contain pivotal information that is unavailable elsewhere. --15:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.europe (talk • contribs)
- See WP:LINKFARM and WP:LINKSPAM. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randy, finally having found some time to write again I was going to reply to a few remarks in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iuventa discussion - only to find that it was already closed. Well, bad luck, I guess...
Anyway, since you didn't provide one in the closure summary I would appreciate if you could add some reasoning there for your decision as "Merge", because at the current state of discussion with the parties having brought forward good and bad arguments for both "Keep" and "Merge" in almost equal proportion, I didn't see a clear picture for either of them, and so in my judgement the expected outcome so far would have been a rather obvious "No consensus".
BTW, one of the reasons why I was in the camp of "Keep" voters is exactly what is happening now, important stuff from the Iuventa article is not being merged into the other article, and more stuff that could be written about the ship simply has no place in an article about an organization. Also, viewing this from an international perspective this structure makes it now more difficult to interconnect contents with other language entities which do have articles about this (and the other relevant) ships.
Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, different language wikis are independent and have different notability policies and the existence of an article on another wiki carries no weight here (or the other way around, of course). I have provided a more detailed reasoning at the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the reasoning at the AfD, I can follow you more now.
- Regarding articles in other wikis, my view appears to be a different one. This is tangential to the already closed AfD now, therefore I hope you don't mind if I share my view anyway (just for the purpose of understanding each other better):
- I see Wikipedia as one international project with the different language entities only necessary because different people speak (and can only contribute in) different languages. The ultimate goal of the project as a whole, however, is that every bit of (verified) information in any entity be also available in all the other entities, because otherwise we would create information silos alongside the language barriers. Per Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia should represent the knowledge of the world, accessible to anyone. Why should something that people in the UK find notable not be equally important to know and understand in Germany, and vice versa? Similar, why should something about a site in Japan remain inaccessible to someone in France just because it's written in a different language? People might have different views on topics, caused by different cultural / political / educational backgrounds, but to overcome that one needs to understand the other sides as well.
- An early step in reaching that goal is to make it as easy as possible to switch between the language entities when organizing and maintaining articles. It is possible to connect redirects to Wikidata, and thereby even to establish multiple-to-one and crossed connections where things don't line up internationally, but with the current UI it is still a major pain to set up, so for the time being a 1:1 equivalence is much more desirable (only, where it makes sense, of course).
- Now, if contents in the other language entities of the project already indicates that something is notable (per their educated judgement, if they are closer to it) and there is enough information to establish and maintain multiple articles, while at the same time in the English Wikipedia people are still in the process to gather information and set up something (or, as in the case at hands, even an - fortunately unsuccessful - attempt was made to suppress a whole series of topics related to the ongoing European migrant crisis), I don't think it is particularly farsighted to not take the already existing external organization into account, because then it will either have to be changed later on again (causing unnecessary overhead), or, if it stays, the organization in the English entity will permanently hinder its audience from learning about notable stuff available in the other entities (creating a cultural lens), and thereby it becomes a roadblock on the path towards reaching the longterm vision of the project.
- As you pointed out correctly, the different language entities have, in fact, slightly different rules (because truely global discussions are not possible due to the language barrier, through the way they developed in their respective cultural backgrounds, and in some cases also for legal reasons), but they are still very close to each other to maintain the same shared vision of the project. So, an article established as notable in one entity is very likely also notable in the other entities (if only there would be more people able to understand a foreign topic in context and capable of writing an article in their local language). And while rules in one entity cannot be "enforced" elsewhere, the ideas translate, and foreign contents can still give highly valuable clues and help come to a better judgement how to do something. Therefore, I do not think that content in other languages carries no weight here (and vice versa). If that would become an established view in the English WP, I guess many international contributors would no longer contribute to this but to their local versions - and that would leave the English entity in a very poor state regarding depth and width of coverage and NPOV. However, being multilingual they choose to contribute to the English version because the entities carry the same weight (and therefore this is no factor in their decision) and by writing in English they can eliminate one of the otherwise often two necessary translation steps, thereby helping a lot to reach the ultimate goal earlier.
- Well, since you are also active internationally, our views might not be that different eventually, but the somewhat terse and imperative style in your remark regarding articles in other entities somehow provoked this "essay" on internationality. Hope you don't mind. ;-)
- Anyway, thanks again.
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that ideally all wikis would have the same rules. In practice, however, they are independent of each other and do have different rules. Fact of life, we have to live with it... --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
How do you complain about an editor in WP who has been regularly deleting WP pages and editing with political bias ? I noticed that WP is very geography oriented. Pages generated and edited from North America and Europe are of higher quality than pages edited by editors from the developing world who often edit in WP like a notebook platform. I would specifically like to complain about the editor Vinegarymass911 who is an editor from a developing country editing with political bias. Why does WP think everyone in the world has the time to edit Wikipedia ? There should be a customer service with staff to do that. WP pages generated from developing countries are mostly political stubs and the opportunity to edit should be limited in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.228 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- While they are an editor in good standing, Vinegarymass911 is not an admin, so they cannot delete any articles. In any case, if you have a disagreement with them, the first thing to do is to open a discussion on their talk page, assuming good faith, and try to come to a compromise. If that doesn't work, you can look for dispute resolution. If all that doesn't work, there's WP:ANI, but that often results in a boomerang. If you want to limit the subjects that people can edit on WP, I wish you good luck figthing that particular windmill. Similarly, WP is written by volunteer editors and there simply is no "customer service". Finally, I wonder why you are posting here, because as far as I recall, I have never interacted with either one of you. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
See Template:Infobox journal#Search links if you haven't already. It adds a couple of useful links to the infobox (see for what that looks like). Those aren't displayed to readers, just people who choose to see those links. Lets you verify/determine abbreviations quickly, and also look up indexing on MIAR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I actually can't even remember any more when I activated this. (Just checked the history, it was on Feb 1. :-) Very helpful indeed, I use it all the time! --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty, Can you please explain why you reverted my additions to list of psychology journals. "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria As I understand lists are places where you can add red links - it allows you to keep track of what articles are missing and encourage people to add those articles. This is one of the advantages of lists over just using categories. Can you quote me which policy you were referring to? There are some items that might be on a list but don't (yet) have an article attached. In the case of the journals I added, they are all created by notable organisations and it is almost certain that articles would be created in the future for those items. Notgain (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Notgain, LSC also says: "... notability is often a criterion for inclusion..." and "[a]void red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever." In the case of academic journal lists, one of the criteria for inclusion is notability. The reason for this is that there are quite a lot of shady ("predatory") publishers out there that love to see their "journals" listed anywhere on WP (if possible even with a direct link to their website). If a redlink is added to a list, other editors can only find out whether that one actually is notable by basically doing all the work needed to create an article. So we enforce WP:WTAF for journal lists. As it is pretty easy to write an acceptable article on a notable journal, it's not that much of an imposition, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Randykitty, I'm not certain whether The Coaching Psychologist meets notability criteria as per WP:NJournals (C1, C2, C3). BPS is a reputable publisher and PsycINFO which is a selective index (meeting C2.b?). However, there are a limited number of articles cited by the more established, higher ranking, psychology journals. This is to be expected given that coaching psychology is a new subdiscipline, only 10 years old. The Coaching Psychologist is in PsycINFO which is a selective index (meeting C2.b?). Are we comparing the number of citations to other coaching-related journals or existing psychology journals that are already listed in the list of psychology journals? Notgain (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- BPS certainly is a reputable publisher, but that does not contribute to notability. PsychINFO is not a selective index in the sense of WP:NJournals. All it means if a journal is included in it is that it is a decent publication (i.e., not a predatory journal) and that it is in the broad field of psychology. If you browse through previous deletion discussions (here and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts/Archive 2, you may find other instances where a journal was only in PsychINFO and therefore not accepted. As for numbers of citations, I only see a smattering in GScholar. For individual academics we usually require at least 1000 citations, for academic journals (in which many authors publish) we must ask at least as much if not more. In short, at this point, The Coaching Psychologist does not meet WP:NJournals (believe me that I do not put up a PROD tag without carefully looking at a journal). --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The real solution here would be to merge The Coaching Psychologist with British Psychological Society. I wish Randykitty would use that option more often over prods. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Notgain and Headbomb: For some reason I got curious about this and looked at British Psychological Society where 11 journals are listed, and at "BPS Journals" where the same 11 are listed, with no sign of TCP. I found it eventually listed under Publications: Member Network Publications: Special Groups. So it's not a publication of the BPS as such, but of one of its specialist groups. No reason not to list it in the British Psychological Society article, with an incoming redirect, but it would need to be in a separate section from the 11. Ah, and there's a section British_Psychological_Society#Member_networks:_Sections,_divisions_and_branches which discusses Sections and Divisions but doesn't mention any Special Groups. Aaargh... enough. PamD 20:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)Hmm, couldn't leave it alone - could redirect the title to Coaching_psychology#21st_century where it is mentioned. PamD 20:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please no, redirects should be to publishers, not fields. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb and PamD: Can we agree that redirect to BPS if the journal is discussed there? Just to clarify, am I to assume that if the journal gets an impact factor or indexed by a more selective site such as SCOPUS or web of science in the future then it would likely meet WP:NJournals for its own article? Notgain (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agree that the redirect should be to publisher ... I got distracted by the fact that the publisher isn't BPS but a Special Group thereof, not mentioned on BPS page but mentioned in the page for the subject area. So first the Special Group needs a mention in BPS page along with its publications, then a redirect becomes legitimate, and then the mention of the title in the Coaching psychology can be linked. PamD 05:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll go with what the majority here thinks should be done. However, I note that the BPS publishes 11 journals, at least 9 of which are notable and have articles but are (as is appropriate) just listed in the BPS article. I don't see much problem with redirecting The Coaching Psychologist to the BPS article. However, merging it there leads to the weird situation that the notable journals that the the BPS publishes only get a mention but the only non-notable one (published not by the BPS but by a subdivision) gets an infobox and a whole paragraph in that article... If a society publishes just one or two non-notable journals, merging is no problem. In this case, I find it a weird solution. As for deletion vs redirecting, in my experience redirecting often leads to slow edit warring, with the original article being restored every so often. I rather have an article deleted first and then someone can create a redirect if they think that's desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Randykitty, PamD, and Headbomb: I added a mention of 'The Coaching Psychology' and redirect page to British Psychological Society#Journals. I also created 'International Coaching Psychology Review' as a redirect to the same spot. Notgain (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC) So my question was, do you want to delete that item from list of psychology journals? Notgain (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll go with what the majority here thinks should be done. However, I note that the BPS publishes 11 journals, at least 9 of which are notable and have articles but are (as is appropriate) just listed in the BPS article. I don't see much problem with redirecting The Coaching Psychologist to the BPS article. However, merging it there leads to the weird situation that the notable journals that the the BPS publishes only get a mention but the only non-notable one (published not by the BPS but by a subdivision) gets an infobox and a whole paragraph in that article... If a society publishes just one or two non-notable journals, merging is no problem. In this case, I find it a weird solution. As for deletion vs redirecting, in my experience redirecting often leads to slow edit warring, with the original article being restored every so often. I rather have an article deleted first and then someone can create a redirect if they think that's desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)Hmm, couldn't leave it alone - could redirect the title to Coaching_psychology#21st_century where it is mentioned. PamD 20:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Notgain and Headbomb: For some reason I got curious about this and looked at British Psychological Society where 11 journals are listed, and at "BPS Journals" where the same 11 are listed, with no sign of TCP. I found it eventually listed under Publications: Member Network Publications: Special Groups. So it's not a publication of the BPS as such, but of one of its specialist groups. No reason not to list it in the British Psychological Society article, with an incoming redirect, but it would need to be in a separate section from the 11. Ah, and there's a section British_Psychological_Society#Member_networks:_Sections,_divisions_and_branches which discusses Sections and Divisions but doesn't mention any Special Groups. Aaargh... enough. PamD 20:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The real solution here would be to merge The Coaching Psychologist with British Psychological Society. I wish Randykitty would use that option more often over prods. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Is there anyway to see deleted article? because I need contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamir.te (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Any admin can see deleted articles and under certain conditions (e.g., no copyvio) copy their contents to a users personal space. Which article are you talking about? --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty,
Please refer to your attempts to undo my revisions in “Impact Factor”.
In one occasion, you explained that the new information was “only just published, wait and see whether it gets any traction”. In fact, the article was cited by major international journals, newspapers, and blogs. Both Web of Science and Scopus denied the allegation, and the original authors responded. The amount of interactions was much more than an average paper that was “only just published [waiting to] see whether it gets any traction”.
In another occasion, you explained that there is “no need to include every single signatory [of DORA] and what they said about it”. In fact, my revision was a second attempt to highlight the flaw in Journal Impact Factors. I have made no attempt to “include every single signatory and what they said about it”.
In the third occasion, you explained that ‘if “a number of people” undo your edits, then the problem is perhaps with those edits, not the people’. In fact, other people who undo my edits on other Wiki pages suspected that I was one of the authors in question and accused me of using multiple accounts. In fact, “Lai Woon Siu” is my real name as shown on the passport. I am just a lone crusader who wants balanced views to be shown in Wikipedia. I do not have the time and energy for edit wars.
Laiwoonsiu (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BOLD, if your edits are challenged, then take this to the talk pages of those articles and try and convince other editors of the need to make them. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You're normally good to find the indexing information in primary sources. Given the website isn't very accurate, I'm not keen on trusting it. If you could add those sources, it would be good for mainspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This is pretty much ready to be accepted. However, there is 'It is the leading journal related to the education and training of public administration students and public servants.[3]', which is very weasel-y, but has a reference to it (which I can't access). Could you double check that passage before accepting? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randy, I just noticed your revert. Can you plz elaborate? I don't have an issue with the revert itself; I added it here, because the Wikipedia page was a stub, and Scholia/Wikidata is just extra info that could be use to improve this page. Or that was the intention anyway. I ask for a elaboration to ask you how you think the Scholia page for journals should/could be improved to be (more) useful for that situation. Looking forward to your thoughts! --06:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egon Willighagen (talk • contribs)
- Hi, when I first had a look at Scholia a couple of months ago, I was impressed with the tools and graphics. I was less than impressed, though, with the underlying data, which were heavliy biased towards recent stuff and very incomplete. In this case, some information was obviously wrong. When I looked at the Scholia link, there were a number of portraits of people who had published in this journal. One of them was Natalie Portman. While I'm a big fan of her, I somehow doubt that she ever authored a scientific paper in a chemistry journal... I don't know whether this is the result of undetected vandalism on Wikidata or just an honest mistake, but if there are obvious errors like this one, there probably are more that go undetected because they are less obvious. Until we can be sure that the underlying data are more complete and correct, I don't think that it's a good idea to add links to Scholia. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- That info actually came from Wikipedia: check here page and the notes about her research career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman#cite_ref-25 --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll.. Be.. Darned.. You're absolutely right. I knew she's a smart cookie, but I never suspected that she actually could have published a scientific article! I assumed that it was either vandalism on Wikidata or perhaps a mix-up with another person of the same name... I'll restore that Scholia link. Even though I'm still very skeptical about Wikidata, in this case clearly WD was better informed than me... --Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding Wikidata, there still is a lot missing. But I'm generally very positive about it, particularly the quality and the lack vandalism (yet). I recently (re)checked the quality of representation of chemical structures (SMILES strings) which had only few, typically minor issues. Often actual following errors in Wikipedia. Not sure I understand the dynamics yet, but maybe the APIs allow for easier quality assurance. Anyway, one real limitation is that the data is incomplete. It's catching up, but growing pains on the technical side has slowed down pulling all "the sum of all our knowledge" (see WikiCite) as well as the citations between articles. That said, it's already way beyond critical mass, and complements what Wikipedia has. Scholia (see https://riojournal.com/article/35820/) also has as goal to crowdsource (Wikipedia-style) information about scholarly literature that is not available as open data from other sources. That includes "main topic" annotation of articles, etc, etc. Missing/incomplete data is on our radar, and we want to make Scholia "invite" people to add missing data. But we have some length to go there. Some Scholia pages give pointers on how to add missing data, but it needs a lot more. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at SIGGRAPH shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thx for your revisions of the article. You wrote: "claims like that need an independent reference." I've already added another source. Is it WP:secondary? --Janggun Dungan (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is not really relevant whether this is secondary or not, as it is neither independent nor reliable. It seems to be a personal website with uncertain editorial control and the person who wrote this is featured in the magazine and therefore has a clear interest in making it look as important as possible. It's therefore not a good reference and should better be removed. Sourcing on WP is very important and at the same time one of the most difficult things to get right... --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for information from an admin. The bad ref rm. --Janggun Dungan (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
In the future, could you not remove the whitespace? Having things lined up makes things infinitely easier to review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- See also the WP:SCRIPTREQ I made related to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, funny how different people can have different preferences... I find those blanks very irritating, that's why I remove them. Does it screw anything up or is it just a personal preference? (I'm afraid I'm too illiterate in scripts to even begin to understand what you wrote in the link about the infobox... :-) If it screws something up with that new script, I'll stop removing the white space of course. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't screw anything save for making it very hard to review at a glance what is missing and what is not. Also the further from documentation, the more it makes it seem like the info box is really old or missing information, which means spending a lot of time to review if something is missing or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- And it makes the diffs harder to read since lines don't match up anymore. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
One thing that would get screwed up with the script once it's written, is that the script will rely on the state of the default documentation for the layout. So if someone were to reactivate the script on the page where you remove the white space and less useful parameters, the script would just reintroduce them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mmmm, that sounds like the script needs to be adapted to this kind of situations instead of the other way around... --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, You've deleted the two rankings that I had added on SCImago Institutions Rankings, plus the one that was already on the page (written by another user). I undid your removal. Why? 1) Before undoing others' adds, thanks to discuss. That's what we do on Wikipedia. 2) Many higher education ranking pages on Wikipedia have such "copy-paste" approach (see QS World University Rankings which is one of the most famous, for example). If you're unhappy with this, you may want to discuss with contributors there. 3) Sometimes a table only lacks one column to become an encyclopedic table. And sometimes, it is just a question of time. Thanks thefore for not starting an editing war. I am adding the rankings of the other years, and it takes time. Best, Jybernard (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I think this is the first time ever that an editor with 22 edits tries to explain to me how WP works. Perhaps you would take a minute to read WP:BOLD. You added a load of crap to an article and that edit was challenged. Instead of restoring the edit, per BOLD, you take it to the talk page of the article. I'll undo your revert for you and await your talk page post. As for the QS page, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We have almost 6 million pages, it is unavoidable that some of those are not tip-top. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe you should not be judging people from your very tiny, obtuse point of view. I edit less on English Wikipedia, reason why I don't have many edits here. But I have been using and editing Wikipedia in other langages (do you also know speaking in different langages? or are you also obtuse in this matter?). Since when we need to talk before adding relevant contents? For removing or editing others' work, yes, that's okay. The only reason I see is that you have something against this particular ranking, or you would just pay attention to other craps. Jybernard (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I've read through the WP:BOLD and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS pages. What can't be acceptable is to talking at length before adding encyclopedic content; many pages have such talk topics where there is no reply for years. So I added encyclopedic content to SCImago Institutions Rankings. This is what Be bold means, isn't? Who are you to judge it as crap content? Jybernard (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what BOLD means. You don't need to get consensus before making an edit, but you boldly go ahead. However, if somebody disagrees with that edit, the onus is on you to provide a justification for doing that edit, not on the objecting editor who reverted the edit. And you're right, I shouldn't have said "crap", but something along the lines of "unencyclopedic". I guess I just got too irritated by the fact that somebody with just a handful of edits comes to my talk page to tell me (years of experience, over 100,000 edits to different wikis) "[t]hat's what we do on Wikipedia"... Sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
Arbitration
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
Miscellaneous
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mahdad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Mahdad (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mahdad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran have been undone because they did not appear constructive. It is the second warning. Mahdad (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mahdad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran have been undone because they did not appear constructive. It is the third warning. Mahdad (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mahdad. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran have been undone because they did not appear constructive. It is the fourth warning. Mahdad (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added a table of past conferences to European Conference on Information Systems, however it was removed. May I ask why and how I can improve the table so that it will remain there?
Best Regards Chaoflax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoflax (talk • contribs)
- It was removed because we consider this trivial and unencyclopedic information. Such lists belong on the website of the organization/conference, but not in an encyclopedic article on the conference. See also this community discussion. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop that. The information is perfectly within scope for Wikipedia. There is no justification for removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.159.53 (talk • contribs)
- No, this information is NOT within scope. See WP:NOTADIRECTORY. There's community consensus that this kind of unencyclopedic info belongs on an organization's own website. WP is neither a directory nor a free webhost. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Already done :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The page has been updated to address the advert tag. In particular, please re-read the specific language on the Template:Advert page. Note that the current SIGGRAPH page does not contain any advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind; merely objective statements about the conference, made from a neutral point of view, and free of "puffery."
- Please also attend to the discussion on the self-published/third-party tags.71.112.159.53 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you tell how this article compares to the version you deleted at AfD back in 2015? Just wondering if WP:G4 applies. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a bit muddled, but it looks like the article was re-created about a year after the AfD. Somebody restored the previous version, so you can see for yourself whether you think this qualifies for G4. The article is still quite barebones, but there seems to be one new reference, so my guess is that it doesn't qualify for G4, even though I have no idea whether that reference is any good. If it isn't, another AfD may be needed... --Randykitty (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I could see that you deleted the three pages related to Miss Multinational which was there for the information. Can you please help me the correction as it's an international pageant and people are surprised as the information is gone.
I will be thankful for your help. Also if you can share your email I'd, we can communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat1998 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, but I cannot restore those articles as they were deleted per community discussions. If you have new evidence that these articles meet our inclusion criteria that was not already considered in the AfDs, you could go to WP:DRV and request to overturn the delete decisions. I must warn you however that unless you have significant new sources that are independent of the the subject and discuss it in-depth, you're probably wasting your time. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Randykitty--can you have a look at this? I think it's a bit on the puffy side (though check the history--there was more puff), but I have two real problems: 1. hardly any of the sourcing is properly secondary and/or independent, and 2. this is nominated to go on the front page at Did You Know. I just don't know. If this were just a regular article I'd shrug my shoulders and look at another, but if it's to be on the front page, it should be good (see my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Adriana Marais). At the same time, I don't want to shove this scientist out of the spotlight. Your comments are appreciated... Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, There's a GScholar profile here, but that just indicates that as a scientist she's not (yet) notable at all. Perhaps she meets PROF because of the L'Oreal-UNESCO International Rising Talent Award, but I don't know enough about that award to see whether that is enough to meet PROF. I'm afraid I have no time to look into the references in the article to see whether she meets GNG. (More honestly, I've lots of time as I'm currently having a short vacation, but I don't want to spend it behind my computer :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You know, there's really little point in tagging pages like , but if you do, then do it like this. This way it doesn't break links to discussions, and fragment where to discuss things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, will do. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there - I saw your message on the AfD page. Please accept my apologies, I was just frustrated. It seemed like all the work I had put in over the years was simply wasted, and I lashed out in frustration. A lot of things are happening right now that I'm upset with, but my attention is elsewhere and I am happier for it. I forgot how much fun vandal-fighting was. :) Bobo. 15:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's OK. We all get irritated from time to time and then say things that we perhaps didn't mean that way. Hope the things upsetting you right now will get settled soon to your satisfaction. --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sometimes I forget that there is a real life beyond this world... Bobo. 15:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Don't I know it. I'm supposed to be vacationing and just realize that I've again spent some valuable hours behind my computer... Signing of now! --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sometimes I forget that there is a real life beyond this world... Bobo. 15:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I hope your vacation is going on well.
I apologise for my rather vague vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govt ENT Hospital. In that vote, I was referring to Rathfelder's this comment. What I wanted to say was: we cant even be sure of the hospital's name, like Rathfelder said; which somewhat proves that the hospital doesnt have enought in-depth coverage. I am also aware that Rathfelder was leaning towards a "keep" argument with a valid reasoning of hospitals usually not getting detailed coverage. But still, this hospital doesnt have enough significant coverage (even for a hospital) to establish a notability. Maybe thats why Rathfelder didnt cast a direct keep vote. Would kindly reconsider my vote based on the rationale provided above, and the close of AfD? Cortesy ping to MrClog. Thank you, —usernamekiran(talk) 16:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Generally modern hospitals of this size are notable. It seems to be doing tricky technical procedures like cochlear implants. There could well be material in local languages and in the more technical sources which I cant access. But there is not much point looking for detailed coverage of the working of the hospital. Hardly any hospitals would count as noticeable on that basis. I'm not in favour of deleting it.Rathfelder (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Given these comments, I think that the "no consensus" close most closely reflects consensus (or, rather, the absence of consensus). Perhaps searching for sources in local languages would help. If not, the article could be taken to AfD again after a suitable amount of time (say 2-3 months) has elapsed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Both of you are right. Also, i dont think it should be taken to AfD soon, we should wait at least an year. Its a government owned/operated hospital, ie not for profit. That might also explain the lack of coverage. I also boldly moved the article to Government ENT Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Please feel free to revert or move to a new destination, if appropriate. See you guys around
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Both of you are right. Also, i dont think it should be taken to AfD soon, we should wait at least an year. Its a government owned/operated hospital, ie not for profit. That might also explain the lack of coverage. I also boldly moved the article to Government ENT Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Please feel free to revert or move to a new destination, if appropriate. See you guys around
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case. 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. Pudeo (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. At this point, I have nothing to add to my closing statement. --Randykitty (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I hope it is added back, there is nothing wrong with discussing an active case and of public concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BEE0:AD8:75D9:81DB:A8E:AA13 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have no clue what you are trying to say. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
How do we read the deletions discussion? Dumbledad (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- The deletion review (linked to above) has a link to the original AfD. (I guess that is what you're looking for)? --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why the page was removed, she has been in mainstream news and is a notable point of current discourse. Why delete her page now when the controversy is at its height?Ec1801011 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's all explained in the AfD discussion and in the DRV. This is not the place for further discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Randykitty, I wanted to ask if you would help the community better understand your thinking regarding this closing by elaborating on the logic you used when deciding one side had clearly stronger arguments vs the other. As I said in the DR, your thinking may ultimately be correct but the closing lacked the detail to show people who don't agree why. As this was a well attended AfD I think it will show a respect for the community to have such additional information. Thank you. Springee (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Where exactly is the link, I'm curious to understand why it should be removed since the page was supposedly made about the overall controversy and not the individual. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- All I can find is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv_waxing_case#/issues/0 Bgrus22 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you placed a helpful pointer on my talk page. I've been mostly interested in doing typo correction and copy editing work on here. I've found the Typo Task force so far, but is there a place here where people post requests for or nominate articles for more extensive typo and grammar correction so I can find some to get started on?
Also, is this signing thing working? Magischzwei (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your signature works! And I don't know of a page for such corrections, but there are lots of pages that I don't know. There's a Guild of Copy Editors, they will have such kind of resources, I'd think. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Good afternoon, could you please help me obtain a copy of the deleted article Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case so that I can improve it in Sandbox? My intention is to improve the article in light of the concerns expressed at AfD and eventually restore as per WP:DELETE. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I unwatched the cesspit so didn't notice that you'd closed it. Bold and correct, thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. The "cesspit" became even larger with a deletion review, which became one of the longest I've seen in a long time... --Randykitty (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, RK, it was a poor closing and much of the DR mess falls on your shoulders. As I said then, it's not a question of if you reached the right or wrong decision. You are an experienced editor and that means you often have a sense for things that others won't have. But you didn't explain your decision with enough detail to make your thinking clear which undermines editor's faith in the process. This was compounded by a refusal to offer further clarification when asked. Both sides cited policy, you said one side had the stronger arguments and that is why you picked that side. In that choice you might have been right but you didn't explain why with sufficient detail. In this case if you had summarized the arguments of both sides, say a list of +'s and -'s then said where they nullified or superseded one another things may have been different. As is, I think those who feel this was nothing more than a supervote have a very legitimate grievance and no one can review your thinking to say otherwise. The net result is editors lose faith in the process. I would hope that you will take this to heart when closing controversial discussions in the future. Springee (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
RandyKitty, This was a rather rude response to a legitimate concern []. This suggests you don't respect the opinions of editor's whom your actions impact. Regardless, I hope you will take the comments to heart as they are meant in good faith. Springee (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
"An earlier version of this article stated that Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Mario Capecchi was not aware he was listed as a member of the editorial board for the MDPI journal Biomolecules. At the time, Capecchi’s assistant, Lorene Stitzer, told eCampus News that “he was not aware of the fact that he had been included on the listing.” After being contacted by MDPI, Stitzer now says Capecchi is in fact aware of being an honorary board member."
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hah! I didn't check the archive because the article is still online. I wonder why they removed any mention of this in the current version, that's weird. I'm not sure how to handle this. Did they remove all mention of Capecchi because they couldn't verify it? In any case, it does not say that it was a mistake by the spokesperson. Perhaps Capecchi first told her that he was not on the board, which she faithfully communicated, and later he told her he had forgotten about it and actually had agreed t be on the board. If we restore this thing, it should at least be re-phrased. What do you think is the best way forward here? Trust the archived version and restore or go with the current version and omit? --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Randykitty,
This morning I updated the cover image on the Allergy (Journal) Wikipedia Page after the creator of the cover image and the publisher requested that I update the cover image. How should I go about uploading the up to date cover to not go against Copyright policy. I have permission to add the cover here however I do not have the control over the copyright. How should I proceed? Would it be possible to use the image on the journalallergy.com website with a direct link instead of reuploading the file to Wikimedia?
Best Regards, Trevor — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorWinstral (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Trevor. Copyrighted images cannot be uploaded at Commons without following a special procedure (see commons:COM:OTRS). However, such images can be uploaded here under "fair use" (see, for example, File:2019 cover Musikforschung.gif). Unless a cover gets a radical re-design, it is generally preferable not to update a cover with each subsequent issue. Finally, as you are doing this on the request of the publisher, you should familiarize yourself with WP:COI and WP:PAID. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to take another crack at 42Gears, from the ground up, with additional sourcing. What's the best way to go about this? AfC? Or just publish my version of the article? Wilipino (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, that article was deleted after a community discussion (WP:AFD) not too long ago. If you have significant new sources, you can try WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randy Kitty, thanks for your part in the process in the Oh Long Johnson afd. I still believe that the article is notable as I have seen some other stuff out there, and I've seen people wearing OLJ & ODP tee shirts. But I fully accept your decision to re-direct it and thus preserve the history. I'm all for in say a year from now a discussion takes place to see if the article can be opened up to stand alone. If nothing can be found to satisfy then we leave it until some good sized articles about the cat are found. I'm sure down the track in there'll be something. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
