User talk:Randykitty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).


Silent Models NY Page Deletion[edit]

Hello Randykitty. I am a representative at Silent Models NY and created a separate page today for our company which was deleted. We were previously a part of the partner company Silent Models Paris' Wikipedia page but would like to have our own page detailing the New York agency since the partnership has been ended. I understand that the page was supposedly classified as spam/ advertising and did not meet nobility guidelines but I would love to see how we can get the page back up and what changes/ additions/ references we can add to the page to prevent it from being classified as spam. Thank you so much for your help! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellaatee (talkcontribs)

Your page was deleted not only because it was spam but also because since you are the company representative you violate WP:COI policy. Plus, it wasn't deleted, it was merged into Silent Models. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a site where you can put any company you want, some small businesses are not notable here. As far as branches go, not all branches need separate articles, see for example Microsoft and Microsoft, Russia. Microsoft, Russia doesn't have separate article because the office was opened in 2006, same thing goes with Electronic Arts, Russia, an office which was opened in 2007. However, sometimes Wikipedia doesn't even mention it, perhaps, its not an important subdivisions? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishae (talkcontribs)


Hi there, I see that you deleted this page, I was the author, now I'm not going to contest your deletion, but I'd like to ask_is there a way to remove this page entirely? In other words, make it disappear or invisible? because the red alert is still on that page, and visitors can still see it, and it surely is not something good for mailimate. Please help me find a way to remove it. Thank you.--SEROLAF (talk)

  • The page doesn't exist any more, it was, as you correctly state, deleted. So I guess you're talking about the notice saying that a page with this title was previously deleted. As far as I know, there is no way to remove that notice. But I don't share your fears: the notice does not say anything that could be construed as negative about Mailimate, as far as I can see. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Redstar[edit]

Article deleted because no indication of notability, despite speculation about hypothetical print sources. Clear consensus to delete. Case closed. --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I really wish you hadn't closed this while discussion was still ongoing. Perhaps some sort of consensus could have been achieved? Rather than close it, notifying the relevant WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal would have been a better option as it could have have attracted more community input. As it happens, only two people were engaged in the current discussion (myself and the nominator) which means it should have been closed as no consensus. Can you please change your close to no consensus or re-open the discussion so we can invite more editors into the discussion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The AFD had been open for 9 days and there were certainly more than just 2 participants. The discussion really was petering out, with only 1 minor comment/day in the last 3 days. You were the only one !voting "keep", so consensus seems to be squarely at the "delete" side. So I don't see any reason to re-open this discussion or change my close. If you still disagree, you're of course free to take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know that, which is why I wrote "!vote" (as is convention here), not "vote". Fact remains that there were more than just 2 participants to the discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What I said is that there were only two people were engaged in the current discussion. Everyone else had dropped out. With only two editors still actively engaged in the discussion, I don't see how anyone can judge consensus (especially when both editors disagreed with one another). What's more, that discussion was still ongoing. Honestly, I hadn't expected anyone to close the AfD while discussion it was still ongoing. We don't have any deadlines so there was no harm in allowing the AfD to continue or inviting the relevant WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal seem the most relevant) into the discussion. Can you please re-open it or change the close no consensus? My preference is to allow the discussion to continue. If after another week (or whatever), it turns out that consensus goes against me, that's fine. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. But as it stands now, I think the project is better served to allow the AfD reach a natural conclusion. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry, but no. AfDs usually get closed after 7 days, this one was allowed to run for 9. I re-reviewed the article and the discussion. There are clear policy-based deletion !votes, only 1 reference in the article itself, and the "ongoing discussion" really wasn't much of a discussion if you look at it (arguing about possible print sources that may or may not exist) and wa basically over (with 1 brief comment/day for the last 3 or 4 days). I am not going to re-open this AfD just because you don't like its outcome. If you think my close was wrong, feel free to go to DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There was not a single delete !vote after I pointed out that "Given that this occurred back in the 1970s, it's not surprising that there aren't a lot of online sources. What we really need is for someone to visit a Canadian library and check for printed sources." Unfortunately, closing the AfD prematurely cut off the discussion before we could ascertain whether such print sources exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither were there any "keep" !votes after you pointed this out. Again, sorry you didn't like the outcome of the AfD, but this is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly my point! You're totally missing the forest for the trees. How could there be any votes one way or the other without anyone actually knowing whether the topic was notable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW, my objection has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. My problem is that the AfD was closed without anyone knowing whether the topic is notable or not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Keith Ashwin[edit]

Hello Randykitty. I am the author of the Terrence Keith Ashwin page that you deleted earlier today. I am new to Wikipedia and would really like to contribute. I do not really understand why the page was removed. It was up for discussion and I tried to respond to everything that was commented on the Talk page for deletion. There was no conclusive reason given or some constructive criticism. Terrence Keith Ashwin is an inventor worth mentioning. Please give me some guidance on what the best way would be to add him and his work to WP. --gcmbotha (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm sorry that your first experiences here are less than positive. Creating new articles is one of the tougher things to do here. The article was removed because of a lack of notability (in the WP sense). This has nothing to do with good/bad or deserving, but only with whether independent secondary reliable sources have discussed the subject of an article in-depth. In the absence of such, there can be no article. Have a look at the guidelines/policies that I linked, that should explain things, I hope. --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Information about ISI highly cited[edit]

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)
  • No problem! Thanks anyway for caring. Mathtrento — Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

reversion of my edit to List of Botanical Journals[edit]

I would be grateful if you would explain your reversion of my edit to List of botany journals Plantsurfer (talk) 14:42, 8 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 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)

Your GA nomination of Genes, Brain and Behavior[edit]

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. Time2wait.svg 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)

Your interest in Theatre Journal[edit]

Hi! I noticed your interest and edits at this article. Another article, Theatre Annual: A Journal of Performance Studies is also in some distress. You might want to intervene there also; I tried, but don't have enough experience, yet, to do what's needed. - Neonorange (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC[edit]

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the larger issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Journal of International Translational Medicine[edit]

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Journal of International Translational Medicine to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to nominate me for adminship?[edit]

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, Jinkinson talk to me 01:11, 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)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

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.

Journal of Group Theory
added a link pointing to MCQ
Teaching Mathematics and its Applications
added a link pointing to Newman University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)