User talk:Randykitty/Archive 23

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

Thorley needed

Two votes for deletion, including the nominator, &, what, 5 to keep, & you call it "no consensus"? After two relistings? What would it take? 20 to keep? Or for somebody else to have created the page? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I already wondered how long it would take you to come here to yell at me (again). I strongly recommend that you tone it down a bit. Your participation in that AFD was overly aggressive, which you should know does not really help the case you are making. And this seems to be a problem more general than this particular AfD. I didn't go through your contributions, but did look up the article you mentioned near the end of the discussion and the tag you placed on it would be a personal attack if, in fact, somebody actually recently had put a notability tag there. Getting back to the closure, if you're unhappy by it, please go to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Scientometrics (journal) issues

Hi Randykitty, I greatly appreciate your arduous efforts to create and maintain articles on journals and scientists. Thanks for your explanation of the revisions you made on my changes of the Scientometrics (journal) article. As it is said in German: "verstanden aber nicht einverstanden" (understood but not agreed). (1) The journal infobox template contains the label "Edited by". According to the definition of this infobox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_journal), it is supposed to contain the parameter editor=Name of journal's editor. I can accept that only the EiC's name is supposed to be indicated in the infobox, but then this fact should be reflected in the label and also in the template definition. As a practicing editor of several journals in the last four decades, I have the feeling that the label "Edited by" is an unfortunate choice whatever are your intentions. A scientific journal is never (or very rarely) "Edited by" a single person. If you want to have the EiC in the infobox, then it should be explicitly stated. (I just mention that in the article about our closest relative, the Journal of Informetrics, the founding editor is in the infobox and the EiC is only in the text.) (2) I witnessed the history of our journal from the very beginning, cooperating with partners from Elsevier-Sequoia, Kluwer and Springer. I browsed through thousands of formal and informal documents, and I am in daily correspondence with various Springer colleagues until today. I dare say that I never met "Springer Science+Business Media" designation in any letterhead, signature or any other place. It was Springer or Springer Verlag before, and it is Springer Nature since the merger. Springer Nature stands, among others, in the official Springer website of the journal. I don't doubt that Springer Science+Business Media is still an existing imprint, but in relation to Scientometrics I don't see any reason to use it. Of course, I am willing to change my opinion if you have any convincing argument. (3) I find it rather embarrassing that from the history of a 40 year old journal, the only highlighted event is an unfortunate retraction case. Unfortunately, there were several retracted papers during the decades but, obviously, this one gained dubious notoriety because of Jeffrey Beall's rather unfair, unethical and misleading blogpost. A post in a blog which was later removed (retracted?) by its author. I wonder whether such a source is considered reliable according to the Wikipedia standards. I would be more than honored if my concerns would be reassuringly replied. Regards, András Schubaa (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Dear András/Schubaa, thanks for your note and sorry for the slow response. 1/ As indicated in WP:JWG, we list the EIC of a journal and other people (associate/managing editors, board members) only if there are reliable independent sources that document their contributions to the journal. You could propose on the talk page of the journal infobox remplate to clarify the labelling if you really feel that this is an issue. As for other journal articles, when I have a moment I'll have a look at the article on the Journal of Informetrics, but given the huge number of articles that we now have on WP, it is unavoidable that some are not up to par. See WP:WAX (or, less reverently, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 2/ All information still says that Springer Science+Business Media is now "part of Springer Nature", meaning that the imprint has not been discarded. We categorize journals according to imprint (for example, we still categorize Routledge journals as such, even though this company is now part of Taylor & Francis. I agree that Springer is a bit messier than Routledge, but for the moment see no reason to recategorize all Springer journals as "Springer Nature". Note that all "Nature" journals are categorized as "Nature Research", not "Springer Nature". 3/ Beall's blog is regarded to be a reliable source. His frankness made him a lot of enemies, that's clear. His blog was most certainly not retracted, but closed down because of strong pressure from Beall's enemies. It is indeed unfortunate that this is the only event concerning the journal that has been written about, but WP goes by what the sources say. If you are aware of any other coverage of the journal, do let me know and we'll add it to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

List of neuroscience journals

Thought you might wanna have a look at this; I created it shortly before (maybe after) you took your break a few months ago (which I was unpleasantly surprised to find about shortly thereafter). IntoThinAir (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Nice start. Thanks for letting me know about this. I've watchlisted it, because lists are often targetted by spammers for predatory journals. And as you see, I'm back :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Need help on Indian football article

Hey, sorry to bother you but I really need some help dealing with a user on the India national football team. Dey Subrata has honestly been insufferable, comes across as tooting his own horn, obviously doesn't know how to differentiate a blog from an encyclopedia, doesn't understand the need for proper source verification, and doesn't know proper English grammar. He has accused me of ownership of the article when that is not true, I work with many other editors all the time and don't remove their edits otherwise that would be ownership. He is currently adding what I believe is a copyrighted image of a kit on the page, information on a new kit which is unneeded, and added in a line about why India doesn't use orange because of neighboring countries despite the source given only citing Pakistan. Whenever confronted about it, he just says "gives clear view" and that we see "bhutan bangladesh or nepal wear those colours"... but this is an encycopedia and he needs to source that that is why we do this. If you can, just look through the talk pages here and help out. I tried to reach out to WP:Football but nothing yet. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry, but I know next to nothing of sports and don't edit such articles. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is not responsive (but it looks like somebody just reverted Dey), you could try the India project. I can have a look at the image if you can give me the file name and the place where it's been copied from. --Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, no, it's fine. It is just the hectic Christmas schedule right now and I really don't have the time or energy to deal with users like that. here is the link to the picture and here is where it was taken from. Doesn't seem right but you would probably be a better judge than me. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I proposed it for speedy deletion as copyvio, but we'll jave to see what the closing admin says, as I'm not certain that those criteria are actually applicable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What Is Promotional About This Article?

I am working on a project identifying Civil Rights Leaders and this individual was chosen by a group of Civil Rights Activists. I have made all adjustments to the article that previous people has asked. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverJustice (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • The whole article reads like an advert for this person. Any tiny life-event is listed. Every in-passing mention in any local journal is referenced, whether it is important or not (see WP:Reference bombing). I had a look at the first 7 references, none of them substantial, and then gave up. All this makes it difficult to see if there is, in fact, any notability here. Just being the president of the local chapter of a national organization and being its spokesperson does not make somebody notable. If you think this might pass WP:ANYBIO, then you should pare this down considerably, cut out all the fluff, and reduce the huge amount of references to those that are really substantial. --Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have conducted extensive research on this individual and found him to be notable locally, statewide and nationally. Are you able to edit the article like you mentioned so it meets the criteria? ForeverJustice (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at many Wikipedia articles to see what Wikipedia is looking for in an article and tried to mirror that on this article. ForeverJustice (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
(Saw this in the Pending AfC queue) - Regardless if this should have been speedied or not, the topic doesn't meet notability. I did a check of many of the sources and a quick look on my own and could not find anything significant. Even if the draft is not deleted, I don't see how this would ever be approved as an article as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Brief mentions don't add up to WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with CNMall41. You'll need way more sunbstantial sources to show notability here. Sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for tidying up links after you closed a handful of cricket related AfD earlier today. I appreciate the work that involved (and it doesn't always seem to get done). Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks and you're welcome, but partly I don't deserve this praise. We have a script that does all this stuff semi-automatically and it's only a few clicks to do the cleanup... :-)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Algebraic Combinatorics (journal)

Hi RandyKitty,

Possibly you remember this discussion from early last year. Recently one of the editors of Algebraic Combinatorics contacted me to inquire whether the notability situation for the journal has changed sufficiently to support its own article. The relevant details seem to be that the journal is now indexed in MathSciNet and ZbMATH, in addition to the coverage of its founding in Inside Higher Ed. Any thoughts?

(Based on your past comments on other journals, I know that you typically look for inclusion in Scopus as the gold standard of notability. I don't understand Scopus well because it's not important inside mathematics, but I gather that a journal has to be up and running for several years to be listed there -- is that right?)

Thanks, JBL (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:WPMATH has historically regarded indexing in both MathSciNet and ZbMath as sufficient. If you've got coverage of founding on top of that, that's a good indicator that it would be kept at AFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's kind of minimal, but as Headbomb says, it would likely squeeze by an AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both for your input. --JBL (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that MIAR: 2589-5486 says it's not in MathSciNet though... Could just be out of date however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Just out of date, I think; when I log in to MR I find it (and all of its articles) listed. If you have credentials, this should be the relevant page. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The page "Per Villand"

Coincidentally I discovered that the page "Per Villand", in which has been put lots of time and effort, has been removed. Since I have been the creator, I would have appreciated it if somebody would have sent me a message about it, before deleting. I did not receive any warning, or message. Not either that the page, Hovet, Buskerud, which I created, has been edited, especially there where is referred to Per Villand. Can somebody explain to me why this has been kept hidden from me? --DutchColours (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I closed the deletion discussion, but was unaware of the fact that the nom (Geschichte) for some reason did not notify you. That doesn't change much, though. Even if you had !voted "keep" in the debate, the outcome would likely have been the same, unless you would have come up with better in-depth independent sources. As for the article Hovet, Buskerud, it is quite normal to edit an article without notifying previous editors. After all, nobody owns an article. As Per Villand had been deleted, it is standard procedure to remove links to it and remove it from lists, as was done here (we even have an automated script to do this, that's how routine this is). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sourced info"

[1] is sourced almost entirely feromt heir own marketing claims, and the company has a far from stellar reputation. We should avoid self-published sources when theya re self-serving and where the subject is controversial, as is the case here. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This is indeed a crappy company. Still, their journals are in Scopus and Clarivate (ex ISIS) databases and mentioning that in the article seems to be warranted. Yes, it's sourced to the company, but it can easily be verified by looking at the Scopus sources or the Clarivate master list. That can also be referenced, but I don't think that it would be useful to have dozens of references to the NLM catalog, for example. (To get this in a single reference we could link to the results of a search for "MDPI", of course, but that is undesirable, too). So unless somebody shows that the company is lying and listing false info, I don't see why it can't stay. It's formulated rather NPOV, I think, and is just simple factual info. --Randykitty (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly (MQ) Controversy

Hello Randykitty,

I recently came across your writings in [2], where you offered an alternative opener for the MQ journal in section "peer-reviewed academic journal". I was wondering if you could please share your opinion to the responses that came after your suggestion, as I'm trying to resolve the issue(s) the deletionist had with the article. You seem very level-headed, and I'm hoping your fair alternative ("academic journal" and "peer-reviewed" are factual descriptors) can be implemented soon.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:E1F6:B033:856E:A1AC (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, please keep the discussion centralized on the MQ talk page. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bihari_Puraskar. I think you had to check the nomination at first, which was misleading since notability of an award was being discussed, not organisation. To say the award fails "WP:NORG" was misleading in itself. Finally, how the sources, including this one was a "press release"? The analysis table was also misleading. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I stand by the close. If you disagree, Deletion Review is here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

File:2018 cover TRG.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 the calculation of 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, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Userfy request

Dont want undeletion but can you userfy Mitra Samaj to my userpace? Thanks. NavjotSR (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • No, sorry. The AfD was unanimous that this didn't meet our inclusion criteria and despite extensive searches no good sources were found. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Userfied at User:NavjotSR/Mitra_Samaj, but note that Wikipedia:Userfication allows this. NavjotSR (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes deletion

Hello. This is in relation to my recent edit of The European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) being deleted because of a conflict of interest. I no longer work for this company, nor did I ever officially, only a few month long internship. All the updated information that I included is very general and neutral, and can be confirmed by the website. The information that is displayed now is outdated and incorrect, hence why I wanted to change it. Please let me know what else I can do to have my edits approved. Thanks! Jordan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordandevenish (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • There were numerous problems with those edits, the least of which was that you destroyed the correct formatting of the page (see WP:MOS). Then you inserted a long list of working groups (each with a "reference" to its page on the organization's own website) and a list of members (all with inappropriate in-lin external links, see WP:EL). WP is not a web host, this kind of stuff does not belong in an encyclopedic article but on the organization's own website (see also WP:NOTADIRECTORY. And, frankly, I find it quite weird that in your last edit summary on that article you claimed to be working for this organization, but after I warned you about that you now suddenly deny that... If there is outdated or incorrect info in the article, then post a note on the talk page and we'll see what can be done. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I didn't know I destroyed the formatting and understand that it shouldn't be a directory page. Will keep that in mind with future edits. I will note what is incorrect and outdated on the talk page, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordandevenish (talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bihari Puraskar deletion

Greetings!

This is with respect to the deletion of Article Bihari Puraskar. I was unable to contribute to the discussion and deliberations last week when the article discussions happened and conclusions reached. My apologies.

I do believe it is an important state level award and has coverage annually in multiple mainstream Indian English media outlets as well since at least 2009. The award is itself in its 27th year and is given for the state Rajasthan, a state that has a population almost comparable to France. We are a country with 29 states (and many more languages) and it is often hard for mainstream english media to find space for state level award articles elaborately. Coverage for the article would surely be more in vernacular media than English media. Besides in the sub continent, there is often systemic bias and limited coverage in the "ratings hungry" media for topics like literature while cinema, sport and politics take the lions share. Also, even the most sought after awards have limited coverage and independent stories on the winners. State media tend to go with the Press release from PTI or ANI. I can relate to this from my experience of editing article for the key Rajyotsava awards state awards for the state of Karnataka. But this does not make a few of these awards any less important. This is the context and peculiarity of Indian media coverage of state awards.

I hope a review of this decision could be made at an appropriate time. I genuinely believe vernacular awards need more support and attention from the general public and also wikipedia editors and articles and as well. Thank you.

best regards Arunram (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, unless I miss something, it looks to me like these issues weer already discussed in the debate. AFD is not a vote, so I don't think it would have made a difference if you had !voted "keep" during the AfD. If you have in-depth sources that somehow were missed during the debate, that might be something else. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi, I am quite familiar with the Afd process. Yes, i was referring to additional sources. I will request a review when i get a chance to organize the sources. Thanks Arunram (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted draft: Crop Science Society of America

Thanks for the alert. I'm a new contributor. Please restore the draft so I can work on resolving the issues you flagged. Thanks! MPings (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)MPings

Deleted Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)

Hello @Randykitty: you speedy deleted Draft:Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform). I feel that the page has been deleted in error as I contested the nomination on the talk page, but did not see any reaction. Are you willing to undelete the page or do you have any recommendations for me? Thank you, --FlippyFlink (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused about edits

Hi, You've reversed multiple of my edits, and some I understand, but some go against convention in my field and make the article unclear. While you find the term 'landscape science' "weird", that is in fact my entire field of study and the main focus/subject of the journal. In this field, landscape science =/= landscape architecture. At this point I am at a loss for how to fix the article so that it is accurate and still up to Wikipedia's standards. The intro makes no sense to me as it stands. Rachelleonard (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've tweaked the lead. Is this better? --Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A good effort? Landscape science, planning, design, architecture are all distinct fields, not subsets under an umbrella of landscape science. L planning and architecture are 'practice oriented fields' along w Urban and regional planning, the ecologies, and the engineering fields. Rachelleonard (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So what's the difference between "landscape science" and the rest? I note that we don't have an article "landscape science", while we have articles on all the other subfields. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Rachelleonard: Yes, please consider creating either an article about Landscape science or a section within a wider article of wherever it fits in the hierarchy of academic disciplines - perhaps within Geography#Related_fields? Googling "Landscape science" I found various citable descriptions of the field like here. (Incidentally, Rachel, do you have a connection to the journal which might be considered a Conflict of Interest? I see that you state that " I use Wikipedia to update and upkeep the article for Landscape and Urban Planning." and that you have made no other edits to the encyclopedia.) PamD 18:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I simply don't have time to create a entire new page for landscape science. It took me hours and hours just to learn enough about Wikipedia to edit this one page. I am a researcher and I work for the University of Michigan under the Landscape Architecture program - I was asked to update the page as part of my appointment because it was severely underdeveloped and unhelpful. I have made no other edits because this is simply not my thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelleonard (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Racehlleonard: I can see that the journal page was indeed "severely underdeveloped" before you started work on it, and you've done most of the expansion since then! Your work probably counts as "Undisclosed Paid Editing" as you were asked to do it as part of an appointment, so please read that link and make a statement on your talk page or the article's talk page or both. But I've now got interested in trying to define "landscape science" (being retired I have the luxury of disposable time) and I'll see what I can do to turn that into a blue link. PamD 22:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC) @Rachelleonard: pinging again because I mistyped your name before, sorry. PamD 22:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rachelleonard: I'm now thinking in terms of adding a section on Landscape Science to the article Landscape: I hope that makes sense. But one thing baffles me: in this it says The whole of the disciplines involved in landscape research will be referred to as landscape science, although this term was used first in 1885 by the geographers Oppel and Troll (Troll, 1950). Was the Troll of 1950 discussing his/her own work of 65 years earlier (just about possible), or that of his or her parent or someone with coincidental same name, or is there a typo? Do you know anything about this/these Trolls which would help make sense of this? I know you're a busy researcher but I'm trying to put your discipline onto the Wikipedia map and would be grateful if you could shed any light! (Apologies, Randy, for taking over your talk page like this.) PamD 22:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the paid editing claim, I don't particularly care since it's clear Rachelleonard (talk · contribs) followed WP:JWG as best she could. Even if there's a WP:COI somewhere, it's not a problematic one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rachelleonard: Please have a look at Landscape#Landscape science and improve it or comment to me. I found such a range of different definitions that all I could do was to quote some of them. PamD 19:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot

Yeah, if a bot could be designed to do this, then I'd stop. I don't want to cause any inconvience to others, just want to mae sure that articles that already have wikiata have the ac, and those that might in the future will already have the "infrastructure", the "sockets" for the plug so to speak.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Wikidata? If we actually want to use that. As far as I am concerned, it's a potential source of hardly-traceable vandalism... Did you get consensus sopmewhere for these edits? --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I didn't see how it would clog up anything or cause any difficulty. The only problem is there is no way to tell if a page has wikidata, that I am aware of, other than adding it to the bottom of a page and seeing if it is already there.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I have hundreds of academic journal articles on my watchlist so, yes, I get every day multiple edits of yours that just add this template without any visible consequence. I have seen literally dozens of edits where you added this template and not a single instance where it actually made any difference. And, again, is there sommunity consensus for adding these templates? --Randykitty (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge of AfD

Hi there,

I was hoping you could both explain in a bit more detail and hopefully reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koszalin escape room fire.

Including nom's change of heart, there were 11 !votes, of which 10 were justified (1 merge was just "merge to escape room"). This seems to be 6 Keeps and 4 merges - with no delete/redirect !vote left I'm not sure whether it could have legitimately been relisted, but I feel that an ordered merge is inappropriate in this case, rather than a proposed merge in the regular fashion.

Nosebagbear (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Blue squirrel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blue squirrel. Since you had some involvement with the Blue squirrel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. A loose noose (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Koszalin escape room fire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Koszalin escape room fire. 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. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform). 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. FlippyFlink (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Gandy (author)

Hmmm, looks like I stepped on your relist by accident. I hope that's OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • No worries. For me, it was a toss up between relist and the same close as you did anyway. --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of ResetEra

Good afternoon,

I saw the page for ResetEra was deleted and noticed that in the discussion that it was removed due to a lack of "notability." I don't know who originally created the page, but I believe I can write a new one that focuses more on the site itself rather than the site it spun-off from. I've drafted something if you care to look at it. Thank you!

Adkbay (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh, I agree. I didn't create it because it said I needed to contact you. I have 19 sources regarding ResetEra (as in ResetEra was sourced in some way in the article), with only the first 2 referencing the prior site due to the History section. (draft in sandbox) Adkbay (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not very optimistic. I checked the first few references and they're not about ResetEra. I don't have time to go through all of them. Just give me two that are independent or ResetEra, published in reliable sources, and discuss the subject in-depth, so that it can be shown that this meets our inclusion criteria. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls' Frontline

Hi, I disagree with your assessment of consensus as "keep". Numerically, 2:1 isn't a consensus, and in terms of arguments, no actual source that meets WP:GNG was cited. Sandstein 23:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • You're right. I've changed the close to "no consensus". --Randykitty (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects

BTW when you're working with German titles in the infobox, make sure you uncheck the 'English Only' box in [3]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

See also the 'Search links' subsection of Template:Infobox_journal#Sub_templates. If you add stuff to your CSS files, you'll have links to various databases and abbreviation generators, as well as MIAR to check for indexing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I already thought that it was strange that "Zeitschrift" was not abbreviated. I indeed forgot to uncheck that box... I've added that line to my css file. Which gave an error warning for the stuff above, but I neither know how to correct the error nor even what that stuff is about... There is something that says "persondata", so perhaps it has something to do with that deprecated stuff, but I'm loath to mess around withour understanding what I'm doing... Perhaps you can have a look and tell me what I safely can remove or correct? --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Whatever persondata error you've got, I'm pretty sure it's unrelated to the infoboxes. For that, I'd ask at WP:VPT, because I don't know much about anything there.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog should consider returning back

The feeling is mutual, I have started a thread User talk:Jytdog#Jytdog should consider returning back to try and canvass him to return back. I am sure he will read it someday, lets hope for the best. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

request for deleted list of industrial parks

Per your offer within your closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of industrial parks by size, could you please provide the now-deleted list-article to my userspace. I will plan to merge some or all of it to the industrial park article. I would prefer to get the full version with complete edit history, for my own reference. Thanks in advance. --Doncram (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done It's at User:Doncram/List of industrial parks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Authority control

If you looked closely at those edits, you will notice that there was more than just adding AC, there were categorizations, inter-language linking, and many of them actually HAD wikidata, or, if they didn't, the AC was removed. Exactly what do you want me to do?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mosfilm and Lenfilm were perfectly legitimate edits, as the authority control linked to wikidata. Rheinische Volkspflege had noting to do with Authority control at all. I never added it, so why was that reverted?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • You have been adding the authority control template to articles where this did not have any visible effect (here for example). That you at the same time performed other edits, too, is irrelevant here. You have been asked multiple times to stop adding this template in such cases without first obtaining community consensus. So what I want you to do is start having that discussion. And as I said on your talk page, the next time you add an "empty" authority control template to an article, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Nemer

I have already posted this on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion but they told me to contact the admin who deleted the page. Here's why I believe the page should be undeleted: Nemer (Portuguese wiki https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nemer ) has become one of the leading researchers on misinformation and election: article published in the Guardian, Quartz, El Pais, he was recognized as one of the most influential people in science and technology by Globo (number 1 news venue in Brazil). He is the author of Favela Digital- The other side of technology. I'd be happy to edit and update the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisharktank (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason te revisit that AfD closure. The sources you present are articles by Nemer (not about him) and an interview, which does not count for much in terms of notability. Only the Globo article is more substantial, but I have no idea how reliable that website is. In any case, one article is not enough to meet WP:GNG. If you still want to pursue this, feel free to take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Randykitty: Thanks for your feedback. I've taken it to Deletion Review and they want to see a draft- but my question is: if there's already a Wiki article in Portuguese, that has been through the review process, would this be enough of a reason to have the article translated to other languages? --Wikisharktank (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Different language wikis have different rules. I'm not very familiar with the rules on other wikis than this one, so I'm afraid that I cannot be of much help. If you're asking whether having an article on ptwiki is enough to have an article here, the answer is no, given those different rules. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Just an updated: I added a bunch of relevant External Links of TV interviews, Press Coverage, TEDx talk, OP EDs, Google Books link, and Portuguese Wikipedia article, just to show relevance. Also, as you mentioned, sometimes you can't tell the reliability of a news source in Brazil, so I also linked the news sources to their Wikipedia pages in English. --Wikisharktank (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have asked the editor who originally proposed this bio for deletion to have a look at the draft to see whether they now think it passes the bar. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Nemer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war restarting after the end of Rmor312's block

You may be interested in WP:ANI/3RR#User:Rmor312 reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: ), in which you are involved as a blocking administrator. D.Lazard (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. I've watchlisted that article (and also Contact process (mathematics)). The disruption seems to have ceased now, but if they restart, I'll see it and will block again (and longer this time). --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Occupational Health Science

Occupational Health Science has published two volumes already, and volume 3 is coming up. Please undo your redirect. I understand why you redirected it last year when only one volume and one issue were published. But now the journal is publishing every quarter. The first issue of Volume 3 will be out next month. Iss246 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It's not enough for a journal to exist. Please see WP:NJournals. This one still misses that by a mile. It misses WP:GNG by even more. --Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision

Hello, I am the writer of Dagger. I use shortened notes linked with {{tl|sfn}} and citation templates, styled Sudirman. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I have self-reverted, but must say that I find it ugly (but that's a question of personal taste, I guess). Also, I don't see the need for separating print from online sources. In addition, about half of this short stub is not even about the zine itself, but about its founder. None of the references contains more than an in-passing mention of Dagger (except one and that is only a single paragraph). At least one reference does not even mention the zine. If you cannot show notability, this will likely end up at AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Who's a neuroscientist?

I noticed you recently removed mentions of Danielle Posthuma being a neuroscientist from her article. I wanted to point out that there is at least one source referring to her as a neuroscientist (which is why I put it in the article in the first place): this article in MIT Technology review. It says "It was led by Danielle Posthuma, a neuroscientist specializing in statistical genetics at Vrije University, in Amsterdam." Do you think this is good enough by itself to refer to her as a neuroscientist in the article? IntoThinAir (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, in a sense, everyone who studies behavior could be considered a neuroscientist (after all, behavior is the output of the brain). Posthuma is perhaps a borderline case. Looking at GScholar, most of her best-cited publications are what I would call "classical behavior genetics", that is, looking at heritability of behavior or localising genes for behavior, i.e. going from gene to behavior as if there's no brain pathways in between the two. Even when her team attempts to localise genes for psychiatric disorders, no brain properties are included. She comes from the department led by Dorret Boomsma, which is in psychology. There are a few articles that mention certain proteins, for example, or brain size. To me, that doesn't really put her into the "neuroscientist box", but I agree that it is perhaps a matter of taste, so if you really feel that the moniker "neuroscientist" applies in this case, I won't object if you put it back (but I think that in any case "behavior geneticist" and "psychiatric geneticist" should stay). --Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Biological Communications

Hi, Randykitty! I appreciate your help in improving the WP article about Biological Communications journal (1956-ongoing). Now I have added more references (including indexing platforms like Scopus and Clarivate Analytics). Please review this new version when you will have time! --KunRiskun (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)KunRiskun

  • Actuzally, earlier today I looked into this, planning to expand the article and move it to main article space. However, when I checked Scopus and Clarivate Analytics, I could not find this journal. THe reference about Russian journals in Scopus does not pan out either. So it looks like this still does not meet NJournals (and GNG even less). Sorry about that... --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! Elsevier (read Scopus) now have journal lists for different countries(e.g., Russian, Chineese). If you (or any researcher or librarian) have access to WoS (Clarivative Analytics) database, you will find all articles of the journal there! The references included are just available from this side of the paywall. Please, try again Clarivative Analytics - Here is the regular way: http://mjl.clarivate.com/ then type Biological Communications into "Search our Master Journal List". Press search - here it is! I can send you a print screen if you need. Regards --KunRiskun (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)KunRiskun

-Ok, I see, it is for 2018. Let's wait for updated 2019 Scopus list. I will return to this draft later. Regards--KunRiskun (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)KunRiskun

UAP

Hi, Randykitty. Just wanted to say thanks for your work on the University of Arkansas Press page. (Is this the right place to do that?) I'm very new to Wikipedia editing and have appreciated expert attention. Curious, what's your interest in the press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkbrowndog (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks, you're welcome! My interests here are mostly related to all aspects of academic publishing, hence my interest in the UAP. --Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel James (boxer)

I am curious as to what keep arguments you found persuasive. To me they looked like WP:ILIKEIT so I would like to know what I missed. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Some argued that GNG was met even though NBOX was perhaps not met. Somebody else argued for significant coverage (I have no access to that source -nor is it necessarily the task of a closer to check sources- but I assume good faith here). There was quite obviously not a consensus to delete, so I closed "no consensus". Feel free to re-nominate this for deletion after an appropriate amount of time (usually something like 6 months) has passed without improvement forthcoming. --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I voted the way I did because I did check all the sources I could find and looked for more on my own. Thanks for enlightening me. I was somewhat surprised there weren't more votes (one way or the other). Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There are quite a few AfDs these days and fewer people that seem to be participating in the discussions. I find myself relisting debates because of too few participants more and more frequently. It's starting to worry me. --Randykitty (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Kichesippi Beer Co.

Hi Randykitty, you closed this AfD back in April 2018. I'm finding a lot of coverage in more recent months. Could you please move it to my draft space I can work on it? Thanks for your consideration. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I have restored the article to your USER space. Once you have added that new coverage (hopefully something more substantial than just more blogs), drop me a note and I'll move the thing to draft space where it can go through the usual process. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty, I saw you moved it to my userspace before reading your reply here and I moved it from userspace to draft space but somehow it became "New" and the history was lost. Somehow I must have conflicted with your work when recreating? Anyway, I worked it up in draftspace before I saw that you had fixed the recresting in my userspace so now there are two versions. I guess I can copy over my latest draft version to the userspace version and then I will try to iron out any wrinkles lost from your editing. Thanks for your help. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, I see you moved it yet again. What about my message above was unclear? In addition, are those two references that you added all you got or is there more? --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Afc submissions are made from draft space. I also like to work on articles in draftspace rather than my userspace. In fact I prefer to work on them in mainspace.
It isn't an article I created. Anyone is welcome to contribute to it so draftspace seems the appropriate place.
I was busy sorting out the moves and edit conflicts so no, I didn't remember clearly your instructions. But I don't think I need anyone's permission to move an article from my userspace to draftspace? There are other news items in the subject since the Afd. I think the two I added and the content changes I made are enough. Honestly, it was a bad close of a clearly notable subject the first go around. If you still think it isn't notable I would welcome another Afd dsicussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
That's what you most likely are going to get if this gets moved to article space. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
AfDs are okay by me. I'm often amazed at what editors drag there, but that's the process we have. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed a redirect that was voted per afd

Found this on the new page feed: Venu Udugula was voted a redirect per AFD, was not sure what type of warning to give the one who changed it. (Been a while since I gave one for that, so yeah) Wgolf (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The edits were made by anonymous IPs, so giving warnings may not be very useful. I've put it on my watchlist, if this happens again, I'll protect it. Thanks for the heads up! --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks , will learn step by step

Thanks, Randykitty I am new to Wikipedia Editing and will surely learn step by step. Thanks for correcting me and sending links. Will Ask you for any help If i need. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.181.186 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Greetings, I was writing you directly as recommended regarding an article you deleted Dec. 2018 for the entry "Red Haircrow". I met him at an event, looked him up and thought he should have a page on Wikipedia. I did read the guidelines for this, and felt he qualified especially when there are people who were in one film as a child actor, did nothing else, and they still have a wikipedia page. He has also appeared in film, please see IMDb links below. Thinking back, I should have gone back and removed the other links, but I got new job in a newsroom that's very busy, and had not had the time. I was looking tonight to share the link to the Wikipedia page only to see its been deleted so I wrote.

I am not a general editor on Wikipedia as you know. Naturally, I would update the page I created or other related pages. I used the name "contributingauthor" because that is what I do. I would not use my own name or anything close. I am a journalist and author here in Berlin. It applies. I never imagined just my choice of name would make me a suspect. I am not a publicist, paid by him or anything else. I object to the opinion of blatant conflict of interest or self-promotion comments.

I had not had the chance to update it really for almost a year. As I cannot see the information previously listed on the page anymore or the time it was last updated with more current information. I have added that here. Recent info:

1. Interview on RT UK (Sept. 2018): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enhILUv9lDo 2. The Electric Sheep Radio Show (July 2018): https://panelborders.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/tomorrows-show-unspoken-cultures/ 3. Director/producer documentary film, "Forget Winnetou! Loving in the Wrong Way" (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6494700/?ref_=rvi_tt and https://forgetwinnetou.com/ 

    a. imdb profile https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8754173/?ref_=tt_ov_wr

4. Audience Award for "Forget Winnetou!" (2018) at "Refugees Welcome Film Festival (Oct. 2018) http://www.refugeesfilmfest.com/winners.html?fbclid=IwAR3IRRm970S92KuHZBmwqZlnZqsGoQKrAYbRjSM0kxgj5wwQUxhMf87P-gQ 5. Played himself in "Searching for Winnetou" (2018), https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7958836/?ref_=nv_sr_1 a documentary film by Drew Hayden Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Hayden_Taylor. Looking at Drew Hayden Taylor's page for example, there is not so much difference. 6. Dakota Access Pipeline coverage at Al Jazeera (start around 10:30 mark) https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/12/dakota-access-pipeline-protests-politics-coverage-161210064734287.html 7. Interview from other outside sources Suddeutsch Zeitung https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/glaubensbekenntnis-red-haircrow-1.3400776 Der Freitag https://www.freitag.de/autoren/mdell/ich-bin-nur-dem-nein-begegnet Deutschlandfunkkultur Radio (interview and podcast) https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/projekt-forget-winnetou-gegen-klischees-die-ureinwohner.2156.de.html?dram%3Aarticle_id=381217

All of the interviews are also about the topics of Native American activism like Standing Rock, racism, colonialism and cultural appropriation

Also current Secretary for Native Research Network (2017-2019) https://www.nativeresearchnetwork.org/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributingauthor (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, After a (brief) review of the links that you give above, it doesn't look to me that they indicate notability in the WP sense. If you think that this is incorrect, you can take this to WP:DRV, but I don't think you'd have much luck with that. --Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Journalism Practice Scope

Hin Randykitty,

I'm contacting you because you recently deleted the scope portion of the Journalism Practice page. I don't feel that this was promotional material or biased in any way. I do not work for Journalism Practice and doing this for academic purposes. I would ask you to please reconsider your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfortunapeak (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I think it was promotional. However, whether promotional or not, it's unnecessary. The current lead ("covering the professional practice and relevance of journalism") covers it all. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing

Hello RandyKitty, outside of the deletion forum, please explain how an article you approved of, Globalizations is upheld by in-depth sources. When I did a search myself to see if I was able to improve the article, I found only listings, and no coverage, comments, reviews or history. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Globalizations is included in the very selective Social Sciences Citation Index. This means that a committee of specialists evaluated the journal and determined that it is among the most important ones in its field. Following WP:NJournals, this meets our inclusion criteria. It's indeed irrelevant to any current AfD (see WP:WAX and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Use templates on AFD Closers

Thankyou for your work during AfDs. Following someones pick up that on the AfD closures of DWWR 15.that Template:Use dmy and Template:Use Irish English had been removed. DWWR 55 has had the same issue. (I've just noted other templates gone on DWWR 15 so I'm going to fix those then resume this or I'll be trying to multiprocess with someone else getting dressed on top).Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh my, did I do that? That certainly was unintentional! That AfD was a pain to close because of the large number of articles invlved. And because they had been added in a non-standard way, the script did not recognize them, so I had to remove the templates and add the oldafd templates to the talk pages by hand. Thanks for letting me know, I'll check and where necessary will clean up my mess. Sorry for the hassle! --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisting discussion – something went wrong

Hey, just to let you know – while relisting this AfD discussion, you've placed an appropriate template on the discussion's page and you've added an entry to the today's log [4] [5], but you've not removed it from the March 14 log. I've got it done for you [6]. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • That's weird. I use a script to close/relist and it usually takes care of this automatically. Anyway, thanks for correcting this glitch. --Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill

Hello, wondering why you have relisted the afd. The afd was already relisted twice. The votes seemed to be a clear Keep. The votes were 6 Keep and 2 redirect.

  • March 7 Afd
  • March 14 Afd relisted
  • March 21 Afd relisted 6 votes keep 2 votes redirect
  • March 28 Afd relisted by Randykitty

Thank you Lubbad85 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I didn't think that consensus was so clear and the discussion seemed ongoing. Indeed, after I relisted there was more discussion. In such a case I find a "no consensus" close unsatisfactory. --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It seems that Wikipedia has clear ideas about what should happen. yet here we are.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Lubbad85 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Crapwatch

I know we have disagreements from time to time (always colloquial however), but I'd appreciate some support here if you think the Crapwatch is a good initiative. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Good job! I've made a few comments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about relist after no comments

Hi! This AfD was relisted after receiving no comments despite being on two delsorts. My understanding is that WP:NOQUORUM and WP:RELIST both state that AfD's with no comments are treated as expired PRODs, right? Just asking for clarification :) Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • That's correct, but generally I don't close as "soft delete" without at least one relist to give the community the chance to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Got it, thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Proposed Portland Ballpark

User:SportsFan007 has asked for a deletion review of Proposed Portland Ballpark. 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. —Cryptic 22:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you delete the category

Mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K&C Video? I think CfD would be just a speedy delete going through the motions wasting everyone's time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • ALthough I kind of agree with what you say about wasting time, I don't really see a good rationale for deleting out of hand. It would be different if the category creator would support this request. --Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi Randy,

I wrote an article a while back that was deleted. A few things have changed and I am curious if people would re-consider. I know one of the big issues was related to notability. I think that has changed. As of now, the group is being featured both online and on national radio with Corus Radio (See Links below).

In addition to this, they were featured on national CBC radio as well as an article on National CBC website (see Below).

I think together, this certainly increases the notability to the point where it meets wikipedia standards. Obviously, I can add these links to the page if restored. I am not sure how this works, but I thought writting you was the best first step.

Links/Refs

Paragon Cause on Global News Canada and Corus Radio - https://globalnews.ca/news/5080513/nighttime-podcast-recap-firearms-arsenal-valentines-day-massacre-plot/ Paragon Cause on Global News Canada and Corus Radio - https://globalnews.ca/news/5055265/nighttime-podcast-recap-sasquatch-pictou-county-ns/

Paragon Cause on CBC - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/new-ontario-songs-1.5010329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbonapar (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

band- Paragon Cause

I am not sure how to find a deleted article? Jbonapar (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I found it via your talk page. You give three links above. The first two just list Paragon Cause. The third is a very brief mention. None of this contributes to notability (please see Wp:NBAND and WP:GNG). I see no reason to change the outcome of the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy, they list the Band in the first two links, but this is a link indicating the band is doing the soundtrack work for this show, which is played internationally on over 39 radiostations now. Corus radio is one of North America's largest radio groups. I think this is some missunderstanding here. A group that is contrubuting soundtrack work to a show that is internationally known, let alone nationally (ie, top 10 itunes podcasts, plus international play) seems reasonably notable. Jbonapar (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It's just a listing, without any real coverage. What you need are independent sources that discuss the band in-depth. If you disagree with my evaluation, you're welcome to take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi Randy, I'll see what else can be done. I understand your point, but I know there are more details. I'll just post a few below, but at the same time, i'll look to other avenues. We can agree to disagree ;)

- The band was recently featured on both National CBC Radio (Show: In the key of C, plus national play) - The band was featured on CBC online as one of the top new songs of the week from a city outside the bands home city - The band is responsible for soundtrack and theme music for the show The Nighttime Podcast which is syndicated internationally on corus radio. - this POdcast and radio show, featuring the music of Paragon Cause has over 5 Million Downloads on itunes! - this POdcast, featuring the bands soundtrack work has reached as high as #27 on North American (including the USA) itunes charts - The bands music has been featured on CKNW, CHQR, CHED, CFPL, CHML, and 640 Toronto in addition to these stations - I can post 70 or more of links to the episodes but here is a recent one with The band (Paragon Cause) doing soundtrack. The night time podcast and radio show have featured 8 of the bands songs on their show in addition to the theme music. - The band has just recorded an album with Academy Award Nominee and international music star Sune Rose Wagner of the Raveonettes you can see the mention on his instagram page also another link where he is mixing our album

Jbonapar (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

you are deleting my contributions

Please specify why you are deleting the journal of natural resources from the list of environmental journals. I would apreciate if you could explain to me, what must be done to ad the JNRD to this list. (Sciencefortheworld (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC))

  • As explained in the edit summaries, have a look at WP:WTAF. Once an article exists, it can be linked from the list. However, before creating an article, have a look whether the journal actually meets either WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

New Wikipedia page for Alphaville Journal- speedy deletion notice

Hi, sorry new to Wikipedia. On revision, the first publication on the page 'Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media' clearly did not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. Information from this page that read like a promotion for the journal has been removed. I believe the journal is notable as it includes a large number of articles from academic experts from all around the world. It is also the first journal of its kind in Ireland.[1] Breillyucc (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Actually, besides being promotional, the article also suffers from a lack of notability. That academic experts published in the journal is irrelevant, as is being the first of its kind in Ireland. What is needed are in-depth independent sources discussing the journal (that would make it meet WP:GNG) or indexing in major selective databases. None of this is currently the case. If it is not deleted as spam, I will open a community discussion to delete the article. Sorry about that, but I hope that you understand that a serious encyclopedia has to have clear inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://filmstudiesforfree.blogspot.com/2011/08/alphaville-new-journal-of-film-and.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_23&oldid=1085988522"