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 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).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Your opinion please

Do you consider this article entitled Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade to be worthy of inclusion (also please check out its website)? For an idea of what Wikipedia might consider notable in this area please see the over 100 Law reviews and law journals on the Master Journal List.
Also, I prodded this one Philotheos: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, which apparently has multiple issues and I have been unable to find a web page for it. The web page has nothing to do with notability, but it would give me more information about this journal. Right now the content is WP:OR without citations. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first journal, I don't see any proof of notability in the article. However, it's been around a long time and seems to be one of the more important law journals in Serbia (note I say "seems", I'm not sure about this), so there may be local, Serbian sources that cover the journal. I don't read Serbian, so I've never really searched for sources, either. This is the reason I never PRODded this myself, but I also don't see any reason to oppose a possible PROD, either. The second one has a much shorter history and the probability of there being secondary sources in Serbian is much smaller, so I agree completely with your PROD there. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philobiblon

Thanks for Your accuracy regarding the articla about Philobiblon jouranal!

BUT the journal it's RECENTLY INDEXED IN Scopus See this prin Screen Capture / link [[1]] The journal hat RECENTLY indcuded in Scopus, it can therefore not yet included in the list that you have consultted. Best regards, Ikiloni (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)IkiloniIkiloni (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We waited until they Scopus wll update ther public list. The list consulted by You it's until April 2013 ... Either Philobiblon is indexed there from June ... The print screen capture indicated by me... it's actual, and can verified with loging... in Scopus. Thanks Ikiloni

That is the correct way of doing it. A screenshot or a link to a search result are not sufficient sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK and THANKS for Your help! I write to Ebsco for request a public link for Ebsco Discovery Service ... in order the presence of our journal there to be lookbar and in "outside" Ikiloni —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Randykitty: Unconditionally considering the accuracy and reliability of Your work, - REFERING to the article on Philobiblon - I received the following messages:

A.)The Ebsco Discovery Service Manager Richard Sawyer (RSawyer@ebscohost.com) wrote to me: "Hello... There is no such list. The Majority of titles with license That Would Also be searchable through EBSCO EDS(Ebsco Discovery Service) WHERE if the library has the database is being used That technology. Would there not be a specific list That Could Be referenced. Kind regards, ... " As such, the entire Wiki Team must take a DECISION on any referece to Ebsco Discovery Service from any academic journal. That will certainly be true for Philobiblon.

B.) Refering to the Scopus indexing of the journal i received the folowing message to Scopous BD Source Collection Management (bd-scm@elsevier.com): "Philobiblon-ISSN 1224-7448, online ISSN 2247-8442 - Dear ..., Thank you for email. I assume your question regarding Philobiblon That not available in the source list. This list is updated only four times per year and the next update is in late October. Since your journal was indexed after the last update it is not listed. to Increase the visibility That the accepted title is now added to Scopus, We Encourage you to inform the users of your home page title on your journal. I have attached the logo That You Could use. That I hope this answers your question. Regards..." We therefore expect the new Scopus Coverage List,but he really wants to make sure that I have not false information in this article Wiki ...Ikiloni —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can only display information that can be verified in reliable, independent sources. Emails unfortunately don't fall into that category. We'll have to wait until Scopus updates it's journal list. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

curious

why'd you remove your PROD on Boockvar? I wouldn't have removed it, just fyi. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was careless: the PROD displayed showed that there had been a previous AfD, which I should have checked in the edit history. It was closed "keep", concluding that Boockvar didn't meet WP:PROF, but that the NYT sources were enough to pass WP:GNG. I think the article is rather borderline, but doubt that another AfD would be successful. Anyway, you did a great cleanup job on it! --Randykitty (talk) 8:41 am, Today (UTC+2)
I undersand nothing from hier!Ikiloni (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Randykitty. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Journal Article

Hey Randykitty, I just wanted to inform you that I have created a new article on an academic journal, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, and wanted to get some feedback and/or help on said article from someone who edits a lot of articles about this topic. Jinkinson (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pansy Magazine

I received email that the article I added to Wikipedia on The Pansy Magazine was deleated because of copyright infringement. I would like to edit the article if possible and run it by you and see if it would pass. I do own the web site franklinbookstore.com and have several of The Pansy Magazines in inventory and thought I would share some of the info therein. I could change the text. The link to the image was one off Wiki commons.