User talk:Randykitty

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).

Merry Christmas!

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your non-admin closure of Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians

Hello! I would request that you revert your closure and allow an administrator to do so instead per the non-admin closure essay points. It's clear there's contention about how those sources meet the notability guidelines. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I really don't see how this was contentious. There is an obvious consensus with only the nom (you) arguing for deletion and everybody else for keeping the article. The sources seem appropriate to me and the keep arguments are solidly policy-based. This does not seem to be one of the cases listed in WP:BADNAC either, so I stand to my close. You are of course welcome to take this to WP:Deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the argument that there were sources that met the guideline was not actually addressed, but I won't belabor the point here, I'll take it to DRV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace

Since you responded to me, then the AfD closed, I guess I have to answer you here. I actually went to the admin who had relisted it twice and asked him to do something. [1] At that point, it was 2 delete and 2 keep. Your comment, however, makes it look like I made no effort and just sat there thinking up a conspiracy theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, you said something like "why is this not closed just to get more delete votes" (I'm paraphrasing, I'm a bit too lazy right now to look up the exact words :-) which seemed to imply to me that you were thinking that the AfD was not being closed on purpose. With about a thousand admins that can perform such a closure, that's a bit of a stretch. And Mark Arsten may have been busy or not feeling like closing this one for whatever other reason, so it's most of the times more effective to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

World Intellectual Property Review

Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. I suppose my edit summary "clearly notable in my opinion" was quite vague. My apologies! I think the article should be kept at least in view of WP:MANYLINKS and WP:HASPOT. --Edcolins (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I'll see whether I can find any sources. If I don't find any, I might take it to AfD, so keep it watchlisted for now. --Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have found one external source, which seems to be independent from the subject... The circulation is not negligible: about 5,200 copies per issue. --Edcolins (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... why is the abbreviation "not needed"[2]? It is prominently shown on their web site and here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it's an acronym that is not used in the rest of the article (given its size, that's hardly necessary either). So I guess that only illiterates would need someone to tell them what the acronym is and somehow I don't think many illiterates read WP... :-)) Seriously, somewhere in WP:MOS or related style guidelines it is said only to introduce acronyms if they are used in the article. If you like, I can try to locate it. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It seems that, per MOS:BOLDSYN, the abbreviation should be indicated in the lead if it is a common abbreviation. The abbreviation WIPR is common for "World Intellectual Property Review" and should therefore remain IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I read BOLDSYN (which deals with bolding, not content) it means that if an abbreviation is mentioned in the lead and if it is common, then it should be in bold. If there were such an abbreviation in this case (something like "WInProRev"), that could be added. WIPR is just a simple acronym, not used in the rest of the article. No need to put it there and even less to bold it. However, "no need" doesn't mean "shouldn't", so if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it back. --Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Spam?

Are you familiar with this outfit? They're the most recent journal spammers in my inbox. For tonight, gelukkig nieuwjaar! I'm about to get my oliebollenbeslag going. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, they're part of the Centre for Promoting Ideas and are on Beall's list of predatory OA publishers. They really put in an effort to look respectable: American International Journal, no less :-DD You wonder who is silly enough to agree being an editor or ed board member for an outfit like this... No oliebollen for me, but huge amounts of Middle-Eastern food with some Southern French additions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks--that's interesting. I remember reading about the Cornell thing a while ago. I'm going to use your talk page as a clearinghouse if you don't mind, haha. Glad to hear you had a nice oudejaarsavond--my oliebollen were not a success: the recipe on About.com is crap. I think it's twice the right amount of yeast they're suggesting. Anyway, the Americans here didn't complain, but then, everything that's fried is good. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Randykitty!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Randykitty: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks

for the help on the Tausch article from User John de Norrona. Wikipedia is good, but a complicated thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Norrona (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejuvenation Research

Could you please explain why my edit on this article was "unnecessary". The quote on its own is clearly negative, the article is not. A quote should be representative of the tone of the article. Feyre (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)