User talk:Randykitty/Archive 30

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Optics Continuum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Optica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 in home video

Why did you delete the 2022 in home video? Ryanjosephfranklin (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I gave my rationale when closing the AfD. Let me know if that's not clear. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see you didn't participate in that debate. The link is here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, I just came here to see any updates of upcoming DVDs (but not fake). Please, restore it Ryanjosephfranklin (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It was deleted after a community discussion. If you think that my closure of that debate was not correct, you're free to take this to WP:DRV (but read the instructions on that page very carefully). --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Air Force (game)

Hi there! You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force (game) in 2014 as delete, due to lack of notability from independent reviews. That was fair based on the sources discovered during the AFD, but as you can see at the bottom of User:Guinness323/sandbox where contents for a rewrite if the article are being assembled, there were also reviews in independent magazines Phoenix, The Wargamer, and Fire & Movement, which were not known at the time of the AFD. Do you have any objections to restoring and drafting the original article so that it can be worked on? We of course would not want the two edits from 2016 to be restored as that portion was deleted due to copyvio. Thanks for taking a look! BOZ (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, as you're an admin, why don't you just go ahead and do it yourself. With a 7-year-old AFD plus new sources this should be pretty uncontroversial. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Sounds good, I just like to ask first as a courtesy. :) BOZ (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I resolved the issues raised by you

Hello, I want to remove the template messages you put there because the related issues were fixed. Who could remove them since issues were taken care of properly? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyein101 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Actually, you didn't. To give just oone example, the statement "he has focus on various subjects in the New Testament study, including the historical Jesus, Paul's letters and his theology, and biblical interpretation theory" is sourced to a WorldCat identity that doesn't eve come close to saying anything like that. You just conclude that from some of the publications listed (see WP:OR. There is not a single independent reference discussing the subject in depth. And the list of articles is still either a complete listing of everything he ever published or an idiosyncratic selection. His GScholar profile shows an abysmal citation record (even for a low-citation field like religious studies). In fact, the current article does not even make it clear whether this academic meets WP:PROF. In short, the problems remain, the tags are still needed. --Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion and indirect mention

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Vineet Chopra

In my experience, those who are Members of the American Society for Clinical Investigation pass #3. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • If really important, one would expect that most members of that society would be members of the National Academy of Medicine. That's not the case, so I'm not so sure that such a membership satisfies PROF#3. The other awards listed are all local. Perhaps there's more than the article mentions, but as it stands notability is borderline at best. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The article may be deleted

Very recently you declined the following submission. I am consent with your arguments. So please delete that article. I have already copied the text into my sandbox (for eventual improvement). SY, --Mikisavex (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Munaf Kapadia AfD

Due to some unknown reason (perhaps Twinkle/XFDCloser clash or internet/site/browser issues), when you relisted Munaf Kapadia AfD on Jan 9, XFDCloser failed to add it to that day's log (there should generally be three edits from a relist - like this; but for this relist there are only two). So AfD has remained unlisted at WP:OLD/WP:OLDAFD and this I think has caused it to remain open despite no discussion in the last three weeks.

I had requested a close three days ago at WP:CR before understanding the issue fully, which nobody has replied to. My manual attempts to list the AfD were overwritten by the bot. Apologies for my fumbles.

Could you either close this AfD or try relisting it once more to get it back on open AfD lists? hemantha (brief) 12:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Sdrqaz. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Khalid El Bargoni, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sdrqaz (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New page creation

Hello, How are you, Hope doing well. I came here to tell you, can you create a page about Fazlu Raheman. He is a notable musicial Artist. You can collect more info about him by searching on google "Fazlu Raheman" . I am not being able to create him page bcz it's protected . So I request you to create a page about him. I hope you will. Thanks. Howrdy Jack (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, the reason for the protection is that a draft has been repeatedly created for Fazlu Raheman and each time it was deleted as spam. I did a Google search but did not see anything that shows that this person is notable. In any case, I don't often edit music bios, so you'd better ask somebody else. Perhaps somebody at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music can help you. --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Article you reviewed

Hi, hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your helpful comments on my draft stub for an academic journal. I have revised the page (Draft:Economy and Society (journal)) and would appreciate your feedback on how to continue making improvements. Per WP:NJOURNAL this journal seems to meet the criteria for notability (selectively indexed, JCR impact factor), but the WP:JWG is pretty restrictive about what can and can't be included, so I am struggling to lengthen it. Thanks for your advice. Bigbattery (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Seth Schwartz

The lead of this article says he is EIC and names the journal, not sure what more you’re looking for. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  • No clue how I could miss that. Brainfart... Apologies! --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No problem, I was rather confused about why you kept removing that category, but glad we're all on the same page now. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Dear Randy Kitty, I don't know what ambiguity in the article lead to the deletion. There is no paid or unpaid promotion. I am talking about the genuine researcher. If possible let me know how can i track the draft after deletion. --Ctbcmpm (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I have no clue what you're talking about. Which article is this? --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

But a statement like this needs a source and the one you provided will only work for you (and perhaps not even that, as WoS uses dynamic URLs valid only for one particular sesssion

Hi, I appreciate your request for good source of the statement in the Springer article. In this article it is really need. But I would like to ask you, why WoS isn't good? You mean that the stats there - for publishers - aren't relevant and changing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Springer_Nature&diff=1073403078&oldid=1072209850

If so, have you any idea for better source in this kind of statement? I think that rankings of publishers (in terms of published articles) can be relevant for encyclopedia.

Do you think that Dimensions are relevant?

https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?search_mode=content&search_text=&search_type=kws&search_field=full_search&and_facet_publication_type=article&and_facet_source_title=jour.1018957

Thank you Karlaz1 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • WoS is no good for several reasons. First, it doesn't actually say things like that. Second, the link you provided won't work for anybody (probably not even for you because WoS URLs are usually session-specific. Dimensions is a somewhat weird website, not sure it's a reliable source. Both for Dimensions and WoS I think you have to do some [WP:OR|original research]] in order to get the information in this statement. It would be better to find a good article on OA publishing to source this statement. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I just want to make sure, this link isn't work for you? I tried it from several browsers and seems working to me. ttps://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/82183dab-2d90-4c46-bdd6-4513c5a74b36-24d73b4e/relevance/1 In WoS you can easily click on "articles" and filter it via "document types" "quick filtres" (Open access) and "publishers" and see it. So in my point of view it could be a reliable source. (altough it is true that it should be mentioned that it pays only for articles which are WoS indexed)Karlaz1 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  • You must be accessing it from within your university. Try it at off-campus and see what happens... And if you have to do the manipulations that you describe, then this runs afoul of WP:OR... --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you, you are right. Probably it works thanks to Academia subscription. But I can't any recent article dealing with this issue.Karlaz1 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Applied Sciences MDPI has been accepted

Applied Sciences MDPI, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

Can you check this edit of mine to the q:Luxury page of our sister project Wikiquote and answer a query of mine? I want an authoritative answer on what is the most prestigious journal for every academic disciplines. I know by perosnal knowledge that Annals of Mathematics is the most prestigious journal for math and Science and Nature are most prestigious for the natural sciences. But I am totally clueless for the other disciplines like the social sciences, the arts and technology. Solomon7968 09:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry, but I've never edited Wikiquote, so I really cannot give any opinion about your edit. As for the most prestigious journal for a discipline, that's usually rather contentious. One way is to look at impact factors, but that's controversial and sometimes manipulated. For most disciplines I don't think there's a generally accepted "most prestigious journal". --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Southern Quarterly

Thanks for this cleanup. Journals aren't an area I edit much so I wasn't sure where to start with the infobox. Star Mississippi 23:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Have a look at WP:JWG to see how this can easily be expanded. Some pre-formatted references are on my user page. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    thank you! Was surprised it didn't exist given the number of notable folks who have written for it and the attention its garnered for their pieces. Not 100% guarantee of notability, I know, but seemed surprising no one had taken a stab yet. Star Mississippi 13:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Advice on interactions with another editor

Hello. I was hoping to solicit the voice of experience. You recently reverted an edit on the Journal of Schenkerian Studies (JSS) by an anonymous editor. I've been trying to decide a) if reporting that editor to the Administrators' noticeboard was warranted and b) if my hands are sufficiently clean to do it.

They and I clearly have diametrically opposed views on appropriate content for the cluster of related articles - JSS, Heinrich Schenker himself, Philip Ewell, and Timothy L. Jackson. However, I believe that I've tried (but not always succeeded) to abide by Wikipedia standards and avoid personal attacks. Mx. Anonymous, on the other hand, seems to have a somewhat out of the mainstream point of view they are intent on pushing at all costs. Their pattern of reverts and additions to these pages show that they are uninterested in balancing the Wikipedia coverage of these topics to approximately correspond to the actual level of support they have in the community. (Or to meet BLP, in the case of Ewell.)

They also have a long-standing pattern of posting self-published research from a particular author, leading me to suspect a potential undeclared COI on that score.

But - is this just normal Wikipedia bad behavior? Two editors with poor impulse control, shouting at each other in the void? Or is this worth at least asking for consideration of a topic ban? Thanks for your thoughts. PianoDan (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I think we're not there yet. There are other mechanisms of conflict resolution. Clearly, asking for a third opinion (WP:THIRD) is a station passed, but a request for comment (WP:RFC) might attract some more editors and lead to a consensus (not necessarily unanimous). If that doesn't work, WP:ANI might indeed be the way to go. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Appreciate it! I might give RFC a try, just want to make sure I don't overuse it - this editor insists on turning every single change to these pages into a huge drama, so that could conceivably end up being a LOT of RFCs. The reason they are trying to delete the references to Yale and the SMT, for example, is in retaliation because I deleted a reference from an early career scholar with a citation count of two (but whom they happen to agree with). Some fun. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, and have a good day. PianoDan (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Your name came up at ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI/UPE bullying. Thank you. Your name came up in relation to a question you asked at BN, with no suggestion you did anything wrong but it still seems only fair to notify you. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Wow, thanks for letting me know. That's quite a long thread, not sure I've time right now to read all that, let alone respond... --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Hey there Randykitty, I'd like to wish you a happy adminship anniversary! Congratulations on your special day, and thank you for all the contributions you've made.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC) On behalf of the Birthday Committee

A kitten for you and thank you!

Hello Randy

Thank you for your welcome message. I'll do my best to uphold the wikipedia standards!.

Again thank you

Cheers

GhostmanJohn (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Rosenblatt

If you have time/energy, perhaps you could take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Rosenblatt (musicologist). It appears to me that the discussion will hinge on whether the journal that he is editor-in-chief of is well-established for WP:NPROF C8. It is far enough from my own field that I am uncertain. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  • This really seems to be a minor journal. I can't get to its website (it times out), but MIAR indicates that it is only included in a few less-important databases. I didn't search for sources that may make it pass GNG, so you should search for that (but keep in mind that some citations to articles published in this journal are to be expected and don't necessarily indictae notability). In any case, I don't think it meets WP:NJournals. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Russ Woodroofe: Out of curiosity I searched Wikipedia for "Min-Ad", found it cited in Flute and listed in Musicology, but both links led to a site which my BullGuard security blocked for me. Looking further, the entire university site where the journal is based, http://www.biu.ac.il/, is blocked as "a malicious site that may be stealing identity information, plant viruses on your machine or do other harmful things". PamD 07:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
But looking again and following link from Bar-Ilan University got me to https://www.biu.ac.il/en with message "The website is offline for maintenance purposes and will return to activity soon". PamD 07:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability tag on New England Review

Hi, I removed the notability tag on New England Review because of the following guidelines found in Template:Notability:

  • If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources.
  • The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.

I am certain there are enough in-depth, independent sources for the subject. Following the guidelines, if you believe to the contrary, you should not have re-added this temporary tag, but rather opened up discussion on notability in the talk page or nominated it for deletion - two things which have not been done in the year+ that this tag was added. I could have then responded in kind with my list of sources that backed up my decision.--parqs (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  • What hasn't been done either is showing that those "enough in-depth, independent sources for the subject" actually exist. If they are so easy to find, then it should be faster to add them to the article than to post messages here. --Randykitty (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    If your issue is that the article does not have enough quality sources than you should add the relevant tag to the article, should be as easy as performing a revert that breaks Wikipedia guidelines. parqs (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    In any case, you're not supposed to revert the removal of a notability tag. Either nominate it for deletion if you disagree with the decision to remove the tag and strongly believe the notability does not exist or add an "additional citations needed" tag to the article if you have that issue with the article. parqs (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a bit difficult to see when exactly that text about removing the tag was inserted, but I don't see any significant community discussion about it. The tag is placed on over 59,000 articles, you're going to remove all of those? Regardless of the text about removing the tag, good practice for many years has been to remove a tag (not alone this one) only if the signaled problem has been satisfactorily addressed. If a maintenance tag gets removed before a problem is addressed, editors won't be alerted to the problem, which may therefore persist. Hope this explains why the tag should remain. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'll just nominate the article for deletion myself, that way discussion can be generated. The person who added the tag originally made no attempt to create any discussion on any perceived issues. parqs (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1740s establishments in Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:1740s establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Need Help

There is no record (A thank you note) of Schiffman ever standing down as EiC of Computers & Graphics at the end of 1977 Except for the fact that Larry Feeser authors the first Editorial of 1978 as EiC And that is already cited in the text. I am at a loss as to what to do here Gabrielthethinker (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I have re-worded that section to circumvent the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi @Randykitty:, Sorry for my mistake. As per the majority of votes were keep and as per your request I have withdrawn my nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy. If anything gone wrong while withdrawing then please let me know. Thank you. Fade258 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Ansermino

Result was delete? On what, three people who voted delete, because they simply didn't want to look for sources? The nominator clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE, there are a few Italian books with sources on the guy, a few sources online and about half a dozen offline sources if not more. I feel you should reconsider. Govvy (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Counting the nom, there were 4 "delete" !votes, you being the only "keep". Acknowledging that "there is not a lot of sourcing out there" did not really make this a ringing endorsement. Claiming "there must be sources" and "he has mentions from what I could see in two separate published books" (note: mentions, not in-depth coverage) didn't strengthen your case either. As closing admin, my job is evaluating consensus, not the possible motivation of discussants or lack thereof. If you feel that I misunderstood consensus, then please see WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Btw, I never count a JPL vote, so that makes three in my book, and I thought he was TBANNED from AfD, but I might have been wrong. Can you move the article to User:Govvy/Carlo Ansermino for me, I want to do more research on it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I do not userfy articles that were deleted after an AfD. In any case, the stub hardly contained any info, so I suggest that you search for sources that establish notability beyond any doubt and then we can see about undeleting. --Randykitty (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Medical History (journal)

Randykitty, you have undone a correction I have done to Medical History journal. The earlier version you have reverted contains wrong information since Med. Hist. is not an open access journal. As you might realize, my edition was in direct quotation from the journal's website, and was correcting a mistake on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.234.231.20 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  • You're right, it's a hybrid OA journal, I have corrected the article. Your edit was invalid anyway, as it was copied verbatim from the journal's website (promotional and copyvio). --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Updating WP:JWG

Hi Randykitty, thank you for the edits to IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging! Concerning the reference to Clarivate, I copied the template reference from WP:JWG and missed changing "Thomson Reuters" to "Clarivate" (my bad). Would it be an idea to change WP:JWG so it uses Clarivate? I could of course do the edit myself, but as a fairly new user, I'm reluctant to stat messing with guidelines etc. SakurabaJun (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I've fixed this. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Randykitty

Thank you for creating Correspondences (journal).

User:ComplexRational, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I'm marking unreviewed per general practice described at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Proposed_Deletion_(PROD), in case the PROD is contested.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ComplexRational}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ComplexRational (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Just a note, ComplexRational: I didn't create that article, but PRODded it (and have since taken it to AfD).
    • Yes, I saw. That was a bug in the page curation tool that I have since reported [1]. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Arkiv för zoologi

Concerning the page you changed: While I agree that a mere name change shouldn't warrant a new page, I don't think that is the case here. Arkiv för zoologi ended in 1974 while Zoologica Scripta started 1972! Arkiv för zoologi came originally from the transactions of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science while Zoologica Scripta was a collaboration between the Academies of Science in Sweden and Norway. So I don't think it's fair to simply call it a name change. Zoologica Scripta was certainly a kind of successor as a journal in Zoology, but I would still call it a different publication that deserves its own page. SakurabaJun (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks SakurabaJun for your message. I'll have another look at it, but it may be a few days, because I have a lot going on in RL. Don't hesitate to remind if I haven't gotten around to it by, say, Saturday. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Internet Archive bot

Hi there, in the deletion discussion for Omid Tabibzadeh I notice you mention the first links are all dead. I easily added archives to them with https://iabot.toolforge.org/ so I thought I'd give you a heads up about this tool. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I am not familiar with that tool, but it looks quite useful. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTE

I am currently suffering severe Internet problems (nothing to do with WP but unfortunately more general and of a technical nature) and may be difficult to reach for at least another couple of days. (Writing this from a McDonalds...) --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Hello, where did you find the impact factor of 2.023 you added for this journal? Storchy (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Tausch - article for deletion?

Cesar, Circus Maximus, Thumb up, Thumb down? User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before.

But more neutrality, please. This morning, I visited the website of one of the best libraries of political science in the world, the Dudley Knox Library of the United States Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey in California. Any Wikipedia decision maker now deciding in this deletion Circus Maximus process is kindly invited to look at the Tausch entries in the Monterey library system, [1].

User Randykitty stated in her present contribution in a sentence that could imply a lack of the necessary neutrality and a rather sweeping value judgement about the curriculum vitae of a living person stating that:

"The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions...". But Wikipedia is not the personnel service office of a University.

This non-neutral statement, together with the other non-neutral statement:

„In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC“

And

„I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history“.

Well, if user Randykitty were more familiar with the academic system in Continental Europe, she would realize that it is quite normal that "Privatdozenten" [2], i.e. "adjunct professors" are working nowadays for hundreds of institutions, like government bureaucracies, think tanks, etc, and not only for the Universities. Arno Tausch, at age 71, joined the ranks of the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992, became Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, and then, from 1999 onwards, worked for the Austrian Ministry of Social Affairs in Vienna until his retirement in 2016. [3]

In the framework of improving Wikipedia coverage of Austrian debates and Austrian political science, I will certainly do my best to improve the article over the coming weeks, and especially to shorten it and to free it from citation overload.

As to independent sources from the world press, I will refer to an interesting and very lengthy article published by Al Jazeera on Tausch, it's in Arabic, and I will certainly refer to it in the improved version which I will present. The reference is:

Springer, one of the world’s biggest and most important publishing houses, now lists none the less than 70 entries with Arno Tausch as author, from 1980 onwards to the present day. [4]

At the end of the day, there are not too many Austrian political scientists, who have made it to the pages Le Monde and Al Jazeera and of think tanks like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. His regular contributions to Wiener Zeitung are a proof that this author also contributes to the defense of the values of the open society in Austria, so Wikipedia should handle this “thumbs up thumbs down” issue with great care.

[[[User:Austrian political observer|Austrian political observer]] (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Austrian political observer (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Austrian political observer, obviously you have no idea what "notability" (in the WP sense) means. And given that you state "which she proposed already three times for deletion before", you either haven't read the previous AfDs or didn't understand them. Please stay away from my talk page in future, any comments on the AfD you should enter there, not here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nps.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,arno%20tausch&queryTemp=arno%20tausch&queryTemp=&tab=Everything&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&vid=01NPS_INST:01NPS
  2. ^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatdozent and https://www.uibk.ac.at/politikwissenschaft/institut/team/emeriti/
  3. ^ https://jcpa.org/researcher/arno-tausch/ and the older editions of the Österreichischer Amtskalender, available at the major public libraries in Austria, including the Ministerial Library at Stubenring 1, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichischer_Amtskalender
  4. ^ https://link.springer.com/search?dc.creator=Arno+Tausch&date-facet-mode=between&showAll=true

Questions about editing academic journals

Hi Randykitty, I hope you’ve sorted out the network connection issue! If not, this message can wait, it is not urgent. I just wanted to post a friendly reminder about Arkiv för zoologi and ask a few unrelated questions.

As I’m sure you’ve noted, I have started making edits here and there to scientific journals. Mostly adding/updating basic infobox stuff like CODEN, ISSN, impact factor etc. I’m trying to follow the guidlines, of couse, but if you come accross any stupid edits, please let me know. My hope was to continue working on updating journals, and it results in quite a lot of edits so I really want to keep bad edits to a minimum.

If you don’t mind, maybe I can ask some general questions about editing in the WP:AJ project? In no particular order:

1) For online journals that continuously publish articles there is the category “Continuous”, but I have seen several phrases in the infobox field: “continuous”, “continuous, upon acceptance”, “upon acceptance”, “upon publication”. Sticking to a single one seems reasonable, but I could not find a definitive answer at WP:JWG. Should they all be called “Continuous”?

2) I assume it is better to be more specific when adding a publisher, e.g., “Nature Portfolio” instead of “Springer Nature”?

3) Regarding finding appropriate selective index databases: WP:JWG suggests using MIAR. Can that be used as a source or what’s the best practice here? Should one find the journal in every indexing service and add explicit references one by one?

4) Promotional tone: A little while ago I saw that the Molecular Oncology (journal) was changed. Looking at the main text it seems a bit promotional to me. Example: “significantly advances understanding”, “Research articles, reviews and policy articles all undergo a transparent peer review process”, and “the journal's Section Editors -- active cancer researchers”. For future reference, do you agree or am I being too picky?

5) I’m working on adding journal covers, but is there something I should do (in addition to what I’m already doing) to reduce the risk of the images getting taken down due to some copy-right issue? Here is one I uploaded today File:Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics journal cover volume 100 issue 1.png, but I do it the same way for all.

Okay, that was maybe a bit much. (^_^); -- SakurabaJun (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Haven't forgotten about this, just need to find the time... --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Supply Chain Management

I thought it might be better to have a quick conversation here: Wikipedia reports impact factors and ABS/AJG ranks for many business journals. To be honest, I really don't get why you keep removing the ABS/AJG rank from that page. The rank is referenced and everyone who reads such journals knows that ABS/AJG is THE qualitative metric to evaluate the quality of academic business journals. I do not want to start an edit war, but, frankly, removing it from the page makes not much sense IMHO, and I am pretty sure most business academics will agree. 92.79.90.91 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Actually, if one clicks on the link that you give as a source, you'll finid a description of ABS/AJG, but nothing about the metric nor does it mentions this journal. To claim that something is a "top" journal, you need a solid independent source. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
ABS defines (!) category 4 journals as "top journals". If there is any independent organization to evaluate such journals, then it is ABS. Their methodology can be found on the website. I don't know what else they should do. The list can only be downloaded after registration (similar to impact factors). If you do not want to register to verify this information, you can also check this list. The methodology is freely available under my original link. There they also define category 4 as "top journals in their field". 92.79.90.91 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It took me a while to find all this stuff. I must say that I'm not too impressed by these algebraic tricks. Also, this seems to be a mainly UK exercise. And perhaps you are right that this is what everybody in that field looks at, but the journal's publishers themselves don't seem to be very impressed, because they list all kinds of metrics, but not this one. In all, I don't see much reason to add this apparently rather obscure metric (note also that neither the CABS nor the AJG currently have an article here, showing that they are, in fact, notable). --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
EVERYBODY in the area of business/management in academia looks at ABS/AJG. Impact factors plat almost no role in that field. This is neither a obscure, nor UK-only ranking. For example, I work in Germany and my business school makes tenure/promotion decisions exclusively based on ABS/AJG. The same is true for many leading business schools across the globe. I ask you to add this information back into the article. I understand that some of the text that you removed might sound like a bit marketing text, and I am fine with its removal (although I liked it and it has been there for many years), but removing the ABS/AJG rank from a business journal's page is like removing the number of inhabitants from an article about a city. It simply is an essential information. 92.79.90.91 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, then there certainly are sources that confirm this. Can you give us some? --Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
You might want to check the multiple academic publications, which almost each highlight the importance of that ranking, which you can find here. Some relevant sources are, for example, Walker et al., Wu et al. or Krueger, to name just three more recent examples. There is certainly a paragraph about the importance of ABS/AJG in almost all academic articles that have, critically or uncritically, discussed that ranking. 92.79.90.91 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That should have been Headbomb... --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    What's the question here? ABS/AJG is... beyond obscure. I might be used in certain circles, but it's not common. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Eastern European Journals

Hello, I noticed your interest in academic journals, I hope you have a moment to comment on an issue; this may have been discussed already and I am not aware of the outcome. My concern is journals listed on Wikipedia published in Eastern Europe and Central Asia which previously were reliable and independent are no longer such. These editorial changes should be noted; this also impacts evaluating referencing (by date); Wikipedia may not be a RS but it is the source most use.

I'm not an expert or in a position to judge, but the issue crossed by mind; this may be a non issue.  // Timothy :: talk  01:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have examples of such journals? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
No, this might be a non-issue.  // Timothy :: talk  01:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My wikipedia page deleting Randykitty

My wikipedia page deleting Randykitty but why any problem my page Shuvrojitghosh (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Read the posts on your talk page, they explain this in detail. Meanwhile, please do not re-create that page again. If you keep repeating this, I'll block you from editing, because P is no for advertising your YouTube posts. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Essential Science Indicators

Hi Randykitty. Would you say the Essential Science Indicators database is an important enough to be included in the Abstracting and indexing section of journal articles? Thank you, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for asking. No, I don't think it is. It just means that a journal is included in one of Clarivate's citation indices. It's similar to SCImago, which includes every journal from Scopus, so we list the latter, but the former is implicit, hence rather trivial. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Thank you for the advice and your assistance on Celebrity Studies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Milad Nouri (computer programmer)

Hello. I'm going to rewrite this article and fix the problems that led to its removal. Please restore this article in draft space if possible. Thank You KidsOnTheMoon (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  • If the people at WP:REFUND agree to restore it, that's fine with me, but personally I don't restore stuff deleted as spam. --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up all of the broken redirects to this article and it doesn't look like your typical promotional article. He seems to have done a lot of newsworthy stuff in his life. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Liz, if you think deletion as G11 was not warranted then feel free to restore the article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Liz
    I think the article's subject is notable enough (according to references). I can improve and re-write it to solve the problems to serve as an encyclopedia article.
    He was on the front page of 2 newspapers in Iran (Shargh &...) just yesterday (16 July) because of his activity against Internet censorship in Iran.
    (link is here: one of 4 people on the left side).
    He also has interviews with the Los angles times, Deutsche Welle, and many Iranian newspapers and news agencies and presents more than 100 episodes of Charkh talk show on Iran's national tv.
    (additional info: This article was created and reviewed by the AFC process.) KidsOnTheMoon (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It's been recreated a dozen times by various socks (and deleted from Fawiki for not being notable, which indicates to me that the farsi sources do not in fact support any of the content.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae There isn't (or I can't find) any deletion log for this article in Fawiki.
and I didn't create this article dozen times. I created this article and move it to draft. and after that request to review it in AFC process. after accept afc by a reviewer, I requst to rename the article. there is the cause of some redirects. KidsOnTheMoon (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae
I'm normally reluctant to act in contradiction to Praxidicae who seems to have an encycopedic memory of articles that have been deleted. But I didn't think this particular version of this article warranted speedy deletion. So, I'll restore it to Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Bentham Science edit

Tired of the back and forth, so let's work this out. I agree with your first two reversions; this company has limited citations, but I'm trying to provide a bit more broad context as to what they actually publish, beyond the noted controversies. At the very least, the number of articles should be included; I understand that Dimension's back end presents data a bit wonky, and would appear that way to someone with no experience on the platform (and who clearly didn't take the time to understand what they were looking at).

The reason there are notations for articles in the 1800s are for very obvious reasons like this one in 1852; this article is part of a multi-volume work collecting and reprinting pre-20th century German literature, published in 2021 here. The way the data was aggregated, Dimensions (and Elsevier, and other platforms) denote it as being published in 1852. That is correct - but in no way is Dimensions (or Bentham, from what I can tell) is trying to assert that the company actually published articles in the 19th century. The first sentence of my edit, which at least denotes how many articles they've published (which is notable - they are extremely prolific, which means the opportunities for them to engage in the kind of controversial behavior they're historically known for is high). I think that context is important, and that Dimensions is a reliable source for this specific bit of information, if you're willing to take two seconds to understand how they present it. Sharptictack (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • As I wrote in the edit summary, I don't think that doing a search in some service is the way to go. I bet that GScholar gives very different results, as will Scopus and the Clarivate databases. On top of that, I doubt that "number of articles published" is a useful metric. We don't do this for other publishers, so why for Bentham? I find 90.000 not very impressive, Elsevier, SpringerNature, Taylor & Francis, Oxford University Press, and even the more recently established Frontiers likely have (much) more. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Appreciate your response. GScholar actually comes up with 361,000 articles (352,000 if you remove citations citations), so I went with the smaller number, assuming it was more objectively accurate. I think number of articles is a useful metric, as it allows readers to understand the scale of a platform; if Elsevier and Frontiers, for example, are much larger and publish more research, there should be some metric to which a regular Wikipedia reader (one not familiar with the long histories of research publication reputations) to measure which are the largest and potentially most influential. If not this way, how do you propose we distinguish between companies like Elsevier and Bentham Science, in terms of reach, publishing, and potential influence? Sharptictack (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Simply by what reliable sources say about the company. There's many more sources about Elsevier than Bentham, which is a third-tier publisher at best. Quantity is not a good measure of a publisher's influence. --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Paola S. Timiras

Discussion closed, take to article talk if you must.

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

Hello,

I have a question about the changes you made to the Paula S. Timiras wiki page yesterday (Aug 1st). The reason you gave for you changes was "there we go again..". I checked the information in the update before you removed it, and the journals that were referenced, backed up the statements made in the text.
As you are an editor, I am certain you would have read the journals that were referenced. Please point me to the areas in the journals that did not corroborate the text added on Aug 1st, thanks. 69.42.6.103 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I am sure that you know what I'm talking about. Garan's stuff is of only minor importance for Timiras' biography and including it is undue. Take it to the talk page if you must. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Dr. Timiras was the PI and coauthor on the papers and all the work was carried out in her lab and with her collaboration. Please outline why the research was "minor importance". The results of the research are in the text book, "Physiological Basis of Aging and Geriatrics 4th Edition, Kindle Edition" edited by Paula Timiras.
    https://books.google.com/books/about/Physiological_Basis_of_Aging_and_Geriatr.html?id=zLm7sO1sZ6sC
    Please refer to pages 156 and 379. This text book was used at UC Berkeley and at Universities world wide. The results also point to a mechanism that drives that aging process. I have made an attend to show data/evidence of the importance of the research. I am not sure why you think that this is of "minor importance". Please share your thoughts and your decision making process and please show data/evidence to back up your statement. I hope I am not asking too much. 69.42.6.103 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I just wanted to add the following: Dr. Timiras referenced and outlined the aforementioned research in her text book and believed that it was important that University students learn about what happens to the hypothalamus as it under goes the aging process. 69.42.6.103 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Name changing request

Hello! I sent a request to change my name, I'd like if you could accept it. E.S. Cohen - א.ס. כהן (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but that is not something that I can do, you need somebody with the appropriate permissions to do that. Try posing your question at WP:AN or the Teahouse.

Updating journal metrics on ACS Publications journals' wikipedia pages

Hi there - I submitted some edits to ACS Publications journal pages to update outdated metrics and scope information and to update citations to the most recent versions. I understand your conflict of interest policy, but there was very basic and quantitative information in those updates that can be easily confirmed at citations (there was no editorializing). Can you please advise on the best way to make those edits/take a quick look at the sort of edits requested. I updated 7 pages this morning. Thank you so much! Cmaclaughlin (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for reaching out, Cmaclaughlin. Please take a look at our journal article writing guide. Adhering to the advise given there will make you steer clear of most COI-traps. Updating IFs is fine, adding other statistics, a detailed scope statements, and such is better left to other editors (to this end, you can post the requested edit on an article's talk page, preceded by {{request edit}}. Sooner or later somebody will come by and either make the edit or explain why it shouldn't be made. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page Draft:William John Titus Bishop

Hey,

Many thanks for your editing and of page Draft: William John Titus Bishop. Might I request that the deleted material be sent to me or retreived for future reference? JohnEricHiggs (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, I see that you have already contacted the deleting admin, which indeed is where this request belongs. --Randykitty (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your contribution.

JohnEricHiggs (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft: William John Titus Bishop

Hello,

Thank you for your contribution to Draft: William John Titus Bishop. For future reference, what did you mean by 'promotion' and 'advertisig'. It is my intention to be neither promotional of the subject or advertise in any way.

Kind Regards,

John JohnEricHiggs (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I was refered back to you by the deleting admin. JohnEricHiggs (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the comments there from Athaenara and Liz, I hesitate to undelete. Try WP:REFUND, if an editor there is willing to undelete, then that's fine with me. --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
As Liz pointed out on my talk page, Higgs co-wrote some of the promotional material with/for subject Bishop. – Athaenara ✉ 10:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it ok ?

Warm greetings, I had created a user account called Sudip Kumar Nepal around 1 months ago and created another account called Suman Kumar Nepal just now. Can I use these two accounts for editing wikipedia? Suman Kumar Nepal (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  • See WP:SOCK, which explains what is allowed and what is not using duplicate accounts. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Annual Survey of Indian Law Notable?

Hi, Can you explain how the above is notable? User4edits (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Chemophenetics, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 10:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_30&oldid=1109356445"