User talk:Randykitty/Archive 10

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

Deletion request for Warped Tour 2012

Hello Randykitty,

I am here because I want ask if it would make sense to start an deletion request to undelete the article about Warped Tour 2012. I asked at Relevanzcheck in German-languaged Wikipedia if it would make sense to create articles about "Festivals by year" which was very positive to me so I started writing an article about the 2012s Warped Tour. I found lots of sources like Alternative Press, Rock Sound, the New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, the Mountain Weekly News, Phoenix New Times, Billboard and Examiner for example to write an article in a neutral point of view in German. My English knowledge isn't good for me I could start the request on my own. The rules here are too complicated and confusing for me. So I came here to write to you directly about my issue. What do you think about the German-article version and would this a possibility to start a new and better article in the English-languaged Wikipedia? Best wishes! --Goroth (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm afraid that this works the other way around, too: I don't understand much of what the German WP finds notable and am baffled by the way they source things... In any case, different wikis have different rules, so what the deWP finds acceptable is not necessarily acceptable here and the other way around. Anyway, I have no real opinion for or against undeleting this article, so go ahead and start a discussion at WP:DRV, mentioning your new sources. And your English is fine, don't be too modest and don't be afraid to make mistakes either, just tell yourself that your English is a lot better than the German of most people there ;-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Mathematics Journals

Case closed. If the need is felt, use dispute resolution. We're done here. --Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, this topic is connected with my demand of restoring the page for Central European Journal of Mathematics and I explain here the reasons. I'm myself an academic researcher. First of all, the reputation of a journal is obviously made from the value of the papers published by its Board. If you agree with this principle, then you must admit that the prestige of a journal is not made by its publisher, i.e. the company who prints the papers. We have two sides in this story, the scientific one, represented by the Board and the authors, and the business side, represented by the publisher (which may be Springer, DeGruyter, Elsevier etc) and which in many cases is the "owner" of the brand. I come now to my example, the Central European Journal of Mathematics. This exists since 11 years and was conducted by a large scientific Board of outstanding mathematicians, among which a Fields medalist. In March this year the "owner" became DeGruyter who decided, without consulting the Board, to switch to "golden open access" mode starting with 2015, i.e. "the authors pay for publishing". The Board did not agree with this and resigned. The authors of currently refereed papers were asked to pay or to withdraw since their papers do not fit anymore before the 2015 volume. See e.g. here the Board before this change: http://archive.today/OUyXI and compare to the actual situation. What is this situation?

DeGruyter appointed new editors for the new Board: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/math changed the name of the journal and PRESERVED the impact factor as if this journal had the same reputation. However, this contradicts the principle discussed just before since Open Mathematics does not have the same Editor-in-Chief and not the same Board. Not even the same publisher, but the new publisher bought the old brand.

Do you think that one can buy like that the scientific reputation? In the meantime, the old Board of CEJM founded in August this year another journal called European Journal of Mathematics. This will be published by Springer starting with 2015 : http://www.springer.com/mathematics/algebra/journal/40879 It has no impact factor, no reputation. However its Board it the one who managed scientifically the publications in CEJM since at least 2009 and achieved the 2013 impact factor 0.5.

One can see that as a matter of fact CEJM splitted into two journals: 1. OM, which is run under the "open access" mode (no-pay-no-publish) 2. EJM, under the traditional mode, with the same Editor-in-Chief and the same Board of CEJM (actually reduced to 90% of the old Board of CEJM). My question is therefore: do you think that business is above scientific work? For the truth and honesty sake, why not preserving the webpage of CEJM with its history and creating a new page for Open Mathematics? Changing the CEJM page into OM means just erasing the past (in particular the past publication mode) and acknowledging the financial changes operated by DeGruyter with no respect toward scientific work. It is approving that business is above science, and mathematical prestige subordinates to money arrangements. I'm sure that you did the redirection of CEJM to OM with good intention. I was initially very surprised and reacted by my comments. Maybe I was too quick and did not explain the matter; I apologize. That is why I took time now to write this message. Best wishes, mt

  • Thank you for the explanation, although it was not really necessary, as things really are pretty clear and simple. The Central European journal was published by Veritas (in collaboration with Springer). Veritas is now a part of Walter de Gruyter and was moved to their main imprint and the name changed. Legally (and logically) speaking, Open Mathematics is the new name of the Central European journal. OM kept the impact factor and other listings, there is a clear continuity. There is absolutely no reason to make three articles (one of the Central European journal, one for OM, and one for the new journal established by the previous editor and board of the Central European journal. The whole story is clearly explained in the article. What is missing, is a source. We need to base our assertions on something. For all we know, the publisher decided to get new editors and these renewed the editorial board (another possible reading of the links you provide above). I think your story is true (which is why I left it in the article), but unless a reliable source (please read this link!) can be provided, it will have to go. WP does not publish original research and editors need to avoid synthesis. That you, as a former member of the editorial board of the Central European journal have possible inside information is, unfortunately, not an acceptable source... --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your answer. The journal CEJM changed everything: its name, its publisher, its publishing mode to "no-pay-no-publish", its Editor-in-Chief and dramatically its Board. Is this what one can call "continuity"?

What remains actually unchanged? If you say "the impact factor did not change" then this is just inverting logic since the impact factor depends on papers published in 2013 or before (thus in the past) and on the 2013 Board. The impact factor is not an "a priori" and should not be. One cannot logically "keep" the impact factor after such big changes, it's against common sense, against scientific deontology.

About my request of restoring the WP page of the journal CEJM, your viewpoint is understandable but not unique. For instance Springer did just the contrary, it preserved the webpage of CEJM here: http://www.springer.com/mathematics/journal/11533

It is clear that WP proposes to report about facts which can be traced into internet. However let me remark that what WP calls "reliable source" eventually represents a tiny part of the reality, and even that is only the appearance of the tiny reality.Mtibar (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "The impact factor did not change" means that everybody, including ISI considers OM a continuation of the previous Central European journal. And you're right that written sources don't cover all of reality, but surely you can see that we would land in an incredible mess if we would not insist on verifiable sources. The Springer page is strange. All I can think of is that it does not reflect the name change yet, it does list the new editors. Perhaps the new title will be effective as of January 2015, so this is something to keep an eye on. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the Mathematics community considers that EJM is the continuation of CEJM. Your "everybody" is a box which eventually contains only two names: DeGruyter and ISI Thompson. This fact proves a single thing: that the ISI indexing can be bought by an influent publisher by presenting his total change of the journal as a "continuation". This is the only argument, has nothing to do with science and with ethics. It's business. Three more things: 1. Where did you find what you write above, that "Veritas is now a part of Walter de Gruyter" since I couldn't see any trace; if not an internal information, then why not giving the reliable source. Of course this is business side too. 2. Why don't you allow the link http://archive.today/OUyXI to the page which is the snapshot of the existing Board at December 20, 2013, the Board of CEJM who is the only responsible for the reputation which is now pretended by a totally new board of a no-pay-no-publish journal only because DeGryuter "arranged" this "continuation" with ISI Thompson. 3. In Mathematics, the journals called "gold open access" are considered as having the worst reputation. It is totally different to some other scientific fields like medicine, biology, chemistry. Please check that. Mtibar (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but you're wrong. Legally speaking, OM is the successor journal. It's still owned by the same publisher, just changed editors and title. That is business, not the "perceptions" that you talk about. As for the other questions: 1/ See here (reference from our article on Walter de Gruyter). 2/ We do not link to editorial boards for any journal, nor do we list board members. This is information that belongs on the website of the journal, WP is not a free hosting service. Only if there are reliable sources that document the activity of a specific board member do we include that information, if pertinent. 3/ Unless you have a reliable source for that, we cannot write that. In addition, this would hardly be appropriate to add to an article about a single journal, but would belong in the article discussing gold open access. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also sorry, but as a mathematician I always check the validity of my words. What I said is true and cannot be contradicted, unless you switch to a different category. I was saying that "Mathematics community considers that EJM is the continuation of CEJM". This is just the well-known truth inside the Maths community. But you speak about the legal side, which has nothing to do with mathematics, nor with science or common sense. Probably you are right within this particular frame but this does not mean that what I say is wrong, otherwise we can talk in parallel languages for ages. Moreover, I am never talking about the legal property of the "brand" but only on the fact that after such dramatic changes in a journal it is not allowed to keep the same impact factor. This immoral pretend of reputation is my topic. In case of CEJM the only thing that did not change is the impact factor since the owner changed too, you can not deny that, since some other publisher, DeGruyter, bought the Versita business, so not the same owner anymore. But admitting by absurd that the owner did not change, is this enough reason to keep the impact factor which has nothing to do with "ownership" (unless it is a buy-able merchandise)? Then what if the owner appoints some new Board with names of people in several totally different other scientific fields? It will work out the same way with ISI Thompson? Continuity of ISI impact factor cannot be a consequence of the "legal continuity" of the journal. My point here concerns the former issue (continuity of impact factor), not the later (legal continuity of ownership of the brand). This talk is only because you disagree to keep the CEJM WP page as it was. And finally, you can check it over the internet, in Mathematics some people worked out a site where one can automatically build a mathematics-looking research article out of nonsense keywords but keeping the "appearance". Such an article was accepted in 2012 by a "gold open access" journal. Thanks a lot for your answers explaining WP policy. Best wishes, Mtibar (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but WP really is not the place to vent your frustrations and to rectify perceived wrongs. Take it up with the publisher or with Thomson Reuters. Discussion closed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry too. I remind that this talk took place only because you disagree to keep the CEJM page as it was before, changing it with new data. I still think that your action is unfair and indeed frustrating. Mtibar (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Angry Little Asian Girl, Five Angry Episodes

This has been recreated with references and some minor changes. I did a technical delete/restore to retrieve the history, but I'm happy to leave it to you to decide whether to delete this version too, leave it or AFD. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • No problem. I deleted it while cleaning out the CSD G11 category and as it doesn't look spammy anymore, I'll leave it to someone more interested in these things to evaluate notability. Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humanity & Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University. 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) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

SCOAP3

There's an article to be written here. I've started it, but it could be expanded to a much better article, and likely get a WP:DYK from it if we work fast enough. Not sure about how feasible it is to take to GA (or even FA status), but this one has more potential than a lot of things under the umbrella of WP:JOURNALS. Just dropping by to let you know I'm planning on working on this one (plus member journals) over the next few days. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry to not be more helpful, but I'm rather busy at the moment. I recently got an article on a journal up to "good article". I always assumed that this would be very difficult for such articles, given the usual paucity of sources, but then somebody did it for The Accounting Review and I followed that example. Took a while to get it reviewed, though, but then I got it at DYK, too. SCOAP3 is a bit young, but there seem to be enough sources. One remark: I find the "countries" section a bit confusing. It links to the articles on the countries themselves and that (to me at least) suggests that the governments of these countries somehow decided to found SCOAP3. Only if you go to the organization's website do you see that it's individual organizations in those countries that support this initiative. To avoid becoming a bit of a directory, perhaps the section could be replaced with a link to their homepage? (Such lists don't count towards article size for DYK anyway). --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

I see you'd block Fevrret earlier; do you think that this relatively new user could be related? (They disputed the prod tag on The Blue (band) shortly after I tagged it). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Quite possible, I think, but they also edited other pages and while Fevrret claims to be American, this one claims to be French. I'm not completely comfortable with DUCK here, an SPI might be the way to go here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Was just about to file one, but someone beat me to it. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamid Rajaei

Hello. The page Hamid Rajaei you recently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamid Rajaei was eventually recreated by its creator (User:Mahtabshadi) as Hamid Rajaei Rizi. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know. It was not an exact recreation, but the only difference was that a lot of fluff had been cut away. There were no new sources, so I have deleted it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tax Analysts

Hi. I had no love for the article Tax Analysts, but I would not have speedied an article that had been here for 7 years and had been edited by a number of different users -- and I don't think that particular article qualified as "unambiguous promotion." IMO, that one should have gone to AFD. --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I actually went through the history and did not find a version that I could revert to. However, I have no problem with restoring it so that you can take it to AfD. Just drop a note and I'll put it back. --Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Sorry Randykitty but I have the right to edit my texts. You did such edits in case of the journal CEJM against our message "please do not change this page". You have maybe the rights to change texts but I think you do not have the right to prevent me of editing my texts. I recall that the talk above was invited by you through a welcome message, I've explained my point of view in asking the page CEJM not to be closed, you disagree, so the matter is indeed closed. I will not go any further. But then there is no reason to keep the texts, so please remove the whole talk. Mtibar (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between editing an article and a talk page. On a personal talk page like this one, I decide what stays and what not. In about a week, the whole conversation will be moved to my talk archives. However, the conversation did take place and a trace should be left. I have now wasted enough time on this matter. Please: 1/ Read the policies and guideline linked in your welcome message. 2/ Let this matter rest or take it elsewhere, but not on this talk page any more. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Innovative_Medicines_Initiative - listing projects or not?

Hello RandyKitty, I had a look at the edits you did on pages I contributed recently. I must say I'm far form being a frequent WP contributor and I'm still learning rules. Regarding the deletion of the IMI project list, I was wondering how to keep that information available without being trapped into the WP:NOTADIRECTORY trap. The IMI goal is to create and help projects, it is its main goal, so I think listing its achievement is a need. Question is to know how: listing is not WP compliant, listing main projects would involve finding a metrics to define it, giving number of projects who be of limited help, reference to an external report/article would be nice but I did not find it (5 min web search only). How would you address that question? Any learning from previous experience you had? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldeck (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The question is: is this encyclopedic content. The answer is: "no". Just imagine what would happen if we would put lists of funded projects in all articles on funding agencies (NIH, NSF, other national science agencies, advocacy groups, etc, etc). Most of such projects are not notable (in the WP sense) anyway. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Good point, listing NIH projects would give a dictionnary, not an encyclopedia Moldeck (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Overt-Kill

With 5 keeps and 2 deletes, both of which were logged before the article was sourced; I feel this article should have been kept. I do not typically question admin decisions, but feel this needs to be looked at again. I am sure that you will stand by your decision and expect no discussion, but I feel that I should reach out before I ask for a deletion review. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I had a look again at the AfD debate, the article, and the sources and you're right: I stand by my decision (but coming here first is indeed the right thing to do, for which my thanks). Please note that AfD is not a vote (which is why we call opinions "!votes" and not "votes"...). The closing admin has to evaluate the opinions expressed in the light of policy. In the current case, only one of the keep !votes was policy based, the others just said "I know it" or "I like it" or something similar. The sources were trivial mentions (or even did not discuss the character at all) and none of them provided any out-of-universe notability. Of course you're welcome to open a deletion review, but I would counsel you to use a policy-based rationale this time. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I would disagree with you on your reading of the keep !votes. One maybe could be read that way. The 2 deletes were tallied before sourcing was added. I know this because I added the sources and they were not trivial mentions, nor "in-Universe" (and I'll put that against the sourcing in 90% of the comic related articles). The nominator has very interesting history and maybe wiki is better served with folks like him who copyvio, use socks, delete articles so they can rewrite them with a similar name, etc as opposed to old school editors like me, but that's probably a topic for another day. Anyway, i took your adviceΜολὼν λαβέ 14:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Forward Press (magazine)

sir , why are u tagged speedy nomination for my article Forward Press (magazine).It is not advertising article.It is very famous magazine.please see article references. Firstly I made this article without notable sources but now I search on internet reliable sources for reference. Jschauhan2013 (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Shocking outcome

I was quite shocked to see the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations since there were many references with significant coverage to prove the notability of the article. I am not complaining because you did your job as there were surprisingly more votes for delete. But could you please provide me a draft of the deleted article so that I can work on it? Nomian (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I have userfied the article at User:Nomian/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations. However, you should not restore it to main article space without letting an admin check whether it has sufficiently improved to avoid speedy deletion as a re-creation of a previously deleted article. --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Ho

Hi,

I noticed you closed the AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Ho as "delete and redirect". None of the participants in the discussion suggested it should be deleted. I don't think it is standard practice to delete articles before redirecting, and not deleting is normally more useful. Leaving the content of the article in the history allows information from it to potentially be incorporated into other articles if someone can find a useful place for it. It also makes it easier to expand the article if it ever does become notable. Can you please restore the article history while leaving the redirect in place? Thanks. Calathan (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Simple "redirect" closures sometimes become the target of edit warriers, if people remove such redirects from their watch lists. Anyway, I have undeleted the previous revisions, so they are available in the article history. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Calathan (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Article, Mushtaq Pahalgami

Please consider the mentioned article deleted by you recently, with the following additional references:

Samar khurshid (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Samar

  • If you think this is significant coverage and significantly better than what was brought forward during the AfD, you could take it to deletion review, but beware that coverage really needs to be good. I have no idea whether websites like "Precious Kashmir" are reliable sources, so I have personally no opinion in this matter. --Randykitty (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Significant, yes, Precious Kashmir and other dailies mentioned above are prominent english-language dailies here. The mentioned articles have also been added to HT syndicate news service by some of these papers and HT has by far the largest circulation among English language dailies in India. Samar khurshid (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar khurshid (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Rodejong user page

  • Randy, in response to your question on my talk, that user page is completely unacceptable. I see that Dougweller already tweaked it, but this cannot stand. I cut a chunk of it just now, but this form ("Please fill in the form on the following webpage"--the link is dead) is/was very troubling. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for having a look. We usually give people some leeway on their user pages, so I wasn't sure, but it didn't look OK to me. Good to have that confirmed! --Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydradermabrasion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epidermis and Exfoliation. 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) 09:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian Leiter

I recently edited the Brian Leiter page and was wondering why my edits were rejected. All the material was sourced and none of it could be considered libel. What do I need to do to fix my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedelus79 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Just one example: "most of which happen to be women". That's what we cal synthesis, which is not allowed in any article and certyainly not in a BLP. --Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the passage and changed some of the text to remove what I understood to be synth, but another editor removed it writing "Don't resubmit this content without achieving consensus for inclusion on talk page. It was removed for contravening WP:SYNTH." I don't understand what that means. --Daedelus79 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I did not say that was the only problem, I said "just an example". Your whole addition is worded very suggestively (another example of SYNTH: "assuming one is made") and sourced to blogs (which are almost never reliable sources. Please get familiar with our WP:BLP policy and be careful when adding criticism to the bio of a living person. You should take this to the article talk page, which is where this discussion belongs, not here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tridosh theory 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:
  • theory of Ayurvedic beliefs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11609159|title=[Comparative studies of the tridosha theory... [Kagakushi Kenkyu. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI|publisher=|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Global Public Health (journal) 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:
  • in 2006. The [[editor-in-chief]] is [Richard G. Parker (anthropologist)|Richard G. Parker]] ([[Mailman School of Public Health]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Cape Girardeau UFO crash article

Is there any way to see the history of the deleted article? I'd like to make a copy the supporting references which were supposedly insufficient (references deleted by other editors and those in the article at the time of deletion). It think there were a total of six or seven. Thanks. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I've copied the refs on your talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad

Please restore the history of VideoPad per my comment here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, I saw your remark, but I didn't see convincing "keep" arguments and I did see convincing "delete" arguments. I left a redirect as requested, but I am not swayed by your arguments in favor of keeping the edit history. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

VideoPad AfD closure

May I ask you, please, to reconsider your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad‎ as redirect? I think it should have been delete. There was only one !vote to redirect, a last plea for WP:MERCY after it had become clear the consensus was otherwise unanimous to delete. Redirect is also not consistent with the Highbeam source in the Boston Globe that I turned up suggesting there probably is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one. (If you don't have a Highbeam account, you should ask for one, especially if you intend to close AfDs where some of the sources being discussed are on Highbeam.) Msnicki (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Look at the section just above: this is already at DRV by somebody who thought I should only have redirected, not delete/redirect. Looks loike I managed to get everybody unhappy... --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Well, I hope someone explained that you were accepting a completely thankless job. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

jw.org

Hi,

First:

And therefor: I contact you because I believe "that circumstances have changed"

  • world’s most translated website
  • court ruled to ban jw.org throughout Russia as it was deemed extremist
  • it is properly written and well sourced

Therefor I do believe that the domain should be allowed it's own place due to these three points mentioned. I do hope that you would read the article I read, in stead of just reverting it in to a redirect again.

If you believe that I am in error, could you explain why? And if you would be so kind to mention where it otherwise could be added?

Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm not the deleting administrator. The AfD was closed by Nihonjoe, so you should take this up with them. Personally, I don't think a separate article is justified. It can be reduced to two lines without loss of information (most translated website -if there's an independent source confirming that- and banned in Russia) and easily integrated into the main article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I noticed Rodejong's edits on various articles attempting to promote the jw.org website. The most popular websites in the world—facebook.com and google.com—do not have their own articles (they are redirects to the corporation), so there is certainly no justification for having an article dedicated to the website of a minor religion. The fact that the Watch Tower Society is running a campaign to promote its official website is not justification to promote the website on Wikipedia. (The website is not even new, and the sudden interest in creating the article in question is directly related to a campaign by the parent corporation to promote the site, including instructions to members of the religion to promote the site.) Wikipedia already has substantial coverage of the parent subject, Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There was a message that jw.org was a orphan, and therefor added an internal link on a few articles that had relating info. That was not for promoting jw.org. I noticed that there are very few articles on domains, but found a few that do have this. So I thought it was justified to start the article. On the main article there is absolutely no info about jw.org. Not about having the most translations (701, which can be verified) and not about the situation that arose in Russia.
Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No info about the website is required on the main article, though a link in the infobox is suitable, and is already present. Most corporations and organisations have websites, and the existence of the site is not notable. The fact that Watch Tower (the parent corporation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which your User page indicates you to be a member) is running a campaign to promote their website does not make the website notable. At best, your edits—promoting the website of a religion of which you are a member during a campaign initiated by the religious organisation to promote the site—are reasonably viewed as a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As to your other comment about Russia, the issue was covered at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, since a single court case about banning a website is hardly 'persecution', I have moved it to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. The issue is also already appropriately covered at Internet censorship in Russia. However, in both instances, a better source is required than the primary JW source supplied. The issue is of not sufficient notability for the main JW article. Nor is trivia about a website being available in a lot of languages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing which would change my opinion of 6.5 years ago. Now, if there can be enough (at least 2-3) reliable, third-party sources talking specifically about the website (not just mentioning it in passing, but discussing the website itself), it could be recreated. It would be very unusual to have that, however, unless there is something unique about the site itself in comparison to every other website out there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Impact factors

Hi Kitty, I don't know how to get in touch with you but RE: journal impact factors, please see there what I have written. Thanks, Megan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megantownend (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have responded on your talk page. The JCR that was published this year (2014) is the 2013 edition with the 2013 impact factors. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Current Chemistry Letters

Hi Kitty, I don't understand your reason to destroy the page of Current Chemistry Letters. Especially because that you had replaced real information with tentative suggestion that bring dishonour to the Journal. Before doing such stuff you should first read Journal page. Please note that Current Chemistry Letters does not have any policy to charge any fees for publishing articles. This Journal exist for several years and publish strong manuscript only after the 2 positive reviews from external reviewers arrived. Journal does not take a fee for the publication and it was recognized in several countries by Ministry of Science. Obviously, it is not top Journal in Chemistry but it certainly worth to be noted in WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallout dwa (talk • contribs)

  • I have responded at the AfD for this article. In short, this journal is very far from becoming notable at this point. The listing on Beall's list is reliably sourced. The journal and company have all characteristics of being predatory: crappy English on the website, flaunting of fake impact factors (Index Copernicus), an editorial board consisting of eminently unknown scientists, badly designed website (about half of the PDF files that I clicked give a "page not found" error, etc. This is rather obviously not a serious, professional outfit. In any case, the quality (or lack thereof) of the journal is immaterial. To be included in WP, a subject has to have been "noted" (see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals) in reliable sources. As already noted in the AfD, the three volumes of the journal published so far have generated only a handful of citations. It is not included in any selective database. Hence, apart from the people involved in the journal (publisher, editors, authors), nobody has taken note of the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

More journal spam

This one is new to me (DGG, do you get this stuff too?).

Dear Prof.,

This is a letter from Scientific Online Publishing, USA. We have launched some new journals and transactions in recently. You are more than welcome to submit your manuscripts to us for publishing.

Scientific Online Publishing (SOP) is a publisher of journals covering a wide range of academic subjects. SOP is dedicated to spreading and sharing the latest research achievements around the world and offering a very convenient access to all the individual researchers and academic communities. SOP aims not only to promote the progress of science, but also to improve the level of research in developing areas. Under the principle of Open Access, SOP is devoted to promoting Open Access journal publishing worldwide. With SOP, any scientific outcome is obtainable at anytime in any corner of the world.

In the past month, we launched some new journals. So we reduced the publishing fees in this month. Most of our journals are now free of charge. For more details, please check the homepages of journals.

Publication may cost "a little amount of money". I saw no hits on Wikipedia yet for "SOP Transactions", which is how some of their titles start. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Not sure I get this. I get so many that I am losing track... They all go into my spam email immediately, although sometimes I respond and tell them that I'll never submit anything to them, will never review for them, and won't even read any article published in their crappy journals. Doesn't seem to help, though... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

How much more of this crap is there??

Unfortunately, there is much MUCH more. I have been taking the approach of tagging articles for sources and/or notability, coming back through and looking myself for sources (adding if I find any), and eventually coming to AfD once the search is exhausted. Now there's another editor summarily removing the tags without improving the articles, so I'm probably just going to have to bring them one-by-one to AfD. It's such a huge mess of inbred articles and lists that it will take much longer to unravel than it took to create.

This whole mess was created by one or two editors who are no longer participating in this space, and now it leaves me looking like I'm on a crusade - when I'm just attempting to restore some sanity. Past attempts to go to the various projects who might be interested have met with either resistance or apathy - so now I have a new vocation, I guess.

Thanks for keeping an eye on things... Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I keep seeing stuff pop up... And you're right, it's much easier to create a mess than it is to clean it up. Just spend a few days cleaning up journal articles created by Sage Publications editorial assistants... --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ouch. The worst I'd dealt with (before this) was trying to make some sense of MMA articles - I gave up. In this case, it's the amount of reading that I was unprepared for. I'd bet that between myself, Astynax, and Nwlaw63 we have read nearly every cut/paste/reprint journal or book by the self-appointed academics in this field - and I know my brain hurts. I am hopeful that Arbcom takes up the related case, but not terribly optimistic that things will be resolved. Soon, Tgeairn (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaza Letter in The Lancet

I have reinserted the Gaza letter information, adding more citations per your comment as well as adding in some new developments. Also sourced. Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarterly Review of Film and Video

This is up for AFD, and since I couldn't find a database here that was also in WP:NJOURNALS I have decided to ask for your help again. Would you say any of them are selective enough to meet NJOURNALS? I think the British Humanities Index probably is, but I'm not sure because it's not mentioned by name at NJOURNALS (we should consider expanding that). Jinkinson talk to me 22:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Lievano Deleted Page

I have added the necessary references to this page. I just wanted to contact you as you were the admin that looked over this page. A secondary unbiased source has been added as well as other key components. Cheers.

Antonio Lievano[1]

Panhead2014's insistance in edit warring and accusing other people

Panhead2014's insistance in edit warring and accusing other people. Just to give you a little background over Panhead's claims, I'll post some links below:

1)WP:FOOTY discussion over his edits in Sergio Busquets and Míchel Salgado, where he claims that I (and some other users) have a personal problem with him (which is definitely not true);

2)The block logs related to the user;

3)His constantly claims that Gringoladomenega is acting wrong and is having a nuisance behavior. In this same discussion it was explained why he was blocked and why his requests to unblocking were denied by five admins.

Also, Panhead clearly violates WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:CIVIL, WP:BRD, WP:3RR. And in WP:FOOTY discussion, is also pretty clear that he doesn't want to reach a consensus, but wants to impose his edits ahead of others. Cheers- --Gringoladomenega talk 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Overt-Kill

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Overt-Kill. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. . --Mike

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Educational Psychologist (journal)

RE: [2]

Yes it does. On page 137, paragraph 1. http://i.imgur.com/aTq3dyp.png Antrocent (♫♬) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I stand corrected. Weird though: I downloaded the PDF and it is searchable, so I searched for "Educational Psychologist" and did not see the title. Just tried again, searching only for "educational psy" and it just jumps over the one single mention on p. 137, so apparently that PDF is not completely searchable... Anyway, I have self-reverted. --Randykitty (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

sadhu sivaraman - article deleted

Hi,

As per Mabalu , this article is under discussion. But suddenly it got deleted now without intimation to delete or what is left from usersside to prove. Kindly reconsider and requesting you to continue to the 'sadhu sivaraman' page/article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadhusivaraman (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I really have nothing to add to what Mabalu told you and see no reason to undelete the article. If you disagree, you can go to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Pls. let me know why the article "sadhu sivaraman" got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadhusivaraman (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Please read what Mabalu wrote, that says it all. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Orchid Society of Bangladesh

The orchid society of Bangladesh has currently 44 members (please check the page) though it has only 44 members it has contact with many nurserys thank you! Naseem iqbal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naseemiqbal (talk • contribs) 5:13 pm, Today (UTC+2)

  • Really, 34 or 44 doesn't make any difference. It's just a small club of orchid lovers. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Diamond (Project) Redirected

Hi,

I have seen you have redirected DIAMOND (project) to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, probably also other Seventh Framework Programme projects. Could I know the reason please? I would like to publish it again.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceitacastro (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Have a look at these notes, with which I wholeheartedly agree. To the participants, such an ephemeral project is very notable, but at WP, "notable" has a very special meaning (see WP:GNG) and only extremely rarely is such an EU project notable in the WP encyclopedic sense. Note also that all articles created for research projects are almost exclusively for EU-funded projects. NSF/NIH/etc don't push their grant holders to create WP articles that almost all of the time will be deleted anyway... --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the information. I have read it, but I think DIAMOND (project) have a significat significant and direct coverage in independent newspapers and magazines. Please, find here some references:

Newspapers:


Online media:


Magazines:

  • MSI y CEIT-IK4 buscan la excelencia en los sistemas de tratamiento de agua residual. Estrategia Empresarial. (http://www.estrategia.net/estrategia/). November 2013
  • Proyecto DIAMOND. Excelencia en la gestión de los sistemas de tratamiento de agua (The DIAMOND project: excellence in the management of wastewater treatment systems). Technical magazine: Retema, Revista Técnica de Medio Ambiente, January-February 2013
  • Jätevedenpuhdistamojen data tehokkaampaan käyttöön. DIAMOND-hankkeesta työkaluja puhdistamojen operointiin. (More efficient use of data in wastewater treatment plants. DIAMOND project tools for the operation of treatment plants.) 2013 Technical magazine: Kuntatekniikka
  • Advanced Control in WWTP stabilizes results and saves in operational costs. Auomaatioväylä
  • Advanced Control in WWTP stabilizes results and saves in operational costs. Kuntatekniikka
  • Gestión avanzada de datos para optimizar la operación de las EDAR (Advanced data management for optimising the operation of WWTPs). InfoEnviro (http://www.infoenviro.es/)
  • Gestión avanzada de datos para optimizar la operación de las EDAR (Advanced data management for optimising the operation of WWTPs). Retema (http://www.retema.es)
  • Gestión avanzada de datos para optimizar la operación de las EDAR (Advanced data management for optimising the operation of WWTPs).FuturENVIRO (http://futurenviro.es/)
  • Validación avanzada de datos para optimizar la operación de las EDAR (Advanced data validation for optimising the operation of WWTPs). InfoEnviro (http://www.infoenviro.es/)
  • Validación avanzada de datos para optimizar la operación de las EDAR (Advanced data validation for optimising the operation of WWTPs). Retema (http://www.retema.es)
  • Validación avanzada de datos para optimizar la operación de las EDAR (Advanced data validation for optimising the operation of WWTPs). FuturENVIRO (http://futurenviro.es/)
  • Online Data Preprocessing Tool for the Bromma wastewater treatment plant. Vatten(http://www.tidskriftenvatten.se)
  • Optimising operation of a WWTP and saving in operational costs by using Advanced Monitoring and Controls Tools. Vesitalous
  • Optimising operation of a WWTP and saving in operational costs by using Advanced Monitoring and Controls Tools. Kuntatekniikka
  • Online Data Preprocessing Tool for the Bromma wastewater treatment plant. Vatten (http://www.tidskriftenvatten.se) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceitacastro (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just linking to the homepages of those magazines does not help much... Most of what I can see looks like press releases. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Circe Films

Just going by this. If you think it's wrong, feel free to restore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

also this pinged me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the prompt and correct closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martijn Jeurissen. gidonb (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ZTE Communications, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna. 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) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Shamelessly stole

Hi Randykitty, I shamelessly stole your very handy "admin bar". I hope that was ok. If not, I'll remove it. :) Oz\InterAct 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Don't worry, I stole it myself (from Drmies, I think, but I've stolen so much, I hardly remember what I got where... :-)
  • Hehe, nothing's changed steal-wise. ;) Oz\InterAct 10:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Nomian/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations

Hello, I have significantly expanded the draft and I think it meets the notability guidelines, can you please have a look? Nomian (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think that the added sourcing would respond to the concerns raised in the AfD. Please do not again move this to article space saying "administrator approved" without having explicit approval of an admin (either myself or any other admin). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear Randykitty, before moving that article into mainspace, I consulted with The Bushranger, he said it looked alright to him. Isn't it an explicit approval? Nomian (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of that. You had posted here and I did not get around to this immediately, so I assumed that you had taken my silence as agreement. Let me talk with Bushranger first. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually when you didn't reply I thought I have to consult with another admin so I posted there, anyway sorry for the misunderstanding. Nomian (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would have been helpful to mention that here, but no harm done, don't worry about it. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear Randykitty, sorry to disturb, I just want to know what was the discussion between you and Bushranger, I can't see the thread there. Will it be restored? Thanks in advance. Nomian (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear Randikitty, sorry for the trouble, Bushranger has replied to the thread in his talk page he said, IMHO, it should be good enough, so can we have this restored? Nomian (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
article has now been restored the 2nd time, adding one source to the deleted version is in my opinion not a substantial improvement. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping in Islamism

Earlier today I added a small section of formal statements and newspaper reports in which ISIS and Boko Haram offer formal justifications based on their peculiar (radical) interpretations of Sha'aria justifying the kidnapping of non-Muslim women for purposes of use as concubines or sex slaves. I was in the process of adding a small section containing legal (Sha'aria) justifications published by Isis and Boko Haram asserting the right to capture non-combatant civilians and use them as political chits, or as a means or raising funds form ransom, or for sale as slaves, or to condemn them to death - all justified by their peculiar, minority interpretations of the Quran. When I punched "save" I discovered that you had deleted the article. I would - when I found time - have added academic treatments of the justifications but forward by radical Islamist ideologues, political leaders, military leaders, and clerics justifying kidnapping and advocating its use as a political and military strategy. And more academic and journalist analysis of What differentiates Islamist kidnappings from kidnappings by other terrorist groups is that it is 1.) it is justified by groups with pretensions to state-level authority (Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas) 2.) it is endorsed by some Islamist clerics 3.) Islamist groups in the Philippines and the Maghreb have kidnapped hostages and threatened to kill them unless the governments of their home countries (France, Germany) withdraw support for the coalition bombing and training mainstream Muslim forces to fight ISIS. This is very different from focal terrorist groups self-funding with ransom payments. (this material has been in the article for days) These are extraordinary behaviors. Such behaviors connote a interlinked ideology justifying and employing kidnapping by gorups that reflect and converse about shared goals and methods. They have made the phenomenon of Islamist kidnapping a topic in major newspapers and in policy journals. I believe that the article merits reinstatement.ShulMaven (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Also, I wonder why the article why you did not consider redirecting the article to a section in Islamic terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Given how contentious the AfD was, I am not surprised that some people are unhappy with my close (and would have been unhappy with any other close, too :-). I carefully considered all arguments. You participated in the debate 7 days ago. The AfD was closed 3 days after the normal closing deadline (1 week). So there was plenty of time to put forward your above arguments in the debate and/or to implement any improvements to the article. If you think the article should be reinstated, you should take this to deletion review, although I would think that the best possible outcome you could get there (given the large participation in the AfD) would be a "no consensus", which at DRV defaults to an endorsement of the close. Nevertheless, you can try. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarterly Review of Film and Video

I saw you reverted my edit. The cited page is a page full of text, but if you look at the page, the journal is listed 15 lines up from the bottom [3]. I would appreciate it if you revert your reversion. Michitaro (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify Michitaro's edit, QRFV is listed under its original name, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, in this article. - Wheeler Winston Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.200.117 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it is listed under both: the original title is listed 17 lines from the bottom, the new title 15 lines from the bottom. Michitaro (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Found it, don't know why I didn't see it earlier. I have restored the ref, but placed it a bit higher in the article with a slight reword. Thanks for your note here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It was a jumbled list of journal titles and easy to miss. Michitaro (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Advances in Anthropology

You may have seen this, but if not, at Anatole Klyosov I've had a bit of a tussle over putting the recent problems with the journal in his article. Hopefully that's settled, but you might want to put it on your watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • No, I hadn't seen that, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Not really a very good bio, that one... Although I assume that the Academy memberships meet WP:ACADEMIC. Seems like a fringe scientist to me... I'll keep it watchlisted. --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Digital Dark Ages

Dear Randykitty: I'd like to propose an expansion of this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age - using, if you wish, the sources found in my blog post here, or other sources you may find. My post on this is here: http://blog.unl.edu/dixon/2014/10/15/history-cultural-memory-and-the-digital-dark-age/ - briefly, "Wikipedia defines the term "Digital Dark Age" as "a possible future situation where it will be difficult or impossible to read historical electronic documents and multimedia, because they have been in an obsolete and obscure file format. But I would argue that this is only a very, very small part of the problem. A more pressing concern, it would seem to me, for books, films and music, is that the works of the past created in analog fashion won't survive in the future because they're not deemed to be commercial enough." If you wish to do this, great - I leave it to others to think about, and perhaps act upon. Thanks! - Wheeler Winston Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.200.117 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm not really sure why you posted this here (I've never edited that article as far as I know). Feel free to expand the article (Wikipedia can be edited by anyone...), as long as you keep in mind that we're not allowed to add original research or synthesis. Everything we write needs to be verifiable in so-called reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology
added a link pointing to Solid state
ECS Solid State Letters
added a link pointing to Solid state

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you around?

Are you around right now to talk about this DRV?--v/r - TP 21:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:
    • You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
    • You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
    • Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.
  • What are your thoughts? I personally like #2 best.--v/r - TP 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, sorry was a bit busy earlier. Thanks for closing that DRV. This is the first time, I think, I've seen a DRV land at ANI... Whether or not I am on solid ground is not very important to me, I have no real stake in this (which is why I just !voted "neutral" in the DRV). My only point was that there was (at least to me) a clear consensus to delete in the AfD. I can't shake the thought that if I hadn't tried to accommodate everybody by also adding a redirect, that this would not have gone to AfD at all... Anyway, I love your solution #2. Very smart! That satisfies the AfD consensus and at the same time gives the dissenters what they'd like, too. I'll do this in a few minutes. Please check what I did, because undeleting and moving things between different namespaces sometimes challenge me... :-) Thanks for your help and advice! --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, also please take a look at the discussion on the talk page. Cunard isn't too keen on the #2 idea but I think that is the best solution and an appropriate use of draft space. I think attribution could be easily dealt with through copying the page history and/or directing attribution at the draft namespace. Either way, it leaves the content available to a future editor who wishes to develop the page once more information is available.--v/r - TP 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OMG, I hadn't seen that the whole discussion spilled over on your talk. No, I don't agree to #1, but have no objection to #4 and having another admin lose it. Apart from that, my close was not "redirect" (and my reading of the AfD discussion still does not justify such a decision). The close was "delete". Because I thought that "VideoPad" could possibly be a likely search term (and redirects being cheap), I added a redirect as a courtesy. I actually often do that because I feel that this is helpful, but feel that in this case this was completely misinterpreted (and over-analyzed) to mean something else. Personally, I think AfD policy is clear enough. If a discussion ends in a consensus to "redirect", the history stays. If the consensus is delete, it goes. After that, there is no problem with creating a redirect, but that's more or less a separate thing. I feel Cunard is exaggerating and it looks like the only thing that is going to satisfy them will be their preferred solution, nothing more or less. In any case, I have said what I have to say about this. If you think relisting could be helpful, go ahead, but personally I think this matter should be closed now. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Randykitty, if you had closed this as "delete", I would not have done anything differently. I still would have approached you to ask to you restore the history. Had you declined to do so, I would have asked the DRV community to restore the history. I hope that this experience does not incline you against adding a redirect as a courtesy in the future.

    I cannot understand why it is forbidden to host the history under the redirect while it is okay to host it indefinitely at Draft:VideoPad. Your objection appears to be rooted in the fact that four editors supported deletion at the AfD.

    I recommended #4 to address your concern that restoring the history under the redirect would be overriding consensus. A relist would help achieve consensus on the question "does the encyclopedia benefit from retaining the history under the redirect". No one at the AfD but I explicitly addressed whether the redirect's history should be preserved. This gives editors the opportunity to do so.

    This is a good test case for any future RfC on the matter, so I continue to recommend #4 even though you have implemented #2.

    If the consensus at the relisted AfD is against me (the encyclopedia does not benefit from retaining the history under the redirect), I of course will accept the result. Cunard (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Between the two of you, it seems that you have agreed to relist the AFD. I'll make the appropriate moves and templates to make that happen and update the DRV.--v/r - TP 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said above, if you think it's useful, go ahead. --Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of DEVOTES project wikipedia page

Dear Randykitty, My name is Marianna Mea, I am the Science Communicator of the research project "DEVOTES" (www.devotes-project.eu).

I am writing you as I noticed that the Wikipedia page of the Project "DEVOTES" that I created last year contains now a redirect to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development The page I created was not for promotion, but for dissemination of the objectives, structure and results of this research project (alike there are many others pages in Wikipedia related to FP6 and FP7). May I ask you why you redirected our page? Is it something that Wikipedia team is doing for all the FP7 projects? If it's not the case, I would "undo" your redirect, as it is important for us to have an "open article" here on Wikipedia about our project.

Thank you in advance, Best, Marianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariannaMea (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Marianna, I'm sorry, but you're going at this with absolutely the wrong attitude. The question is not "what can WP do for my project" ("it is important for us to have an "open article" here on Wikipedia about our project"), but "is this project relevant to WP". The answer to the latter question is almost invariably: "not at all". Very few FP6/7 projects actually have articles here (if any), because almost all of the fail our inclusion criteria. Note that our criteria are not a judgment of the quality or lack thereof of a subject. DEVOTES is a project that has not even been in existence for half of its allotted time. It is full of "Euro blabla", contains the usual exaggerations (yes, it's the universities and institutions that sign the grant forms, but a project like this is a collaboration between groups of scientists, not between those universities and such: it's not like university presidents have come up with this project and negotiated it), loads of external links, lots of big and important sounding goals, and nothing else. Encyclopedic value: zero. Apart from that, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abstract and Applied Analysis 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:
  • Journal Will Lose Its Impact Factor — Again |work=The Scholarly Kitchen |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall] |first1=Jeffrey |last1=Beall |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/14/the-scientific-world-journal-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

regarding the revert

Hi Randy, I am going through this list; I have added some sources to Crossings (journal), please see Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) #1. I was in the middle of editing when you patrolled this.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you disagree with my society and library source and have again reverted, I have referred this to the experts at Wikipedia: WikiProject Academic Journals for better sourcing or PRODing (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Crossings .28journal.29) Libraries are in fact reliable sources, used to establish "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." though I agree that better sourcing would be useful here. Jodi.a.schneider (talk)
  • Bonjour Jodi, that's a huge task you have taken upon you. (BTW, I don't think you need to update that list yourself, I think a bot does that from time to time Incorrect, I was mixing this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Missing1 which is bot-maintained). Libraries are only of limited use as sources. Making a link to a website is very easy (and doesn't cost them a dime), so may libraries or institutes have "resources" pages where they link to anything that could be of use (sometimes even to predatory open access journals). I'm busy right now at this moment with expanding a new journal article, but perhaps you could check whether the journal is indexed in Scopus (I have a link to their journal list on my user page). Scopus is less selective than Thomson Reuters, but satisfies NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I don't have a subscription to Scopus here. Please see the list referenced in the talk page discussion from 2-3 min of searching -- this journal is mentioned e.g. in an academic book chapter. Given the type of journal (multi-disciplinary, independently published, emerging field), I wouldn't be surprised if it's not indexed yet. Hence mentions of e.g. hand-selected resources by multiple librarians. I'm trained as a librarian so aware of the potential problems (predatory journals, generic "free e-resources" lists). (And I'm not updating the whole list -- just ran across it and did a small bit of updating to remove existing articles as still "wanted" while I was there.) In this case what's needed is a determination if the topic is notable or not -- and evidence to support that. Anyway, better to discuss at the more general talk page since this doesn't seem like a priority for either of us.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

regarding revert to RC&T article

Hi Randy, allow me to attempt to persuade you on the redundancies I chopped from RC&T article that you reverted. I dropped the descriptors "quarterly" and the bit about the first editor. Not only are those two pieces of information redundant (as they are found later in the article), but I think they are distracting from the core info that ought to be conveyed about a scientific journal. The first things people want to know about a journal are things like purpose, scope and publisher, not who was the first editor. With regard to 'quarterly': for many years there were 5 issues per year, and it was only in 2010 that the frequency went down to 4 issues per year. So to say that it is a quarterly is only true of recent volumes, not the whole archive. Again, I don't think the lead-in is the right place to mess with those details. If after reviewing my reasons you remain unpersuaded, I am not going to do anything more with this. Although I think my edits strengthed the focus of the article a little bit, I don't feel strongly enough about this to escalate beyond this attempt to explain myself. Thank you. AresLiam (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for your note. The quarterly I would leave in. The lead is supposed to say what the journal is, so we usually say something like Bimonthly/quarterly/etc, unless it is 8/year or something like that. If a journal had different publication frequencies in the past, that could be accommodated in the history section. (And it's only 1 word after all... :-) As for the first editor, that is indeed a bit unusual (but not too unusual either) and we usually, again, put that in the history section. Instead, we say who the current EIC is... So in this case, I didn't bother with removing the first EIC and replacing it with the current one. So the standard thing to do would be to switch editor names... Have a look at the writing guide for journal articles. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn/ No consensus

Hello, I am not very familiar with the AFD process, but I see you closed the one around List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations‎ by saying there was "no consensus." I, as nominator, actually withdrew my nomination. Is that the same thing, or is there no category for withdrawals and it instead gets lumped in with 'no consenus?' Thanks. --Briancua (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Withdrawals can, in principle, be closed in any which way the closing admin estimates the consensus, in principle (although I've never seen it) even as "delete". The nom is, in fact, only one of the participants and has no "veto power" over the outcome. In the present case, there were enough serious "delete" !votes for me to close as "no consensus". Of course, in practice that defaults to "keep"... Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't trying to exert any sort of veto. I was genuinely just trying to understand as I really don't participate in the AFD process. Thanks again. --Briancua (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I understood it that way and I didn't think you were trying to do anything improper. I am sorry if my choice of words was a bit clumsy and gave you that impression. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Scientific World Journal

Please see the Talk:The Scientific World Journal page and let's discuss the impact factor issue more there. Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Randykitty/DGG's advice for writing bios

I'm delighted to find this all in one place - I copy bits and pieces of DGG's sage advice from time to time, but it will be useful to be able to point people to this. I have taken the liberty of making a small correction - DGG often says that he is a hasty typist and invites anyone to correct any typos without asking permission. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for correcting that typo. Don't even remember where I found this, but always thought it worth while keeping somewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Randykitty:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 02:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

John Hindhaugh

Hi I'm asking if you could reinstate the page called John Hindhaugh please?

I've seen the delected discussion and I'm able to edit and add the latest information from credible motorsport sources. I am new to Wikipedia however I'm learning but intend on refreshing the page/article.

John has a worldwide appeal, he is the voice of Le Mans 24hrs along with the Radio Le Mans Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy b 1984 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have "userfied" the article here. Please don't move it back to article space without improving the sources and without having it checked by an admin (not necessarily me). --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Randykitty:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Jim Carter 07:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


not cool

pls turn Star Wars: Jedi Academy (book) bck into a article pls. im begging u. pls. :( Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but WP is not the place for unsourced, plot-only articles. It might be more appropriate for Wookiepedia. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

well people will expand the article and stuff. pls turn it bck. Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

pls turn it bck. this is my 3rd time asking. pls. Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but: No. I have explained you why above. Discussion closed. --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Randykitty:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Page recovery

Hello, Can you recover this page for me? I want to rewrite the article in an encyclopedic tone with sources and republish it. If you can, only paste the texts of that article in my sandbox. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I have userfied the article to the sandbox indicated. You should rewrite it soonest, though, as spammy articles should not even remain in user space for too long. Please have it checked by an admin (not necessarily me) before moving it back into main space. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the recovery. I will rewrite it as soon as possible. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

conflict of interests

Thank you so much for your notes on my page. I'm working to edit it to make it fully representative of the field I am describing. Can you explain how I submit the revisions to you before posting? I did already make a few changes before I saw your note. Markcmarino (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I guess this is about Netprov? The best way forward would be to discuss this with NawlinWiki, preferably on the talk page of the article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_10&oldid=1094930939"