Jump to content

User talk:MojoDiJi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your thoughts on the research outputs of universities were brilliant.My2Vice (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Energy moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Nano Energy, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – robertsky (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@– robertsky, I know the need for secondary sources, but could you please let me know what are secondary sources for a high-impact scholarly journal? I checked other journal pages; most of them have links from the official website and impact factor references. I believe the page I created is according to the norm of Wikipedia for scholarly journals. I mean if you wait ten years, no more secondary references will be added to this page, and there is no on hundreds (or thousands) of similar pages of scholarly journals on Wikipedia. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exaly (May 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
References using Exaly directly should be replaced by other references.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Gusfriend (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, MojoDiJi! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gusfriend (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exaly (May 28)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Headbomb was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This sources exclusively to primary sources and anecdotal use by individual researchers.

We need to source this article to independent reliable sources that comment substantially and directly on Exaly as a service/company (i.e. have done a systematic review of Exaly's services).

For example, if this were a musical act called PopPourri, an article in the Rolling Stone taking about the band would quality as an substantial independent source. And someone's personal website saying that they attended a PopPourri concert would not be. Not would the band's website (and websites controlled by the band and its managers) qualify as an independent source.

It's the same for companies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nano Energy for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nano Energy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fade258 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lancet Oncology Commission for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lancet Oncology Commission is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancet Oncology Commission until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JWG

[edit]

You're create several stubs in a rather poor state. WP:JWG has good advice on how to write these. I suggest using Immunology Letters as a model. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: the first version is never perfect. I used another journal as a model. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: it should satisfy your expectations now :) MojoDiJi (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but do try to use the most recent IF, include the current editor, publication frequency, etc... [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: there are some disagreements, which I leave to the consensus. For instance, you believe the country of a journal published by a Dutch publisher cannot be Denmark, but the ISSN issuer believes so [2]. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elsevier is based in the Netherlands, not Denmark. Elsevier is also multinational, and where the publishing HQ is located is not very relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I disagree. Elsevier is a publisher that publish for many institutions. If Elsevier published Journal of American X Society, the journal's country would still be the United States. Journal of Hepatology belongs to the European Association for the Study of the Liver, which is not Dutch. Contrary to books which are referenced by the place of printing (for the historic reasons), the country of a journal is where the journal office is located and its ISSN is registered (note that ISSNs are issued within each country). MojoDiJi (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the location of the journal, it's the location of the publisher. Elsevier is based in the Netherlands, not Denmark. EASL has nothing to do with this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I said that I leave it to consensus. It is your opinion (no matter how much popular), not a written rule. An American journal must have an American ISSN. A journal belongs to its copyright owner, which is not necessarily its publisher. I believe the country of a journal by an American society is the United States, no matter where it is published. MojoDiJi (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ask around at WT:JOURNALS if you don't believe me that this is the consensus. I've been editing journal articles on Wikipedia for a very, very long time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: no one questioned your experience and deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies (it's evident from the page histories). And I was not even talking about Wikipedia. I said I believe the country of a journal is where it belongs to, not where it is published. Wikipedia might have chosen to use the latter, but there is no universal rule for this. MojoDiJi (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I admit you were right. In the journal template does not show country without publisher. Therefore, it is the country of the publisher rather than the journal. MojoDiJi (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMID

[edit]

BTW, instead of adding those manually, you can just run citation bot on the articles. It'll do a lot more than just add a PMID. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I tried [3], but nothing useful. If it is reliable, why not running it on all Wikipedia. As I see, there are hundreds (or thousands) of missing PMID. By the way, from which database it extracting PMID, DOI, Author names, etc.? MojoDiJi (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the sources on the bot page. I do not have a good experience with web scrapping systems. I am looking for a reliable direct DOI to PMID resolver. Strangely, it does not exist. MojoDiJi (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"If it is reliable, why not running it on all Wikipedia" mostly because of limited resources the bot can edit maybe 10,000 pages per day. And it gets PMIDs straight from Pubmed I believe by crosschecking current identifiers (like DOIs, but also others like PMC) and other bibliographic information (e.g. Journal + Volume + Page + article title). If it edited at full speed, it would take roughly 600 days to get through 6 million articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down please...

[edit]

Hi, thank you for creating articles on notable journals, we always can use more editors in this area. However, instead of creating tiny stubs, taking 15 min extra and following the tips in our journal article writing guide you'll get more meatier articles (and reduce the risk that someone not specializing in this area takes your articles to AfD). I've tweaked and corrected some of your articles, but you are going too fast and I'm losing track. All those articles can easily be expanded, so why not go for quality instead of quantity. Thanks for listening. --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Thanks for your message. I believe Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I prefer to create a minimum page instead of creating the ultimate page. At the same time, I contribute to other pages. I include all the necessary information to justify the notability of an academic journal. If someone take the article to AfD, it will be the case anyway. A good example is Nano Energy, which was subject to AfD after you expanded it. My priority is to contribute to the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. MojoDiJi (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not very collaborative to create scores of sub-stubs and leave it to others to do the hard work. You don't even tag articles for the appropriate WikiProjects on their talk pages. So do continue to "contribute to the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia" in a superficial way, but I will stop cleaning up your mess. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll second what RK is saying. Spend 15 minutes more per article, rather than rush through everything. I don't mind polishing things here and there, but cleaning up after you is very tedious. WP:JWG was written so that if you follow it, you have the ideal stub/start-class article. We're not asking you to write featured articles here, but to simply cover the basics so others don't have to tidy up after you. That means adding the editor(s)-in-chief, full impact factors (28.905 not 28.9), adding categories, including all indexing services listed by MIAR (save trivial ones like GoogleScholar), tagging them as stubs/with relevant wikiproject templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: What is this? My job description by the line manager? First, most of the points you raised are not even the case in my latest articles. Second, the information you asked me to add does not exist on at least 80% of journal pages. Third, I do what others are free to do. If you direct me to the relevant Wikipedia policy that I do not have this freedom, I will stop contributing. MojoDiJi (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of basic common courtesy to your fellow editors. Had you submitted these journals articles to AFC, they would all have been declined as underdeveloped and failing to meet the basic treshhold of WP:JWG. And as they are now, they are prime candidates for them to be moved into draftspace.
It's a bit like walking a dog in the park. There's no rule again dog walking, but you're expected to cleanup after the dog if it takes a shit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:REALPROBLEM and WP:BEEF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: it's neither about courtesy nor incompleteness. You are exaggerating by repeating clean up. Adding more information is not cleaning up. Thanks for the new thread. Yes, you have the power to move them to draftspace or even delete them. The point is that my first drafts are more complete than 80% of the journal pages. If it was your policy, you should have move them to draftspace (I can list them for you). In the past few days, I incorporated all your bitter comments in my edits. Your reaction remained the same. It's about fellow editors. You just don't want to accept that part. MojoDiJi (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template you are using is faulty. Every stub that you have created contains the same grammatical error: "ACS Energy Letters is abstracted and indexed the following bibliographic databases": the word "in" is missing. Also, we don't repeat the name of a journal if not really necessary, as that is considered promotional. So this sentence should read: "The journal is abstracted and indexed in the following bibliographic databases". It can be shortened without any loss of information to "The journal is abstracted and indexed in". Let's have a closer look at one of your latest stubs, Basic Research in Cardiology. The spacing is incorrect (double spacing between "MEDLINE" and "According". We don't say that a journal is "by" a publisher, it is "published by" a publisher. It is incorrect to use "Springer Berlin Heidelberg". Springer has offices all over the world and it's anybody's guess where a particular journal is being published, so for highly multinational companies like Springer we do not populate the "country" field. Also there's a US company called "Springer", too (see the disambiguation page Springer). Journals published by "Springer" (unless they are from the US company) are published under the Springer imprint "Springer Science+Business Media" (which should be wikilinked in the infobox and the lead). The journal is in MEDLINE, but it is important to also note that it is included in the highly selective subset "Index Medicus" (see here). The correct name for the database "BIOSIS" is "BIOSIS Previews". The correct name for "EMBASE" is "Embase". The current impact factors are the 2020 IFs, which were published in 2021, not 2020. (Within a few weeks the 2021 IFs will be published, dated 2022). The company publishing the IFs changed its name from "Clarivate Analytics" to simply "Clarivate". The stub tag is unnecessary broad ("academic journal"), here "cardiology-journal-stub" would be appropriate. The "discipline" in the infobox obviously is "cardiology", not "Biology, Health Sciences" (and even if it had been, the capitalization is incorrect and should be "Biology, health sciences". The lead should also contain the discipline. For this journal the discipline may be obvious, but that is not always the case. We also include the editor-in-chief in both the infobox and the lead. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi MojoDiJi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Unified Standard of Article Creation, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi MojoDiJi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, The importance of the expertise of Wikipedia editors, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi MojoDiJi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is Wikipedia based on consensus or hierarchy?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MojoDiJi&oldid=1124504081"