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).

Altmetrics

We have been battling over the altmetrics page, on a seemingly minor point. We should discuss it here instead of perpetually undoing each other's edits. The change I am referring to is [1]. I am sure that altmetrics do NOT include citations. I included a Venn diagram that explains the difference [2]. Could you please explain why you think altmetrics ARE about citations?

This paper [3] has several definitions of altmetrics, none of which specifically include citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alperin (talk • contribs)

• Problem is, none of the sources specifically exclude citations. The text has been around for a while, so the burden of proof is on you. If you have a reliable source that unequivocally states that citations are not part of altmetrics, then your proposed change can be made. So not just yet. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The distinction is implicit. Look at this paper by Jason Priem (who coined the term altmetrics) [4]. He says "So-called “alternative metrics” or “altmetrics” [4] build on information from social media use, and could be employed side-by-side with citations". Altmetrics are social media and citations are not social media. The definitions in the paper I cite above assert similarly, from other authors. --Alperin (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Below are the other from the paper cited above, with inline comments from me on how they affirm my point of view:

• “Altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—aims to measure Web-driven scholarly interactions, such as how research is tweeted, blogged about, or bookmarked” (Howard, 2012).
  • Web-driven interactions preclude scholarly citations
• “Altmetrics are new measurements for the impact of scholarly content, based on how far and wide it travels through the social Web (like Twitter), social bookmarking (e.g. CiteULike) and collaboration tools (such as Mendeley) … What altmetrics hope to do is provide an alternative measure of impact, distinct from the Journal Impact Factor, which has been categorically misused and is unable to respond to the digital environment that scholarship takes place in today” (Galligan, 2012 August 29).
  • Again, social Web is not citations. And specifically refers how they provide an "ALTERNATIVE" (not addition/complement) to JIF (a citation measure)
• “Altmetrics specifically looks at the social Web and uses it to mine information for the analysis and detailed examination of scholarship” (Altmetrics, n.d.).
  • Again, social Web (i.e., not citations)
• “Altmetrics go beyond traditional citation-based indicators as well as raw usage factors (such as downloads or click-through rates) in that they focus on readership, diffusion and reuse indicators that can be tracked via blogs, social media, peer production systems, collaborative annotation tools (including social bookmarking and reference management services)” (Taraborelli, n.d.)
  • "beyond" traditional-based indicators. Not addition to.

--Alperin (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you respond to the comments above? And perhaps allow my edit if you agree? --189.138.95.114 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I have provided sufficient evidence to justify my edit. I've put it back in the main article. I think if you wish to undo it, we need to get 3rd party adjudication. --Alperin (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I have said before, you should discuss this on the article talk page, not here. I'm currently rather busy and have no time to look further into this. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alperin, as far as is current practice, citations *are* reported by #altmetrics platforms. E.g. altmetric.com counts citations from news outlets, and ImpactStory counts citations from Wikipedia. I see your point not at all backed up by the community. Just to be on the safe side, I have asked the editors of the special issue on altmetrics for clarification. But for now, *please* leave in the original text until your point is supported by an independent source. -- Egonw (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frans van der Lugt

The DYK project (nominate) 02:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

Just wanted to stop by and wish you good luck on your adminship i whole hearty support you . Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 05:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Me too!--Mishae (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, where can I vote?--Mishae (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mishae, at the top of my userpage is a box where a bot automatically lists any RFA (request for adminship) or RFB (request for bureaucratship) that is currently ongoing. In it is a link to my RFA, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Please see my comments here before asking for your old accounts to be blocked. Thrub (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the warning. I had already thought about the timing of the block, but hadn't thought of the crowd you're referring to... I'll propose a solution that hopefully avoids this problem and still will be acceptable to all involved. --Randykitty (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Jakin (magazine)

Hello. I don´t know what do you mean with "clarification needed". The quote by Koldo Mitxelena exactly is: "before, we knew that Basque was waiting to be cultivated and even so we often failed to fulfill this duty, because we were not capable of doing so with sufficient purism. Now we are seeing the people from Jakin struggling to express difficult topics in Basque" (in Mitxelenaren Idazlan Hautatuak, ed. Patxi Altuna. 1972). Can you help about that? Another question: is necessary a disambiguation article? (Jakin, Georgia; Alo Jakin; Jakin (magazine)). I don't know how I can make it, but in other languages Jakin is without (magazine). Thank you (Ketxus (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

It means that there should be another verifiable ref besides the quote, a book is verifiable but can carry an undue weight to the subject. Wikipedia doesn't allow it.--Mishae (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My problem actually was more that I did not understand what you were trying to say. I have re-worded it. Also, I have transformed Jakin from a redirect into a disambiguation page. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (Ketxus (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Law & Politics Deletions

Not interested in getting into a Wikipedia debate, but I want to suggest something with regards to the deletions you made on the Journal of Law & Politics page. One of the reasons many folks are uninterested in helping the Wikipedia project is because of the sort of cursory deletions of the sort you made here: generally finding some policy to defend the move, automatically reverting any further changes that get made, staking out a Wikipedia fiefdom. There is certainly information in what you deleted more than promotional material, including the history of the Journal, notable contributors, and other activities the Journal engages in, valuable to a range of individuals who might look to the page for information (I would point to several other academic legal journal pages with similar information, but won't because I don't think you should delete those either). I am not affiliated with the Journal, as you suggest, and find getting into a debate on here about your edits to be petty, so will leave it at this. Wikipedia's loss. Give it some thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:1A80:38F:39E9:DF3C:678A:8F67 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of facts. That means that you just cannot post promotional stuff, any content needs to be neutrally worded. This is explained all over this site as well as in the "welcome" templates that anybody who recently edited that particular journal article got on their talk pages. If you don't want to understand or accept this and prefer just to revert people's edits instead of "getting into a debate on here", and then make dramatic statements and leave, well then you really don't belong here and it is your loss, not WP's. Should you have second thoughts, I'm always willing to help newbies navigate WPs reefs and cliffs, and you're welcome to discuss any article issues on the article talk page or post questions here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies, I shouldn't have posted this. I should have just let it be. Good luck with your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:1A80:38F:9576:3AB4:69F0:9ABF (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Utrecht Journal of International and European Law

why do you keep deleting my edits on Utrecht Journal of International and European Law???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenagrace31 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please read some of the links in the "welcome" template on your talk page. Your edits were not conform our guidelines. 1/ You added a "reference" for Urios, which is just a link to their homepage. 2/ This should be an encyclopedic article. Taxt such as "You can visit the link" etc is not acceptable. 3/ "The most issue is Legal Aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility" is not only ungrammatical, but we do not post tables of contents, that's what the journal's own website is for. If others say something about content in the journal, that might be worth reporting, but not this.

Navigating WP is difficult in the beginning. If you have a connection with the subject that you are writing about, this is even more difficult. My advice to you is to get acquainted better with WP. Meanwhile, if you think there is (sourced) content that should be included in this article, the best way to do that is to post on the talk page and discuss it with others first. Hope this explains and helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tinman gene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pericardial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

National Security Law Journal

Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place, and for cleaning up the article for the National Security Law Journal. I admit that I am biased, but I do not think the page should be deleted. The journal has already produced two volumes, attracted notable speakers, and has been independently listed as a good resource on national security law by the ABA and three separate universities. I would be more concerned with entries like The Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, National Security Law Brief, George Mason Law Review, and George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. Comparatively, I think the NSLJ entry is supported by more outside sources. I completely agree that the page needs to be cleaned up so it does not appear promotional, though. User talk:Ayesnik — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I find time, I'll have a look at the journals that you mention. However, the argument you make (i.e., that the ""National Security Law Journal should be included because we include other journals, too) is here sometimes called: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, less reverently, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and does not carry much weight. As any editor, you're perfectly welcome to remove the PROD templkate, but I must tell you that in that case I'll take the article to AfD. Given your comments on my Commons talk page, you should also familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• You're right. I'll remove myself from the debate. Ayesnik (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Donald Jensen

Hi, I found this hepatitis C physician and would like to know what's his notability? So far he have 100 peer-reviewed articles and, as you can tell by a link, he is being mentioned in an interview by Chicago Tribune. Is he notable based on that?--Mishae (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• He's got some very highly cited articles on GScholar. In combination with that excellent source that you found, his notability is well established. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seta Dadoyan

Hey Rankyditty, if you have a moment, could you please have a quick look at this nomination and the article? Won't take but two minutes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

scisearch

There was no mention of the terms in the target article and the historical information which was present pointed at the Dialog representation. Thus, the meaning you attribute to these terms was never represented in the article in any verifiable fashion. The only valid reference I could find was to the now no longer updated Dialog dataset, and there was not sufficient information, in my opinion, to add that to the Dialog article. I feel justified in deleting them based on the information I had in hand, which pointed to the redirects not being valid based on info in the target article, the target article's history, or readily verifiable information I had at hand at the time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have added SciSearch to the SCI article (with a reference), so I hope that's enough to restore the redirects. Thanks. (I'm answering here to keep as much of the discussion together as possible). --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll bring the redirects back to life, but the article does need some significant overhauling. In the SciSearch piece, for instance, this is no longer updated and is a piece of Dialog as an augmented SCI content set; these considerations should be woven into the narrative. I'll see about coming back to the article later to do some composing of revised text. <Be bold, but not stubborn> is something I try to edit by. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! And you're right about the article needing work. In fact, that whole group of articles needs work: when I looked for a reference for SciSearch, I got the impression that TR doesn't use "Web of Knowledge" any more and just has merged it into Web of Science (the difference between the two always was a bit unclear to start with). These are important articles (in the sense that they are visited a lot by our readers), but I just never got around to doing much on them. Any help will be greatly appreciated! --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi Randykitty, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 08:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Acalamari! As promised during the RFA, I'll send you an email in a few minutes with my identity and the names of the previous accounts. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for years of support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the mop-cupboard! JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RFA :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Conga rats! --j⚛e decker^talk 14:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		A beer on me!
		Perhaps I should leave the honor of first wikilove-congratulations to an editor who knows you better, but I just have to say: 97% support, even with the confounding account issue - that has to put a smile on your face! Congrats and best of luck in your new role! Snow (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

My sincere thanks to the community for the trust placed in me. I will do my very best to prove myself worthy of it! --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations you naughty feline! -- Atama頭 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Miauw! Drmies (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelling/Goldberg Productions

It appears to me that your speedy deletion of Spelling/Goldberg Productions was premature. There was plenty of context and criteria A1 was not appropriate. As the criteria description states: "Context is different from content". Please restore the article, and leave it up to contributors to expand the article if there is not enough content.--Notwillywanka (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have re-reviewed the article and the content is just a single (rather incoherent) sentence. I see no reason why undeletion would serve any useful purpose. Of course, you are free to work on an article on this company, if you have reliable sources that show notability. I would discourage you of creating "articles" that consist just of a single line without sources, as they are bound to be deleted rapidly. If you need more time to work on an article quietly, you can start one in your userspace and once it is ready for "prime time" move it to the article space. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, it should have simply been made into a redirect to Spelling-Goldberg Productions. The user requesting it Sour camdy, seems to be a new editor who just wants to "do away with" (my words and opinion) anything Charlie's Angels. I had no way of seeing what was in the article, as it had been deleted, wanted to make sure it wasn't a different company or production from the correct one. Cheers.--Notwillywanka (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wbct

You added the template, but missed the actual block(I tookk care of it), have you considered adding easyblock? It does the block and adds the template for you, it's pretty slick.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, that's strange! I used Twinkle. I'll have a look at easyblock. Thanks for the heads-up and for fixing this. I'll have to check what Twinkle actually does here, I thought it took care of the blocking, too (as it does with deleting), but perhaps it only does the templating and the block has to be done manually. Still discovering how all those buttons work... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

forbes and WP:NOTNEWS

hi i wanted your help since you are an administrator. on the Vladimir Putin one user disrputed the article by removing the forbes articles about the worlds most powerfull person, that list is used on many world leaders articles so there is no reason the putin article should not mention it, secondly the same user also added this: "In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of international consensus on the illegality of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea" which is news and does not belong in the intro per [[]]. Am asking you to help me remove all of that unconstructive editing because am unable to do it myself 115.187.78.204 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)