User talk:Randykitty/Archive 19

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

Clinical Otolaryngology

Hallo Randy, and thanks for cleaning up Clinical Otolaryngology. I feel a bit disillusioned: its home page at Wiley says it's indexed by Biological Abstracts but you've found that it isn't. I copied the abbreviation from the NLM catalogue record - you've added full stops which I'm sure is correct but the NLM definitely didn't have any - what's the best source to find official abbreviations, I couldn't find any mention of it on the journal's website? I added the LCCN from the NLM record but apparently that was wrong too. Oh well, at least it hasn't been proposed for any sort of deletion, I should think myself lucky. I only created it to resolve a red link in Philip Stell (which article I probably shouldn't even be editing as he was my husband's cousin, but it's a pretty minimal COI: I met him about twice and went to his funeral and memorial service!) Happy New Year to you and the rest of the Journals enthusiasts. PamD 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi PamD. I checked the BA journal list and it didn't include this journal. Strange, becuase major publishers like Wiley don't often make mistakes about these things. The ISO4 abbreviations contain full stops, as far as I am aware, I don't know why the NLM catalog sometimes omits them (sometimes they put them in; the Library of Congress always includes them). I use this list to find ISO4 abbreviations (note that it includes full stops...) I also used to add LCCNs from the NLM record but strangely enough, more often than not they are incorrect. If you query their catalog (I find that using the print ISSN gives the best results), it looks like this journal is not included in the library of congress. (Strange, Wiley -and even more so Wiley-Blackwell- are usually very good at having their journals included in this database; same for the CODEN, BTW). In my experience, library catalogs (even those of the NLM and LoC) often contain errors and I don't consider them very reliable for any info. As far as I am concerned, this journal would never be a candidate for AfD (so thanks for creating it), but perhaps you are aware of the discussions at WP:NJournals, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Fringe journals, and some scattered other places, where some editors propose to do away with these journal articles completely (unless they meet GNG, which would leave perhaps 1% of all journal articles) and just create lists per publisher... Thanks for your wishes and Happy New Year to you, too! --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • PS: I keep a collection of useful links for journal articles on my userpage. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Physicsfan2015

Hi Randykitty, I know you encountered user Physicsfan2015 at the APL Photonics AfD. I noticed that this user has only edited AIP-rlelated pages, as did Physicsfan2014 who was renamed from Publishing AIP. Do you think some questions should be asked about potential COI or paid editing, or is it not worth it? EdChem (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tim Randolph page

Hello. I'd like to retrieve the content for my page, Tim Randolph, so that I can hopefully bring it into line with the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks Timedgar (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

By "My Page" I simply mean the page that I created. Were you not the deleting admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timedgar (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And please explain to me why the Tim Randolph page is any more promotional than any other currently active music producer pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timedgar (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • No, I tagged it for speedy deletion, which was checked by another admin, who apparently agreed with my assessment and deleted it. Just go to Tim Randolph and you'll see the log. The article had a lot of problems. None of the sources actually seemed to mention Randolph (you, I guess) and contained a lot of claims, none of which were substantiated by any sources. There was a lot of name-dropping, too. The combination of grand claims, with sources that didn't check out, and having been created by the subject himself convinced me that this was a promotional effort. The deleting admin clearly agreed with that. --Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I never thought of my life as being particularly grand, but thanks for the compliment. Anyhow I will do my best to address your concerns and try again. -Tim Grandolph

Edit on Elsevier page

You undid this revision because you claim it is not a reliable source. The edit, which was originally introduced by User:Steelgraham states that "a complain was made" to Elsevier, and points to the individual's claim that he and other academics submitted the complaint. Martin Eve is a professor in the UK, with a strong online presence. His blog should be considered a reputable source with regards to his own actions.

On a more personal note: it seems you have stopped me from making any contributions to Wikipedia. I am increasingly frustrated at my inability to make an edit that will stand your scrutiny. This kind of behaviour disincentives casual participation from the community. --Alperin (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, even if one would accept Eve's blog as a reliable source, in this case it is also a primary source, given that this concerns an action initiated by Eve. Unless you can find secondary reliable sources about this, this is not appropriate content. I am puzzled by your comment on me reverting your edits. When checking your contribution history, I see three edits in the last year: the one single edit to Elsevier that we are discussing here, an edit to your user page, and your edit to my talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • On the Altmetrics page we discussed whether or not citations were part of Altmetrics, and you overruled me. As for the subject at hand, the claim on the Elsevier page is that a "complaint about Elsevier was made", for which the Eve blog is an adequate source. On the Primary Source policy you linked, it reads "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In this case, the primary source confirms that a complaint was indeed made. It seems that unless the Competition and Markets authority made the complaints public, it would be impossible to state anything about it on the Wikipedia page. A complaint can be filed by anyone, and the purpose of stating it here is to show that there are individual's concerned with Elsevier's practices. --Alperin (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Retraction Watch makes reference to the complaint (by linking to Eve's blog). (Note that Retraction Watch has its own Wikipedia page, so is considered notable and thus secondary) --Alperin (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If RetractionWatch would have published a post on this matter, that would have been a secondary source. Just providing a link is not the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
:: Alas, I continue to fail to contribute to Wikipedia. I continue to disagree with your judgement—the claim that User:Steelgraham was simply that a complaint was made, something that can be seen on Eve's blog, is worthy of inclusion. Your judgement about credibility of the source, or about the inappropriate nature of the blog as a primary source are, in my opinion, invalid. However, I know from past experience that it is pointless to argue with a seasoned WP editor. You will win, not necessarily because you are right, but because you have a deeper commitment to win, and because you can use the WP rules against me. Feel free to delete this discussion, I concede. --Alperin (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Replacing journal cover image

Dear Randykitty,

The cover for the journal Isis is outdated, and I intended to replace it by the current cover image (I contacted the publisher, and they confirmed I can do this under 'fair use').

The current cover image description page, however, says the image is not replaceable. I do not see a link saying 'update current version', neither do I see a link to Wikipedia Commons. Now, I do not know how to replace the image by the latest version of the journal cover.

Can you help me updating the cover (which design was completely changed as of the March 2015 issue already)?

Thanks!

Kind regards,

--ManEdit (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, if you go to the image (here) there's a link to "Upload a new version of this file" at the end of the section "File history". Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at RickinBaltimore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, I don't see such link. Under "Non-free media information and use rationale for Isis (journal)", it says: "Replaceable? none" and under "File History", it says: “You cannot overwrite this file.” Is that the reason I do not see the link that you mentioned? If I search for 'new' on the page you referred me to, no results appear, so now I do not know how to proceed. What should I do in order to replace the old cover by a new one?

I hope you can help me. Thanks.

ManEdit (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

NJournals

All your comments are responding to jps, who is being inflammatory, and you are ignoring my efforts to make progress in addressing the concerns. Why?

Would you please work with me to:

  • include discussion of the use of indexes in the essay
  • discuss characterization of journals in the essay.

?

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, yeah, you're right, sorry about that. I just don't seem to be able to find time to give this the careful read that this merits. I really appreciate your efforts to start a constructive discussion. Part of my reticence is that I'm getting really tired of all these things. It's sometimes so frigging hard to get people to see reaon about completely forgettable journals that they for some reason like (this one or this drummed up piece or this forgettable rag). And then there are things like this or this. It's like trying to empty an ocean with a bucket. Frankly, I'm on the verge of throwing in the towel and leave WP altogether. --Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That would be unfortunate!! If we make progress on actually reforming the essay jps will chill. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for grace period with deletion of Brian Hioe article

Hi RandyKitty, I noticed you have nominated Brian Hioe for deletion. I can see, yes, that there is a shortage of well-sourced material. However, I suspect that this might be because Hioe works primarily in Chinese-language media, so his notability is dissipated between two languages. In the meantime, I have asked for help from two editors, User:Chongkian, and User:Hongthay. Chongkian has replied and is going to investigate, and see if there are ways to improve the article. However, Hongthay has not responded, and hasn't edited for a few days. Both have good knowledge of Taiwan and the language (Taiwan is not primarily an English-speaking country). Would appreciate if you could bear this in mind. Cheers MatthewTStone (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Short of removing the PROD (which would certainly trigger an AfD, we cannot delay this. But if it gets deleted, you can ask for it to be "userfied" and work on it in your user space before having it go "live". It would have been best if you'd done this to start with, rather than creating a stub with insufficient sources. In fact, if you like, I can remove the PROD and move this to draft space already now where you can work on it until ready. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

EMPSEB article

Hi Randykitty, I have just created my first article on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EMPSEB&redirect=no) and you have redirected it to another article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_for_Evolutionary_Biology). EMPSEB is not a subsection of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB). Therefore I was wondering why you have redirected the article (I am new to Wikipedia so I don't really know how if works). However, I do know that EMPSEB and ESEB are two different things and should not be merged. Many thanks for your help! MiguelitoeldeMafalda (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The EMPSEB meeting is displayed prominently on the ESEB website, stating that they sponsor that meeting, so it seemed a logical target for a redirect. I doubt that the EMPSEB meeting, standing on itself, woul meet our inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I do not know if the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria because, as I said before, this is my first article. Is it then possible that you transfer the information I wrote (or the most important part of it) to the European Society for Evolutionary Biology article? Or how should I proceed? Many thanks! MiguelitoeldeMafalda (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The article is still available under the article history, but transferring most information to the ESEB article is not a good idea (you should leave out the huge list of meeting venues and the list of award winners, for example). That is information that belongs on the EMPSEB website, because, let's face it, in the whole scheme of things, this is a minor meeting and an even minor award. --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course I disagree, but since I guess I have nothing else to do / say, thanks again. MiguelitoeldeMafalda (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MiguelitoeldeMafalda: I have added a single sourced sentence about EMPSEB to the ESEB article, so that anyone following the redirect isn't puzzled why they land there. This seems a reasonable compromise. The ESEB article itself could do with some work - it has an article cited as "Further reading" but no refs or footnotes beyond that, and offers an unsourced list of former Presidents, BLP info. PamD 23:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an excellent solution. Thanks PamD! --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are also busy in real life

The article has Brian Hioe now been back back in WP:Mainspace for some hours, and I have (I believe) addressed the issues you raised. As you were very quick (within less than an hour of its creation) to nominate it for deletion, I trust, in WP:Good faith, you will not take too long with your corresponding WP:Review. I understand you are busy at the moment – so are other editors. If you don't have time at the moment, I suggest you pass the task on to someone else. Thanks. MatthewTStone (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I would expect that with almost 2000 edits and 10 years here you would know that there are no set tasks here. Anyway, I have looked at every source in the article and did not see anything in-depth about Hioe, so I have taken it to AfD (the PROD having been removed, it cannot be restored and I reckoned that you would contest it anyway). I hope this was fast enough for your liking. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
* Impressively speedy. I have put my comments on the nomination[1], including a reason why you may be specifically biased against this subject. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh man, I can't tell you how tired I get from people who accuse somebody of an "inherent bias" as soon as they disagree about something. Please be advised that accusing somebody of bias without proof is a personal attack. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • So I'm not the first then? Ok, I'll put it another, non-personal way. The large cluster of national flags on your user page seem to be inherently biased, in a particular direction. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the first time I've been called biased against Asian subjects, but I've been called a racist, a sexist, anti-Serbian, and more. And my lament was not just about me, because I see it happen to other editors, too. Anyway, you have apologized below, so case closed. --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Hi RandyKitty, I'm sorry for getting somewhat unpleasant earlier today. Please consider all suggestions withdrawn. I note some other of my articles being nominated for deletion (I just happened to find myself on a run of journalists/commentators of a particular political persuasion, and yes they are a bit interlinked, I guess, now that I look at it). Indeed, some valid criticisms being made by yourself, User:Timmyshin and probably other editors as well by now. If the articles get deleted – then so be it. I will consider myself appropriately chastised. MatthewTStone (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MatthewTStone, sorry I tagged those articles for deletion. I was unrelenting in my criticism and tagging/editing your articles because I thought you had a personal relationship with at least one of those bloggers. After reading your explanation, I sincerely apologize to you if I insinuated incorrect things about you in those AFD discussions. I still don't think the articles are notable enough, but please don't feel demoralized. Like you correctly pointed out, Taiwan's coverage on en.wiki is really lacking, and I can see that you are more than capable at finding references and editing an article. You just need to find the right topics. Good luck to everything and sorry again. Timmyshin (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:Timmyshin, cool, will take on board also. MatthewTStone (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, yes, will do in future. MatthewTStone (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

e-Informatica web page

Regards :E-Informatica Software Engineering Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

As you have post on the talk page *keep* is it possible do remove the headers about the quick deletion from this page?

As Wikipedia proclaims itself as a friendly community, I have never been accused for so many infringements in just a few hours. And the documentation of Wikipedia is so huge and tremendous that I just lose my may in it.

Wojciech Thomas (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Editing WP can be daunting at the beginning, but it can be very rewarding if you persist and you'll find that if you ask people for help, most of them are more than willing to assist. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things here. It is better to start slowly, by editing existing articles and gathering experience first. As for the notice on top of that page, that has to stay for the moment. This is not a speedy deletion notice (cf WP:CSD), but a notice about a deletion discussion (cf WP:AFD). Such discussions last for 7 days minimum and the fact that I !voted "keep" doesn't change anything to that. Patience! --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You probably have mail

Hello, Randykitty. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Got your message. It's too bad, really, because the guy is clearly knowledgeable and could be an asset to WP. But not the way he's going about it, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for deleting spam articles that people are posting. I congradulate you for helping to contribute to what I call everyone's information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini127 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks and you're welcome. It's a never-ending battle, I'm afraid... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

European Academy of Sciences

You won't be surprised to learn that your edit to European Academy of Sciences did not go unnoticed. In response to an email sent to Wikimedia at OTRS, I have urged the individuals to open a discussion at the article talk page and/or your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Ha! Thanks for the heads up. Can't say I'm looking forward to more COI editors... Sigh. --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Materials Chemistry

Here you removed a redlink; however, we do have articles on the original journal and the three into which it split. How to handle the linking in this case is unclear to me. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see. I've added the three journals to that list, assuming that they are among the most influential in their field... --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I have no opinion on the strength or importance of the journals, but at least they were not obviously unsuitable. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am reaching out to see abou thaving a article and page created for a music group that is all over the world right now. Their music is blowing up;

shadesoffamemusic@gmail.com

Shades of Fame "Staying Away"

Pocketparis (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


I'd also like to see about having a page made for a Chicago Blues Musician. Jarrett M Pruitt He is also the founder owner of Shades of Fame ~ jarrett michael & the Miles Walker band. both bands being notable in the eye of the public. Radio, tours, Tv, commercials. Thankj you, Pocketparis

  • Thanks for the kitten! I have placed a "welcome" template on your talk page which contains links to guidelines and policies that should help you in creating articles. I myself don't know much about popular music (and I'm currently not very active here anyway), so I won't be able to give much assistance. You could have a look at WP:Wikiproject Music, editors there will certainly be able and willing to help you. --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to create a wiki page

Hi, help me any administrator. I want to add a wiki page name Kid Max. Who is knowing as a hip-hop singer & dancer in Bangladesh. I find some references on online news. But when I started to create this page I saw that this page has been deleted & protected for prevent vandalism. Please help me to add this page. Thank you. Nirmol360 (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not too familiar with hip-hop singers, so the best advice I can give you is to look at what I wrote in the section just above this one. It's probably best to start this article as a draft (Draft:Kid Max) and submit it to WP:AFC when you're done. Make sure that it will not be WP:PROMOTIONAL and that it meets our inclusion guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

People In A Box

Hi Randy, I got your message re: conflict of interest (since I was founder of People In A Box). I didn't know in my case that it was better to create the page as a Draft rather than live article submission. I see it's already been deleted. I could recreate as a Draft then submit, but I don't know what else to tell you about References...the Discography, band members info, bio, etc. are pulled from the references I listed in my original article as well as my hard drive, notes, etc here. Further, we are no longer a group, so there is not much left as far as our website or things to link to online, but we had significant accomplishments as well as fans. What's the best way to get this page live...have someone other than myself submit the same article? Thank you for your help. Kurtkirton (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Kurt, People in a Box 3/2/17

  • Hi Kurt, The article that you created about your band was incredibly promotional, so I deleted it as spam. In addition, there was no credible indication of why this would be notable, that is, whether this band meets our inclusion criteria. None of your references were independent of the band and there were no reliable sources supporting any of the statements made. In short, the problem was not so much the COI. If somebody not connected to the group would sublit the same article, it would again be deleted as spam/non-notable. Have a look at WP:BAND to see what is needed to meet our criteria. If you have material that fits these criteria, then a neutral non-promotional article might be justified, otherwise not. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Noah Kellogg

now that I am unblocked and I have submitted permissions how does the Noah Kellogg article get published. this is all very confusing. how many people am I dealing with? what do I have to do to get this article online? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByandBy (talk • contribs)

  • Hi it'll get even more confusing if you don't follow advice... Did you read what I wrote on your talk page? Did you follow the links to the applicable notability guideline? There are several things that need to be done. 1/ Ask the OTRS volunteer who has handled the copyright issue to complete the template on the talk page of the draft. 2/ Edit the text of the draft to make it an encyclopedic article. 3/ Remove the external links in the text. If they are relevant, convert them to references. 4/ Look for reliable sources. I don't know whether the Alki History Project site would count as such, but in any case you need more than 1 source. 5/ I have placed an "article for creation" template at the top of the draft. It contains some helpful links. I have also placed a "welcome" template on your talk page, with even more links. Please have a look at the different guidelines and policies. I know this is daunting, but creating new articles is one of the most difficult things here on WP. A better way to start is to contribute to existing articles and then gradually move on when you get the hang of things until you're ready for your first article. In any case, when you feel that your draft article is ready for prime time, click the "submit your draft for review" button on top of the article. A volunteer from the AFC ("article for creation"; WP loves initialisms...) workforce will come by and review the draft. If good, it'll be moved into main space. If not, they'll tell you what needs to be done to improve it. You need perhaps to wait a little bit and be patient, because the AFC volunteers are very busy and it may be a while before someone gets around to your article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 2017 Dutch - Turkish diplomatic incident

Hi there,

You recently removed the information of "2017 Dutch - Turkish diplomatic incident", while calling it a redirect in the summary. I would ask you that, if you think the article should be a redirect, to do this in the proper and official manner. I personally found it to be somewhat rude that you removed the information, not even moving it, but am willing to assume good faith. In any case, the article as it is now needs work, especially a Turkish POV, but I do note that in its category are articles of far smaller, less reaching incidents than this one. Your storm in a teacup analogy therefore, doesn't work in my opinion. If you disagree I would gladly speak with you on the articles talk page. Friendly greetings, AKAKIOS (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness, you should have discussed your 'redirect' on that same talk page. If you'd done that, I would have gladly and already have responded to you there. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
In all fairness: nope. See WP:BOLD. The edit summary said all that needed to be said to explain the edit. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
To you perhaps, but the world is somewhat bigger than that.AKAKIOS (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to expound on a tag added to 2017 Dutch - Turkish diplomatic incident

Hi there,

Now that the deletion request you filed for the 2017 Dutch - Turkish diplomatic incident has closed after finishing in a clear "keep-consensus", I would like to request your help in improving the article further. You recently added a tag concerning reliability or aplicability of the source material used in the article without further explaining/discussing this on the article's talk page. Could you please explain yourself on the talk page so that I and other editors can voice our arguments or know what to improve? Friendly greetings, AKAKIOS (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion | The Schola

Thank you for your comments. Being an academic journal of essays written by high school students, it is inevitable that this journal is not as notable as those publishing articles written by professional academics in university level. I kindly ask you to offer advice, after considering the readers of this journal, on the notability issue.--Thejophiel (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Actually, it might be easier for this journal to meet WP:GNG than it is for many professional journals. In any case, every subject needs to meet GNG (or one of its sub-guidelines) in order to be included in WP. The article is PRODded, meaning that you have a full week to find reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if this this comment can be posted following the discussion above. It is highly unlikely that the journal meets the GNG requirement at this stage. I ask that the article be deleted. Thanks. --Thejophiel (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • You can post this comment at the deletion discussion, if you like. --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Historical Studies

Hello Randykitty,

How are you? I hope you are well. I created a Jewish Historical Studies-page as a redirect to the Jewish Historical Society of England-article. Before I go further and create an article on a non-notable journal (which would be a waste of time): do you think that the Jewish Historical Studies-journal deserves it's own article? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Global Environmental Politics revision deletion

Hi,I am working on this page for a college project and am entirely new to editing Wikipedia, so please bear with me in my editing. I took note of the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide as you linked on my site and I have made some changes that comply. I was wondering if you could let me know how I can better comply with my sections regarding the different types of articles in the journal so as to make them more neutral. I used Journal of Clinical Investigation as my guide. Julieadue (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Julieadue

  • That's not really a good example and if I had time I would clean that one up, too. Better take an example to our "good articles" (see Category:GA-Class Academic Journal articles). Please also see WP:BOLD: if your additions to an article are reverted, you should discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page, not keep reverting. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Groningen Journal of International Law

Hi there. I'm confused with your edit here, renominating a page for speedy deletion after I had already declined the previous speedy request. I assume you just didn't see it and didn't want to wheel-war though. On the subject itself, I think you are mistaken (which you can see for yourself if you check the deleted versions). The new version includes sources that have not been in the article when it was deleted at AfD, so a new AfD might lead to a different outcome. Thus I request that you undo your nomination and take it to AfD instead. Regards SoWhy 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I indeed hadn't seen the previous speedy. --Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Neal Ashkanasy

Hi RandyKitty, The citations you requested have been added and the banner taken off. Hopefully you are happy now. Cheers, Neal Ashkanasy Nealash (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Neal, I've put them back. Theer's lots of unsourced stuff in the article and it doesn't really read like an encyclopedic entry but more like a resume. You yourself are perhaps not the best person to address these issues either. It's very difficult (albeit perhaps not impossible) to write neutrally about yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi RandyKitty, I have removed all unsourced material and added additional citations. I also added a section on reviewing (accompanied by verifiable sources). I have referred to an independent Wiki Editor (Jemma King) who will check to ensure it now meets Wikipedia standards. Ms. King will remove the tags when she is satisfied. Nealash (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi RandyKitty, This is Jemma, I have edited Neal's wiki page. His page is now written using neutral language and all unsourced material removed, please compare to Greg Bamber and Paul Ekman’s Wikipedia entries which use similar language and format with no issues. I am satisfied that the entry now meets all Wikipedia requirements. Cheers, King.jemma (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Jemma, could you please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? It's great that you think this now meets all Wikipedia requirements, but, unfortunately, I beg to differ. There's still a lot of stuff in there that is not sourced and it still doesn't read like an encyclopedic article and contains some rather trivial stuff (a Publons award? Really?) Also, you're using Wikipedia as a reference, something that is not allowed (see WP:RS). Even if it were, that's an apparently inclusive list of Oceanian Jews and does not establish that he's "leading". So I'm going to put the tags back and would like to request that you don't remove them again until all problems have been addressed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PS: please leave the engvar and dates templates in place. They are invisible instructions to WP editors. --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Kitty. I really thought that all the problems had been resolved, but obviously not. I have now removed the reference to Oceanian Jews and Publons. As far as I can see, all the other references are appropriately sourced. I am also comparing to other Wiki sites, eg Greg Bamber and Paul Ekman, which do not carry any tags. Can you please help me, and tell me what to do to satisfy all your requirements. King.jemma (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do chime in

Notability within bios (more specifically
application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Journal

I guess that journal is heiding to the bin. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Yup. A7 is of course inappropriate for this, regardless of notability, as journals are not A7-eligible. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is not notable, then it must be advertising, which I hate, trying to subvert WP. These advertisers see no value in WP, except as an adverting platform. scope_creep (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the motivation of many people creating this kind of journal stubs is indeed often to publicize the existence of their journal, but often they are convinced of the importance of it ("it's the only journal on the right hind leg of the Patagonian cockroach published in Albanian!") and the motivation rarely is pecuniary (with the exception of predatory journals, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

enquiry

Hey Randykitty, The reason to bother you is that I noticed that the page I am trying to create has been previously deleted by you September 2015 under G11. I have no idea what the previous content was and how could I write a new article. The address is www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbanize . I would really appreciate your help on this. Thanks in advance!

Best regards, Loreta Bahtchevanova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lory2esc (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Hi Loreta, To write a new article you need reliable sources independent of the subject that voer it in depth. See WP:GNG. Your article should be neutrally worded. If you follow those indications, then you should be fine. There is no rule against writing a new article on a subject that was previously deleted as spam, as long as your new article is not spam, too. So you need to avoid undue praise, unless you have a good source for that. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Microbial Genomics

Dear Randykitty, In regard to the new page created for the journal Microbial Genomics, I have now added links to Pubmed and to the repository of published papers in Pubmed Central. I hope this answers your question about the journal being notable and the flag for deletion can be removed. Best regards, Gavin Thomas.

  • PubMed Central includes any OA journal (except for the most egregious predatory ones) and is therefore not a selective index in the sense of WP:NJournals. Like being "indexed" on Google Scholar (or even worse, Google itself), being included in PMC is so trivial that as a rule (again, like Google and GScholar) we do not even mention it in journal articles. --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship!

Wishing Randykitty a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! ~PogingJuan 14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Journal Rankings

Hi Randykitty, I'm a new wikipedian and I was wondering about the logic behind deciding which journal ranking sources are appropriate to cite on wikipedia articles. I used the scimago ranking and I see you changed this to the "impact factor" for Geotextiles and Geomembranes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathfounder (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Normal Magazine English Page

Hello,

We have noticed the fact that you deleted our English page of Normal Magazine on January 27th 2017.

We wanted to know why you have done such a thing and if you are able to expose your reasons, maybe we can understand why and start a new page in order to develop our communication field.

Thanks for you answer,

Best wishes,

Normal Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Guédon (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please undelete International q-bio Conference on Cellular Information Processing

Many thanks -- and if you suggest that the article violates rules, could you please explain how you reached this conclusion. This would be much appreciated. The article was originally introduced years ago modeled on other articles describing other scientific conferences, which are still in place. So it is confusing why this article has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.104.11 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2013 cover Front Neuroendocrinol.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2013 cover Front Neuroendocrinol.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A request

Please continue discussion on article talk page, not here --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2017 (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.

Randy, please revert yourself at philoSOPHIA. The three editors active at the article, who know something about this area, want to include the advisory board because these names are known, and they're involved with the society that the journal is part of. Headbomb was the only one opposed based on an essay, and he repeatedly reverted against three editors until he somehow summoned you. It isn't something that an admin should help him with. He has been very aggressive, there and during the AfD.

If you and he disagree with consensus, please open an RfC rather than trying to force your (or his) view in. SarahSV (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • We have had many discussions like this at many different journals. Each time, the consensus has been that boards only get included if there are independent reliable sources documenting their implication in the journal. Some of this can be seen from the archives of the project's talk page. Unless sources can be found, this content is just fluff and name dropping. --Randykitty (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
But that isn't policy or a guideline. It's just a WikiProject—it can't control all articles that have its tag on the talk page. The consensus at that article is to include the names, so please revert yourself and join in the discussion or open an RfC. Headbomb and you have removed the names six times in a few days. It's very disruptive. SarahSV (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If a similar discussion has been had over and over again, then that is consensus. This has been incorporated in the writing guide (on the talk page there, you can see a comment on boards by DGG, too). Has nothing to do with a project "trying to control" anything. It's just that at the project's talk page you can find links to some of those previous discussions. So please stop adding this inappropriate content or start an RfC (either at the journal's talk page or, more effectively, at the talk page of the writing guide, because there's no reason this should concern only a single journal). --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Randy, WikiProjects can't control articles via essays. Can you please take that point? See Wikipedia:WikiProject: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Also see WP:ADVICEPAGE:

in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor.

This kind of behaviour is one of the reasons experts (and women) don't edit Wikipedia. Someone once said the website is still so sexist because all the smart feminists stay away. It's hurtful to have to acknowledge how much truth there is in that.
All we want to do is create a short page for a small philosophy journal, so that there isn't nothing there if people look it up. It doesn't harm anyone to have it there; there are no BLP issues, fringe issues or anything similar. Yet look at the BS we've had to put up with. A creepy focus on it, aggressive reverting, an AfD, insults about special snowflakes, and now an admin joining in. SarahSV (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry that you feel that way, but please read my above comment again, where I (apparently not well enough), tried to explain that this is not a case of a WikiProject trying to control "its" articles. What I am saying is that the discussion on whether or not editorial boards, associate editors, book editors, and whatnot should be included in articles on academic journals has been had multiple times at multiple articles with invariably the same result. Some (but probably not all) of those discussion are linked to on the talk page of the WikiProject, that's all. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Randykitty, please stop reverting. You're an admin, you were canvassed, and consensus is against you. SarahSV (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What the hell do you mean, canvassed? Putting a neutral notice on the talk page of a WikiProject is not "canvassing". And without reliable independent sources, that stuff does not belong in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It was canvassing because he knew it would get this reaction. He didn't let other interested parties know, such as the gender gap task force, where the response might have been different.
Between the two of you, you've reverted about nine times in a few days, at an article neither of you has any interest in or knowledge of, one that both of you believe should not exist. Instead of fighting with us, why not leave it alone and let us try to write it? SarahSV (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That they want to include the advisory board because these names are known means that are seeking to gain name recognition, also known as promotionalism. True, this is one of the functions of many members of editorial boards-- to make journals seem important-- but normally it is considered promotionalism--usually promotionalism by the journal, but sometimes, as I suspect here, also promotional efforts by the members of board to actively help the journal--they are using their name recognition to advertise it. This sort of promotionalism is routine practice in the academic world; in WP, its the sort of routine promotionalism we always remove. . We remove mere memberships in a board of editors from a bio of an academic also. It does not indicate significance; it's a very minor honor, and part of the culture of mutual inflation of everyone's CVs. As an admin, one has the responsibility to remove spam. If I deliberately failed to do it in a comparable case that would be abusing the admin power. RK and I feel the same way quite simply because anyone who actually knows academic journal practices would. (and I note the 1promotional use of reference 9-- a very important cause, appropriate for the person's bio article, and for an article on the actual subject involved, but not for every article on something she's connected with.) However important a cause may be to us, we still don't promote it. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • David, there's so much misinformation in your post I hardly know how to address it (including about reference 9, which is just wrong), and there's no point in trying. The bigger picture is that no one wants to edit this miserable encyclopaedia anymore, myself included, because of these kinds of episodes.
Look at RandyKitty's recent contributions. Three edits since April and none in the last few days, before Headbomb summoned him to a tiny, high-quality philosophy journal of interest to women (if you knew anything about women in philosophy, you would understand why this journal might matter to some people), decided his view must override the view of people who know something about the topic, and used up his three reverts within seven hours. The woman he was reverting against is a newbie and a philosopher and exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia should want to keep. That doesn't matter to RandyKitty. All that matters is that he get his own way.
I was looking forward to expanding the article with information about its work (yes, from the jourmal itself, horror of horrors), and now I don't even want it on my watchlist. Thank you for that. SarahSV (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I judge articles one at a time. I don't go to other people's talk pages to express my general dislike for their work. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means. What's depressing is that the three of you don't know anything about this journal or about philosophy. Yet you're absolutely sure that including the editorial board is just spam, absolutely certain that they're just names that the journal has signed up in order to sell itself. People who do know something about it are telling you you're wrong, but you're not able to hear that.
This would have been a nice approach: "I see you've included the names of the advisory board. There's no guideline on this, but there's been consensus in various discussions that journals include well-known academics on their boards for promotional reasons only. As this article develops, can I ask you to bear that mind? I'll check back in a month to see how it's going, and if it's not clear by then why the names are included, I may remove them. Thanks for creating the article!" SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: 1/ "absolutely sure": nope, I'm not absolutely sure. I'm willing to be convinced by independent reliable sources (and please don't repeat Hypatiagal's ridiculous comment that the journal's publisher is somehow independent of the journal). 2/ Hypatiagal is not a newbie. See her userpage claiming that she edited under another name since 2014. 3/ DGG is a retired research librarian from a major US library. To tell him that this is a subject that he doesn't know much about it downright silly. I myself have specialized in editing articles on academic journals. I really cannot count how many such articles I have edited, but it's many hundreds, perhaps even more than thousand. Headbomb similarly has years of experience with editing academic journal articles. It's a subject DGG, Headbomb, and I care about and have specialized knowledge about. 4/ Even if all of the foregoing would be false: you're insisting to include information into this article in the face of opposition repeatedly requesting that you justify yourself with an independent reliable source. Even if the people requesting this were newbies ignorant of academic journals, that is not something you can ignore. Correct sourcing is the backbone of "this miserable encyclopedia". 5/ By the way, while you're looking at my contributions, you may notice that my recent inactivity is quite exceptional and not something to use as an argument here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2017 (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.

Example for JSTOR

On your userpage, you have

  • <ref>{{cite journal |last=Ziff |first=David |title=Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |accessdate=14 April 2014 |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=841–872 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4099480 |date=April 2005 |subscription=yes |via=[[JSTOR]]}}</ref>
  • Ziff, David (April 2005). "Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant". Columbia Law Review. 105 (3): 841–872. Retrieved 14 April 2014 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

I strongly recommend updating this to

  • <ref>{{cite journal |last=Ziff |first=David |title=Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=841–872 |date=April 2005 |jstor=4099480}}</ref>
  • Ziff, David (April 2005). "Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant". Columbia Law Review. 105 (3): 841–872. JSTOR 4099480.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Done, thanks (also for the other correction that you made :-). --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to create a article because it was protected by you.

Hi User:Randykitty

A brief about me.: I'm Vinuthnaah Neela. Senior Journalist to a Reputated Telugu News Paper and News Channel.

Why am posting this. : I'm right here to write an article on Person Krishna Hoccane but I can't because it is Protected by the Administrators especially you. So I asking and requesting you to unprotect and share the rights of the article to my WikiPedia Account.

Thank You May I hope, you understood my intention -Vinuthnaah Neela(Journalist)

Vinuthnaah (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, given the history of this article, which was mostly to promote an otherwise not very remarkable person, I'm not going to remove the protection. There even was a draft, which was also deleted for the same reason (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Krishna Hoccane). If you want to re-create a draft, you should go to deletion review and present there your arguments why you think this should be re-created (meaning that you shoumld present reliable sources confirming that this person meets our inclusion criteria (either WP:NBIO or WP:GNG). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, for the information.Vinuthnaah (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stanley Aronowitz bibliography

Deprodding of Stanley Aronowitz bibliography: I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. Instead, I have started a deletion discussion at Talk:Stanley Aronowitz bibliography, which you may comment on. I have explained my reasons for doing so there. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyvandernaald (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks for letting me know. I have started an AFD to get the input of the community. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AoB Plants 2015 cover.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AoB Plants 2015 cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AoB Plants 2015 cover.gif

The file File:AoB Plants 2015 cover.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Equivalent media At Commons c:File:AoB Plants 2017 cover.gif under a free license with a claimed OTRS permission.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Next Generation Digital Magazine

Dear Sir

I hope this message finds you well. I noticed that have you have deleted my article because it was an ambiguous advertising or promoting which I believed could be a misunderstanding. Becuase the article was not intended for advertising but you to give information about the magazine and I would like to recreate page. Can you please kindly walk through me as to which part of the article might have prompted for deletion. Appreciate your kind feedback.

Regards Sares Saresselva (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • It's difficult to explain. The whole article was promotional, telling us what great thoughts were behind it, what great people were being interviewed (see WP:NOTINHERITED), and what great aims the magazine has. All this was sourced to the magazine's own website. Besides being unenecyclopedic and not written in a neutral way, there's another prblem: apparently the magazine has not even published a single issue yet ("its first issue on July 2017"). This probably means that creating an article is too soon and that it does not yet meet our inclusion criteria. To create a neutral, encyclopedic article, you need secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Perhaps it would also be good if you read WP:COI. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review of New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls

Re-hash of discussion that took place at AfD. Take to DRV if necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2017 (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.

Hey there, I am interested in your rationale for the deletion of New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls, there seemed to be no consensus and a strange, and salty, obsession from AllSportsfan16 to have an article they don't like (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) removed. As emphasized in the first, second and finally, third discussion, the article meets WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:NEWS. These were repeatedly mentioned by SounderBruce, ArsenalFan700 and Fenix down to name a few, veteran editors. Further it was a DYK candidate. If there is an actual legitimate reason that can override these overwhelming reasons to keep the article deleted, I will not go forward with WP:DRV. Thanks. Quidster4040 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • As I explained in the close, the lack of continued coverage makes that this fails NOTNEWS, a case of "one event". Being a DYK candidate is absolutely irrelevant. So after having had another look I stand with the close. Feel free to take it to DRV, though. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I did not have an obsession with the article and I was not salty. This article did not meet notability guidelines and I explained why in the deletion discussion. Fenix down also said it should be deleted. Like it says, this match has not received continued coverage and does not meet WP:GNG and it fails NOTNEWS.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Although I initially voted keep in the first deletion discussion on the basis that my understanding was that games which are, or were at one time, the highest scoring victory in a given competition were generally considered notable, plus, at the time, there had been a decent level of coverage. However, as time passed, so the level of coverage dropped off rapidly. As such, my opinion changed and I felt that the coverage received occurred mainly in the immediate aftermath of the event and that there has to date been little continuing discussion of the match, hence that if fails WP:NOTNEWS. This could always change in the future, but for now, I'm not seeing the level of continued coverage that I would like. Fenix down (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Sounds like this should never have been created in the first place. There's no deadline, so why create an article immediately after something happens and before one can know whether coverage will be sustained? Anyway, this is not the place to discuss these matters, so I'm archiving this thread. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2017 (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.

MENALIB

Hello, Randykitty. I hope you are fine. I would like to ask you if could see the MENALIB-article. It is now prodded, and before I take any action, I want an opinion for this by someone I regard as a expert in the field of science communication. Therefore I wanted to know if you think that Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with or without the Menalib-article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • As it stands, the article is a borderline A7. Apart from the homepage, there's no source. I have no time right now to search, but if no independent sources exist that show this is a notable website, it should not have an article on WP. There does not appear to be an obvious merge target either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comunicar journal

Hey I just saw your message on my page and i dont get why my article is wrong i would like to know so i can improve it and it wont be deleted thanks!!!!:) Anyvalle (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed

I have closed the RFC at Talk:PhiloSOPHIA#RfC regarding inclusion of advisory board which you requested closure for at ANRFC. The result was that editorial boards should not be included in articles about independent journals unless an independent source attests to their importance. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this closure. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the quick resolution! --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Help please

I see that Randykitty has deleted my page, ChristyKHolland. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and clearly violated some rules of the editing game. I appreciate your help.

Christy K. Holland (aka ChristyKHolland) is the Editor in Chief of an academic journal, Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, the official journal of the World Federation of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Kevin J. Haworth created an entry for the journal several years ago. I have been attempting to update entry, as well as create a reference for the Editor in Chief of that journal (me). Can you tell me why Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology does not exist? What do I need to do to have a page for this journal on Wikipedia?

With thanks in advance,ChristyKHolland (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. That page does exist, just click on the link that your put in your comment... I cleaned up the article earlier today and moved it to the correct title (the capitalization was wrong). You are listed as EIC (so please read our guidelines on COI). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Request undeletion of en.wikipedia.org/DIFFER

Dear Randy,

Earlier today I put up an English translation of an existing Dutch page about the energy research institute DIFFER. I'm not a regular wikipedia user and I understand there may be protocols to ensure quality, but still I am a bit baffled to see that the page has been deleted. The suggestion I pick up is that the text could be biased because I am employed by the institute as head of communication. I do wonder who else you would expect to put up this text. Can you make the text available again, and suggest any alterations you feel are necessary? If not, can you at least get me access to the text again?

Kind regards, Gieljan de Vries, head of communication DIFFER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gieljandevries (talk • contribs)

  • Dear Gieljandevries? WP has some stringent inclusion criteria (see WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NORG). We also require multiple independent reliable sources about a subject. Your institute's homepage does not count as independent, obviously. The text of your article is still available from its history, so you can easily copy it to your sandbox to work on it there. However, before continuing with this, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. As an aside, the fact that your institute has a page on the Dutch wiki is irrelevant as different language wikis have different rules and standards. Those at the Dutch WP are quite lax compared to here! --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Bungaroo

take it up with the authorGaryvines (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • And who would that be? "John" is not very informative and you participate in that discussion and seem to agree with it, so I guess you know what it is about. --Randykitty (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • no, I rewrote the Bungaroo article after reading the comment on OzArch. Other peoples views are not my problem.Garyvines (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Then leave it. I don't care much what off-wiki trolls say or do. I was just curious as I had never heard of Bugaroo in my life. --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_19&oldid=1116604746"