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This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guyonthesubway (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 10 June 2014 (→‎Out of date citation). 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, 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).

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE THAT YOU CREATED OR WORKED ON: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.


Silent Models NY Page Deletion

Hello Randykitty. I am a representative at Silent Models NY and created a separate page today for our company which was deleted. We were previously a part of the partner company Silent Models Paris' Wikipedia page but would like to have our own page detailing the New York agency since the partnership has been ended. I understand that the page was supposedly classified as spam/ advertising and did not meet nobility guidelines but I would love to see how we can get the page back up and what changes/ additions/ references we can add to the page to prevent it from being classified as spam. Thank you so much for your help! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellaatee (talk • contribs)

Your page was deleted not only because it was spam but also because since you are the company representative you violate WP:COI policy. Plus, it wasn't deleted, it was merged into Silent Models. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a site where you can put any company you want, some small businesses are not notable here. As far as branches go, not all branches need separate articles, see for example Microsoft and Microsoft, Russia. Microsoft, Russia doesn't have separate article because the office was opened in 2006, same thing goes with Electronic Arts, Russia, an office which was opened in 2007. However, sometimes Wikipedia doesn't even mention it, perhaps, its not an important subdivisions? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishae (talk • contribs)

Assistance Required

I need your arbitration of a persistent and recurrent problem: arbitrary unilateral deletions of material and useful references by a user and/or editor on the History of psychosurgery. He also does not explain himself in the Talk page, does not assume good faith ("You are promoting...", and does not bother to try to reach consensus on anything. Once again, I bother you on a Sunday, but is the only time I had to spare. It is all explained on the Talk page there. Thanks for this as well as your useful deletions of fluff in the AANS and CNS entries. You got there before I did!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Problems of Oriental Philosophy (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (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, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Brogdon

"Unambiguous advertising or promotion"

idk because your action seems to make it impossible to view any version of the article. Is there a way to view what was in place or does you getting a wild hair about it = all records destroyed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.46.177 (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not "destroyed", sysops can still see it. I just checked, and it basically was just a detailed CV, with no encyclopedic content whatsoever. It also looked like it might have been copied from somewhere and be a copyright violoation (and I see at the request for undeletion that you posted that Tokyogirl79 indeed found the source of it). If the person is notable, there is no problem with creating a new article that is not a copyvio and follows our normal standards. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember this edit?

Hello Randykitty. Do you remember you removed (16 February 2014) a reference to Miguel Faria’s article in the external links section of Psychosurgery, with a comment about a spamlink to a non-notable journal (although I think you have since changed your mind about the journal)? Did you, I wonder, at the time check the IP address from which it came Special:Contributions/166.205.68.22? There are only a few edits from this address, and several of them are vandalism. I know an IP address can be shared, but it is interesting that the first edits (promptly removed from the article) are on a subject that is one of Miguel Faria’s interests. If you look at the edits of LeBassRobespierre across several articles (Phineas Gage, Deep brain stimulation, Electrical brain stimulation, Psychosurgery, History of psychosurgery) you will see that they are just feeding in bits of Miguel Faria’s article, including the references (according to the manual of style you are only supposed to cite sources that you have read, and not just list references from an article, and you are not supposed to just copy bits of text from articles). I don’t think they have made a single edit of these articles which has used another source. I think that this amounts to an attempt to promote someone or something in Wikipedia rather than a genuine attempt to improve articles. Staug73 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a serious accusation. If you think that is the case, then WP:ANI is the place to go. The journal has turned out to be notable, albeit borderline. However, notability is not identical to reliability, of course. Much depends on whether you accept Faria's article as a valid source for WP. If it is, then there is nothing wrong with adding it to the articles that you list. There is a reliable sources noticeboard somewhere (can't remember exactly where at this moment) and you could ask the question at the experts there. Apart from that, it would be good if some other editors could have a look at this. It's not really my subject, so I have posted a note at the Neuroscience Wikiproject. With some luck, somebody there will take a look and perhaps suggest a way out. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no secret of those articles; they are posted in my user page as Creation or Edits, no Sherlock Holmes necessary to find that. Yes I feel Faria's work brings the subject up to date in a variety of ways. I don't know about any vandalism (another false accusation). I don't know about that IP address. It is certainly not mine! As to the other accusations, they are false; "copy" imply plagiarism and that certainly is also false, not even in the examples which Staug73 cited previously. The primary authors are cited and there is no string of words. I welcome the investigation. In the meantime, Randykitty, can you place a hold on Staug73 repeated deletions, and I will also cease editing in those pages until the matter is settled. Thanks. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Randykitty, I have never edited the deep brain stimulation, electrical brain stimulation or (I think) Phineas Gage articles. I was simply citing them as examples of the editing of LeBassRobespierre, inserting sentences and/or references from Miguel Faria's article into Wiki articles. The insertion of a reference into the Phineas Gage article was removed, I think the edits to the other two articles are still there. Staug73 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here we go again! From one accusation to another... to calumniate a fellow Wikipedian (so much for assuming good faith) and also the author (Faria) he is citing, just to keep me from editing two entries Staug73 thinks are his alone. He forgot the rules of wikipedia.

In those articles (all of which are related to psychosurgery and neuroscience), which are presently my areas of interest, I added several references in addition to Faria's. Once again, Staug73 left information out to malign. I added several other references to both entries, which he neglected to mention: 1) Delgado, Jose (1986). Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper and Row and again: 2) Robison, RA; Taghva A; Liu CY; Apuzzo ML (2012). "Surgery of the mind, mood and conscious state: an idea in evolution". World Neurosurg 77: 662–686 3) Penfield, Wilder (1974). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. New York: Atheneum. 4) Mark, Vernon (1970). Violence and the Brain. New York: Harper and Row.

I added essential information (that was actually requested) from the above articles to the two related and deficient entries: Deep brain stimulation and Electrical brain stimulation, both of which had TAGS asking for additional citations and improvements:

Deep brain stimulation:" This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can."

Electrical brain stimulation (which only had a single reference!):"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."

So improvements were asked for and were needed, and to do so I added information with those specific references because they needed inclusion, just as Faria's — all of them that I consider important.

In the Phineas Gage article, Staug73 is even lying. The reference I added was not Faria's:

"Neurologic function seven years after crowbar impalement of the brain" in Surgical Neurology by Ordia (1989) pages152-155. Supposedly it was removed because "mentioning Gage only tangentially, and certainly not an appropriate cite for "no longer Gage" (citied in article body anyway).

There has never been ANY vandalism by me there or anywhere else. It is not my style, as Randykitty himself should be able to testify! Staug73's professional vendetta with Faria has now extended to me because I edited the entries on Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery, that he has expropriated and keeps under lock and key!

Finally, I repeat, I have no connection whatsoever to Special:Contributions/166.205.68.22, whoever he is or to any vandalism. I'm sure no connections of that IP address will be associated with me, and if there is, it would be a tenuous coincidence. My contributions to Wikipedia have been sterling and proud of them.So much so I listed them in my User page. What this vendetta is, I don't know, except Staug73 is adamant I can not edit his History of psychosurgery or Psychosurgery, no matter what references I add, and certainly not Faria or Surgical Neurology International, as sources with whom he also seems to have professional vendettas. I'm sorry Randykitty if we are crowding your page, but this is where Staug73 he is now posting.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • People, this is not the place for this discussion. You should look for mediation, a third opinion, or open a request for comment on the article talk page. I have not the time nor the inclination to delve through Faria's article and compare it with the articles he cite to determine whether he committed plagiarism. that is, by the way, a very serious allegation and should not be thrown around in public like this without very solid proof. End of discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation

Randykitty, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)

Hello. I've had a look at merging this into Kennedy's Confection magazine but the magazine seems to be completely non-notable itself: it's only being mentioned in the same crappy sources that discuss the taster. What do you think the best way to proceed is? Send the magazine to AFD? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear! One would expect that sources should be around for a magazine that is over 100 years old... All I found for now is http://kennedysevents.com/. Not an independent source, either, but if the meeting is as large as the photos suggest, again, I would expect some sources to be available. But if no sources can be found, I'm not really sure what to do. Perhaps the best would to perform the merge and then take the merged article to AFD again... This is not a situation I recall ever to have encountered, do you perhaps know of a precedent and how that was handled? --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I can't recall a situation like this happening before. There are some very very brief mentions of "Kennedy's Confection" in google books but I certainly can't find anything approaching GNG. I'll go ahead with the merge and decide where to go from there. SmartSE (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience

There are a couple of your edits I agree with, but you seem to have deleted one section entirely, without adding a justification on the page 'Talk' section. You've also created 4 broken links (trying to link to Wikipedia pages that don't exist). Please be more careful when editing. Klbrain (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are not "broken links". We call that redlinks. They are needed for the further development of the wiki. Those redlinks that I made are almost certainly notable subjects in themselves and the redlink will alert other editors to this fact. In addition, when an article on these subjects is created, we don't need to search the whole wiki for places where they are mentioned and link them, because they are already linked. I will restore those links, re-delete the section that you re-added, and explain that on the article's talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that's clear. I've now started pages for each of the societies I had linked, plus the journal. They are currently only stubs, but hopefully can build from there. Klbrain (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for speedy copyediting of Przegląd Socjologiczny. Am I right that the journal is not indexed anywhere outside Copernicus? Can you perhaps find out any statistics to add such as its impact factor or such? Thanks!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the kitten! According to their website, they are in three other databses. I always remove Copernicus from journal articles, since (as far as I can see) their content is user provided. (Which explains their weird coverage: they include all kinds of obscure journals, but miss many of the most important ones). I found an abbreviation in the LCC (click on the LCCN). The mentioned databases are not very selective, but I think this journal can claim notability as having a significant history. It is not in any Thomson Reuters database, so it has no IF. Strangely enough, although there are 14 journals with names starting with Przegląd in Scopus, this is not one of them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the notability of Copernicus database? PS. If you reply here can you echo me? Thanks!

Qy

Randy, I see in the section above that you accept "having a significant history" as reason to include a journal--and I agree with you totally. B . The GNG and Academic journal standards are not necessarily relevant. But this applies to Democracy and Culture also, as I have just argued there. I found it necessary to explain there i why I disagreed so sharply with you, but it was not meant as disrespect. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry David, when I solicited your opinion, I was almost 90% certain that you would be in favor of keeping the article. However, if the article is to be kept, I want it to be kept on the basis of rational arguments, not on the basis of the arguments that have been brought forward up till now in the AfD. And you did indeed deliver, I admit forgetting to check WorldCat. I'll withdraw the nom, but several of the arguments there still bother me and I will leave a larger comment there, which you may (or not) want to respond to. I would also appreciate if you could have a look at the article itself, because I do think that there are issues with the listing of editorial board members, contributors, and description of content (all sourced to the journal itself and hence OR), all things we normally don't do in journal articles (except, of course, if there are independent sources documenting notable involvement with the journal of a board member or contributor). As you can see in the article history, my attempts to edit it were met with accusations of wanting to destroy it. As an aside, I'm astonished about the number of people participating in this debate. Most journal-related AfDs linger sometimes for weeks before there are even just one or two participants... --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caijing magazine

I was looking through the history of the article on Caijing magazine, and I noticed that a user keeps trying to add material praising the magazine, and you keep removing it as spam. I'm no expert on China, but it seems that this is an important and influential magazine, and I think readers should know why. It seems that this user may not be a native English speaker and the additions were rather awkward, but perhaps we could let some of that material stand for a while so other editors have a chance to work on it? Margin1522 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles about music and film festivals

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Is it too hard to read and understand? Maroc Hebdo was transformed to a magazine in 2005 and founded as a newspaper. People are expected to collaborate on here and AGF and display judgement in subject they're clearly not knowledgeable about, (and not be an ass). I create tons of content here, I prefer not to waste time edit warring on silly things. --Tachfin (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll respond on the article's talk page. AGF refers to assuming people's intentions are good, not assuming that their contributions are correct. CIVIL has something to say about calling people an "ass". Next time you do that simply because someone dare disagree with you, we'll go to WP:ANI. Thanks for your friendly message. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: seeing your request for page protection, a few more things: please in future notify people that you accuse of edit warring on some noticeboard, so that they can defend themselves (not that I am going to do that here, things are crystal clear). Second, please read WP:OWN and WP:BOOMERANG. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin S. Hamilton

I think your deletion of the article on Kevin S. Hamilton was premature. What we need is a very broad discussion of what LDS leaders are and are not notable. There seems to be a widespread view that we should assume all General Authorities are notable, and the coutner view seems to largely be driven by what at best is described as antagonistic attacks. This should not be debated on an article by aritcle basis, but should be a full discussion where we can decide if 1-all members of the 1st Quorum of 70 are notable (which has been the general view), 2-All members of the 2nd Quorum of the 70 are notable (which in the end has not been the view, but no one has ever given good policy reasons for this distinction.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the way to handle this then would not be on the level of the individual article, but at a more appropriate place have that discussion. If the outcome would be that the community agrees with this viewpoint, then we can easily take Hamilton through a DRV and undelete the article. As it is, it was taken to AfD as an individual article and there was no solid evidence of notability except for his position as a General Authority. In the absence of a community-based consensus that such is enough to show notability, I think deletion was the only outcome supported by policy. --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Linden School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principal (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) 08:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Anna N. Żytkow

The article as written justifies a prod but Google Scholars shows many co-authored articles. Could you perhaps comment on her notability's on talk (and ping me there)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JennyHarkness

User:JennyHarkness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Follow the YouTube link on this user page and you will see that it advertises a product ("Colic Calm"). This is a known spambot technique -- post nonsensical but seemingly innocuous copy (check) plus a spam link (check). Hence the dbspam tag (and also a report to WP:AIV). Please consider reverting your edit to remove the tag. Dwpaul Talk 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date citation

I'm not sure why you're so vigorous to allow 5 year old data to linger on an article on a journal that has subsequently been through something of a scandal and a change of editor. Its very likely the impact data is misleading, its certainly out of date. If you can find more recent data, please show me a link. I couldn't find it Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you see a city with population data sourced to a 1990 survey, do you delete that info because it is outdated? Of course not. First of all, it's correct. That was the population in 1990, even if the city was subsequently eradicated by an earthquake or tsunami. Ideally, you update the info. Otherwise you leave it alone. Same with this journal. That 2009 IF is not going to change anymore. Its outdated, certainly, but the year is clearly indicated, so it is not misleading. If you go to the journal website (as I alredy told you, I think), you will find the current IF here and you will see that, in fact, not much has changed since 2010. BTW, 2010 is much less outdated than it might seem, as the most current IF is from 2012 (published 2013). The 2013 IFs are expected any day now. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a bit more like making comments that Detroit's size based on the 1990 census. Dated and inappropriate. Also, you knew where the data was, and rather than update it, you chose to revert and discuss. Very stylish. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have enough to do. And I told you where you could find the info and still you just deleted it. Right, that's classy. And you mangled the referencing, because the ranking info in JCR is only given in the pages about categories, not the journal pages themselves. That's why there were multiple references originally. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&oldid=612403715"