User talk:Randykitty/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Randykitty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

11 November is de dag

Yes, and I plucked something else out of the old box: Q & Q. I hope you got lots of candy. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annual Review of Anthropology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sociocultural anthropology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note...

Hello Randy kitty! I know you are new here so welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit regarding redirecting a page without discussing it. Please present discussions in the article's talk page and wait for the response of other editors to know that if the page should be really need to be redirected. Also, please present consensus. Thank you and happy editing! :) Mediran talk to me! 09:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  • According to WP:BOLD, if there is no a priori reason to suspect that something could be controversial, one should go ahead and do it. Apparently, my edit is more controversial than I thought, so I have started a discussion on the talk page (although the rationale is basically a repeat of my edit summary). I hope you'll present your arguments as to why this (basically unsourced) duplicate article should persist. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm RandomAct. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, RandomAct(talk to me) 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that Category entry.  :) RandomAct(talk to me) 23:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

V8X Magazine

Don't think I am not watching that Afd page. I get enough shit at school behind my back so don't start. I can see you arent the only one, so I will be asking Falcadore about this too. Since nothing more has been forthcoming from the article creator and nobody else seems tobe able to come up with sources either. The article creator does indeed create lots of stubby unsourced articles.... TollHRT52 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (AEDST)

  • I absolutely expect you to watch an AfD page for an article that you created. I'm sorry you get "shit behind your back at school". I have no clue who Falcadore is. It would indeed be better if you could provide sources with the articles that you create. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Contemporary Review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group

Hello Randy Please don't delete the all content. You are requested edit if required.Rich1982 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Srinubabu Gedela

As per scholar (Google) he has a citation of 147 and his H-index is “8” [1].He is one of the key founding editor for Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics.

Can you please let me know on what basis you are rejecting scholar google and considering web of science references.....

  • When posting on talk pages, please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~),. This will display your username and the time of posting. As for the above, GS is known to overcount. However, even taking these citation data at face value, they are way too low to satisfy WP:PROF, especially in a field like proteomics, which has a very high citation density. Being the founding editor of a journal that was hudged non-notable at AfD doesn't help meet PROF either, I'm afraid.

--Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Immanuel Ness

Thanks so much for assisting my efforts to address issues with this biography for a living person. I also agree with your points on the essay. My colleague and I are also trying to clean up other biographies about people whose work have been deemed to require cleanup to advance the mission of Wikipedia. You seem focused on this one...for some reason. Please go to the other ones we've cleaned up too so we can correct all errors. Perhaps you wish to join us? kind regards. T.sankara

  • Forgive me for being confused, but as far as I can see, you have only been working on this single article, so I don't see which other articles you are talking about. In future, please add new comments to the bottom of talk pages and sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural Science (journal)

Greetings! I moved and cleaned up the article Natural Science (journal) from its previous location (Natural science journal). Please have a look when you get a chance and see if it now meets WP:NJournals from your perspective. If it doesn't, please feel free to re-WP:PROD it if needed. Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melly Oitzl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, and comments on Feminist Africa

Hi Randykitty, welcome to Wikipedia. I made some comments about Feminist Africa, where there has been a longstanding dispute over these strange "not in citation given" tags. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the sources, so I copied out the relevant sections on the talk page. I think you'll agree that the claims are supported by these passages. Also: if you have questions about Wikipedia feel free to ask me here or at my talk page, or check out WP:TEAHOUSE. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for taking care of the merge here so quickly! :) —Theopolisme 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Stub-sort

Hi, Randykitty! Judging from your article, Richard G. Morris is a neuroscientist. If so, what is the reason for {{UK-zoologist-stub}}? While mentioning his investigations in the field of neuroscience, the article never once alludes to his contributions to zoology. --москвалык киши (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Translating articles for the Kirghiz wiki

Hello, Randykitty. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
  • Hi, if you don't mind, I'll respond here. WP is published under a Creative Commons license, allowing re-use of text. Hence, you don't need the permission of the original article creator to make a translation of their article in another wiki. However, it usually a good idea to include a statement in the edit summary or on the talk page of the translated article that the new article is based on a translation of the English one. Many wikis have specific templates for this, but they are not always easy to find and I must admit that I don't always use those myself, either... In any case, expanding the Kirghiz WP seems to be a very laudable goal to me and nobody could object to that. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Meteoritics & Planetary Science

Greetings RK. You recently reverted my edits to Meteoritics & Planetary Science. Being new to Wikipedia you may not be aware that refining categories is generally a good thing. Similarly adding relevant navigation boxes is also good. For sure the magazine is about more than meteorites; that just means it ought to have multiple nav boxes :) I've undone your reverts. Kindly do not repeat them without discussion. -Arb. (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that the NavBox did rather overpower the article; this time it's set to appear collapsed. -Arb. (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry about the navbox, I removed that unintentionally, only wanted to remove the cat (but it is indeed better collapsed, thanks for changing that). I still think that cat is wrong. It's like taking a journal on zoology and categorizing it as an "ichthyology journal", because it publishes articles about fish. Of course, one could add "mammalogy journals", "entomology journals", etc, but that really would take categorizing too far. Similarly here, there are many astronomy journals that will, more or less frequently depending on the journal, publish articles on meteoritics (Earth, Moon, and Planets, for example). Are you going to add all of those to the "meteoritics journals" cat? Or only those that publish more frequently on this subject? In the latter case, how are you going to define "more frequently"? As it stands now, the article is in "astronomy journals" and in "meteoritics journals", which is a subcat of the former. Articles should not be in a category and a subcategory. Refining categories is a good thing, I agree. But this seems overdone and I still think it should be undone. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from RK but if you take a look at Category:Meteorites you'll see that it makes sense in that context; the only articles in the root category are the introductions to the subject, everything else is in a sub-category.

As for the rest of your points (I assume you've read Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages):

  • "It's like taking a journal on zoology and categorizing it as an "ichthyology journal", because it publishes articles about fish."
Not really, the key difference being that "Meteoritics" is in the title of this journal. So while it is certainly about other things it is, in this case, most specifically about fish.
  • "Of course, one could add "mammology journals", "entomology journals", etc, but that really would take categorizing too far."
Well "mammology" is a rather ugly coinage but that aside, if those are defining characteristics of the journals then it's appropriate. At least it is in my reading of Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles.
  • "There are many astronomy journals that will, more or less frequently … publish articles on meteoritics... Are you going to add all of those to the "meteoritics journals" cat? Or only those that publish more frequently on this subject? In the latter case, how are you going to define "more frequently"?"
How about: If the journals title contains the word "Meteoritics" or similar?
  • "Articles should not be in a category and a subcategory."
You are missing a crucial word here: "..should not normally be in..."; see Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories.

For what it's worth, I've just had a quick look at Category:Astronomy journals and Category:Geology journals. At 51 and 47 article respectively it looks to me as though they could well do with sorting into a carefully thought out collection of sub-categories. Your mileage may vary. -Arb. (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It does. I don't find it particularly helpful to create cats that contain just one element and are unlikely to grow (after all, how many "meteoritics journals" are there?) --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, it'd be fascinating to know the answer; you seem to be the journal specialist, is there any way to find out?
But while interesting it's not relevant. If a category deserves to exist then it deserves to exist regardless of how many members it has (though for practical purposes we draw the line at empty categories, usually). -Arb. (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of any way to find out if there are other journal on meteoritics. Databases ranking journals, such as the Journal Citation Reports, don't have a category "meteoritics journals". One way could be to use Scopus and/or Web of Science to see which journals cite Meteoritics & Planetary Science. If there are other journals on this subject, you'd expect them to cite this one. As for your assertion that "if a category deserves to exist then it deserves to exist regardless of how many members it has", please see WP:SMALLCAT. If you think that the "Astronomy journals" cat is too large, then propose a scheme to subdivide them into meaningful categories. Splitting off one single article in its very own cat is not going to help anybody much (remember, cats are to help navigation and a single-member cat just serves to hide that one article). --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Correcting typos on talk pages

As a by the way to a newish editor, the convention is not to correct posts to talk pages no matter how irritating the typo (eg "mammology" to "mammalogy"). To do so has the effect of making the following posts read oddly, especially where they quote the pre-corrected text. -Arb. (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi RK, Thank you for your assistance in strengthening the Organization & Environment article. Much appreciated. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, my pleasure! In an effort to pare down the time I spend on WP, I have now removed this article from my watchlist, leaving it in your able hands to keep watch against vandals and POV pushers :-) Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I declined CSD

I don't believe a non-creative list qualifies as a copyvio. For example, see this, so I removed the tag from List of SIAM academic members If you disagree, let's discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you're right. I saw something that was identical to what I saw on a page with a copyright notice, so I assumed that this was a copyvio. I'll PROD it, as I feel that it also goes against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. WP is not the place for a bare list of members without any discussion, that definitely is unencyclopedic... --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It would probably make more sense to turn that list into a category (I realize one cannot really have "red links" in a category but still). 50.53.15.59 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't think so. While for SIAM it is probably important that, say, the Academica Sinica is a member, for the AS thiis must be rather trivial and if we start creating categories for this kind of things, the AS article would go into dozens if not more categories. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Open peer review

Dear RK, I have some questions. Kindly take these positively. 1. What does it mean "irrelevant promotional material"? Please define it specifically. Don't be biased. when I am describing the procedure of open peer system followed by another small company, inside Open Peer review article you are blaming me. How it is becoming "irrelevant"? Please explain. In this article there are discussion about many publishers (Biomed...) regarding open peer review system, they are following. But when I am trying to describe the same thing regarding another company, you are purposefully deleting it. I think this also can be termed as vandalism of one kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPPEVT (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, several journals and publishers are mentioned in this article. All mentions appear to be relevant to the subject of the article and illustrate the development of open peer review. It is not an indiscriminate list of all journals and publishers that employ OPR. If you don't see that inserting a line like "SCIENCEDOMAINS International successfully implemented open peer review" in a general article like Open peer review, where "SCIENCEDOMAINS International" is an obscure (and shady and very) minor player, is promotional, then I'm afraid that I cannot help you. --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Boundary 2

Hi, Randykitty. Time to go to the article talk page. It appears you've been around long enough to be acquainted with WP:Edit warring. Tiderolls 16:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • If you check the article history and talk page history, this same edit has already been made many times before and reverted many times before. There's some people that apparently try to disparage this journal using our pages. But don't worry, this is not obvious vandalism, so I'm not going to revert a third time. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for slowing down. Could you point out the previous discussion(s)? I checked the talk page archive and couldn't locate it. If there's been consensus reached, it would guide my next action. Thanks Tiderolls 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Mmm, can't find it either. The pattern of previous IP edits in the article's history (combined with the -to me- obviously biased way the current IP is slanting this quote) must have put me on the wrong foot. I have posted a note on the talk page and hopefully some of the editors that worked on this article in the past will chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'll keep watch there. I cannot revert the IP's edit as I've blocked them for edit warring. If there's been consensus reached and the IP's edits are disruption and not good faith edits, then we have options. Tiderolls 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've asked our "journal guru" DGG, who has advised on this article before, for his opinion. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Creation of Journal page

Dear Randykitty,

Thanks for your helpful comments on my edits to the Merkourios page! I'm quite new to Wikipedia (when it comes to editing) and hence help is always appreciated. I also noticed that you have a Journal page template with infobox. As you are / have been a visitor of the Netherlands (yes, I checked your long-term travels) and apparently interested in Journal-related work I would like to ask you whether you would be interested to build an unbiased and complete page for our Journal yourself. The Board of Editors is currently in the process of professionalizing the Journal and we think Wikipedia is an option that we should grasp firmly.

If you are interested that would be great and, if not, I would still be keen for your guidance.

Warmest regards,

TtomasK (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Z.Naturforsch.

Hi Randykitty... I appreciate your contributions to the pages relating to Z. Naturforsch. and I was wondering if you'd stop by the page for the last journal in this group, at Z. Naturforsch. C? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Elsie Thompson

I responded to your last post here--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsie Thompson. Please check it out whenever you'll have some time. Futurist110 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Randykitty for the great job you did on the article Behavioural genetics! Lova Falk talk 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectrometry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Aspasia (journal)

In general I agree that superfluous external links should be removed; however, in the case of Aspasia (journal) the article has been attacked on the basis that the journal is not notable. External links act as general references, and so functioned for the Aspasia (journal) article. I have restored one of the links that you removed in order to show, inter alia, that a major institution subscribed during a time of tight budgets. --Bejnar (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That one single university subscribes to it (even if it is a notable institution) does not add anything to notability and would be ridiculed as an argument at any AfD. However, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this would get deleted at AfD: With all the indexing listed in the article, notability has been solidly established. In view of that, I strongly suggest that you take out this unusual external link. --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nathaniel Raymond

Hi Randykitty,

I'd like your opinion on Nathaniel Raymond, which was nominated for deletion. 84.253.24.250 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I see that it was PRODded and then dePRODded. That appears to be correct. I didn't check the references, but the EL to the article in the Boston Globe magazine alone would seem to indicate sufficient notability. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

North American Journal of Psychology

Nice note on the website. I can't disagree. That website was a bit of a shock, followed by another one when I saw to my surprise that the board had actual names and real affiliations (from outside of Hyderabad, that is). Drmies (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I had the same shocks. And a third one when I realized that they don't even have their tables of contents online (or so well hidden that I couldn't find it). Also, the note on the bottom of the Editorial Board page on how to become a "consulting editor" is rather unusual, too... --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha, it is. I checked four or five names, and they are real people at the places indicated. Strange--you wouldn't want to have your name on such a page, would you? I know I see your mug all over BeerAdvocate.com already... Drmies (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't think I would mind BeerAdvocate.com :-) but this journal, absolutely not. I already have my name somewhere on some African journal. When it came out, I wanted to be helpful assuming (naively) that it was legit and thinking I was doing a good deed helping scientists in difficult circumstances. Turned out to be one of those "predatory" publishers that you hear so much talk about and now I'm sending them monthly emails requesting to finally take my name of the rag. So far without success... --Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Studies (2005)

You recently moved Socialist Studies (2005) to Socialist Studies (journal) on the grounds that the new title is a "better dab". However, I think you may have overlooked that there are at least seven periodicals by this name, some of which are referred to by their publishers and/or by others as "journals". I would like to propose that an administrator undo the move; may I have your consent for this? We can always discuss alternative titles (for the whole series of Socialist Studies articles) on the disambiguation talk page, or on WP:RM. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow, I just had a look at the dab page Socialist Studies... Didn't know this, obviously. I'm fine with undoiing the move, but have to say that I find disambiguating these publications by year very unclear: it assumes that a reader already knows something about the publication, whereas WP should also seek to inform those who have no prior knowledge at all. So it would be good if a different dab system could be devised.
    • Yes, I agree the present system could be improved, though finding a way which is both informative and not excessively verbose may be a challenge. Feel free to propose something on the disambiguation article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at LlamaAl's talk page.
Message added 14:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LlamaAl (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

Hello again RK (you can almost hear the sigh in my voice, can't you). We've already established that it's OK for a publication to be in both Category:Meteorite journals and Category:Planetary science journals (cf Meteoritics & Planetary Science). The lede of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta states that it "...covers...meteoritics..." so it's clearly a candidate for Category:Meteorite journals. Please do not remove it again. -Arb. (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index.
Message added by Theopolisme at 15:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spirit of Bosnia

Thank you for your welcome message and for your offer of assistance, particularly with the Spirit of Bosnia online journal page. I understand some of the edits, but would like your help in ensuring I get the proper format so it does not get deleted. I used the entry AGNI (magazine) as a template, and am wondering why similar content for Spirit of Bosnia would not be accepted (e.g., submission information and contributor lists). You can see a full library catalog record for SoB at http://hollis.harvard.edu/?q=spirit%20of%20bosnia. In terms of impact factor, etc., I've had problems explaining to editors in the past that for a discipline like Slavic Studies with a narrow focus, there is not much of an "impact trace" to which one can refer; these kinds of journals are typically not included in citation databases, unlike in the sciences and in broader disciples. These kinds of initiatives in the humanities are oftentimes labors of love with minimal funding, are typically open access, and are initiatives beyond the commercial realm which should be accessible. Can you please give me some specific tips for what I would need to add to the Spirit of Bosnia entry, in your opinion? Thank you for any thoughts. Stephkru (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Stephkru

Hi - in the meantime, I made a few minor edits, including a brief description and external link to archive on Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL). I used entries for World Literature Today and Evergreen Today (Literary Magazines) as guide, and hope this is going in the right direction. Please let me know on my talk if these changes make sense to you. Many thanks again in advance.Stephkru (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Stephkru

SpinSpider deleting

Hello Randykitty, I just want to let you know that I accidently took out the proposed deletion message from the article SpinSpider. I had to put it back on there because I do not want it from wikipedia so is it ok if I have it back on? The timestamp I putted is 201212250146. Please do leave me a message on my talk page.Starship9000

References

I'm not sure how many more references I should add to remove these messages. I can scan articles and send them to you if you like that. I tried not to add many references because the content of these references is all the same because of press releases and that one is enough. I don't have the intention to spam or advertise but I'm really not sure if local and national news paper references are not enough, what else should I use. Don't forget that it is hard to cite something from the early 90s, because news items were still printed in 'paper' newspapers. If you like I can email you scanned articles from old news papers, let me know. I think that I should spend some time on deleting half of the wikipedia content if my references are not concidered valid. JuFo (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, article creation is one of the more difficult things here, especially if it is about companies and their products. Usually, it is better first to edit some existing articles and to participate in some deletion debates to get the hang of how things work. Press releases can be used to establish that something exists, but they cannot be used to show notability, not even if they are reproduced by different outlets. What you need to establish notability are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for other articles, yes, there are indeed a lot of badly sourced articles out there. Go ahead and try to improve them if you can find sources for them. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations


москвалык киши (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

“Turkish Policy Quarterly”

Sir, you recently deleted a significant amount of text I added to the Wikipedia article 'Turkish Poilicy Quarterly.' While there were some aspects that were indeed promotional, you also deleted purely informative parts as well, and the article, in its current form, is incoherent. This is one of the handful of Turkish journals published in English, and given its high-profile contributors, deserves more wiki exposure. Please check: http://www.turkishpolicy.com/. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emreveli on January 7, 2013 (talk • contribs)

  • Whetehr or not something "deserves" exposure on WP or not depends on the independent, reliable sources that are available. The magazine's own website is clearly not "independent". It can be used to source non-controversial information (such as year of establishment, publication frequency, name of EIC, etc), but not to establish notability. At some point, "purely informational" information becomes promotional. Also, please remember that we are not supposed to engage in original research (for instance, when establishing lists of notable contributors and such). Hope this helps and explains. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mineralogical Abstracts

Over at WikiProject Geology/Meteorites we're targeting red links this month. One of these is Mineralogical Abstracts which must be a journal. Is that something you could help with? -Arb. (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you work for a Publisher?

I suspect that you work for a publisher. No person with a normal work can have the time to censor other peoples additions to Wikipedia as you do. A possible reason is that you do it during your work time. Is this accepted by Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.35.140 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How about being on sick leave? Or retired? Or on vacation? Or being a school kid with too much time? Whatever it may be, please read WP:OUTING. --Randykitty (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sick leave? Really? Honestly it doesn't really matter how or why you have so much time to spend on WP, really, because obviously you have an inordinate amount of time to do so. That being said, one look at your edits shows a lot more in the way of deletion than anything elseJimsteele9999 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradiction between people that run berserk everyday and contributors of new knowledge In 2006, Swartz wrote an analysis of how Wikipedia articles are written, and concluded that the bulk of the actual content comes from tens of thousands of occasional contributors, or "outsiders," each of whom may not make many other contributions to the site, while a core group of 500 to 1,000 regular editors tend to correct spelling and other formatting errors. According to Swartz: "The formatters aid the contributors, not the other way around." His analysis contradicted that of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, who believed the core group of regular editors were providing most of the content while thousands of others contributed to formatting issues. Swartz came to his conclusions by counting the total number of characters added by an editor to a particular article—while Wales counted the total number of edits. Swartz's analysis is described on his blog post and was part of his unsuccessful bid to be elected to Wikimedia's Board of Directors. (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • This is probably a personal attack, which is against the rules. But have you not actually read the Articles for Deletion entry correctly? Other people (including myself) have determined that this article is not notable (see WP:GNG) enough for its own article, and Randykitty is not guilty of censorship. If you believe the subject passes WP:GNG, then feel free to join the AfD debate, with evidence to back up your claims. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you very much for your kind reply, Randykitty. I apologise for any inconvenience. To tell the truth, I only wanted to ask you about the publishing policy of English-speaking journals. It seems I’m coming across a sort of censorship in Russia. The answer of this editorial board was striking: “Had we read your paper we would find fatal faults in your arguments, no doubt about it. Your conclusion cannot be true if only because it is ridiculous to think that the sexual impulse is a mental disorder.” After I had contacted three Russian journals (1 and 3 to boot), you turned out to be the first person who did not reject my right to pose such a problem. Perhaps the West is a much more democratic place than Russia. If so, I should certainly apply to a foreign journal. Thanks for your feedback. москвалык киши (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it has never even dawned upon me. Needless to say, the above mentioned refusal without reading the paper in question has nothing to do with peer review. But I had been far from an attempt to submit a medical diagnosis to a psychotherapeutic (i.e. non-medical) journal until you pointed out this possibility. Perhaps it was a good idea to ask you as a participant of the WP:AcademicJournalsProject. --москвалык киши (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

fMRS article

Randykitty, thanks for rating fMRS article. However, I am wondering why did you rate it C-Class? What are your suggestions how to change it to reach better quality then? --Dcdace (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, C-class is pretty high, most articles only rate Stub or Start... In any case, those ratings (apart from those that require review -Good Article or Featured Article) don't mean all that much. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If I look at the quality scale, to me the article looks like a B-class. The article has many references and only to quality sources (leading journal articles), it broadly covers the topic, has good structure and is well written in an understandable way. --Dcdace (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

“Genes, Brain and Behavior”

Hi there, Randykitty. I’ve noticed you contributed to the article about this journal in simple English Wikipedia, with your revision being “journal has nothing to do with neurology”. Perhaps you know whom the journal is intended for. The matter is I’ve created a similar stub in the Polish WP. But I wonder if my description is correct. Could you please tell me what the scope of the journal is? The article in enwiki has been included in Category:Psychiatry journals. I found some psychiatry-related papers in the archives of the journal. But their subject-matter was close to molecular biology and neuroscience rather than to psychiatry as such. Does the journal deal with other psychiatric topics or is it limited to psychiatric genetics? Should my stub indicate that the journal doesn’t cover the problems of psychiatry as a whole? Is it so or am I mistaken? Thank you in advance. --Kylike (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The journal is limited to genetics (behavior genetics, neurogenetics, psychiatric genetics). It is focused on behavior, so neurological disorders are only within its scope if they entail more general behavioral problems. I've sometimes heard it being described as covering "genes and (brain and/or behavior)", meaning that genetics should always be a part of any research reported in the journal. So general psychiatry is out, unless there is a genetic aspect. I don't think the journal has covered much topics related to neurology, although I guess that strictly speaking it would fall within its scope (as long as "brain" and "genetics" were included). --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I’ve just revised the article in accordance with your explanation. --Kylike (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

May be, is clicking "new section",  :)

Dear RandyKitty.

Hi, and thank you again. Very grateful with your support in your last msg "Your Articles". I already answered in my talk page and I am trying to learn, how upload msgs in this Talk area. Please, I am presenting my most cherished apologies, writing here. I am following your indication with eagerness.

Thank you.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • After the speedy deletion of pragmatic naturalism page (Please, check talk in your "Your articles" post), the work in last hours was focused on the protein episteme page (special attention on "neutrality principles" using neutral language and balancing opinions, concerning WP:OR and WP:POV), and labeling "categories" but I can not see these categories (only in edition mode, as you can check). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_episteme

As well, I improve the main page of neuroepistemology (many items, now are remarkably shorts, using simple words trying to avoid "essay style"). (I also observed a redirection in the "Neuronal Epistemology" page... who did that?)

Thanks for your support.

--Karol Alexandre (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I redirected that article, as it is about the same subject and basically just repeated what was in the other article. Please also note that using "simple words" does nothing to address the concern about this being an "essay". --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Mineral Abstracts

Hello. Your page move that resulted in Mineralogical Abstracts may be incorrect. I think the correct title is "Mineralogical Abstracts Journal". Please see this page here. This is the description page for the "home" website that is in the infobox. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Steve, the way I read that page, the left sidebar says "The Online Mineralogical Abstracts Journal" (my italics). The main text is more explicit : "originated from the paper journal Mineralogical Abstracts". Which is why I moved the page. Hope you agree with this interpretation. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    OK. I see what you are saying. I don't have a problem with this. Thanks for your efforts. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hayreddin Zerekli

Please be patient !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammadi2100 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Christianity's Criminal History

I think your speedy deletion request on Christianity's Criminal History is inadequate! As I already stated on the talk page, there are the following reasons:

  • The history is very short anyway (I started the page TODAY).
  • The page contains nearly no contributions from others (except maybe for minor changes).
  • I already continued significant translation work on the new page.

Nlmarco (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter that it was short: it contained edits by others than you alone and as such the edit history needs to be conserved. This is a legal issue that has to do with WP's copyright license. Please don't edit the new article, this will only create extra work for the reviewing admin who will now have to perform a "history merge", instead of a simple delete/move. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Excactly that! Diolch! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Global Health

Hi. I understand that you have nominated this article for speedy deletion (and has now been deleted) based on a discussion that took place last year and was about its notability. I had written the article last year and was deleted at the time but since I thought that there has been significant progress in that becoming something that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Do you still believe that it should not be considered for addition to Wikipedia and if yes are there exact notability rules for journals that it needs to meet before being added? Regards, e-korax (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones

Do you know any data of JTWC on 2012 and 2013 about tropical cyclones? Lucas Lagman (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask help from you if I need to. Lucas Lagman (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Often I can at least tell you where to go look for the answer, but in this case I'm at a loss... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving the pages

Hi. As for this, it’s my fault. You are right to move the pages back. But you can make redirect pages with the definite article “the” before the names of the journals, because I have a lot of research articles in which the names of the journals begin with the definite article “the.” --Psychiatrick (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For "The International Journal of Social Psychiatry," Google Scholar shows 1 510 results. One can check. --Psychiatrick (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
But that is not what counts, see WP:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). As the journal itself does not include "the" as part of its proper name, it shouldn't be in our article title, either. GS is not the authority here, but even if it were: "International Journal of Social Psychiatry" gets 12,500 results... --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law is another case: I nearly moved it yesterday, but didn't when I noticed the last para of the instructions for authors! It almost looks as if "The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law" and "Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online" are treated as two different titles, as they don't seem to use "The" with the online version. I don't think any of it matters much, really, as long as we have Redirects from all imaginable variants of the titles, and use DEFAULTSORT to make sure none of them alphabetise under "The". PamD 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Preventing Chronic Disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aboriginal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Spacebus

Pourquoi retirer la référence au nom de l'inventeur ?--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • At the AfD for Guy Lebègue it was obvious that the source on which this claim is based on "a simple typewritten internal memo archived on the site of the association that he presides", which is not a sufficient source. In addition, you're use of the term "inventor" is a bit loose, as far as I understand, the only claim is that this person came up with the name, nothing else, which is a fairly trivial thing anyway. In any case, if you don't have an independent source for this claim, it cannot be in the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Le document cité est en fait l'acte de naissance des Spacebus. Il est archivé dans le service des archives de l'entreprise "Centre spatial de Cannes Mandelieu". Il est tout a fait normal qu'une version en PDF soit archivée dans le site historique de cette entreprise. Le fait que Guy Lebègue soit aussi le président de cette association n'a rien à voir. Il ne le sera pas éternellement ; comme pour tout individu il va mourir. Alors que l'association historique a vocation à vivre au moins 30 ans après la disparition éventuelle de l'entreprise; c'est pas demain la veille. Quant aux Spacebus, ils sont dans l'espace en orbite géostationnaire, soit pour l'éternité.
En France, on donne le titre d'inventeur à celui qui "invente" un nom de marque.
--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hi, Hope your new year is off to a good start. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tea, I think I actually need that right now. Should not be editing WP at all at this moment, as I am trying to finish an R01 grant application and the deadline is looming. But I hate grant writing and WP is an easy way to find to procrastinate... Hope your year started well, too! --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Max van Platen

I have removed the speedy deletion from Max van platen - the page is a redirect; I believe the article Max van Platen could be expanded to a valid topic using the article on Dutch Wikipedia - nl:Max van platen - and its sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • You must have moved it the moment I clicked on Twinkle... The article is at the Dutch WP equivalent of AfD, notability highly doubtful (a 15-year ild composer...) --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Kapil Chopra

Hi, You have recommended the article Kapil Chopra for deletion for the lack of references. However now some reliable sources and references have been added to the article. Please go through it and give a fresh opinion. YUVRAJ CHOPRA (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

Journal Articles

HEY THANKS!! Iknew there had to be a way!! Willl get right on it. Yb Ybidzian (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Family Physician

Hi, Randykitty. I've been trying to update this entry and I don't understand why it is being reverted back to the original. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia but I tried to follow the guidelines for editing an entry for a journal. Can you please let me know why the information about circulation and digital and other media versions are not included? Thanks. I hope I added this comment correctly!Hhepps (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, one of the most important things here is that anything you say has to be sourced in reliable sources independent of the subject. So you cannot add circulation info, for example, without a good source for that (and the journal itself cannot be used as a source, as it is not independent). Some other information that you were adding was fairly trivial and removed for that reason. Other info was already present (the first phrase says it is a monthly, so it is not necessary to write that it is published 12 times a year... You also added your signature and a reference that didn't support any statement made. However, your edit was not wholesale reverted: I left the French title of the journal (and thanks for catching the incorrect ISO abbreviation). Have a look at our journal writing guide for tips on how to expand an article on an academic journal. Hope this helps and explains. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

FieldTrip reference

Roemervandermeij (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for adding the reference! That looks much better than I would have initially done it. Again, my apologies for looking like link/commercial-spam. I/we will improve the page to make it worthwhile enough not to require a delete.

Hi Randy Kitty,

Hi there Randy, I saw your wikipedia profile. You don't wish to be an admin, why? :) :) Naughtybabe24 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Nice wikipedia profile, you dont wish to be an admin?

Naughtybabe24 (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kitten! Nope, no interest in becoming an admin, as it is, I already run into unpleasant people often enough. As an admin, that happens even more frequently, so it falls in the category "problems I can live without' :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lene Hau

Hi randykitty, you are my favourite editor, so I am happy to have you look at that article, and really curious to know why it got downgraded to a start class. Could you let me know (maybe on my talk page) what problems it has, apart from too many refs to articles published? I would like that article to be better, if you can suggest ways I can make it so. I firmly believe she is at least a high importance physicist (when she wins the Nobel they'll have to put her there, lol) but what do I need to do to make it more important now? Cheers Yb Ybidzian (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Yb, The article suffers from several problems. One is the overly long list of publications. Usually, we list, say, the three most cited papers, or just those that have received a particular award. There are layout problems: a list of references (?) at the end of a section, use of "Prof. Hau" in several places, incorrect formatting (caps) of headers, and others. Then there are sourcing problems: many of the awards listed are unsourced and need either to be removed or supported by reliable sources. There's no need for all those dates either, just the year is enough. You should have a look at WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO for style guidelines. As for content, have a look at the better articles of the Biographies project (see here and here) to get a better idea of what is needed. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the advice. The refs at the end of the section were there before I started, but I moved them, and dropped any reference to Professor. I also sourced ALL the awards, mostly from the organizations that gave them, or invited her to be a member. As for other things to include about her, there are almost no references to her adult life at all, so it's not possible to refer to anything other than science when it comes to the "Life" bit. Looked at biography of Leonhard Euler, and they have about 5 notable works listed, and the rest are listed as "Further Reading". It's so difficult to pick 5 that are the most important, as I have read every one of her papers and they are all excellent, and in some way essential to really understanding where the research is going. However, sometime later today I shall get 5 and list them, and put the rest in a new category "Further Reading". Thanks for your patience :) Ybidzian (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yb, one objectiveway to decide which articles to list would be to look at numbers of citations (ideally from WoS, if necessary from GS). The absence of references is a common problem with bios of almost all but the most famous academics. There often even is not much biographical info on Nobel Prize winners. Euler is perhaps not a good example to compare Hau to, as he was one of the most famous mathematicians, so that there are separate articles on his works (which are justified by good sources: people have written whole books about his contributions).That is not yet the case for Hau... --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A question reagarding a recent category edit

I saw you removed a the category Spanish-language journals from BOSQUE. I guess you removed it because the jounral is multilingual (Spanish and english is accepted) but stating trough the category that it is a Spanish-language journal does not contradict that it accepts also English contrubtions (multilingual). I have not reverted your edit because I appreciate that some users have more knowledge than me on how the category system works so first I would like to se how you justify the removal. Have a nice day. Dentren | Talk 11:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, all journals in the multilingual cat are only in that cat. I guess the reasoning behind that is that an "Foo-language journal" is supposed to be completely in Foo. If there is also another language or languages, then it's not solely in Foo. But I agree that a case could be made to put an English/Spanish journal in all three cats (English, Spanish, multilingual). It would perhaps be a bit overcategorizing and it would necessitate to do this for all journals in the multilingual cat... --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Created Category:Spanish and English-language journals to avoid redundancy. I understand that there are plenty of Spanish and English-language journals (much more than those actually in the category) so by that issue it seems totally justified. I still wonder if Spanish and English-language journals is the best name for that category, it could be Biligual Spanish-English journals or something similar.Dentren | Talk 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh dear... I don't think that this is a good solution at all. Some South-American journals publish in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. Should we now make a cat for those, too? Or for any other language combination we may have? Some humanities journals publish in 4 languages or more. I think there are only 2 workable solutions. First, the status quo: if a journal publishes in more than a single language, it is categorized as a multilingual journal and that is it. Second, a journal gets categorized in any language category that it publishes in. My personal preference is the status quo: a journal that publishes in Spanish and English is neither a Spanish-language nor an English-language journal. Leaving things as they are also saves a lot of work re-categorizing journals. If you'd insist, I could live with the second option, I guess, but what you propose now, I think is not workable. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Whoops, ok, thought you meant to GET RID of the red link in the Psychiatry article. Will not touch it. Haven't got the time atm to write up the actual association, but if no one else does, will give it a try in time. Thx again for all your help., Cheers Yb

Ybidzian (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Apeiron (physics journal)

Thanks a lot for sending me a Notification: proposed deletion of [[Apeiron (physics journal)]]. I tried to send you a mail reply, but as no longer a trusted user, that was not accepted. I am afraid now that's also what happened to a longer e-mail message I sent to User:Alexandria explaining why and who was using my computers and got me into trouble. As you can see on User talk:Kurtan, I also got a similar Notification in May last year, which I followed, rendering my IP a 6 months block as well! So, I am inclined to stay out of this latest issue and cannot help improving the article, as I have done to the Swedish version. ¨) 89.160.124.74 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

conventions

If you're doing copy-editing, as you did with Sankhya (journal), you should be aware that an en-dash rather than a hyphen is prescribed by WP:MOS for ranges of years, pages, etc., thus: 1993–2010, not 1993-2010, and pp. 427–81, not pp. 427-81. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I actually know this. However, my keyboard has no endash, so the only way of typing it that I go into another article and then copy one there, which is kind of laborious. So I put in normal dashes and trust on some bot coming along to fix it... If you know of another way of doing it, I'll be happy to put them in when necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to some tags

Dear Respected Sir, I have been helping maintain some of the pages associated with The Madsci Network and would like to thank you for your help in improving one of the pages on Dr. Ricky J Sethi. Following your excellent suggestions, I will be adding multiple secondary sources to indicate Dr. Sethi's appointment as an NSF Computing Innovation Fellow as well as some of his highly cited publications from Google Scholar, following the example of your instructions for the Dr. Lene Hau page above. I have also added such references to Dr. Lynn Bry's page, as well. Please do let me know if you would prefer to reverse the tags removal and I shall be sure to so so immediately. Gumby55555 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Gumby. Just had a look at the Sethi article. I don't think he meets WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. Have a look at those guidelines and see if you can come up with some sources that esatblish notability according to them. Bry is less clear. Again, I don't think she meets WP:PROF, but some people may feel that she's notable as founder of MadSci. The article could use some cleanup (see WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO) and the in-text external links should be removed. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at LlamaAl's talk page.
Message added 00:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LlamaAl (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

CSD Tag at Faultline

I removed the CSD tag and instead just merged to the UC Irvine article, in this case it solves the notability issues and also the copyright issues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Rationalized structure

Hello Randykitty, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rationalized structure, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Written in comprehensible English. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eyesnore (pending changes) 23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Rider

Per your edit summary, I am just wondering what you mean when you say "unopposed since August 2011". I figured it might be good to explain this to the user who keeps reverting your changes. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology, psychiatry, and biology

Judging from your entry about email, I am to comment your reply here inasmuch as there’s nothing confidential about my questions. I admit that I have no reasons to keep my real name hidden. I only don’t want my real name to be associated with prejudices anent asexuality. I join Ybidzian’s opinion: "You are my favourite editor." The style of your email witnesses that you didn’t intent to offend me. There was probably a misunderstanding. Then I have to say that his (I think you guess whom I mean) orientation creates a serious obstacle. I prefer to avoid such people. As I’m a Christian, I have nothing to do with the LGBT community. --SU ltd. (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As for my questions, I proceed from your contributions here. It seems you’re familiar with biology. Could you help me with relevant bibliography on that? If you know the topic, your advice can not only answer my personal question but also help with developing WP. --SU ltd. (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi SU, sorry for the long delay in getting back to you, I had some urgent family matters to attend to. I have personally not much experience with classical conditioning, so I searched my library but, unfortunately, didn't find much that would be of help to you. If you have access to PsycINFO, you will certainly find some references there if you search for "classical conditioning". Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Randykitty, you always help (in contrast to Russian censors from psychiatric editorial boards who aren’t even polite when discarding my submission and answering my question as to why they don’t want to have a look at my paper, at least). Besides, a few English Wikipedians (Flyer22, Db4wp, and Looie496) have already given me some tips on that. In order to express my gratitude, I’m going to create a number of short articles about these topics here (e.g., reflexogenous zone, nerve centre, theory of dominant).

P.S. As for the misunderstanding, I consider this sort of incidents to be little nothings of life. Being an unmarried man and avoiding sexual relations, I very often come across pejorative or mistaken judgments referring to me. So I merely overlook them. Asexuality and continence are associated with prejudices even in science, let alone everyday life. After you had raised the question, I only wanted to make my stance more precise. Christianity condemns sex, but consecrates marriage, nevertheless (to use Augustine’s words, The Evil of Lust Does Not Take Away the Good of Marriage // Chapter 8 [VII.] in his On Marriage and Concupiscence). In addition, sexual drive is nothing but one of the sins which all of us have. As I, too, have them, I don’t see any moral obstacles when I have a talk with married people about my views on human sexuality. Similarly, people can discuss a lot of other questions. The only prerequisite is the level of a person’s education. In contrast to the mystery of marriage, the LGBT community has no moral justification at all. Christianity obliges me to avoid this kind of people. --Stanislav Yurov (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Virology (journal)

Hi Randykitty -- I'm trying to get Virology (journal) ready for DYK and I thought it was almost ready to go -- bit concerned about your edits, as I will detail on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Bernhard M. Hämmerli

I started Bernhard M. Hämmerli and would like your advice, also on categories and projects, - more familiar with music than scientific teaching and data security, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, I had a look and did a few minor edits. I wonder whether there is not more to tell: as I was reading the article, at first I wondered whether this was "überhaupt" (one of my favorite German words) notable. Of course, once I saw that he's president of the IEEE Computer Society, those doubts were gone, but given that prestigious position, I suspect there may be more sources to be found. However, computer science is not really my field, so I'm not sure where to start searching... Perhaps someone at the Computer Science project can help. Anyway, nice new addition! --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, looks much more professional already, I will keep searching. I have my doubts about the red links ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that most scientific societies clear the hurdle of notability, but certainly not all (I was once president of one such group myself), so if there's one that you think will never qualify, feel free to remove it! --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Creation

I take you point re:removal of UCL geography department page but I might direct you to the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagesmoma (talk • contribs)

Thanks Randy

Thanks Randy, for dropping by and giving me valuable suggestions. Would love to hear more from you regarding the page Sacred Heart Matriculation School.

Regards, User:Writeindia —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Open-access journal

Hi!

About your revision, I think it's worth mentionning this study (at least to show the evolution of OA journals).

About your statement "the vast majority of OA journals require payment from authors", have you any reference? I was wondering if this statement, which is a fairly common opinion, is actually true.

I only find this study from 2004. I am very interested if you know a more recent study about this subject.

Anyway, I think it would be great to show in the article the evolution of OA business models during the last decade.

Best regards, 195.132.185.243 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, it would be good to have a more recent study. At this point, although I professionally know many journals and edit many journal articles here, I have to say that I hardly know of any OA journal that does not charge authors, whereas there are literally thousands that do so. 2004 is 9 years ago, an eternity in today's publishing business. The number of OA journals has increased enormously since then (many of those from "predatory" publishers looking to make a fast buck). --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
OA journals that do not charge their authors: Berkeley Studies, et:Studia Philosophica Estonica (multilingual), etc. I don’t know other languages, but Poland offers a lot of journals that are free for the authors and the readers: Philosophy, medicine. Perhaps, you can look for free on-line journals here (over 11,500 titles using OJS). --SU ltd. (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't say there weren't any, just that by now its a minority :-) All BioMed Central, PLOS, or Hindawi journals, to name but a few of the larger OA publishers, require payment for example. --Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again.
If you're interested, I found a more recent study (2011) : http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/ "As of August 2011 there were 1,825 journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) that, at least by self-report, charge APCs. These represent just over 26% of all DOAJ journals." .
Obviously, there is a bias, as not all OA journals are listed in the DOAJ, but that's quite interesting. There are surely a lot differences in business models, according to the scientific disciplines and country of publication. For instance, maybe a majority of journals in English language require a publication fee... As English is the dominant language in scholarly publishing, it would give the illusion that a majority of OA journals require a fee.
Anyway, thanks for your advices, I'll contact User:Daniel Mietchen and User:DGG soon.
Regards, 195.132.185.243 (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the link. That blog post is not a reliable source, of course, but it contains a few links to further references (right now I have no time to look at those). Apart from that, it contains some interesting logical failures, like the simplistic (and faulty) reasoning in section 5. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

stubs on US schools

It is difficult to avoid US conventions for US pages. What, specifically is bothering you? Here is a bit of background. The US Census Bureau has an every five years census of governments. This includes school districts which are considered a separate government. There isn't much data there, just a confirmation of the name, the address, and a website. I've got an early release copy and am adding in Wikipedia and Sunshine review fields. As a thank you to the wikipedia community, I'm also fixing the inconsistent state of how school governments are handled. Links to inappropriate pages are getting killed and rerouted to their proper place with redlinks replaced by the individualized skeleton page that you complained about on my talk page. If you wish to add content, feel free and be bold. If you're going to do a mass delete on the (by now) hundreds of pages I've provided a skeleton for, I can only view that as vandalism. The cure for a page you feel is too short is to add content. TMLutas (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Who's talking about mass deletions? And why already talking about vandalism before anything has happened??? Please read WP:AGF. I just brought to your attention that creating articles that consist of a single line of gobbledygook like "Mt Ida Sch Dist 20 is a school district in Montgomery County, AR" is not very helpful to anyone. And non US-readers will understand even less of that than I do. At the very least, you could write out the "Mt Ida Sch Dist" and perhaps add that "Montgomery County, AR" is in the United States. I also brought to your attention that it is against guidelines to add redlinked categories to articles as you are doing. Also, your articles are completely unsourced, but you claim to have a source, so why are you not adding that to them? And, finally, I think I have better things to do than clean up the mess others are making. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You were talking about deletions. You started your comments with "I second that" to a prior comment that talked about deleting. If you did not mean to second the idea of mass deleting these pages, I'm glad to hear it. You may wish to be more qualified in your endorsements.
The source is the US Census bureau. You can get a copy but at this point only via email as this portion has not been released to the 2012 page. I'm not going to spam the poor guy's contact info at the Census Bureau who gave me a preliminary copy in response to a Freedom of Information request. If you are actually challenging the existence of this fellow and the preliminary copy I'm working off of to generate these skeletons, that's within your rights. Let me have a way to out of band pass his e-mail and phone to you and you can verify and get a copy for yourself. The earlier, 2007 census is fully available here. I don't get what you're after though. You seem not to be interested in grappling with the issues so much as just complaining that I haven't devoted more time per page to gather supplementary information. Constructive suggestions are welcome. Trying to arrange my work schedule to mandate more wikipedia time is not constructive. TMLutas (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If you think that I am going to divulge any email address or phone number to someone who is as aggressive as you are, you're dreaming. I've raised some issues and you come here screaming "vandalism" and telling me to clean up your mess. If you can create a stub named "Mount Ida School District", then I fail to see why you cannot write out that name in full in the text and add "United States", so that we actually know a little bit of what it is about. Per WP:MOS, the lead should start with the article title, not some abbreviation of it. Given the speed with which you are creating these stubs, I guess you have some form of automation going on, so this should be easy to implement. Also, I repeat, WP editors are not supposed to add redlinked categories, such as the one (Category:School districts in Montgomery County, Arkansas) that you added to this stub. We are instructed to create such categories or delete them and I don't see what goes for the rest of us should not also go for you. Expanding articles or not is one thing, deliberately creating a mess of redlinked categories is another. Lastly, the fact that you are sourcing tall this on a non-published source is your problem and responsibility, not mine. "I am in contact with some guy" has, to the best of my knowledge, not yet been defined as an acceptable WP:RS. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You raised some issues and sided without qualification with a fellow who was talking about mass deletion. One fellow talking mass deletion is a generally impotent menace, more than one turns into a nasty fight. You said it was a misunderstanding and I was willing to accept that you stumbled into saying something aggressive out the gate. But you're the one initiating aggression here. If you want to, on a specific page or pages, challenge the sourcing, we can talk further. Do you realize how unusual (and how futilely aggressive) it is to challenge the existence of a school district? You set them up, I'll knock them down, but I won't do it without you actually challenging the sourcing. You see if you do *that* enough in a futile manner, that's sanctionable. So let us have good sense here and both of us put aside previous communications so it doesn't escalate. TMLutas (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I see that in the stubs that you are now creating, you have fixed the abbreviation problem and are not creating redlinked categories any more. Thanks for that! --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I was too fast, apparently that was an exception: Woodlawn–Rison School District. --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The stubs I am creating are all set up in an automatic fashion. I haven't changed a thing in the past hundred or so of pages. I think it's just that the guys at the Census bureau and the guys making the categories are temporarily in sync. I'm glad for that but both sides seem to have drifting standards, which is kind of sad and makes it impossible to make everybody entirely happy. The whole database is over 89k of topics and I'm estimating that about 30-40k of them are redlinks. Nobody else seems to have wanted to fix this so I'm doing it. Either help or stand aside. So far your contribution seems to be limited to reducing my productivity. TMLutas (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I finally noticed that you have an issue with categories as well. The categories for school districts *should* be regular, but of course they aren't. I picked one of the rules in use and included it. Because of Wikipedia inconsistency sometimes it will work and sometimes not. Do you think it better if I pulled categories entirely? Say so and *poof* they're gone, but you get to explain to the next fellow who is upset that they aren't there anymore. TMLutas (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
for categories on school districts, the convention is Category:Education in XYZ County, Arkansas and Category:School districts in Arkansas. Arkansas and many states do not have school districts aligned to county borders. All thr categories you are creating at thr county level are red, however the Education category of those counties do exist (or at least for 90% or more) of them. Djharrity (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics

Would you mind if things were put back the way they were as (i) the editors never styled themselves with full names and (ii) Messenger of Mathematics ran in parallel with the Quarterly, both ending up under the editorship of Glaisher. If you are either a mathematician or an historian of mathematics and feel you know better on those scores, then perhaps there may be some merit to your edit, but otherwise not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.92 (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to both of you. I had been in the midst of working on this entry and had not yet tied things together. I hope that you find the current state of play to your liking. I should probably put in a reference for Hardy's intervention; I think it may be in his obituary notice for Glaisher. The names and the FRS designation are all given as on title pages so as to give an accurate record of the periodical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.71 (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks & a question

Hi RK, Thanks for the pointer! A question I've been meaning to ask you: what tool do you use to see new articles/ article changes? Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, a lot of articles are on my watchlist (although I'm reducing that: if an article has been stable for a while, I take it off my list). To see recent changes, try this link. To find new journal articles, I search for "journal" on the old "New Pages" feed (I don't like the new page curation pages, as they only display a few articles at a time, whereas the old one displays 1000 at a time. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I have come across Tim's tool, but have not yet made much use of it. Have a good day, Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Srinu Babu Gedela". Retrieved November 21, 2012.