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).

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE THAT YOU CREATED OR WORKED ON: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

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)

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 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)

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)

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

The article Genes, Brain and Behavior you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Genes, Brain and Behavior for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

The article Genes, Brain and Behavior you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Genes, Brain and Behavior for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

RE[edit]

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...[edit]

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)

Special:Contributions/Gati123[edit]

He/she edit warring for its musical genre on Lorde three times. Can you please block him/her? 183.171.166.204 (talk) 12:51, 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)