User talk:Randykitty

Mario Cerrito, III

Hi Randykitty! An annoymous user put the page I created Mario Cerrito,III up for criteria for speedy deletion when you already tagged it not eligible for speedy deletion because of how different it was from the previous ones. I worked very hard on that article to make it a legitimate one. I came to you because you're an administrator and already tagged that on the page. Can you please help- thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTallahasee (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how it is substantially different from this. I also don't see where Randykitty removed a speedy delete tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Neil it is under the talk part of the page and "view history" I was just trying to make my first page on Wikipedia about a local person around my area who has done well in the independent film scene with a good amount of sources. If someone took the time to read the article and sources on the individual they would see it has more weight then a lot of other pages that stay on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTallahasee (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sjeez, took me 10 minutes to find this. Don't really recall this but see that it has now been deleted for other reasons than G4 and good riddance, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Genome Medicine

I've never seen a journal before where the link to the editorial board doesn't include the name of the actual editor-in-chief (apparently Rabia Begum). Nor have I seen an editor-in-chief who was described as "chief editor". [1] Weird. Anyway, thanks for fixing the editor of the journal. I thought it was some weird situation where there were 6 editors-in-chief with one for each section but I guess not. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Some journals of large publishers have a professional EIC (Nature, Neuron, PLOS ONE, etc), whose only job is being the editor of a (or sometimes a few) journal. The BMC journals are like that, too. Apparently, this journal is being dealt with as the other journals in the BMC series, even though it doesn't have BMC in its title. Even weirder is Hindawi. Their journals have an editorial board, but not an editor. Articles that are submitted to them are assigned to a board member by the publisher's staff. In the case of Genome Medicine, I think the section editors are best regarded as the equivalent of an associate editor. It remains weird, though. Those professional editors are often relatively young people and would never even make the editorial board of more classical journals if they were ordinary faculty members. Anyway, thanks for creating this article! --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Request to understand why my page was deleted

Hi, Could you please help me understand why my page - Centre for Teacher Accreditation - was deleted? Request your response at the earliest. Thank you. Remuna Rai (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• The article was deleted after a deletion discussion (here). As for your use of "my page", please read WP:OWN. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 19:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your bossy and intimidating comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open

I created this, and someone put it in mainspace. An AFD was opened (improperly [2]), and spit at me for calmly presenting fact-based reasons why the (first draft) article I created shouldn't be deleted. I'm attacked and my arguments are straw-manned, misquoted or, at best, ignored (I guess I could consider that to be acceptance), though clearly based on policy and guidelines.

Last straw: [3]: Either my message was perfectly fine, or it came close to canvassing. It can't be both; youre is demanding doublethink, an intimation tactic. I had already asked that your personal attacks and condescension stop - with my first post to the page. Now I'm afraid to include the AfD in a list of open content discussions, that is notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access, Wikipedia:WikiProject Open, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/News and the like. I don't know if it's canvassing, but the many notifications that have been done are very strange, and at least close to canvassing, given that there are STILL no Open Access -related notifications at all; it appears all the ones I mention have NOT been done. I shouldn't be intimidated for making the notification the nom should have done ~5 days ago. Or told what to do ("you'll have to show that...", etc).

I pointed out that you (with [4]) were quoting me out of context, in what seems to me to be an a GREAT/obvious example of willful blindness, and you doesn't deny it. Specifically: I pointed out that the nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace*", and you chose NOT to do so repeatedly. Instead you insisted on advancing and defending your argument that I was wrong to say User:Nstru should be notified of this discussion - because (you really expect me or anyone to believe this solidly backs your argument???) you think moving a page definitely does not involve creation! Sorry, but refusing to to even see my statement that the nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace"*, as a reasonable statement is absurd, especially when it's used to attack me: [5] after following me around. It's just not believable. At least in terms of your contributions at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open, you seem to be here mainly to be bossy and intimidate, which is anathema to improving the encyclopedia.
*(that is, who moved it from draft space)

Please consider the following actions:

1. Cease the intimidation
2. Let's agree to restrict our discussion to responsive discussion of article content and relevant guidelines and policy.
3. urge folks to follow Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, specifically what I quoted from it.

I've opened a discussion [6] in order to help that happen.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)