Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wichitalineman (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 21 July 2013 (→‎response to your deletions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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).


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgdon's secret garden (talk • contribs) 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. A second discusion involving you is currently underway at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5thfloorlattimore (talk • contribs) 1 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you.

Academic journal banners

Hello. According to the Stub templates and categories section of the Writing Guide (WP:JWG): "... if the article contains an infobox and indexing information, it should be rated "Start class" on its talk page... . So, I am advising that academic journal articles can normally be placed in the start category. Let me know if you agree. So, for example, this edit should probably changed to class=start. I will be glad to do it, I just wanted to use this as an example. Regards. And, by the way, enjoy your coffee! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I were to be stranded on an uninhabited island, I guess coffee would be the thing I missed most... :-) I recently changed my rating behavior following this discussion. But perhaps we should have a larger discussion about it in WP Journals, because you're right, the JWG (and also the examples in the rating guide, I now realize, say differently. --Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the coffee. I suppose a larger discussion at WP Journals would be helpful. I see what happened here [1], [2], [3]. I am thinking that articles that are rated Stub will not move into "Start class" because there isn't much more information available for the large majority of academic journal articles. I suppose a larger discussion will lend credence to whatever method we agree upon as a group. We can then link to the discussion as back up when needed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about articles not moving forward if we follow this "DYK rule". That is, I think, a strong argument to do things slightly different at WP Journals. I don't really care too much and am willing to be convinced either way, but we should have consistency over the project. Another argument I once saw (but unfortunately don't remember where) is that an article is not a stub any more if it is beyond the point where it could be speedily deleted (journal articles can only be CSDed for spam or copyvio, but just assume it is about a person). For journals, that means if there's a claim to notability supported by some independent source (such as inclusion in a selective major database), it would pass this bar. We've been actually a bit more conservative than that, instead insisting also on the presence of an infobox. Anyway, perhaps you can start this discussion at the project talk page, perhaps copying this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the way I am reading the chart on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment page is -- all academic journal articles with the complete information that is usually contained in the articles, appears to deserve a "B" rating. For example, when we write:
Journal such and such, is a (monthly) peer reviewed (scientific journal) published by (Steve & Randy Scholarly Works). The editor in chief is Joe Shmoe (High Fallutin' University.) The journal covers (editing) (discussion) and all other topics related to Wikipedia. And so on, whatever content is available. Combine this with an infobox and impact factor and maybe include an "Abstracting and indexing" section -- and according to that criteria, we probably rate a "B" -- because the information is complete.
Of course, some journals will have more available. For example, some have an accessible history. But still, even without a history section, if the information is complete, then the articles probably rates a "B". Well, what do you think? Pretty radical, huh? (By the way, thanks for your interest). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. If we take that literally, WP Journals will be the project with the most highly-classed articles of all! :-) Having said that, I think there is also merit to Piotrus' "DYK standard". Perhaps it's best to start a discussion at WP Journals (and invite Piotrus there). Before making radical changes, we'd better get a consensus on this... --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with initiating a discussion at WP:JOURNALS, and no problem with inviting DYK members to the discussion. However, DYK is a Wikipedia project with its own criteria pertaining to DYK submissions. They have standards that make DYK work. However, this does not mean that editing on Wikipedia follows from DYK requirements. There are already policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and WP Journals already has its own set of criteria at WP:JWG. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say, that I think DYK rules do not apply to WP Journals articles, simply because these are not DYK submissions. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I understood that you meant Piotrus. I was just generalizing -- so the misunderstanding is my fault. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ

Let's work together: See my editing comment. If you don't agree, let's discuss it on the Talk page. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I noticed you added {{notability}} to Vipul Periwal. Vipul Periwal proved the divergence of string peturbation theory. How is that not notable? Dimension10 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, after looking at this article, I can see that Mr. Periwal probably does not meet notability guidelines per WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I am guessing that more sources need to be provided to establish that Mr. Periwal meets the notability criteria on Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steve is right and that is why I tagged the article. After checking Google Scholar, it looks like Periwal may be notable, but the article doesn't show that. Note that "notability" has nothing to do with "merit", so whatever he discovered or not, is almost immaterial. Please have a look at WP:PROF, WP:NBio, and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randy, I replied in our above discussion pertaining to article ratings. Sorry it took me two or three days. I did not realize that much time had passed. I actually thought it was yesterday. I must be either busy or in the twilight zone. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a wonderful series, I'm not sure whether (like me) you're old enough to remember the original series, but probably you've seen re-runs. Anyway, there's no deadline here, so don't worry about a few days of delay. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I initiated a discussion at WP Journals here. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China History Forum Han Lin Journal

"CHF Han Lin Journal (HLJ) is China History Forum's online academic journal and publication for Chinese History and Culture."(How to reference to CHF Han Lin Journal?) Beiyang Army is one (maybe the only) article to cite it.(Beiyang army. —Let me know if you can access this inline URL, as registration may be required). I had joined the original CHF, after a search engine directed me there from a term relating to Lao folklore. The original site was founded as a scholarly forum by a US Sinologist, who died of a massive heart attack at about the same time as his site crashed due to what was — in effect — a denial-of-service attack. CHF was reestablished under new management in 2008 2007, and I just renewed my membership today. Every time I've encountered what I think to be a valuable resource on the history of Thailand and her neighbors, I've run afoul of Wikipedia's conventions on writing articles about such sources, and, for the most part, have been reduced to inserting piecemeal citations into into 100s of articles. I've my own library of templates for doing that, but it can take me hours to develop one. I've never received a response to request for help, or know of an easy way to correct my templates used in numerous articles (e.g., Talk:Asian_Correspondent.) You're the most knowledgeable editor in this regard that I have (painfully) encountered to date. Of course, the easy way out is to just forget about it, the way I did with Twentieth century impressions of Siam. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I'm not sure what your question us. In any case, if a source is reliable, then you can cite it regardless of whether it has an article here or not. This goes for the vast majority of academic books, even though they are seldomly notable themselves. It rarely is worth while to develop a specific citation template for a specific source, we generally only do that for the most frequently used ones. What I personally do most of the time is find an article's doi (I think bibcode works too) and enter it into {{cite journal |doi=xxxxx}}, and then use Citationbot to complete the reference. Hope this helps a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citation bot may help when I have a doi, but it wouldn't help at Beiyang Army#Sources, which has a dead link, a China History Forum link that requires registration, and a link to a photograph that more likely belongs to the Ma clique. Nor does it help me with Talk:Asian_Correspondent.—Pawyilee (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior

I understand why you took away the link to Amazon. My question for you is, how then do I quote the material? It wasn't quoted to give Amazon a free link. Than you for taking a look at the article.Jacqke (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order for this to meet WP:NBOOKS, there should be multiple (reliable) reviews and it should be possible to take the info from those. Amazon is rarely ann acceptable source for anything, because it is usually promotional and never independent. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seach string bombs at Google, but gets great results from the Dogpile

    "The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior" +review

—Pawyilee (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Good man! Dankjewel, I.N. Cognito. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Library Quarterly

You undid a reference I added to Library Quarterly noting the source did not mention the journal..here is the source: "The database is also expanding into modern small and fine presses. The first volume of James Lamar Weygand's three volumes of modern printers' devices has been incorporated. The University of Chicago has given permission to add the devices that appear on the cover of their publication Library Quarterly. These can be accessed as a unit by typing "LQ" in the keyword section of the Search page." I think this will help people as it will provide a way to search the covers of LQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs)

Hey, what are you doing?!

My edits on Gamestar are in depth as I can go with what limited resources I have! And you're decimating it to nothing! - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trivia? This is basically all the information on this magazine that wasn't wiped out over 18+ years. Shall we erase half of the dictionary while we're at it?

And as for the gallery, I've checked thoroughly, and multiple images can be covered under the legal options available. And you haven't even given enough time for it to be tidied up. It's existed for less than 3 hours! Give it a damn chance! - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw you met me half way with labels for clean ups and multiple views. Thank you. That's pretty much all I was ever after. And edit war? Perhaps skirmish. I'm the last one wanting to fire an edit gun. Gets messy really quick.

Again, thank you for leaving it for tidying up and whatnot. - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'm fine with you leaving in the sections that I think should be removed, for the moment, until you can get sources. I would appreciate, however, if you could restore the other edits that I made to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia.. and writing this article about automotive retail awards in India. This article was created by someone in the past and was deleted. Now I am re-writing it with the references I got from CNBC TV 18 and some of the press communications of the award winners. I want to know whether this is enough for not marking this page for AFD? I am searching online for more relevant articles related to these awards. I am also uploading the picture gallery related to awards. Varuna27 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do here. Re-creating an article that previously was deleted at AfD is even tougher. I am not an admin and cannot see the previous (deleted) version to see whether what you are doing is very different. However, the sourcing that you have in the article is absolutely not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The best thing to do would be to move the article to your user space and work on it there. That way, you will not be interrupted, as editors get quite some leeway to work in their userspace. Once your done, you could then ask an admin to review it ans move it back into main space if it is deemed acceptable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This article is substantially different from the one that was previously deleted, so G4 doesn't apply in this case. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

response to your deletions

i am not going to get into a war with you. if you want to keep the inaccurate information on the page, you win. the items you deleted (and the deletion I made) were not sourced, but they were placed in response to items on that page that themselves are not sourced and that I believe are clearly and demonstrably wrong. Your comments about NIH are directly to this point and do not seem to reflect reading what I wrote: NIH funds medical research (and is already covered by an open access agreement); most faculty in the humanities and social sciences, as I wrote and you deleted, receive little or no direct research funding at all. As this was the point of the sentences you removed, the page now continues to read as if all professors work in the sciences and medical reserach, and despite having no direct references to support my claim that are not primary research, it is clearly, factually untrue.

My problem is that this page is already full of highly argumentative unsourced claims. My preference would be not for me to put in rejoinders but for unsourced allegations to be removed--for example, the sentence I removed is unsourced and, having researched this question extensively, completely untrue.

I am simply a professor with no commercial interest in publishing other than my own works, but in the humanities, and much of what is written on this page simply does not describe anything like the financial or contractual or funding arrangements of faculty in the fields I know about. You can continue to revert the page, and it can continue to put forth an argumentative position based in reading one side of a very political debate. You removed my claim that Creative Writers and Studio Art professors' work is considered "research." I have only *Primary* source material to back this up, but I guarantee to you that it's true.

Let's just go to Harvard. Here again I have only *primary* documents, Harvard's 2010 budget (http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/annualfinancial/pdfs/2010fullreport.pdf). From page 5: 8% of Harvard's operating budget comes from grants of any sort (both governmental and private foundations). Now look at page 4: for the entire Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which includes many sciences as well as non-scientific fields, 13% total comes from *any* sponsored grants. This backs up exactly one of the claims you deleted (but as I understand Wikipedia, this is primary source material). From my internal knowledge of universities, the amount of government-sponsored research in English, Philosophy, and other humanities is near 0. The number of world-renowned published authors who earn significant income from their publications is large. If you have *facts* to dispute these facts I am interested to see them. But as it stands the Open Access page represents as fact many claims that are anything but.

The sentence you deleted: "However, this argument has no relevance to academic publishing, because scientific journals do not pay royalties to article authors and researchers are funded by their institutions and funders"--is itself unscourced. If you have evidence that "academic publishing" includes only "scientific journals," please provide it. As a working professor, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that "academic publishing" encompasses many more things than "scientific journals," yet now the page passes judgment on a matter of opinion and fact that is entirely incorrect. The Open Access argument works fairly well for scientific journals, but it works much less well for areas outside of the sciences and for publications other than journals, and this page gives an opinionated, often unsourced, and often incorrect view of this topic. Wichitalineman (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&oldid=565214677"