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 Locutus243 (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 17 September 2013. 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).


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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzi (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minor matter but

...FYI the infobox journal template page suggests providing a link at the openaccess parameter, not the redundant "yes" with a link below the journal's home page....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is meant are wikilinks, to appropriate articles. If a journal is purely OA, then no link is needed (because the line is already automatically wikilinked to the article on OA). Other possibilities are Delayed or Hybrid. The doc is a bit confusing, I agree. I'll ask for a clarification on its talkpage (it is currently edit protected). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. thanks--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

I replied to your queries and comments on my talk page in both sections: JCR journal rankings and Chemical physics. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Journal Article

Hi Randykitty, I am brand new to editing on Wikipedia. I created a small article for Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains today and I was hoping you could take a look at it when you have a spare moment. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--Okie123 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfredo Morabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MD (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) 11:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SCOPUS

Which are the respective sections stating that displaying previous versions of a(n) company/organisation logo is:

  • unencyclopedic ?
  • against fair use ?

Hippo99 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that it is unencyclopedic seems pretty self-evident to me. There is no (sourced) discussion of the logo, so just including an older version is pretty trivial. I mean, it just looks a little bit different, what's the importance? More importantly, displaying multiple versions of a logo go against WP:NFCCP (especially point 3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"), see also WP:NFC. If you disagree, you can ask more specialized editors about this at WP:NFR, but I think NFCCP is quite clear in this case. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got some interesting replies here. However, I could not find an explanation of the meaning of the sectioned "O" ( http://www.archives-pmr.org/webfiles/images/scopus_logo.gif ) of the previous scOpus logo. Would be interesting though. I will not insist, but I personally find inclusion of the evolution of a logo very interesting and also "encyclopedic". Hippo99 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

And this time it's because I noticed one of your editing interests is neuroscience and neuroscientists. I created a page for one such person a few weeks ago, namely Martha Herbert, and I was hoping that if I posted here I could get some feedback on it, since that worked with JTEH. Jinkinson (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for getting this entry in tip-top shape. Petercannon usf (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory open access publishing

Wow, just... wow. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes you go "wow"? Not the fact that people are trying to make a fast buck from scientific publishing, I hope. People try to make fast money anywhere they can get away with it, so once online publishing made it easy enough and OA provided a convenient business model, it was just a matter of time before this kind of publisher would come along. (Although I have to admit that I didn't see this coming either... With hindsight it seems perfectly unavoidable, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability flag on JASO page

Hello I see you've flagged the JASO stub I created as being of dubious notability. I've now had a look a pages for other anthropology journals and many are also sparse. So I'm puzzled why JASO's notablity is questioned while other journals are not. Ive expanded the entry a little bit to address this (specifically adding mention of the fulltext archive). Best wishes DZ - and thanks for all your work regardless of my querying this specific…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, the criteria for notability for academic journals can be found here. Having archives online is not really one of the criteria, I fear. I realize that there are other articles that may be as badly sourced as this one. We call that argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or more disparagingly: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The solution is to clean up those articles, not to lower our standards, but there are only so many hours in a day and only a limited number of people interested in articles on academic journals... I did not outright propose your rticle for deletion, because given the history of the journal, I suspect that there may be sources somewhere out there that establish its notability. BTW, according to our article, being listed in AIO implies being listed in A+. Don't let yourself be discouraged by the notability tag. It's just an alert to other editors that wee need some good sources here. Also, new article creation is one of the harder things here. My advice would be that you should first try to improve existing articles and get a feel for how things work here. You'll find that it's not too complicated and that people are generally very helpful here. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. That's fair comment and I did wonder about the comparators. I've had a look at the notability criteria and am confident I can satisfy them. I'll doing some digging to collate sources.… best wishes DZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking into this a bit more I think indexing by AIO and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences plus paper copies in major research libraries satisfies Criterion1

Do I need to put in link to WorldCat to demonstrate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indexing by the IBSS pushes it just over the limit for me, so I have removed the tag. The argument that a journal is in major libraries is not uncontroversial and would require hundreds of hits. It is sometimes used as an argument in deletion discussions, but almost never included in articles. In addition, WorldCat is not very reliable as a source, as it is frequently incorrect or outdated, so I would advice against using it. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your help with this. I'm glad I've persuaded you to remove the tag! best wishes dz Dz3 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Ventricle Hypothesis

Can you explain the issue please - I understand you don't like Medical Hypothesis but there are THREE other citations to the same theory - one of which is J Psychopharm. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverMonkey (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, let's see: the J. Psychopharm. paper is written by the same person (Hendrie) who published the hypothesis in Med. Hypotheses. It's behind a paywal, but the abstract does not even mention a "third ventricle hypothesis", so it will be mentioned in-passing at best. In addition, several critical responses to this article were also published in J. Psychopharm. and not mentioning those is not the way to make a balanced article. You also give references to two other papers, not by Hendrie. Neither mentions a "third ventricle hypothesis" (logical, because they were published before that hypothesis was published), they don't mention any "evolutionary adaptation" either. Including the latter two references as seemingly to support this hypothesis is pure synthesis. There is also another article of Hendrie, in the European Psychiatric Review. This journal seems to have gone belly up after barely 4 volumes, not instilling much confidence in their review process either. Whatever the case may be, that article does not even mention the words "three" or "ventricle". So in all, it looks like the whole hypothesis is based on a single article in Med. Hypotheses, not really a reliable source. --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Biomedical Chromatography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • techniques in the biological and medical sciences. The [[editor-in-chief]] is Michael Bartlett ([[University of Georgia]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding subtitles

I see you reverted my edit. I've been scrambling around to find what the guidelines are for this. There are currently lots of journals with bolded subtitles, and lots without. I can't find anything at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section or Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide - or Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, for that matter, which should provide an analogous situation. So my question is - why did you revert? Is it just personal preference? StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at GA and FA articles - but there don't seem to be any journals there. But I found The Slave Community, which is a clear example of a bolded subtitle in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Street Gang is another, by the way. StAnselm (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been systematically removing bolding of subtitles, based on MOS:BOLDTITLE. The way I read those instructions, we should bold the article title in the first sentence and avoid excessive bolding. Significant alternative names should be bolded, too, but nothing is said about bolding subtitles. So I've followed the rule that if an article title is "Journal of Foo", then the first sentence should say something like "The Journal of Foo, An International Multidisciplinary Journal". Personally, although I won't remove them if they're already there, I never add subtitles, as they rarely add anything (I can't think of a single case), and frequently are mildly promotional (like the example I gave before). In my experience, even regular readers of a journal (or even their editors!) will barely know there's a subtitle. Publishers often more or less ignore subtitles, too, and only use them on a journal's cover. The standard (ISO4) abbreviations of journal names never include subtitles. Even journals that don't use abbreviations but full journal names in lists of references, will only use the title, not the subtitle. What makes you think we should do it differently? --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&oldid=573387503"