User talk:Randykitty/Archive 22

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

Request to understand why my page was deleted

Hi, Could you please help me understand why my page - Centre for Teacher Accreditation - was deleted? Request your response at the earliest. Thank you. Remuna Rai (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got 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.Doug Weller talk 19:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Brian Meshkin

I created a page about the bankrupt businessman Brian Meshkin and his various enterprises which have been notable mainly for their investigation for fraud by authorities including the FBI. An anonymous user Special:Contributions/2600:8802:802:5B00:E451:2837:369A:2E1B, possibly with COI, has overwritten it with a large amount of material from Meshkin's bio and website. I would urge you to consider reverting this user's edit rather than deleting the page because of the useless promotional material this person has inserted. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I've reverted back to the last verions by you. I see I edited this a while ago, but didn't recognize it (not surprisingly after that huge addition of bullshit...). Should've checked the article history better, sorry about that! --Randykitty (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Exigent3d (again)

I had wanted to wait for the SPI to be wrapped up before resuming our discussion but the SPI popped up on my watchlist today. The IP's changes, attempting to kill the SPI show someone who's not new to the game. Cabayi (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako

I've SNOW closed your AFD; I don't see how the hobbyists that create this kind of fancruft anyway will be any different there than at a move discussion. If you object strongly, I won't object to your reverting my closure, but I doubt it will do you any good. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally recreated 2015 North American heat wave

I was editing 2015 North American heat wave while it was deleted and I think I clicked the wrong button. You may have to delete it again. StrayBolt (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Has happened to me, too. I see it already has been deleted again. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting to clarify on the deletion of the page I created

Hey I created a page on LabsAdvisor. But it was deleted without any discussion. I wanted to know what was the mistake so I could keep that in mind while creating a page in future. Praveen1807 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • As explained on your talk page (and I strongly recommend that you read the policies and guidelines linked in that message), it was deleted because a/ it was unduly promotional and b/ it did not indicate why this was encyclopedic content that should be included (see WP:NORG). --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey Randykitty, can you please block 2A02:908:191:5FA0:D874:3D3B:77A5:6036 and revdelete all their racist and sexist edits? I'd do it but my phone is elsewhere and I have two-stage authentication. OK, last day of the Tour: Hup Tom! 2600:6C58:607F:F8F1:0:82BC:74DD:AF10 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Blocked. Looks like Shellwood took care of the reverts. Afraid I'm not a Tour follower... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Geombinatorics

You proposed Geombinatorics for deletion. Please create the deletion discussion page, and add it to the list. Read carefully steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. --Tudor987 (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  • What the heck are you talking about? This is a PROD tag, not an WP:AfD. Also, I've been here for some time and have a little experience with deletion processes, so thanks for the instructions, but I don't think I need them... --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not familiar with deletion procedures in English Wikipedia yet. But you state something as a reason without possibility for appeal. How can I indicate that I disagree? That is why I would find AfD a better solution this time: This journal is indexed in both large mathematical databases (zbMath, MathSciNet), and eveybody in the editorial board is a highly notable mathematician. My opinion is to keep it. --Tudor987 (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You should familiarize yourself with WP:PROD. Anybody can remove a PROD and so can you. However, unless you give a good reason why the article meets our inclusion criteria (in this case, WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, that almost certainly means that the article goes to AfD, a process that consumes the community's time (PROD is designed to save time in clear-cut cases). In the present case, your above arguments cut no wood. Both zbMATH and MathSciNet strive to be comprehensive and are therefore not selective indexing services in the sense of NJournals. The notability (or lack therefor, it works both ways) of board members (and/or editors) is irrelevant, too, because notability is not inherited. So while you're welcome to remove the PROD tag, that would mean an AfD that would most likely end in a delete decision. --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) @Tudor987: Might make sense to redirect it to Alexander Soifer, its founder, editor and publisher? I noticed also the redlink Excellence Research Australia which presumably means that it was ranked (not indexed, and in which category?) in the listings of Excellence in Research for Australia, though I can't then find that rankings online - no mention of this title in the search at, though I see "The ranked journal list is no longer available from the ARC website. This is because it was intended solely for the purposes of the ERA 2010 evaluation, and because journals may have changed significantly in the number of years since the rankings were developed." on its website, so it's perhaps not very useful, even though it's still listed in "JournalGuide" !PamD 11:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusion

May I strike the archived copy of the [erroneous comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&diff=850924460&oldid=850583912 I made] on this page? [I was confused https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JAMA_Network_Open&diff=prev&oldid=850928244].--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: 2023 EuropeanGames

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of 2023 EuropeanGames, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: it has been redirected, not deleted. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Also, it's better to leave the page as a redirect than deleting it. If you think I am wrong, feel free to discuss with me. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it's ok. Let me change the redirect and you speedy it. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Haris Čizmić

Leaving the abuse out of it, since Haris Čizmić survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic, it was ineligible for G11. Since it wasn't linked on the talk page, and predated multiple moves, you'd never have found it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I guess it should be reinstated then. Let's hope somebody goes through it with a fine-toothed comb... Thanks for letting me know. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. 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. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirect tagging

You know, if the goal is to make sure those get included in WP:AALERTS, you don't need to tag those. I mean it doesn't hurt, but it seems like a waste of effort here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know, I think I'm displaying some OCD symptoms here... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

Hi there, about the recent edits at Journal of Colloid and Interface Science - I interpreted a recent change as vandalism, based on that IP's recent history. That IP changed the impact factor in that infobox twice, once in June and once in July, neither time providing a source.

The impact factor number given in the body of the article does have a citation, and agreed with the original figure in the infobox, so I figured that was the correct figure. My apologies if it wasn't - the citation isn't online, and this is not at all my area, so I can't check it. Anyway, just wanted to give a clearer picture of what was going on. Thanks for your attention to that article. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for explaining, I was wondering about this. The IF is often also mentioned on the journal's homepage. With a reputable publisher like Elsevier, these are always correct (even though I always check in the JCR database). It's very different with predatory publishers (they often claim to have an IF, but almost never have one). Anyway, it's updated now. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Sociological Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback about AfD Comments

Thank you for reviewing the AfD for Appian Corporation. I regret to tell you that your comments regarding the review were hurtful. I appreciate that you must get a lot of requests and spend a great deal of time dealing with things that would dilute the quality of WP if left unchecked. I just wanted to remind you though that there are people behind this, with their own lives, feelings, and stresses. To that, including a backhanded comment to go along with your review does little other than to devalue the work that people the created, edited, and reviewed this article.

Assuming that this is the work of an undisclosed paid editor could easily be verified by looking at my account, where I disclose my COI. I also don't hide who I am. You can google my username and see that I am a low level tech writer at the company. It's true that I haven't had many edits, but this is because I'm new at this. I'd like to do more, but having feedback like the kind you gave does not motivate me to continue. Finally, I'm familiar with the policies because I care deeply about trying to get this right. It's kind of a catch 22 that we should understand WP policies to write good articles, but can't know them if we're trying to defend our work.

I'm really sorry if this is coming across as adversarial or purely negative. It's not my intention to do so. Instead, I want to help you understand that the things we say have an impact on other. I hope this helps provide perspective the next time you comment on an article. Please feel free to reach out if you wanted to discuss anything or had any concerns. And again, thank you for the review and the time and effort you've devoted to WP over the years. Jonkatora (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to RK, I think you should strike "the strong whiff of undisclosed paid editing" in favour of "the paid COI editing" for the record. However, you might have been referring to Passion4Process (talk · contribs), which has no declaration of such a conflict of interest, in which case the existing note is accurate (also note to Jonkatora, this is not necessarily a reference to you, there are other accounts involved with the article). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I was referring to both these editors. Jonkatora, I am sorry that I missed your disclosure on your user page, my apologies for that. And if what you say is true, then you can take my amazement at your mastery of our byzantine policies and guidelines as a compliment. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Randykitty Thanks for the response and for listening. No apologies needed. I understand that you are coming with a significant amount of experience reviewing and deciding on articles and I imagine it's not and easy responsibility.
You are 100% on point... the wiki guides are incredibly difficult to wrap ones head around. At some point in the future, I plan on providing some feedback on WP:NCORP. I think the guide could be improved to get higher quality business and organization submissions. That's another day though. Thanks again. Jonkatora (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kampan

I created page called Kampan & after you move it from Kampan (Quake) to Kampan (book) it goy deleted. It had full media coverages and it was fully acceptable for wikipedia. Can i re-create it ? TheRedBox (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I only moved it to a more appropriate title and restored the G11 tag, which you had inappropriately removed. I had no personal opinion about this, so I didn't delete it myself. As to whether you can recreate it, you would better discuss that with the deleting admin, Jimfbleak. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Weissenburg, Zscheiplitz

Your eresed an article without any chance to contest the charges. This is unacceptable!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn (talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • It was a copyvio, now that is "unacceptable"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

On the closing of AfD

hi, regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji. Pazhanji is a small village and the 2 articles being merged would not attract enough editors to share their opinions.

Secondly I feel that there is a strong consensus to Delete/merge and the arguments of the Keep were very weak. Kindly explain your closure and suggest the next best steps. If the AfD can be relisted again (which I think it should be), I believe it will further proceed on the merge consensus. As it was the case with a recent and Similar AfD WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Mary's_Salem_Orthodox_Church,_Manappally So please let me know your thoughts. cheers. (Pinging the nom : User:Shadowowl)--DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I had another look and I don't see any consensus to delete (only 1 "delete" !vote was not changed). The AfD was relisted 3 times, which is already more than the usual 2 times and after the last rellist just 2 comments were added, so the discussion basically had petered out. As for the merge, you can be BOLD and perform the merge. If it were challenged, you'd need to open a discussion, but if not, all would be peachy. --Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The article was already merged into the village article (except the infobox, but I think 2 big infoboxes on a village article is overkill) and I redirected it. The proper closure probably was NC/Merge, not keep. » Shadowowl | talk 13:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi kitty, thanks for your kind reply. I agree with your suggestions. User:shadowowl thanks for the redirect. That concludes the discussion for now. Cheers--DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD close

Hi, hoping you will comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn State–Temple football rivalry, either broadly or more narrowly on how the supporting information can be better presented in the future.

I am very surprised the AfD was not closed as keep/no consensus. An ongoing problem with college and NFL football rivalry AfDs is editors subjectively evaluate what they believe to be true, rather than locating (or failing to locate) sufficient RS citations often from 100+ years of history to then determine their opinion per GNG (the teams don't play enough, the series isn't competitive, they aren't in the currently in same conference, etc). The word "rivalry" can often poison the AfD away from GNG. In this case, GNG was not referenced by the nom (ongoing learning curve), editors often don't know how or where to source historical content then agreed it doesn't exist/recentism, and then 7 and later 8 citations (of varying quality) were located. Understood the "not a vote" issues, but the sentiment swung 6-3 Keep after these citations were produced, including 2 who flipped to Keep after the citations were produced and evaluated. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • My reading here was that the "delete" !votes had the stronger arguments. I also noted that even after lengthy justifications for keeping were posted, several editors still !voted "delete". I have no opinion on this myself. Feel free to take this to WP:DRV if you strongly feel that the close was off, although I'm not optimistic about your chances. --Randykitty (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

About the now-deleted WP:REDIRECT Crakow

Hi Randykitty,
A questions about this:

For the people who can't see deleted content, the relevant text of the request copied from the deleted page:

{{db-move|Crakow (shoe) Crakow (shoe) is not mentioned in the hatnote for Kraków, yet it seems it should be the primary topic for this spelling.

If so, I think this should be discussed at Talk:Crakow (shoe) first.
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I have absolutely no opinion about this. Deleting the redirect to make way for a move seemed unopposed, so I performed it. Are you contesting the deletion? In that case I can restore it and you can open a discussion on the talk page of one of the affected articles. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Nah, no problem with me about this too. As people in Kraków might possibly say - zomg, there's no Polish language Wikipedia article for Shit!!! - Shi[r]t happens. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kanishk Sajnani

This is to bring your attention to a recently submitted draft for review. The title had been SALTed before. Seems un-conflicting now. Please refer to an archive on your talk page. 122.169.81.131 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Just be patient and wait for somebody to review the draft. I have no further interest in this matter. --Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Ponsi

I seriously doubt a G11 will succeed. Nor an A7. An AfD might work, but it's a long shot. The problem is with the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Predatory Journals

To RandyKitty (the most frequent editor for the journal entries) and in reference to the phrasing on the ESCI Wiki page: When predatory journals are removed from the ESCI list, when should the phrase "it contains many predatory journals" which is present tense become past tense "it had contained predatory journals in the past" Qtian~enwiki (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Archives of Scientific Psychology discussion

Hi Randykitty - I don't like commenting on closed AfD discussions but felt we left things hanging. When I tongue in cheek said it's more that I don't hate it than I like it,[[1]] I was referring to me not hating it, not you. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't worry, I got that :-) Nonetheless, this was a wrong decision, there's not a shred of evidence that this is notable and still we keep it... --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Fungi

Hi, Randykitty. The Journal of Fungi which was deleted before is now accepted for inclusion in Scopus. If this is acceptable that we edit it on WiKi using indexing info: https://suggestor.step.scopus.com/progressTracker/index.cfm?trackingID=C905FE77C19C41CF. Previous discusssion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Fungi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 (talk • contribs)

  • You should wait until it is listed here, which should be soon enough. Contact le again when that has happened and I'll undelete the article, which you can then improve following the instructions in our journal article writing guide (and preformatted links on my userpage). --Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Or the preformatted links at WP:JRES Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Randy. Will wait for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
What the hell man! Don't let people where you down! If you need a break, take break, but you will be sorely missed if you go. You're one of the bulwark against crap on WP!Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm also sorry about this and hope that you take a well deserved break then eventually come back. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 11:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes. Come back soon to continue maintaining the quality of coverage of academic journals in the encyclopedia. PamD 12:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
You and spartaz are now gone!?!?? That sucks... Thanks for being the first nice admin I met.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you at least not block yourself? Seeing the crossed out sig makes me sad...💵Money💵emoji💵💸 14:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is unfortunate. The DRV was not particularly incivil and sometimes its best to just accept that not everyone shares your views rather than resign in disgust. Don't blame this on F and k. Maybe take a two week break, cool off, and come back. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No no no no no please come back! WPJournals would crumble if you weren't there to help hold it together. Headbomb and I can only do so much ourselves. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm very sad to see this, and I very much hope that you will come back when it feels right. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see you go. I remember you as an admin who could peer through layers and layers of wikilawyering to spy out the troll underneath, and you'll be missed. I hope you eventually reconsider. Reyk YO! 14:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • We need you back. This whole matter was not fundamental but trivial. And there are too few good people working in your true areas of interest for us to be able to get along without you. Think about how many important decisions in areas of importance to you and me would have gone wrong if you had not been there. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I sincerely hope you reconsider. I have always considered you to be a voice of reason at WP:DRV when I visit. It would be a genuine shame to lose you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course I want you back. Not sure what the trouble is but I came here to see you and find you gone. I hope to see you return. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see you self-blocked. Wikipedia does get unbelievably aggravating at times and I understand the desire to walk away. Take some time away and de-stress. Go for a run, that always helps me. But please realize I and many, many others value your work here. Your skill and passion have significantly and impressively improved WP, especially in the field of academic journals. When the aggravation dies away, realize that you can come back to WP on your own terms--content production, or selected admin work, or just gnoming. You don't have to do it all, just what gives you satisfaction and pleasure. When you are ready for it, we will gladly have you back. Take care, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Larry Warren (Rendlesham) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Larry Warren (Rendlesham). Since you had some involvement with the Larry Warren (Rendlesham) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Praxidicae (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Head of State being disputed

If you can, please review Talk: Monarchy of Australia, which requires an appropriate response. Please assume I want the least possible involvement in this. I was asked on my talk page to be involved and before I even had a chance to comment, I could see matters of procedural concern. Given that, I immediately see it's not longer my problem. I look with terrible dismay at what other people have done, said, appealed for help and tried to resolve in the past for over a decade. This is Wikipedia's issue, so I shall leave the matter up to people who are tasked with the responsibility of administering the system. Travelmite (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have the attention of User_talk:Drmies on this matter. Thanks! Travelmite (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Travelmite, this is not a subject I know much about, butI would think that the Australian Government, not the UN should be the definitive authority on this subject. Mind you, the way I read that summary UN document, it states that the Queen is the Head of State of Australia, but I see how it could be interpreted otherwise. However, "The Governor-General performs the ceremonial functions of head of state on behalf of the Queen" seems pretty clear to me: The GG performs functions on behalf of the Queen, so that rather obviously means that she's the Head of State, not the GG. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Always unfortunate to see a top medical editor, no longer around. Hope to see you back someday. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a warning...

Sorry to bring bad news upon your return, but since you're asking to be re-sysoped after a period of inactivity, I'm warning you that you should probably change your password or use 2FA if possible, since there have been many incidents of compromised accounts lately, three of them being admin accounts. SemiHypercube ✎ 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the advice. I have been aware of those compromised admin accounts (not editing doesn't necessarily mean not staying informed... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nationality of literary magazines

Are Fooian literary magazines supposed to categorize literary magazines about the literature of Foo, or literary magazines published in country Foo? Because I note that Category:British literary magazines is a sub-sub-category of Category:British magazines, on which I read "This category is for magazines published in the United Kingdom". But you just added The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats (an academic journal, not really the same thing as a magazine, about British literature) to Category:British literary magazines, even though it was founded in and appears to be published in the US. So something needs to be corrected: either the category hierarchy or your categorization of this article. Which one? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, I didn't realize it was published in the US, I saw "English literature" and that was it... Personally, I'm not very fond of those country categories anyway and this seems to be a prime example why (a literary magazine/journal published in the US but about British litarature...) I've changed the cat to "literary magazines". (Note that we don't have a separate "literary journals" category, it is very often almost impossible to judge wether a literary periodical should be called a "magazine" or a "journal"). --Randykitty (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Request you reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Supply shooting

In regards to your close - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Supply shooting - the raw !vote count is 3 Delete, 5 Keep (including one Delete !voter who changed his mind). WP:RAPID is a notability guideline and contradicts the rationale in the close. National level coverage (e.g. [2]) is continuing as of the close date of the AfD, I respectfully request you reconsider whether Delete is appropriate vs. no consensus or Keep. Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • WP:NOTNEWS is policy. And AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE... Regretably, this kind of shootings are routine (especially in the US). --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Assessing whether a crime is routine or not (and one can expand on many unique circumstances of this one leading to coverage) is an argument to be had in the deletion discussion itself. The closer is supposed to assess consensus, not advance their own assessment of whether the subject under review is routine or not.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
      • That argument was addressed in the nom and I found it convincing. And "consensus" is not based on number of !votes but on strength of arguments. Anyway, to end this, I'll undo the deletion and re-list the AfD. Hope that addresses your concerns. --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Debates around Taylor & Francis and Critical Reviews in Toxicology

I just opened debates on their talk pages. We should build consensus around these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificrigor12 (talk • contribs)

  • You have done nothing of the kind, just creating a section with "Just to open a debate to end "edit war" and build consensus on this question" does not constitute any serious discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

James Sisnett

You closed the discussion but didn't implement the outcome. Thanks for wading into this mess again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oops! The script must have hickupped, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yeah, I had made a solemn promise to myself not to get involved with anything touching on longevity again, but then I got these AfDs when I was closing a bunch of overdue ones and the results were so clearly in favor of deletion that I just went ahead and closed them. Good riddance! --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, obviously on almost anything else I'd have done it myself. Yeah, finally some sanity in this topic but I know it won't last; I'm feeling up for a fight, so just sit back and grab some popcorn. Ha. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yone Minagawa

Hello! I noticed after the AfD for this article closed, you deleted the talk page, but the main artice is still up. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I noticed the article you closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yone Minagawa (2nd nomination), was not deleted. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Sjeez, that's the second time the script hickupped... Thanks for letting me know, I've corrected this.

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I was wondering if you would be able to help out in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little because there are several reports waiting, and some of the reported vandals are still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like things are being taken care of by Alexf. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Randykitty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm nearing the end of my 3-month self-imposed wikibreak. Although I may not return to editing right away, it is time to get unblocked.

Accept reason:

Done - welcome back! Kuru (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • 4 minutes, now that was fast! Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back! I've removed you from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, by the way. SemiHypercube ✎ 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Welcome back! Reyk YO! 15:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Welcome back. Looking forward to seeing the PROD sections of WP Journals' Article Alerts active again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noticed your name on the Deletion Log and realized you were back! I hope you feel refreshed & revived after your WikiBreak! Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I just noticed (belatedly) that you are back, and I'm very, very happy to see that. Welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Scripted Violence and Stochastic Terrorism

I thought both pages were undergoing a series of improvements and added citations interrupted by the US holiday of Thanksgiving which many of us took part in with long and extended trips to family gatherings. I hope that you will revisit your deletions which I do not think recognize the progress being made and the consensus that was being built, and thus were very premature. Thanks for considering this request. Chip.berlet (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I had another look at the AfD of Scripted Violence and my interpretation of the discussion is different from yours. To start with, the debate was allowed to run for more than double the usual time (7 days) and debate seeemed to have petered out. So did article improvements with hardly any changes in the last 10 days (that's a bit long for just Thanksgiving...) As for the "improvements", even after those were made, yet another argumented "delete" !vote from a very experienced user came in, so I don't think that this changes much. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The terms Scripted Violence and Stochastic Terrorism are used by scholars and journalists along with "coded rhetoric" and "incitement." I just presented at a conference of international experts at Amherst College who study right-wing social and political movements. The term "scripted violence" was discussed and seen as useful. And the issue of coded rhetoric in general is seen as central to the right-wing resurgence worldwide. See, for example, https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/2018/08/29/just-joking-is-no-joke-how-the-alt-right-really-communicates-online/ and the entire book on the subject, Doublespeak: The Rhetoric of the Far-Right since 1945.
Many of us were busy with family during the ten days. I was preparing dinner for 12 people both meat eaters and vegetarians and then dealing with the weekend activities with relatives from out of town...then off to the conference in Amherst, MA. Not all of us center our reality on editing on Wikipedia.
Please reconsider your decision.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you please at least recreate as draft pages the text that was on Scripted Violence and Stochastic Terrorism since several folks spent many hours arriving at a growing consensus and rewriting text to improve the material cobbled together? I note that in the last few weeks I have been at an international conference at Amherst College and a national symposium at the Roosevelt Center at Hunter College where these terms were discussed. And these are in addition to my recent keynote presentation at the Pennsylvania Sociological Society. I understand these are new terms...but they have a current interest that will not disappear with a keystroke.Chip.berlet (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Shiva Texyarn Limited

Dear Randykitty,

I noticed that you deleted Shiva Texyarn Limited even after I've contested and requested not to delete it. Also, nobody has replied to me. Shiva Texyarn is India's largest textile manufacturing company and also is listed on Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. The company has been covered by several mainstream media and India's leading news agencies including The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, India Infoline etc. I would request you to reconsider this and recheck the article. Thanks so much! Best Regards --2405:204:229C:A0F7:8548:EBBC:76F9:909E (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Randy, awaiting your response. Your quick reply will be appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:229F:3E5D:0:0:1087:68B0 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I somehow missed this message the first time around. I have restored the article and moved it to Draft space (Draft:Shiva Texyarn Limited), so that you can work on it to address the problems that led it to be deleted (i.e. a somewhat promotional tone and no clear proof of meetng WP:NCORP). Do not move it back to article space yourself, but use the articles for creation process instead, that will reduce the risk that the article will again be deleted as soon as it gets back to mainspace. --Randykitty (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will work on it and will follow the article for creation. Process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:388:3525:2FB8:7304:6524:C46 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving FVB (mouse strain)

A discussion has started at Talk:FVB (mouse strain), a page you moved from FVB Mice. The proposal is to move it to FVB Mouse. Your input is appreciated. Thank you! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Abneet Bharti

Hey, thanks for closing the AfD discussion for Abneet Bharti. I was just wondering though, would it be okay to WP:SALT the article? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the article is created again and I don't think it should until he at least makes a professional football appearance in a game. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, you may well be right, but at this point the article has only been created and deleted once. That's not really a situation to use SALT. Keep it on your watch list and warn me if it gets re-created and I'll handle it from there. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That is fair. Will do. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Questions about academic journal pages

Hi Randykitty,

Thank you very much for cleaning up the Critical Perspectives on Accounting page that I have been working on. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I appreciate your efforts to help keep the page consistent with the appropriate style.

Two questions for you, in hopes of improving my contributions in the future:

1. I had provided direct links to the faculty profiles of any editors who did not have Wikipedia pages. This was just so readers could find out more about these editors until I can get around to creating appropriate bio pages for them. I infer from your removal of these links that Wikipedia articles should only link to sources that support the actual article content. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, would it be appropriate to put links to these pages in the "External links" section of the article, or is it best just to leave those editors' names without any supporting links?

2. I notice that this page is classified as a "Stub." The page has now been improved quite a bit, I think. At what point should it considered for upgrading beyond Stub status, and how would I go about initiating this?

Thanks for your guidance, BoneClock (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for reaching out and welcome to WP. We have a pretty good journal articles writing guide, which explains a lot. As for your specific questions: ad 1/ We generally consider such links as somewhat promotional and they are discouraged. External links to faculty pages belong in the biographical articles on the editors (of which we have way too few, I admit). Ad 2/ I've "upgraded" it to "start". It's not really very important, it just points people involved in the Academic Journals Wikiproject which articles need work (the vast majority of our articles are stubs...) Hope this helps. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Your help and advice are much appreciated. BoneClock (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism (2nd nomination)

Hello, I don't feel like you closed this properly. For starters, AfD is not a vote and most of the actual arguments were for keep while the only arguments made for merging were based on people with misconceptions on the subject or voting per another person's flawed argument (see Gpc62's comments; as well as WP:PERNOMINATOR). All that aside, the consensus wouldn't have been "merge" based on just numbers alone either: there were 3 keep votes, and one "merge" voter voted "per BabbaQ", who had actually voted keep, making it 4 keeps versus 4 merges (or 4 v. 3 if their vote would be struck out on technicality). Even if you go with the plain vote numbers of 3 keep versus 5 merge, or the strength of the arguments alone, this is more a case of "no consensus" rather than clear consensus towards either direction (again, AfD debates are meant to be decided on the strength of the arguments presented). Opencooper (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I just had another look and my count is very different from yours. With 5 "merge" and 1 "delete", there's a 2 to 1 majority against keeping the article as is. Apart from the numbers, I still think that the correct evaluation of consensus is "merge". Feel free to take this to WP:DRV if you still disagree. --Randykitty (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    How are you getting that count? There isn't a single delete vote. And as mentioned before, it's not just about counts but the actual arguments present, and FOARP's vote was eligible for being struck so that would make the whole count argument invalid. DRV recommends reaching out to the closing admin first, which is why I'm posting here first. Opencooper (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The nom is usually taken as a delete !vote. And my reading of the consensus hasn't changed. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 cover CBN.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Meprolight Deletion

I have read the article on requests for deletion. I'm wondering why the page Meprolight was deleted under the reason of G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion? Can you state what parts were unambiguous? --Cadlaxer23 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Just one example: the unsourced claim that this company's clients include "leading weapons manufacturers" in a list of countries. There's more. --Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Nemanja Jevrić, Randykitty.

Unfortunately Insertcleverphrasehere has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

If you were not aware of the recent change, PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per recent consensus here Cheers,

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know, I was indeed not aware of that change. Makes sense, I guess (the change, not the fact that I wasn't aware of it :-). --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

AFD on Tabiti

You recently closed an AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabiti as "keep" citing "Whether this article should be redirected/merged elsewhere is an issue that can be discussed on the talk page.". I have seen this a couple of times and don't understand the rationale. The lead on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.. Please note the inclusion of "merge". Fundamental needs to include "merge" is:
  • 1)- If there is some content that can be salvaged in lieu of deleting an entire article,
  • 2)- In case there is a local consensus to keep an article that may not actually be acceptable,
  • 3)- To bring the issue to a more broad community for resolution.
  • 4)- As a means to correct blatant violations of policies and guidelines that may have been allowed to exist.
Scythian religion states "Tabiti (Ταβιτί) – Hestia (Tabiti is thought to be a hellenized version of a name similar to Hindu Tapati and related verb tapayati ("burns"/"is hot"), as well as Avestan tapaiti, Latin tepeo and several other Indo-European terms for heat." Another reference the same person and uses references:
  1. West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
  2. Cheung, Johnny (2007) Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 2), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 378–379
  • The dictionary stub Tabiti states: "Tabiti is the queen of the gods in Scythian religion. Equated by Herodotus with Hestia.". Under the "Etymology section: "Tabiti is thought to be a hellenized version of a name similar to Hindu Tapati and related verb tapayati ("burns"/"is hot"), as well as Avestan tapaiti, Latin tepeo and several other Indo-European terms for heat.". The references (two duplicates) are:
  1. The Histories, Book 4, Chapter 59 that states "In the Scythian tongue, Hestia is called Tabiti"
  2. West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 (the same as above) and,
  3. Cheung, Johnny (2007) Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 2), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 378–379 (also the same as above).
Other than the part being "queen of the gods" and the one extra reference the vast majority is an EXACT DUPLICATE. See: WP:MERGEREASON and I can assure you or anyone else that a merge request on the article, even citing the above, will result in a continued duplicate dictionary entry.
A move of remanding such an issue back to the article at AFD will (and probably already has) inherently result is editors omitting "merge" at AFD's. I may appeal this because I don't see "keep" against the more broad community consensus and policies and guidelines (unless invoking WP:IGNORE) as justifiable and totally can't see dumping the issue back to the article. Otr500 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've had another look at the AfD and I stand by my evaluation of consensus. All the rest that you mention above are content issues and that is not what AfD is for, nor is it expected from closers that they read all sources and base their close on that (that would be a "supervote"). --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me some admins seem to like to foster battles. I think I will work on changing things to account for any of these future goofs in closings (working on it) instead of contesting it. Deletion policy (WP:ATD-M) even provides: "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.". The part "using the most common, or more general page name" indicates the duplication is within the articles and grounds for anyone to correct but more especially within "merge" criterion at AFD and a Admin closing. I just think Admins need to help editors when there is clear policy rationale instead of making things more complicated. Thanks anyway, Otr500 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisting

Seriously?! After two weeks, one vote to delete (based on what looks like a conscious misreading of the guidelines), & one relisting already? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

American Diplomacy

Please be specific about the language you are objecting or make the edit, so we can move forward. I am writing and editing under authorization as a Board Member of American Diplomacy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • In that case, you have a conlifct of interest. Please read the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:COI, WP:PAID). The text that you (and another WP:SPA editor) keep adding is promotional and not supported by independent reliable sources. In addition, none of that shows notability in the WP sense (see WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NJournals). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and clarification. It is in everyone's interest that the article exists with independent and encyclopedia-based content that maintains accuracy. This verifiable accuracy was the initial concern for my edit. Your latest edits are consistent with this, and so I believe we can agree on your edits as the basis for the proposal for deletion to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid you don't understand what is going on. I have proposed the article for deletion because it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria (N, GNG, NJournals). I first did that with a PROD tag, which anybody who disagrees can remove (as you did). I then added an AfD tag, which only can be removed once the debate has finished after at least 7 days. If you have policy-based arguments (again, see N, GNG, and NJournals, all linked above), you can enter those at the debate page. Do NOT remove the AfD tag again, that is considered disruptive editing and may result in you being blocked from editing. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Freeduc-cd and Lilblue Linux

Hi, I believe that the aforementioned AfDs have been prematurely closed and there clearly is no consensus in either case after 7 days, so the natural tendency would to be to relist them, as in both cases, there was only one other editor other than myself (the nominator) who participated. Thank you. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually, in both cases it looks like discussion had died down. To me, the unanimous opinion of two editors in good standing is enough to close as I did. --Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    • IMO the opinion was not unanimous in the latter case, as I hadn't proposed to redirect the page. FYI I am happy with the outcome of the other one, but as an editor that is not relevant and I still feel the need to relist it. If you do not object, I will open up a DRV. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The uninamity was that the article shouldn't exist. The redirect was indeed only suggested by 1 editor, and I went for that per WP:ATD. Of course you're free to open a DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Quick question about professional designations in bio pages

Hi Randykitty, I just want to ask about the appropriate way to handle professional designations in bio pages. On the Marcia Annisette page, when you did a nice tidying-up job (thank you!), you deleted the short section on professional designations. One of the designations was "Fellow, ACCA", which is fairly prestigious in the field of accounting; the other was the more standard "CPA" designation. I'm not sure whether the deletion you did was because the information wasn't properly sourced, or because it is not appropriate to list this level of detail in a bio page. I would like to learn any relevant Wikipedia norms, for the sake of any future bio pages I produce. Any guidance to share? Cheers, BoneClock (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, It was indeed because there were no sources. Bios (like articles on companies) are not always easy to write, before you know it somebody feels that you're being too promotional. Therefore it's best to stick close to the sources. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's great. I will check into the subject's professional designations, to see if there is an independent source confirming them. If not, I'll just leave them out. Cheers, BoneClock (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

your deletion of my additions/corrections to Journal of Social Philosophy page

Could you please let me know more specifically what material was copyrighted in the additions to the Journal of Social Philosophy page that I made. I am the Editor of the Journal (Carol Gould) and the entry you have for the journal is incorrect. My additions and changes corrected those, including my own affiliation. I also added a long paragraph about the aims and scope of the journal, which I drafted carefully, and which will be helpful to wikipedia readers. I also included some sample titles of our special issues.

If the problem concerned the updated impact factor I added and the rankings (which are entirely correct, as you can see on our Wiley page), could I just leave those as they were and add the other material? Nothing else that I added could be considered copyrighted as far as I can tell.

Thanks for your further help.

--Diotimadancing (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:JWG for answers to most of those questions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your "carefully crafted" paragraph was copied directly from the journal's own website, with some minor textual changes, and as such was a violation of copyright. That is why I did not just revert, but deleted your edit from the article history. Besides that, even if it had not been a copyvio, the text was way too promotional. Articles on WP should be written in a neutral way, which may be difficult if you have a conflict of interest. I'll have a look at the article in a little while. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Randykitty, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_22&oldid=876416224"