This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Hello Randykitty, I saw you reverted my modifications on the ISI highly cited researchers. I made the modifications after having read the new rules that Thomson Reuters adopted to create the new list (the new one has been just released). It seems to me that what I wrote was correct, as you can check on the Thomson Reuters site dedicated to the the Higly Cited. Best regards. Mathtrento
You're absolutely right! I should have chec ked better, but I just assumed that bvecause ISI discontinued HighlyCited some time ago, that nothing could have changed. I now see that they actually re-started this. Apologies, my bad... I have reverted my incorrect revert. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I habitually remove entries from journal lists that have no WP article, as such lists tend to become spam magnets. This particular list, though, contains a lot of such entries and most editors there seem to be content with having redlinked spam, so I have undone my reversion (mind you, I'm not saying that the journal you added is spam, but if it is notable, much better to create a proper article for it (quite easy, see WP:JWG). --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. These entries may be inappropriately redlinked but they are not spam. The purpose of the article is merely to provide a list of bona fide botanical journals, and contributors to it are under no obligation to create proper articles on the journals they add to it. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Since 21 June you have reverted a number of edits by User:Ettelt and IP user 111.68.99.250 that were good faith and contained legitimate information as far as I can see. The reasons you gave were either WP:WTAF or spam. I don't regard either reason as justified. As I explained earlier, the redlisted items in the article are not spam, and there is no obligation whatever on contributors to write an article on the journal they are contributing to the list. That is not a required criterion for inclusion. I would therefore respectfully request that you undo your reversions. I will copy the substantive points in this message to the article's talk page. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Genes, Brain and Behavior you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Would you be willing to nominate me for adminship?
I asked this to Casliber a few weeks ago, and he told me to wait and keep doing content work (DYKs, peer reviews, etc.) Since then I have done a little of each of these, and I was wondering/hoping you'd consider nominating me for adminship given how often you and I have collaborated in the past. Cheers, Jinkinsontalk to me01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you are certainly a reliable editor and I think that you'd make a good admin. However, like Casliber, I'd advice you to hold off a little bit more, but for a different reason: you don't have too many AfD contributions and your stats are a tad on the low side (although a bit biased downwards by 2 April Fools Day noms). There are also no non-admin closes. Your CSD log looks excellent, though. I have seen people at RFA balk at giving the tools to someone with fewer than 100 AfDs (at minimum) under their belt and this might be a concern. I'd say that if you would do some more AFDs, close some as non-admin, and show your expertise also in tht area, that you'd be ready for RFA in, say, three months from now. However, I must caution you that I only have been following RFAs since half a year or so, so my judgment may be a bit off and Casliber may have better advice to offer. I'd certainly be willing to (co-)nominate you in the near future. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
[[User:|]] - I recently nominated StringTheory11 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StringTheory11, which was successful but not without some opposition. Given how rough RfA can be, I really don't want to nominate someone unless I think they have a good chance at passing. As I said before, DYK is ok but can be divisive. I hope your reviews have been thorough. I can only see one peer review comment. I strongly recommend some more comments and try to get GA through. Also, agree with RandyKitty in scanning over the AfD nominations and doing some voting, making sure your votes are detailed and go by policy. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you following me on other articles, completely unrelated to our dispute? this revert out of nowhere, just because I disagree with you elsewhere may pass as WP:POINT and even harassment. --Tachfin (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? It's absolutely normal if one encounters a problematic editor to look at their contribution history to see if they're causing problems elsewhere, too. Come to think of it, your two reverts today on The Economist are your first edits ever to that article... --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
So as an admin, on the Church article matter...
Do you really think it wise to make exception, and encourage the Church-Wu husband and wife team to continue to maintain the Church Wikipedia page in tag-team fashion, sharing only the positives, and using only Church-authored primary sources to establish the primacy of the discoveries the article reports? Did you even take the time to read the article? To compare it to his self-published materials elsewhere? To think this through?
You mistook my politeness in opening my Talk section to suggest the article was neutral, and that I was perhaps irresolute on this matter, and so have muddied the issue. The underlying principles are important, and you do not reflect (in my experience) the consensus opinion regarding people maintaining and editing their own Wikipedia pages. For goodness sake, who in their right mind, of Church's competitors, colleagues, critics, trainees, etc. are going edit there, as long as there is a possibility of getting into an edit war with the man himself, over his page (and there is no gainsaying, it is currently his page)? No, you cannot allow Wikipedia to become a further location for Professors to self-describe. This is not what it exists for; this is simply wrong.
The editing should never have been allowed to go on as long as it has, and that it involves an important and esteemed Harvard Prof makes adherence to principles all the more important vis-a-vis NPOV and COI. This is, for our ignoring it for a year or more, a near impossible situation to reverse without their withdrawal. You have made their volunteer withdrawal unlikely, by skimming the surface of the issue, and issuing a premature opinion. I ask you to look at the matter carefully, and thoroughly, and assess whether you think the article is up to WP standards for citations, independence, and POV as a result of their majority contributions. If you stand by your opinion, say so, but if you come to the opinion I hold, please state this clearly, retracting your first statement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen any evidence that the alleged COI editors resist any modifications to this article, so I really fail to see what the big problem is here. If parts of the article are POV, fix it. If they are not POV, remove the tags. Simple. I have responded to your questions in more detail where it belongs, on the talk page of the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no violation of WP:3RR (yet), so there is no reason to block at this point. In addition, a discussion seems to have started on the talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
European Federation of Psychologists' Associations
Thanks for pointing out the COI rules, although I don't think I changed anything that is subjective or incorrect and it makes it harder to keep everything updated. Since I am no wiki expert and because of these rules it now seems even harder to make changes, could please tell me how I can facilitate a change in the structure of the page, to bring it in line with the template/format of pages about organizations? And as for references, a good start would be http://www.efpa.eu/about— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardvanrossen (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think you did anything wrong, the welcome-COI template was just that, a welcome and links to our COI guidelines. As for references, you can indeed use the organization's own website for uncontroversial and neutral information (such as who the president is). That does not go for claims of huge memberships, though, for those you'll need independent sources. There is not really a template or standard format for articles about organizations, as much depends on what is available in sources (unsourced material is not allowed). If you want to take articles on other organizations as an example, have a look at their talk pages first and check that they are in a higher class (at least B, but GA is better, certainly not Stub or Start). There are over 4.5 million articles here and inevitably many are below standard and you should not take those as an example (or an excuse to do similar things, justified with "that other article does it this way, too"; we call that argument WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS :-). If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask here or on the article talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quantitative genetics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dominance and Path analysis. 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.
why you deleted my article on the green coast beach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimicom (talk • contribs)
Very simple, as the CSD notice stated: the article was written like an advertisement in a travel brochure, not an encyclopedic article. WP articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. In order to be deleted as promotional, it is not necessary that an article deals with a company or product (although one might argue that a tourist destination is a kind of product, too). --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Society for Cybernetics]][[American Society for Cybernetics]].{citation needed|date=June 2014}} The journal occasionally publishes conference proceedings and special issues.
Hey, I appreciate that you deleted my userpage after I asked for that, however I would have preferred if another unassuming admin had done it. I am not saying you necessarily did something blatantly wrong and the outcome is what I asked for, but it just looks awkward/creepy. I understand you were newly sysoped, and I wish you not to be in a WP:INVOLVED, as in using your tools in something involving me specifically, only because we already had disputes elsewhere. --Tachfin (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
INVOLVED concerns cases where there may be a disagreement. If you ask yourself for your user page to be deleted, that hardly seems contentious to me. Not only was this not "blatantly wrong", it wasn't even a teeny tiny little bit wrong and INVOLVED does not come even close to being applicable. Unless you disagreed with yourself about the appropriateness of deleting your user page, in which case I'll be happy to restore it. --Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Naish Priory
Hi, I saw your edit to Naish Priory adding the cat Category:Christian monasteries established in the 14th century, however are you sure this appropriate? Some of the literature says the building was not a priory as it had been termed by the late 19th century owner Troyte Chafyn Grove, and there appears no evidence of ownership by a religious house or the residence of a large community of monks on the site.— Rodtalk16:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure at all. I just put it there because it was (inappropriately) in the container cat "14th century religious buildings" and this one looked most appropriate. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate cat. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Even though you will be notified because i highlighted your username...
No I didn't. I actually didn't look too much into the history behind the PROD, given that it was such a clear pass of ACADEMIC. I guess I just assumed someone wasn't too familiar with that guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
He seems to have an agenda concerning Jews -- see this deleted article[1] although most of his edits just remove material from articles on Rabbis. Others are more obvious. And as a new account, an amazing knowledge of guidelines and essays. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"Umambiguous advertising and promotion" - Article was sourced, and was deleted rather hastily. The league is a member of the Women's Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA), a organization with world-wide membership, and competes outside of Ann Arbor against other cities' teams, which ought to indicate that the subject is of interest beyond their own community. Article looks to me like it was incomplete, sure, needed more work, templates, images and probably needed some trimming on the "mission" etc. But I think you've jumped the gun here, and I'd like a shot at fleshing out and improving the article. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I just had a lookk again. The reason that the article was "unambiguously promotional" was because it was a copyvio of their own website. If they're notable, it's therefore better to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You deleted such informative article it is a part of history it was the first digital anime magazine ever built, plus its free and no business occurs. Without the information from Wikipedia everybody could just claim that they are the first to launch a free digital anime magazine. Please participate in regaining the article its serious. Don't accuse an article to be an advertisement if its free and a non-business society. You also deleted it without any warnings, please state your side. -- User: carlo ramos0812:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not something is promotional has nothing to do with whether something is commercial or not. Your reasoning above is faulty: WP is an encyclopedia and is not here to establish priority for your magazine. You should familiarize yourself with our guidelines and policies (I have placed a "welcome template" on your talk page with links to the most relevant and important ones), because at this point you are going full steam towards an indefinite block for using WP for promotion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC
Well, I am not, I don't even belong at the magazine's staff, I'm just a fan of this organization that became popular lately. You are trying to say that I am promoting the magazine but I am not. Well if I'm promoting a magazine then how such a magazine like [[Altima Ace}} exists here? Encyclopedia is to bring information for people right? so how will other people know about the first digital anime magazine was launched if WP will decline its article? I already put the history on how the magazine was properly established together with its latest sources. You should have gave me a warning first. May I have the codes I wrote there so that I could even keep the information I gave here. --Carlo ramos08 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I hope you are getting my side because I almost used up all my time just to gather information about it. I am waiting for your help.
--Carlo ramos08 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see that meanwhile another admin has moved the article to your userspace. However, I agree with the remark they made: I don't see how this will meet our notability criteria in the foreseeable future. Your only references for the moment are Facebook and Wikipedia, neither of which are considered reliable sources. In addition, promotional material is not allowed even in userspace, so you urgently need to tone down this draft, or someone will again tag it as promotional and it will be deleted again. My advice would be to let it rest, as it will be near impossible to make an acceptable article on a magazine that only just now published its first issue. Article creation is one of the hardest things to do on WP. It would be better if you first edit some other articles and get a feel for how things are being done here. That will avoid you wasting your time on hopeless efforts like this. Sorry I cannot be more positive about your 'zine, but it won't help you if I sugarcoat things... --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I will wait for the blogging sites if they will write reviews about this said digital magazine, I will get back to you if I already gathered enough resources, Thank You. --Carlo ramos08 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Darn, I missed that! I now see that it was mentioned on the talk page, but I guess I missed it because of the use of "VfD", which was abandoned way before I joined WP. Even the PROD template was thrown off by that, because usually it warns you in bright red that an article has been at AfD before. Anyway, I've taken it to AfD now. Thanks for correcting my error. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Journal of Healthcare Management
I explained the removal of the content in the Edit summary: "Checked Journal Citation Reports for 2011 and this journal isn't even mentioned. The Journal of Health, Organisation and Management is ranked 53 not this journal." If you have a problem with this please meet me on the talk page. Dumaka (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. I checked the JCR Social Sciences Edition and this journal definitely is in there. I updated the IF. --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no way to link into JCR, because it is a closed database and it uses session-specific dynamic URLs. But if you have access, go to the Social Sciences version for 2013, and search for the ISSN. If you don't have access, go to the Thomson Reuters "master Journal List" and search for the ISSN (here I can give a direct link to the search result, click on "coverage" and you'll see that it is listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index. Any journal in that index gets an IF. Just to make sure that I was not mistaken a little while ago, I went yet again to the JCR and the journal most definitely is there. I'm going to restore the sourced info and request that you refrain from further reverts. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Move of discussion, to avail ourselves of the specific audience needed
I am moving the discussion from the BLP noticeboard — see my very last entry there — to the COI noticeboard, where, since the primary issues are COI and POV, I believe it would have been better served to begin with. I ask you to support me in this, to re-focus the discussion on the issues we have raised, and that had early hope of being addressed with the Frog and Pirate offerings (but have become lost in the technical and biased diversionary interspersions of my "followers"). Here is the link to the new, [2]; please have first crack at making new comments to this — but note I have replied at length to the accusation of "non-specificity", and would hope you now understand what is being said, and not ask me to state this again. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
hi.so this is the third time my articles been deleted.ive been trying hard to change it every time it was deleted so that it wouldnt get deleted the next time but...
could you please give me some advice?oh and dont give me links to wikipedia help pages they are SO VERY LONG and ive already read what i could from them
just give me some short notes if you may...
thank you so much
Newsha7 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Unauthorized changes to page for "Anne Warner" (Rower)
Hello --
I don't know who you are or how this works, but this whole unhappy episode began then a person named Stavros Mackrakis made unauthorized deletions to Anne Warner's page.
Background: I am Ms. Warner's partner - and have been so for nearly 15 years. Apparently this gentleman, who was a classmate of Ms. Warner, decided that he didn't like the fact that my name and occupation were included on her page. As to "why?" -- who can say?
So I restored it.
And he deleted it again.
And we went back and forth this way until I thoroughly lost my cool and called him a "nuisance."
He even removed the reference to Ms. Warner's former husband, a tenured professor at Harvard University.
Why would someone do this??????
I am now simply trying to restore he page to its original ACCURATE content, without further unwanted edits.
I have a copy of the text from the original page...as it appeared for many years, if you would like me to send it to you.
No need to send me anything, all previous content is still visible in the article history. What you need to understand is that WP is an encyclopedia and we cannot post any information that is not verifiable through reliable sources, especially in biographies of living persons. In addition, we have no way of verifying that you are who you say, nor do we need to, because we do not add content to articles just on the basis of "I know this is correct". I repeat, we need reliable sources. Apart from that, adding the name of a partner or possible children is not something that we usually do, unless the partner or children are independently "notable" (in the sense used by WP). That this info remained in this particular article for so long does not mean that it should stay there. Finally, policy is strictly enforced, for what I hope are obvious reasons, on bios of living persons. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Reasoning is outlined at WP:REDNOT, generally unwise to red link names of living people. Say some heinous crime was committed by someone with one of those names (or something similar which was then redirected), the article would be created at the link target without any watchlist notification for those watching Bioinformatics (journal). Confusion and potential defamation ensues. Granted unlikely but should be at least a consideration when red-linking names of living people. benmoore13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll be darned! Never too old to learn something, I guess. I keep such redlinks per WP:REDLINK, but see I should have re-read that one... I've reverted my revert. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
agree with your reference, special issues are not articles, special issues are special volumes of individual journals, I am the creator of this article, u know or I know. Discoslip (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you are trying to say with "u know or I know". In any cases, we do never list special issues for any journal (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), unless there are third-party sources that discuss such an issue (which, of course, happens extremely rarely). --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have posted a warning on his talk page. Meanwhile, if what he claums about you is correct, perhaps you should declare a COI with this article. --Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I went to 5-9th grade with Anne many years ago, and have run into her a few times since. I have never been close to her (despite Banker212's claim), so I don't think there's a COI issue, but to avoid the appearance of COI, I'm happy to stay away from the article. --Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please don't remove the external link to the prime reference for much of the body of the article. Why would you do that?Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's see. A/ Is this a reliable source? B/ Can we even verify that this was, indeed, written by Zindler himself? C/ If yes to A and B, then this is not an independent reference. D/ If yes to A and B,thn at best this is a primary source. If this is "the prime reference for much of the body of the article", then perhaps "much of the body of the article" needs better sources or a re-write. Ahd, BTW, this questionable source is already used as a reference, so I see absolutely no reason to list it yet again under "external links". --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"this questionable source is already used as a reference, so I see absolutely no reason to list it yet again under external links" - thus you REMOVE THE POINTER TO THE SOURCE. Just referencing something doesn't cut it/ See, these were the problems pointed out before, people commenting "where is this source, where can I find it"? So I added a link to it. I'll contact Zindler and have him verify that he wrote that. What would you suggest, his signature, I'm sort of lost here. Thanks for your help! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference 5 is the exact same link as the one that you put under ELs. And Zindler can do whatever he likes, that doesn't make this an independent secondary source that we can use to build an article upon (see the wikilinks in my post above). --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What would be an independent "secondary source" for this - Zindler's assistant?? You're not getting it. Zindler has all the info, the archives in Cranford NJ, etc. Please help make the article better, without tearing it down. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh by the way I added the link to the External Links because I didn't know how to put it right in there with the footnote. I don't recall if I eventually figured it out, or if someone else fixed it, so I'm good with leaving it off of external links - but I also see no harm in leaving it there. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
See the WP article on Secondary Source, "Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are used. Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual,[9] so that precise definitions are difficult to make". I just don't think you can find a better source than the former editor of the magazine, current president of American Atheist Press. Thanks again for your help. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Tou are citing an article. I am citing a policy. If you really think that Zindler's assistant would be a secondary source, then you really need to read the policies that I linked to above. When you've done that, we can talk again. The "self published" source I'm talking about is a PDF of a typescript that lists Zindler as its author. So assuming it was indeed Zindler, that is someone who was involved with the magazine (so not an independent source) and self-published by him. --Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You really need to help me out here, as I said I can't imagine a better source than the editor. Look at the article on Utne Reader (the first similar article I checked), it used the editor as a reference. I want (with your advice if possible to (1) provide verification, as you asked, that "this was, indeed, written by Zindler himself" and (2) to either accept that, as the WP guideline says, primary/secondary source selection is contextual and subjective, or perhaps you can suggest a secondary source that is even better than the editor of the magazine, a respected author and publisher. Thanks again. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S., maybe I'm over-sensitive but seems you were condescending with your "When you've done that, we can talk again" remark. Please remain civil, I want to make this article as good as possible. Thanks! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olawoye Theo Ladapo
Hi! I notice that you closed that discussion as delete. Do you feel that the final !vote for deletion, namely "Delete: per above delete votes. Darreg (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)" added anything to the weight of delete votes in addition to what had already been put forward by the person who nominated the article for deletion and the other people who commented?
It didn't influence me either way, I ignored it, as I ignored Wikicology's !vote as well. I don't count !votes but look at the arguments given. --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
'like an advertisement'
Why? Please detail the phrases that you think are like an advertisement. It is just filing out the stub with information as far as I am aware. Thanks. Gemtpm (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Philosopher
The central feature of The Philosopher is that is NOT an academic Journal. Exactly what it is is described on its website. The material in this opening paragraph is from the official history, and is not promotional but informative. Now you know, but I may take any further reverts as 'trolling' and involve an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemtpm (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow! You don't take "interference" with your editing lightly, do you? Have a look at WP:OWN. Try to find independent sources for what you are writing, not just the journal's website. Read WP:AGF. After that, we can talk again. Oh, and don't forget to sign any posts that you make by using 4 tildes (~~~~). --Randykitty (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Leuven. 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.
I realize you're dealing with an inexperienced editor on this article, but please ease up on the edit warring. I've directed them to the article talk and hopefully they will heed my advice. Thanks Tiderolls16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This article has a long and unfortunate history of "new" editors popping up now and then to insert negative POV. No clue why (seems not like a very important journal to me, I must say), but that's probably what makes me a bit extra prickly when some "newbie" starts inserting unsourced negative POV. But perhaps we'll now see some justification on the talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I wouldn't count as "involved" here. But usually in these cases, I just ignore the ducks as closing admins generally see through this and close appropriately anyway. After deletion, the ducks generally look for other ponds. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Woohoo, The Tide is still rolling! Yes--"deep sigh". Randykitty and I speak a secret language as members of a foreign infiltration force. Outside agitators, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the instruction, Professor. Excuse the intrusion, Randykitty, didn't mean to hijack your page. Couldn't pass up the opportunity to learn something new. Tiderolls14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Other people might not agree with your ideas about what should or should not be included. NJournals is not an SNG. Notability guidelines are not absolute rules and N doesn't even actually specify a minimum criteria for notability. It only says that certain things are presumed to be notable. Deletion by PROD is not a right and the removal of a PROD template is final and cannot be appealed or otherwise reversed. There is therefore no point in leaving a message on my talkpage telling me that you don't like what I have done. If you want to delete the article, you will just have to take it to AfD. James500 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh? If it doesn't meet NJournals, it certainly won't meet GNG. I'm not sure what you mean with "N doesn't even actually specify a minimum criteria for notability". Deletion by PROD is indeed no right and nobody claimed it was. Nobody was appealing it or trying to reverse it. I was just baffled to see an article on what basically is a fake journal dePRODded and looking for an explanation. As you know, we only dePROD an article if we think that deletion might be controversial. Given your comment (not a "keep" !vote, I note) at the AfD, I now realize that the dePROD was based on a misunderstanding of what WP is about. So I got the explanation I was looking for. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Utter nonsense from start to finish. For the avoidance of doubt only, we can dePROD an article for any reason whatsoever. I am minded to remove any PROD that fails to convince that the article in question should be deleted. Thus far you have not convinced me the article on that journal should be deleted. At the moment, I can't see what we gain from deleting that article. All I see is a loss of information that I presume is accurate. I thought that my comment would be understood as a very obvious "default keep". James500 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Your AfD comment mainly shows that you don't know what WP is about. The journal is basically a fake journal, set up to milk gullible authors. It never got any coverage, not even for that practice, except for being listed on Beall's list. That's about as non-notable as you can get. You can, of course, remove as many PRODs as you want and you are indeed not obligated to explain your actions, but looking at your talk page, it's clear that many authors, more than one editor is irritated if a PROD gets removed without any good reason stated. "Better at AfD" is not such a good reason, me thinks. And I do seem to remember a case at WP:ANI of an editor who removed many PRODs without giving good reasons, who was blocked as a result: even when editing "within the rules", a certain behavior pattern can be seen as "disruptive editing". Anyway, now that the article is at AfD, I don't have to convince you that the article should be deleted. You should convince the community that there is a good, policy-based reason to keep it. as for the "loss of information that you presume accurate", I have a lot of accurate information about my cleaning lady and also about her dog. Doesn't mean that we need articles on them... BTW, moving conversations across talk pages, as you did with mine, but also with others, is not a good habit, as it makes for incoherent conversations that are difficult to follow for other editors. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that you would like me to be blocked for being too inclusionist? Are you telling me that I have to stop removing PRODs from articles that I think should be kept, if you don't agree? James500 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that I see you sometimes de-PROD an article without giving a good rationale, that even though this is your good right this may irritate other editors, and that repeatedly removing PROD notices without a good reason is considered disruptive. So if you would like to be so kind as to assume good faith and leave the battlefield mentality a bit aside for the moment, I think what I am trying to tell you is that it may be worth while to use an informative edit summary when de-PRODding an article. An editor may disagree with your reason, but that happens all the time here and is normal. It makes a civilized conversation possible. Just saying "AfD is a better venue", without giving any reason for that, that just ticks people off. Well-meant advice, take it or leave it. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
A demand for action deletion
Hi Randykitty!
I wanted to ask why the thread "A demand for action" was deleted so quickly. There is a lot to think about when writing an article on wiki and I understand that some things needed to be corrected in the article. I even wrote in the articles talk section to an admin that it will be corrected but when i got home back from work the article was deleted and i never even got the chance to correct the issues.
I can assure you that most things in that article had sources and i was about to add a lot of sources today before it got deleted...
Is there a way to undo this? I read a little about deletions and it said that the admin responsible for the deletion should be contacted first before doing anything else like requesting a review and so on...
Can you undelete the article and give me the chance to remove what ever is wrong in it?
I have restored the article and moved it to Draft space (Draft:A Demand for Action), where you can work on it until it is ready. However, note that the article was not just deleted because of a lack of notability (which needs to be shown by independent reliable sources), but also because is was written in a promotional non-neutral POV. Before moving the article back to mainspace, you should have it checked by an uninvolved experienced user. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is nothing more than self promotion. Nothing has thus far been source since it's first deletion. The organization's website isn't even up and running which should raise a red flag. If they are in their early stages of development, then they have a ways to go to claim notability. The organization needs to gain more traction and I propose deleting it for now. I'm all for improving an article but this one is just a fan page and undermines the seriousness of Wikipedia. -- 3BluePenguins 05:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3BluePenguins (talk • contribs)
If you feel that it is too promotional even for Draft space, feel free to tag it again for G11. I'll then let another admin decide. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I've tagged it again for G11. 3BluePenguins 02:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3BluePenguins (talk • contribs)
August 2014
Greetings. In reference to this ANI thread.. the guy isn't stopping [3]. He's now edit-warring and arguing to delete a long-standing foreign language name from the lede, in spite of being pointed to sources and recommendations at WP:NCGN ("relevant foreign language names are those used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place", i.e. Italians in this specific case). -- Director(talk)01:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I object to the accusation that I'm edit warring. It is Director who is edit-warring. He has already been reported. Yes, I'm arguing for a simple edit and I do not see what is wrong with that. My conduct is civilized as can bee seen in the discussion Director referenced. He also quoted something, but I can't see that quote in the reference he gave. Anyway, this belongs to the referenced discussion. There I already explained everything relating to that question. Asdisis (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear! I did! How stupid of me. I now indeed see that since a few minutes ago, you're a member of that project. Let's do it this way: I'll post this to the talk page of the Wikiproject and we'll see what the people there say about your (still not justified/explained) removal of this banner. --Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You're correct, my bad. I didn't see it, because you also re-reverted my restoration of the banner. Per WP:BOLD, if an edit is challenged, you don't start edit warring over it but you go to the talk page and discuss it first, before making the edit again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a project banner. There is nothing to discuss. Editor's have no right to project banners. If you still have a different oppinion, please use our wikiproject talk page and don't be silly. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I left a note on User talk:Thesunkenroad, about deletion of the journal Annals of Scholarship, as a comment to a note by you. Apparently he has left Wikipedia (his last edit was in 2009). But I was wondering if it would be possible to get a look at what that article was like. I'm leaving a note here because I don't know whether the deletion was discussed or not. Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I had a look at the deleted article and it is particularly uninformative, basically only giving the title and the editor and then some unsourced claims (like that libraries within and outside the US subscribe to the journal). There were no references, only a (dead) link to a former website at Temple University and a link to its current website. I looked at that too and I don't see any indication that this might pas WP:GNG, or even WP:NJournals (designed to make it easier for academic journals to pass our notability criteria). I also note that the editor is apparently publishing this on her faculty webpage (highly unusual) and works at a very small, not uncontroversial university Unless you are sources that show this may be notable after all, I am very hesitant to restore the deleted content. If you really want to, I'll restore it, but must say that I will then proceed with taking it to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I just had a look at your contribution history. You're going about this really in a rather combative way. Read WP:BOLD. It's fine to make a big edit, but if it is challenged by a revert, don't revert yourself, but go to the talk page and try to open a discussion and obtain consensus for your edit. Otherwise you'll just get into edit wars. Despite your new account, you don't seem to be a newbie, so you may be aware of this, but just in case, we have a policy called WP:3RR limiting the number of reverts that someone can make. You should know that although the letter of that policy talks about 3 reverts within 24 hours, admins may decide someone is edit-warring even if they don't formally breach 3RR but show an edit-warring pattern over several articles. In addition, if there are multiple assertions in an article that need to be sourced, it may be better to put one {{refimprove}} tag on top of the page, instead of a dozen "citation needed" tags. Finally, some things really don't need a citation (such as "The term Caucasian Iberia is used to distinguish it from the Iberian Peninsula in Western Europe", for example, which really is very obvious). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that too. Weird, I'd expect that at least some of our editors would be interested in such an important topic. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Modifications to page on Edward Perl
Thank you for your recent changes to the new article on Edward Perl (including changing the name of the page). Thanks, too, for pointing out Wikipedia's standard regarding external links. I've pruned out much of the external links within the body of the article and hope this helps. B Taylor-Blake (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Creating articles is one of the most difficult things here, so creating a rather good article a your first contribution here is really an accomplishment! Don't hesitate to ask if you need any help. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rethinking Marxism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
1989 to 1998, the editor of the journal was [[Jack Amariglio]]. From 1998 to 2010, David Ruccio] served as editor. He was succeeded by S. Charusheela (2010 to 2013).<ref name="Legacies"/> Since
Thank you for helping the Edit Warring on List of PlayStation 4 games as I had reported here. Unfortunately the user came back and made the same revert. The user has finally made it more clear just what they're justification is. I put my response to them on their talk page under the section where I tried contacting them previously. The user has still refused to properly discuss it though as the user made the note in the edit summary. Any help on the next step is appreciated. WhereAmI (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
These lists are supposed to only contain notable journals, which is hard to check if there is no article, hence WP:WTAF. Basically all lists of academic journals only contain entries with articles. --Randykitty (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I created in reverse, first the journal list entry, then the article, then discovered the revert after I was done, so that's why it appeared fast :-> WilliamKF (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Assistance please
Hi there RK, (formerly known as) Always Learning here,
I apologize to the community at large for being so insistent (i have written this message for the third time now, but User:Drmies does not want to reply, i have to respect that, and User:Writ Keeper seems to be on a - i bet deserved - wikibreak), but i am very eager to pull the plug on this wretched wikiexistence of mine, before i do so i would like a reply on a certain subject.
Regarding the message you sent to User:Panhead2014 (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Panhead2014#August_2014), i'd have to say not only User:MYS77 was/is being harassed, me too. I tried to prevent an anon user, a die-hard fan of S.L. Benfica from editing pages by calling 100% reliable sources (WWW.UEFA.COM) "biased" and even going as far as deliberately vandalizing one player's name, was taunted, provoked and akin when i tried to get in contact with this person (all the details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107). Panhead2014 thought nothing better than going to this person's page and offer his undying support! What's that but a gibe at me, and not a very subtle one?
Found today that another user that was involved in the situation that led to Panhead's block is also harassed, and me and MYS (don't know if anyone else, but us two for sure!) are also mentioned, we are part of a wikiclique out to get everybody, not just him (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoPurpleNGold24#User:Gringoladomenega). My humble request is: could you go in Mr.Panhead's page and ask him what did i do that was so horrible that merits this persecution? I even did all i could to appease him (i did not have to because i and all the editors that are well-intended can edit where we bloody want to i believe!), by ceasing editing in Sergio Busquets and Míchel Salgado (the articles that led to our run-in) and stopping all communication from him in his page after he accused me of harassing him. Yet, he continues to do exactly that to me, why i'd like to ask.
Also, it now comes to mind: Drmies cannot assist even if he wanted because he has committed the crime of being my wikifriend, so this person will immediately revert him like he did MYS77 and other users that went to his page and asked him please not to encourage disruptive edits. I also thought of User:Dennis Brown to assist (he originally blocked Panhead, and seems to be respected by him), but i think he has enough on his hands in the real world right now to be worrying about this.
Randy, I've been keeping an eye on Panhead: since that somewhat helpless comment on their talk page they've been keeping it clean, last time I checked. They followed me to Dafne Schippers, perhaps, which I find amusing. (Can you believe it? We have a championship sprinter!) Anyway, my Portuguese is terrible so I can't follow all the ins and outs, but I'll take AL's word for it (I usually call him by his older name, VASCO--we do go way back). Drmies (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Case closed (?)
I've been telling several users that my beef with User:Panhead2014 was "case-closed", because i liked the latest developments. Well, not on his part, he continues to provoke me like crazy... his last two edits (the sole he made in HOURS!) consisted of going into the exact same talkpages i had gone to and say "Peace bro", even though those two users had not reacted well to his supporting of trolls (User:PeeJay2K3) and/or past history (User:GoPurpleNGold24).
What is he meaning by those lines (that have nothing to do with anything because no content is being discussed and nobody has sent him a message previously), immediately AFTER i post a message there? He is meaning "Peace out to everyone, but this guy (by which he means me, formerly known as Always Learning) is nothing but a piece of garbage". Please drop a line in his page or something similar, i'm about to lose my composure and tell him to fuck off with his aggravation, perhaps what he wants so that he can report this IP and have it blocked.
Hi, I've been following this from some distance. My advice to you is to let it go. As long as he doesn't say something about you that isn't a clear personal attack, no admin can do much. But, as long as it is indeed not a direct personal attack, you should just ignore it. This kind of low level harassment does not reflect negatively on you and nobody will think so. It reflects negatively on the user doing it. I saw Panhead's encouragement to a vandal, but as long as Panhead doesn't vandalize something themselves, I really don't care and you shouldn't either. If things like this bothered me, I'd have left WP long ago. As for Panhead, there are a few possibilities that I see. One is that they'll get bored with this kind of thing and then either leave or become a valuable editor. The other is that they continue this behavior and then, sooner or later, they'll get indeffed. Meanwhile, just do your thing and keep your cool. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, straight to the point, many thanks for that courteous input Randy. I PROMISE to stop pestering (using Mr. Panhead's ineffable choice of words) people with this and will most definitely let it go (and leave WP altogether, i was looking for some kind of closure that was it, was not seeking for any further blocks for Panhead even though he won't believe me of course!). Panhead, most likely you will read this and post a "Peace bro" message here, so: keep aiming for the jugular, you won't get a reaction from me out of the utmost respect i have for these editors (i wanted to respect you too and work as a team, you chose NOT TO!), maybe when MYS77 or Gringoladomenega are blocked you will rest (or not?). Me? Sure, you can have this IP blocked for a period of time (on the grounds of what i don't know), but get it through your head, i am not interested in editing anymore, so there!
Sorry sorry, forgot this comment because of one line in your reply. Towards its end you say "he can... either leave or become a valuable editor". Problem is he already is a valuable editor (i say "problem" for lack of a better word, no problem in being a valuable editor no sir), he's not a vandal or a troll per se, he uses article talkpages probably more than i have in my eight years of editing, he engages in polite conversations with other fellow editors, etc.
So, that should show you the level of despise he has for me and the other two editors. I defend myself, the other two should do the same on their own terms: was i involved in the edit war that led to his blocking? YES. Did i have anything to do with his blocking per se? NO! This is getting a bit out of hand, but i promise my reaction will be non-existent, was preparing to create a new account give or take a week when the despicable run-in with the anon user took place, followed by Panhead's unwavering support of him, now i've finally learned my lesson, WP is a place full of beauty, possibilities and horrible stress in equal percentages, i don't belong here.
Hi, I created an article for Haarlem United Nations, see www.hmun.nl. This is an organization run by college students therefore the level of our article isn´t that high. I myself am a college student and would like to keep the page. I don´t know what´s wrong with it or what I should specifically change about it. Other organizations such as Harvard MUN aren´t much different than Haarlem MUN. It´s highly important to us to have a Wikipedia page: participating students, parents, people who´d like to get to know what this event is (one of the biggest in Europe). can read about it. Sadly, one of your workers deleted the page. Please try to understand our problem and help us. I don´t get Wikipedia talk by the way, I ´d rather speek to someone in person. Please help me!!! User:Liedxoxo
Yes, the article has now been deleted twice. Creating an article on WP is very difficult. I placed a "welcome" template on your talk page, which contains links to many applicable guidelines and policies. The most important ones for the moment are notability, Verifiability, and reliable sources: In order to show that a subject should be included ("notability" in WP language), you have to show significant coverage that can be verified by citing reliable sources. An organization as you describe, at a single high school, is extremely unlikely to ever meet our notability guidelines. Have any national newspapers published about your organization? (Sources do not need to be in English). And, sorry, but speaking to someone in person is rarely possible here. Hope this helps anyway. --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. And yes, we´ve been in the newspaper. It´s a nonprofit organization to which about 600 people attend. I don´t get all the computer talk, so I guess I´ll leave the matter now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.113.43 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Mix Master David Deleted Page
Please assist in way that you can to help undelete the page. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandi1978 (talk • contribs)
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but that page was deleted after a deletion discussion. If you disagree with the closure, you can go to deletion review, but unless you have significant sources that were not yet discussed during the AfD, I don't think you'd have much chance of getting the deletion undone. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your help determining a pattern of disruptive behavior from a POV editor on a large number of LGBT related articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Since I added some information about indexing of the journal in the selective database MathSciNet, I removed your warning about the deletion of the page.
Thank you for having helped me to improve the page.
You're absolutely right, I should have thought of that. I usually go to projects for this, but in this case I guess because I know David as an editor who is not only a specialist in mathematics, but also interested in journal articles, that I went to him first. Thanks for contributing to the AfD, debates on journals usually suffer from an extremely low quorum. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
A while back, consensus was gained for the deletion of an article about Kevin S. Hamilton. Because of that consensus, you closed the discussion and the article was deleted/redirected. In the interim, proposals have been made to delete other articles about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Some gained consensus for deletion, some did not. But also in the meantime, Vojen presented a concrete argument against deletion of such articles (on Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion/Randy D. Funk) that has resulted in all subsequent nominations failing. My question is this: Would you consider restoring the Hamilton article if it could be shown that the consensus was for it? I think if a proposal was made to restore or recreate it, the result would be much different in light of Vojen's argument. So I was just curious about how you would feel on the issue. Please post any reply to my talk page, as I don't habitually check other user's talk pages for responses. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I prefer to keep conversations together, so I'll reply here and post a tb template on your talk. Despite the impressive length of the Funk AfD, the number of participants was low. Also, I don't have the time to go through such a huge wall of text. In any case, in the Hamilton AfD, no sources came up establishing notability (in contrast apparently to Funk) and there were several well-argued "delete" !votes. So I don't feel comfortable to restore the Hamilton article based on the Funk AfD without consulting the community about this. I think the proper way to do that would be to start a deletion review on the grounds that new information has become available. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be fine and more than I could reasonably expect or hope for. I was only asking because new information has become available (the new argument Vojen presented on the Funk deletion motion) and I wondered if anything could be done to restore the deleted articles based on the new information. I understand and fully accept the reasons for your discomfort. I agree that in this case it would be best to start a deletion review. Just let me know where it is and where to comment so that I can direct others to Vojen's argument. Btw, I have posted on this issue to the Latter Day Saint movement page, but haven't seen what, if any, reply there has been. I decided instead to be bold and make the requests and see what would come of them. I look forward to the deletion review discussion. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any response to this message, like you did with the last one. Thanks! --Jgstokes (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked it over and I can't make sense of it. The instructions seem simple enough to follow, but I'm confused. It would really help me out if you could help me get it started. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I received an inappropriate post on my talk page from User:Deltahedron. Here is the diff [4].
The tenor comes across as threatening to me. I am not looking for anything particularly administrative to happen - but perhaps you can counsel him about this behavior. He can easily be blocked for something like this. I would appreciate it - thanks in advance. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that, although presumably you realise that particular offensive remark is not what this message is referring to, which you chose to report here. Since we are having this discussion on Randykitty's talk page, for her benefit I may say that the issue between us, as my diff [5] makes clear, is your repeated misreporting of a statement of mine in order to reverse its meaning; to make it appear to support your argument when it plainly contradicts it; and to make it appear that I have been inconsistent on the subject. I said there, and say again, that your comment is simply false. Deltahedron (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Randykitty, thanks for your previous help on User:DarkxIllutionz. The user has since come back after his or her week long ban for Sockpuppetry. All four of their edits since the ban have been disruptive in some way (I listed them below). I was reading Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing and it didn't quite answer my question on this case of breaking formatting or not following the page guidelines. I was wondering if you could offer assistance again.
18:52, 1 September 2014
Improper use of the Partial|Sony tag, breaking formatting. This is the page that the user vandalised and got banned for.
01:37, 3 September 2014
Changed a Microsoft exclusive tag to Xbox One exclusive when the game is on Xbox 360. To explain, Microsoft tags are Xbox One and 360 games whereas Yes would mean only Xbox One. The user is not following page guidelines that have been set as a standard by the community.
01:44, 3 September 2014
Improper use of the Partial|Sony tag, breaking formatting again. This is also the page that the user vandalised and got banned for.
Blocked again, this time for 4 weeks. If they still haven't learned the lesson and re-start after that, ping me and I'll make it an indefinite block. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Table Talk (Australian newspaper), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Herald. 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.
Sorry again for the mistaken PROD. The 2008 edit was just at the bottom of my screen and I must have missed it when I scrolled up/down. --Randykitty (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Solid State Ionics (journal) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
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.
I had a look and did some edits. Sure looks fishy. Who would be a good person to ask for assistance about this (I'm not really familiar with this sort of thing). DGG? Drmies? --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll sent you another email- I'm a little leery about naming who else I've alerted to this given that we're likely being watched and I don't want those admins to get pre-emptively drawn in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)09:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
