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, 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.

revert of my edit to Economic Botany (journal)?

Re the revert of my edit to Economic Botany (journal). I agree that Society for Economic Botany merits it's own page but while it doesn't have one this is the best that's going. Please note that the Society's website is provided in External links, before my edit.😀 ie I stand by my edit as a temporary measure, until the Society has its own page. DadaNeem (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• It needs it own page. Delinking it will cause a lot of work later once that page is created (i.e., somebody will have to search for those mentions), so it's best to leave the link in place. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It does need it own page. However the work to integrate the Society for Economic Botany page would be trivial, besides writing the actual page: only to overwrite the redirect with the Society for Economic Botany page and make the link on the Economic Botany (journal) page, instead of the bolding. Other pages would be like the wikilink I made on Paul Alan Cox with no alteration required. DadaNeem (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• It would have been better not to create the redirect at all. That way, at some point someone would notice the redlink and realize that there's an article that is needed. With the redirect, bolding or not, this is not obvious any more. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of continuing this rather pointless discussion, I took half an hour to create a stub for this society, so the issue is moot now. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to undelete page: I Liq Chuan

Hi, you deleted this page on 7 January 2015, citing the reason for deletion was "Non notable martial art". The page was recreated and subsequently deleter by user Mojo_Hand. I first contacted Mojo_Hand, who referred me to you.

Details here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Liq_Chuan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=I_Liq_Chuan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojo_Hand#Request_to_undelete_page:_I_Liq_Chuan

Firstly, I must declare a conflict of interest: I am an I Liq Chuan practitioner and instructor. Nevertheless, the information I provide below is independent and verifiable.

I'd like to submit a number of sources that I hope will demonstrate that I Liq Chuan meets Wikipedia's notability criteria:

• I Liq Chuan was the subject of an 84-minute documentary, Kung Fu Abroad, produced by, and aired on, China Central Television (CCTV) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmozVFlK6QI&t=2286s)
• Martial Arts author and video blogger Alex Kozma interviewed I Liq Chuan founder Sam Chin in the Flying Monk podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoziJVkRT0)
• Lyn Halper describes training I Liq Chuan with Sam Chin at the Chuang Yen monastery in New York, in her book Adventures of a Suburban Mystic: A True Story of Spiritual Transformation
• Jess O'Brien profiled I Liq Chuan and interviewed Sam Chin in the book Nei Jia Quan: Internal Martial Arts
• I Liq Chuan practitioners Lan Tran and Nancy Watterson presented a paper entitled Mindfulness, Metacognition, and Martial Arts: I Liq Chuan and Arts of Awareness at the The 2016 Martial Arts Studies Conference, held at the University of Cardiff, 2016 (https://mastudiesrn.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/2016-mas-conference.pdf)
• Magazine article: Awakening and Harmonizing - The Art of Sam Chin, Qi Magazine, Issue 41, February 1999
• Magazine article: The Matrix of I Liq Chuan, Kungfu Magazine March/April 2005
• Magazine article: Finding the Center: I Liq Chuan’s Three Essential Qualities for Offense and Defense as One, Kung Fu Magazine July/August 2014
• Sam Chin is Vice director of the Technical Commmittee (https://www.wfmaf.org/en/about-wfmaf/committees/) and 9th duan rank holder (https://www.wfmaf.org/en/dan-rank-duanwei/dan-rank-holders/) with the World Fighting Martial Arts Federation
• Sam Chin is recognized by the USA Wushu Kung-Fu Federation as a Hall of Fame Outstanding Master (http://www.polariswushu.net/halloffame.html)

I Liq Chuan practitioners have also had success in national and international competitions. I Liq Chuan founder Sam Chin won the 1978 Malaysia Selangor heavyweight kickboxing championship (http://www.polariswushu.net/halloffame.html). I Liq Chuan practitioner Daria Sergeeva won

• First place in womens' under 62kg fixed step, moving step and free moving step push hands events at the Taijiquan and Qigong Federation for Europe (TCFE) European Championship in St.Petersburg, 2016 (http://tcfe.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/5-6-Pushing-Hands-Results.pdf)
• First place in womens' fixed step, moving step and free moving step push hands events at the Taijiquan and Qigong Federation for Europe (TCFE) European Championship in Oxford, 2010 (results no longer available online but TCFE can confirm)
• First place in womens' under 55kg K1 kickboxing, WTKA Italy Maratona Marziale, Italy, 2010 (http://wtkaitalia.it/maratona-marziale-2010-full-contact-e-k1/)

I Liq Chuan is small but growing, with schools in around 20 countries, and new schools starting every year (http://iliqchuan.com/official-i-liq-chuan-schools-around-world). In addition, Sam Chin, the founder of I Liq Chuan, has taught workshops at public martial arts events including 2016 Saratoga Martial Arts Festival (http://www.saratogafestival.com/chin), 2016 Martial Arts Collective Society Gathering in Sacramento (http://www.stillnessinmotion.com/gm-sam-fs-chin-workshop---october-3rd-2016.html), 2016 Tai Chi Gala, New York (http://taichigala.com/workshops/)

I would like to ask if you would reconsider reinstating this page on this basis.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingmint (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I find it difficult to evaluate your sources. They seem more to establish notability for the persons involved than for I Liq Chuan itself. However, martial arts are not my domain and when I closed the AfD, I just determined consensus and I have no opinion on this matter myself. So I'll restore the article and expect you to expand it with these sources ASAP. I will notify the participants to the previous AfD about this restauration and if your sources are considered inadequate, they might decide to take it to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

These sources are terrible and do nothing to address the AfD but more importantly there is Draft:I_Liq_Chuan which has more content. My feeling is that is where the work should be done. Your opinion please.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Peter, as I said above, I also have doubts about these sources. In any case, I really have no strong opinion either way here. I don't know much about martial arts and my only involvement here is that I closed the AfD (almost 2 years ago). I didn't know that draft existed, but if necessary a histmerge can be done. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am happy enough that the article gets worked on - I think that the article should be only be in Draft at the moment. There is really nothing in the mainspace article that isn't in the Draft so I was going to change the article to a redirect.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Undo of deleted content on Ufahamu page

Hi! Would you mind elaborating on why my content was deleted? I just wanted a little clarity so that I can proceed with edits. Thank you in advance! Blackipedia (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Blackipedia

• Read WP:JWG (and WP:MWG). We do not add lists of notable authors to articles on journals or magazines unless we have reliable sources that discuss in-depth how and why a particular is important for a journal. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bah

We seem to be talking past each other. I'm glad DGG is involved. I'm reading your comments again, but please also re-read mine. I suspect that we have not yet arrived at a mutual understanding of our points of difference, so I'd like to keep trying until we do as I have no wish to pick a fight with nice people like you. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think that we actually are closer than you might guess. My personal opinion is that Scopus has become too inclusive and on occasion have talked with DGG about this (should be somewhere in his talk page history; I see on your talk that he's -perhaps- slowly edging towards that position)). However, up till now it is the consensus at the Academic Journals project that inclusion in Scopus is enough to confer notability. And in a sense I'm loath to drop Scopus, because then the practice would become that whatever is in the (Social) Science Citation Index is notable and nothing else. I'm not sure we should hand over the "keys to WP" to Thomson Reuters (or whatever their name now is). Ideally, we would apply GNG to any article. As DGG points out, we make already a lot of exceptions. Personally, I'm not at all agreed that any high school is notable, for example, but that is not the consensus and when I see a school article A7ed or PRODded, I remove that per community consensus.

Within the journal project, I'm probably the most deletionist of all regulars. I'd love to tighten NJournals. But there are already too many journal articles that do not even meet NJournals (The Rutherford Journal, Criterion (journal)). Changing NJournals is not uncontroversial. If you look through the history of NJournals, you'll see that it was attacked from both people who thought it was too inclusionist and people who thought it was too high a bar. So although I'd like it to be more stringent, I've come to see it as a workable compromise and in the past couple of years, this is what mostly had been practiced. Of course, this compromise only works if we adhere to it. So although I'd like NJournals to be more strict, I apply it as good as I can. And one thing really is a no-no to me: using my own personal judgment. I have a good knowledge of academic publishing, so sometimes I know something to be a certain way or I know that something is incorrect. But once we start using personal knowledge as a guide, WP will rapidly go down the sewers for what I know may not be the same thing that you know. To parapharse: "It's the sources, stupid". If it is in a reliable source, I'll report it. If it's not, I won't include it. That's why I don't start evaluating journal articles myself, because my personal opinion does not enter at all into determining what's notable and what's not.

I don't think there's much hope for tightening NJournals. I don't even think that the current version stands much chance for being accepted as a guideline instead of just an essay, for the same reasons as before. But of course you're free to try changing the consensus there, but I think it would be fighting windmills...

Anyway, I agree with the sentiment you express above. I don't want to get into a fight with you as you're very high on my list of "excellent editors/admins". We just happen to disagree on this point. Let's continue the discussion, although we may be nearing the point where we may have to agree to disagree... --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rexnord Corporation

Could you please undelete Rexnord? Not only is it a public company on the NYSE, but if you look it up on Google News, there is a lot out there. I am aware of WP:NOTNEWS, however people will be reading USA Today and googling Rexnord. We want them to find an article about its history and main assets on Wikipedia. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's no use in undeleting that. It was deleted as nonsense and it really is that (it's a note posted by someone with their name and address asking for help in installing a grid coupler...) It doesn't even mention Rexnord... So I'm afraid you'll have to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please redirect Rexnord to Rexnord Corporation? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, although it wasn't salted so you could have done this yourself, too :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned you

Since you seem to lack the competence required to see the problems with the directions given at WP:NJournal, I have mentioned your obstinance as a reason to delete the essay.

Regards,

jps (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)