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 2405:204:229f:3e5d::1087:68b0 (talk) at 19:43, 4 December 2018 (→‎Shiva Texyarn Limited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Before posting here, please READ THIS FIRST

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: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.


START A NEW TALK TOPIC.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Randykitty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm nearing the end of my 3-month self-imposed wikibreak. Although I may not return to editing right away, it is time to get unblocked.

Accept reason:

Welcome back! I've removed you from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, by the way. SemiHypercube ✎ 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of literary magazines

Are Fooian literary magazines supposed to categorize literary magazines about the literature of Foo, or literary magazines published in country Foo? Because I note that Category:British literary magazines is a sub-sub-category of Category:British magazines, on which I read "This category is for magazines published in the United Kingdom". But you just added The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats (an academic journal, not really the same thing as a magazine, about British literature) to Category:British literary magazines, even though it was founded in and appears to be published in the US. So something needs to be corrected: either the category hierarchy or your categorization of this article. Which one? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I didn't realize it was published in the US, I saw "English literature" and that was it... Personally, I'm not very fond of those country categories anyway and this seems to be a prime example why (a literary magazine/journal published in the US but about British litarature...) I've changed the cat to "literary magazines". (Note that we don't have a separate "literary journals" category, it is very often almost impossible to judge wether a literary periodical should be called a "magazine" or a "journal"). --Randykitty (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted Violence and Stochastic Terrorism

I thought both pages were undergoing a series of improvements and added citations interrupted by the US holiday of Thanksgiving which many of us took part in with long and extended trips to family gatherings. I hope that you will revisit your deletions which I do not think recognize the progress being made and the consensus that was being built, and thus were very premature. Thanks for considering this request. Chip.berlet (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had another look at the AfD of Scripted Violence and my interpretation of the discussion is different from yours. To start with, the debate was allowed to run for more than double the usual time (7 days) and debate seeemed to have petered out. So did article improvements with hardly any changes in the last 10 days (that's a bit long for just Thanksgiving...) As for the "improvements", even after those were made, yet another argumented "delete" !vote from a very experienced user came in, so I don't think that this changes much. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The terms Scripted Violence and Stochastic Terrorism are used by scholars and journalists along with "coded rhetoric" and "incitement." I just presented at a conference of international experts at Amherst College who study right-wing social and political movements. The term "scripted violence" was discussed and seen as useful. And the issue of coded rhetoric in general is seen as central to the right-wing resurgence worldwide. See, for example, https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/2018/08/29/just-joking-is-no-joke-how-the-alt-right-really-communicates-online/ and the entire book on the subject, Doublespeak: The Rhetoric of the Far-Right since 1945.
Many of us were busy with family during the ten days. I was preparing dinner for 12 people both meat eaters and vegetarians and then dealing with the weekend activities with relatives from out of town...then off to the conference in Amherst, MA. Not all of us center our reality on editing on Wikipedia.
Please reconsider your decision.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request you reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Supply shooting

In regards to your close - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Supply shooting - the raw !vote count is 3 Delete, 5 Keep (including one Delete !voter who changed his mind). WP:RAPID is a notability guideline and contradicts the rationale in the close. National level coverage (e.g. [1]) is continuing as of the close date of the AfD, I respectfully request you reconsider whether Delete is appropriate vs. no consensus or Keep. Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOTNEWS is policy. And AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE... Regretably, this kind of shootings are routine (especially in the US). --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assessing whether a crime is routine or not (and one can expand on many unique circumstances of this one leading to coverage) is an argument to be had in the deletion discussion itself. The closer is supposed to assess consensus, not advance their own assessment of whether the subject under review is routine or not.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That argument was addressed in the nom and I found it convincing. And "consensus" is not based on number of !votes but on strength of arguments. Anyway, to end this, I'll undo the deletion and re-list the AfD. Hope that addresses your concerns. --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debates around Taylor & Francis and Critical Reviews in Toxicology

I just opened debates on their talk pages. We should build consensus around these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificrigor12 (talk • contribs)

  • You have done nothing of the kind, just creating a section with "Just to open a debate to end "edit war" and build consensus on this question" does not constitute any serious discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Sisnett

You closed the discussion but didn't implement the outcome. Thanks for wading into this mess again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops! The script must have hickupped, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yeah, I had made a solemn promise to myself not to get involved with anything touching on longevity again, but then I got these AfDs when I was closing a bunch of overdue ones and the results were so clearly in favor of deletion that I just went ahead and closed them. Good riddance! --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, obviously on almost anything else I'd have done it myself. Yeah, finally some sanity in this topic but I know it won't last; I'm feeling up for a fight, so just sit back and grab some popcorn. Ha. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yone Minagawa

Hello! I noticed after the AfD for this article closed, you deleted the talk page, but the main artice is still up. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed the article you closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yone Minagawa (2nd nomination), was not deleted. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sjeez, that's the second time the script hickupped... Thanks for letting me know, I've corrected this.

Shiva Texyarn Limited

Dear Randykitty,

I noticed that you deleted Shiva Texyarn Limited even after I've contested and requested not to delete it. Also, nobody has replied to me. Shiva Texyarn is India's largest textile manufacturing company and also is listed on Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. The company has been covered by several mainstream media and India's leading news agencies including The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, India Infoline etc. I would request you to reconsider this and recheck the article. Thanks so much! Best Regards --2405:204:229C:A0F7:8548:EBBC:76F9:909E (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, awaiting your response. Your quick reply will be appreciated. Thank you!

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I was wondering if you would be able to help out in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little because there are several reports waiting, and some of the reported vandals are still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&oldid=872026411"