User talk:PikoBelo

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Edits made by the below user were last checked for neutrality on 15-01-2022 by PikoBelo.

PikoBelo (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

January 2023[edit]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa for correcting the page. Well, I have copied text, which I have written myself and for which I am "personally" responsible. But this fact is not visible for the other people or authomatic detection, indeed. I will try to spend some more time for Wikipedia in the future. Thank you for your help PikoBelo (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, apparently you are connected to the journal, perhaps even paid for your work. Please disclose your COI on the article talk paage and on your user page. Please read WP:COI and WP:UPE. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products[edit]

The article Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Randykitty for checking carefully.

Criteria C1: "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." - Since 2020 the leading researchers in the area of Clothing Technology are members of the board and prefer to publish in this journal, instead of fully commercially organized journals of MPDI. The remaining related journals are specialized more in "textiles and composites", or if have wording "clothing", then they cover more design or marketing issues, but not the engineering development of textile products. The leading conference in this area "14th joint int. conf. Clotech" https://clotech.eu/ selected as well the journal for both 2020 and 2022 issues for publication of selected papers by the editorial boards. In this meaning CDATP is considered by the community as reliable source.

"Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources."

Even in the short period of time several papers are cittd by other important sources:

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cites=9459615988324297856&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=de -> has 5 citations based on google

This is cited 15 times (mdpi, IEEE)

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cites=8656689246138542929&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=de

This is cited 3 times (mdpi, springer)

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cites=421901899322548859&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=de

Which databases are "selective" ? PikoBelo (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you misinterpret NJournals. Having a board with well-known researchers is a plus, but [[WP:N|notaability] is not inherited. Even a new journal like this one may be expected to collect some citations, that's nothing out of the ordinary and completely trivial. Databases like GScholar and such try to be all-inclusive and are therefore not selective. Examples of selective databases are the Clarivate citation indexes (except ESCI) and Scopus. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. But I do not completely agree, this make the live very simple - and you can refer all journals listed in Scopus. This journal covers all the criteria for indexing by WoS and Scopus and applications for both are in evaluation, but it takes approx. half year to get decision. It is seldom to have diamond open access journal - where neither authors, nor readers pay... But this is not notable. Clarivate and Scopus are commercial services and are manipulable or at least "controllable", as the publisher MDPI demonstrates constantly. It is not ordinary and trivial "to collect some citation" in a very narrow area for this short time, the most all other journals need 2-3 times more years for similar result. I am following/assisting/editing several journals indexed in Scopus and WoS, the results depends as well on the money inserted in marketing/social media from the larger publishers. I was expecting that administrators in wikipedia would at least recognize the difference - it is journal managed completely without comercial support or interest (diamond open access), it is not predatory journals, and it has become reliable resource in short time. But I fully understand that for you is not easy to recognize the difference at the current time, so if nothing notable is there you can delete the record, in one year the index in the selective databases will be available. PikoBelo (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products 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/Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products 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 until the discussion has finished.

Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]