User talk:Randykitty/Archive 31

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

Why?

Hi, you left me copy/past welcom spam message. Its content assumes a lot -- wrong. Landing on this page you even don't spare me with what you don't like. I feel disgusted. I analyse, you act a bit territorial in WP claiming editorial space - you better not :( Sweetheart - so let me tell you what I don#t like: I dislike long user pages like yours. (I especially dislike the network around you, long usere pages always have one or mor WP-gangs hanging 'round) I dislike cosy themed citten stuff on social spaces. Let them kittens alone. Mine would'd like such .. And I dislike very much your spam copy/paste welcome message - placed at the very wrong place and in misapproriate time.. -- please contribute in WP more by delivering content and not so much spam. Thanx, respectfully (Look: I am a gnawn out WP content deliverer in WP since 2001 - pls have mercy) --WPTame (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry that you feel this way. When I look at your account, it says that it's been created last July 28. Nothing indicated that you've been around since 2001. And the "cookie plate welcome" is one of the nicest welcome templates that we have, offering helpful links for new users. As far as I can see, there's nothing telling you what I don't like. As for my user page, nobody obliges you to look at it, just surf elsewhere. One last piece of advice (probably also unwanted, but here goes anyway): you seem to have quite a temper. Please try to tone that down, or your time here will be rather unpleasant: "WP culture" is based on tolerance and respect for others. Have a nice day. --Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to delete NeuroQuantology ??

The October 2022 issue of NeuroQuantology has 523 articles, including dozens of articles on how to follow Islam:

unwanted external links

The journal also publishes articles that are completely unrelated to neurology or quantum mechanics, for example:

Don't you think that this Wikipedia article should be deleted, or you still think that it is OK to promote the journal in Wikipedia ?? EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Notability is not temporary. If you have independent reliable sources for your claims, that can be added to the article. As for promotion: the article should be scrupulously neutral (which doesn't mean, however, that criticism is impossible). --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Occupational Health Science

@Randykitty, I had stepped away from the WP page on the journal Occupational Health Science for seven months. I thought that over time more information relevant to notability would emerge. Indeed, I thought such information did emerge. I added information about article downloads and the h-index but you found that information was unsatisfactory pursuant to the claim that the journal is notable and you accordingly deleted my edits. Because I want to avoid an edit-war, I refrained from reversing your recent deletions. Please share with me the evidence you would like to see that would demonstrate that a new scientific journal is notable. And if we continue to disagree, where can we go to adjudicate our disagreement? Iss246 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  • There's several points. To start with, there are dozens of metrics, but (at least for the moment) the only one that people pay attention to is the impact factor. So we list an IF if available, but not CiteScores, h-index, SCImago Journal Rank, and whatnot. We never list downloads, as there is no independent source for this, one just has to trust that the journal is honestly reporting them. And in the end, they don't say much anyway. "Indexing" in GScholar doesn't mean anything, as GScholar aims to be all inclusive. Even the most brazen predatory journals are "indexed" in GScholar. PubMed in itself is almost as bad. It's not an indexing service but an access platform to multiple indexing services. The one most people are familiar with is MEDLINE. Index Medicus is a prestigious subset of MEDLINE-indexed journals. Getting into MEDLINE is pretty hard. The least selective index that can be accessed through PubMed is PubMed Central, which contains all OA articles in its domain plus articles that report US Government-funded research. Again, even some predatory journals make it into PMC (the only exception that I'm aware of are OMICS journals). So we only list PubMed if a journal is in MEDLINE, not if its only in PMC. Finally, "see also" should only contain wikilinks that are not in the body of the article yet. "Occupational Health and Safety" redirects to occupational safety and health, as does "occupational health, which is linked in the infobox and the first line of the lead. I hope this explains the reversal. As for notability, I would think that the way this is going, the journal will soon be included in Scopus or one of the more selective Clarivate indexes (ESCI is not considered to be very selective). Once that happens, it will meet NJournals and the notability tag can go. --Randykitty (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
With due respect @randykitty, I think you underestimate the evidence I provided. But I went ahead to look at Medline in my university library. I conducted a Medline search on the journal Occupational Health Science because you wrote that "[g]etting into Medline is pretty hard." I obtained many hits, of which I include some below. I grant you that getting into Medline is likely to have been recent. But into Medline it is. If you don't believe me, observe for yourself in your university library or in central research library (e.g., the British Library, the main branch of the New York Public) you rely on.
1. An Alpha, Beta and Gamma Approach to Evaluating Occupational Health Organizational Interventions: Learning from the Measurement of Work-Family Conflict Change.(English) ; Abstract available. By: Livingston BA; Pichler S; Kossek EE; Thompson RJ; Bodner T, Occupational health science [Occup Health Sci], ISSN: 2367-0142, 2022 Aug 19, pp. 1-31; Publisher: Springer International Publishing; PMID: 35999954
2. "Your help isn't helping me!" Unhelpful workplace social support, strain, and the role of individual differences. Academic Journal (English) ; Abstract available. By: Hughes IM; Freier LM; Barratt CL, Occupational health science [Occup Health Sci], ISSN: 2367-0142, 2022 Mar 25, pp. 1-37; Publisher: Springer International Publishing; PMID: 35372670
7. Job Insecurity during an Economic Crisis: the Psychological Consequences of Widespread Corporate Cost-Cutting Announcements. Academic Journal (English) ; Abstract available. By: Van Egdom D; Spitzmueller C; Wen X; Kazmi MA; Baranski E; Flin R; Krishnamoorti R, Occupational health science [Occup Health Sci], ISSN: 2367-0142, 2022; Vol. 6 (1), pp. 1-25; Publisher: Springer International Publishing; PMID: 34642641
I conclude that the journal is notable. Iss246 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Iss246. No need to go to a library, PubMed can be accessed everywhere for free. As I explained above, though, it's not the same thing as MEDLINE. See the NML catalog entry for Occupational Health Science which explicitly states "not indexed for MEDLINE". Getting into PubMed is easy, all a journal needs to do is publish at least some articles open access and those articles will be included completely in PubMed Central, which is included in PubMed. It's a common error to conflate PubMed aand MEDLINE, but they really are not identical. --Randykitty (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi randykitty. With all respect, that is wrong. I am not addressing PubMed. I conducted a Medline search of the journal and came up with 20+ articles. There may be a lag of some sort in your search of Central. But I came up with those articles by searching Medline not PubMed. I ask you to use your university library or a public research library to conduct a Medline search in which the source is Occupational Health Science. Find out if you obtain a result that parallels my result. Iss246 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The link I gave above is the library catalog of the publisher of MEDLINE, the (US) National Library of Medicine. I assume they know what they have included and what not. Each of the articles you list above has an orange tag saying "Free PMC article". --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I went back onto my university's library website to access Medline. I repeated the search. I obtained 23 hits again. I saw no orange tags. Regardless of whether or not your database says "free PMC articles," the articles are in Medline. There is no reason to reject evidence because OHS articles are in two databases, which to some extent overlap. You already asserted that Medline is the more selective database. I think we should withdraw the notability alert. Iss246 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The NLM catalog is the authoritative source here. As long as the maintainers of MEDLINE themselves explicitly state "not indexed for MEDLINE", well, then it's not in MEDLINE. Go to the WP:RSN noticeboard and see what they say. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
A maintainer can write OHS is not in Medline but then we observe with our own eyes that a Medline search returns OHS articles. Who are we going to believe? Our own eyes? Or what a maintainer writes? Iss246 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • We write what the sources say. The most authoritative source here is what the National Library of Medicine, which produces MEDLINE, writes, which is "not included in MEDLINE". If you have a better source, do let me know. As for "our own eyes", please see WP:OR. I consider this discussion closed. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The NLM is pretty clear:
Current Indexing Status:
Not currently indexed for MEDLINE. Citations are for articles where the manuscript was deposited in PubMed Central (PMC) in compliance with public access policies. For further information, see Author Manuscripts in PMC.
You may find search results in MEDLINE, but what you're finding is those PMC articles that give a hit in medline without being in medline for legal reasons.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Minor changes

Hello Randykitty.

I prefer to not handle the rest of these minor issues until the question of the timing of this harassment is resolved. That user is involved in something very serious and that must be resolved. The timing is the important part of this. Anything else would be a distraction.

Nonetheless to answer your questions: I think I have answered these or they are relatively obvious.

adding initialisms I'm not especially concerned about this however harassing a user over the course of several years is unacceptable. If this had been discussed by a good faith user on a Talk: page – or reverted by a good faith user and we then discussed it – I am unconcerned about the outcome.

It's wrong That is a surprising opinion. A glance at the |journal= arguments on Wikipedia shows wide variety.

WP:TYPO I don't see anything about this in that page.

abusive I answered that above your reply. That user is notorious for long term conduct problems. Continued support for that user to behave like this is … interesting.

In this case retaliating in response to any attempt to resolve things via Talk: falls under the definition of abusive conduct. That user has responded with escalation of the same harassment behaviours to every attempt by myself to discuss things on Talk: pages over the course of several years.

Invasive Spices (talk) 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Can you provide a link to occasions where you have tried to engage Headbomb on a talk page? Also, I agree with Headbomb that adding an initialism between parentheses for journals or other entities is superfluous and unnecessary at best. When I see things like that, I remove them, too. I mean, do you really have to add "PNAS" after "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"? Only somebody who's not able to read would not be able to put that initialism together and those people don't come to WP... As for your claims of being harassed, you'll need some strong diffs for that, up till now I haven't seen any harassment. But feel free to take your case to WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The story goes probably like this. IS puts some wrong thing in |journal=, which puts some article in a WP:DUMP-generated WP:TYPO report (such as WP:JCW/TYPO). I fix said article and move on. IS silently/stealth reverts, like here which re-introduces the typo in the article (as well as several other issues, like CABI Reviews → CAB Reviews). Meaning in the next typo report, the same typo is being reported. And I fix it again as part of my routine typo purge. And then it gets stealth re-introduced by IS again who just doesn't get that something like |publisher=Oxford University Press is what should be used in citation templates, and not |publisher=Oxford University Press (OUP).
The issue here is that IS keeps reintroducing inappropriate things in citation templates, and considers routine cleanup to be "harassment". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Intervening to prevent the user in question from answering.[1] The timing and choice of target page must be terribly important.
Oh no. You have prevented me from ever knowing. …others from ever knowing. …others will have only to ask "I don't like Invasive Spices but what are you doing and why are you doing it? You're allowed to be someone's disruptive pet but whose pet are you?" in fora to which I have no access so that I will not find out.
Can you provide [2] to which the other user responded [3] [4] et cetera. You have already seen these. They are on the other User talk. They are the beginning of this conversation.
The same user has retaliated in the same manner every time I have attempted to use a Talk: page with them. That spans several years. One new Talk: section by myself ⇨ shrieked refusal, sudden spam of disruptive edits to make it clear how things will be conducted. Certainly a tremendous commitment to producing a foul.
Also, … ... This is an awful long winded way to say things that don't normally result in endless edit warring against one particular user. Please provide examples. If you really are doing so you should not be on WP.
But feel free to take your case to WP:ANI. Really?[5][6][7] (Even more strangely that was a tactic to exacerbate [8] this disruptive trolling drama.) I have certainly received the message.
The question remains: Why does that user not edit war on other pages which I have also edited? Why this one? Why at that time? The same user edit warred against me on many random pages during the last problem period. Why not now? Invasive Spices (talk) 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invasive Spices, you will have to write clearer, because I really have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Also, the links that you give are not very informative, you will have to learn to use diffs that directly show the alleged abuse. Where I checked the history, Headbomb did not make direct edits but activated Citationbot, which really cannot be seen as "edit warring"... --Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
    Apparently I'm guilty of not edit warring with IS over multiple articles. I'm also not Graham Beards nor BB123. Or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
    And IS continues with deceptive edit summaries to restore these pointless changes...
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Headbomb and Randykitty, unfortunately I think this will have to be resolved via ANI if IS continues to edit unconstructively. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done IS blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

William Bishop

Hello,

May I ask why the article on William Bishop was deleted? The topic fulfils a number of notability criteria. Might it be because editors have not heard of him outside of the website? 81.106.1.251 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  • That article was deleted (multiple times), most recently as the result of a community discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist)). There was very broad agreement that the subject doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Dear RandyKitty,
    I'd hate to disagree with a very small consensus but having looked at the criteria for academic and performing artist as outlined on wikipedia, the subject in question does fulfil the notability criteria. Please would you consider undeleting again? It just seems little odd that someone who is notable, shouldn't have a page.
    All best 81.106.1.251 (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • As said above, the community consensus was that this person is not notable, so, no, I won't undelete this article. You can take it to WP:DRV (WP:REFUND is not applicable here), but I don't give you much chance there either. --Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah is relevant. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Academic Journal Metrics - Why Only Impact Factor from Journal Citation Reports?

Hello! You recently deleted an addition I made to the Wikipedia article for the journal Socius where I mentioned the CiteScore for the journal. You wrote "we only list the IF". Could you point me to where in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide it says that Impact Factor is the only appropriate metric to mention? I see in the Writing guide instructions to include the Impact Factor but not it is the only metric that is appropriate to include. Thanks! Joeyvandernaald (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  • The problem is not just that already keeping one metric (the IF) up-to-date is a continuous battle, but that more importantly the IF is the metric that everybody cares about (for better or for worse). There are dozens of metrics, but have you ever heard a researcher say "let's publish in Journal of Foo, because that has a high CiteScore" (or h-index, or SNIP, or SJR, or Eigenfactor, or...)? Most likely not. Almost all academics aim for a journal with as high an impact factor as they can get. All those other metrics, even though some of them are possibly superior to the IF, are completely ignored. WP is supposed to follow what happens in real life, so we list the IF, but not the other metrics. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that most researchers I'm familiar with (I'm an academic sociologist, so I mostly talk with social scientists) are concerned primarily with a journal's Impact Factor when making decisions about where to publish. But I'm not sure I agree that we can conclude a particular metric is significant or not based entirely on our anecdotal evidence or assumptions about what most researchers think. CiteScore is the leading contender to Impact Factor, and unlike Impact Factor is freely accessible. A cursory search through academic databases reveal several publications on CiteScore in journals like Scientometrics, and at arttext&pid=S1885-642X2018000200001|least one paper I could find notes that CiteScore created a separate subject area for a discipline that more accurately allows for scholars to measure significance (in the linked example above, the discipline is pharmacy). This would at the very least suggest that CiteScore is relevant to particular scholars in real life. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between research on the validity or possible utility of some measures and that what a reality is being used. There's no shortage of articles/editorials/declarations criticizing the use/abuse of impact factors, thereby documenting the fact that they are, in fact, being used. We don't have such sources documenting that, say, the CiteScore is actually used by anybody. We may like it or not (I don't, I'm from the school where you choose a journal based on whether it allows you the public that's most likely to be interested in your stuff), but that is not relevant for WP. We don't give our opinion, we document general practice. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I still think your argument hinges on a kind of anecdotal understanding of what most researchers do or don't think is important. What would even be an example of an appropriate source that would "[document] that ... the CiteScore is actually used by anybody"? I can find examples of researchers on, say, Sociology Job Market Rumors (a commonly used, though controversial, forum in my discipline) where actual researchers weigh the value of journals based on their CiteScore. Surely this is documented evidence that real people in general practice use the metric, even if it isn't the dominant metric.
    Perhaps we should expand this conversation a little bit and get the opinions of other editors in the WikiProject? Joeyvandernaald (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, that sounds like a good idea. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Folia Orientalia

Hey, you rejected my article because of "Notability".  If it doesn't have "Notability (academic journals)", why are you quoting articles from Folia Orientalia several hundred times on the English wikipedia? Klimac (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  • It's not the same thing. Being a reliable source usually means that a journal is also notable, but not always. WP does not depend on what editors "know" to be the case, it depends on what reliable sources independent of the subject say. No such sources, then no article. Folia Orientalia is not indexed any selective databases, so it doesn't meet WP:NJournals. In addition, there don't appear to be any independent sources discussing the journal in depth (i.e., more than an in-passing mention), so it also misses WP:GNG Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Timothy Pawlik

Hello! Thank you for the welcome. I worked on a page you specifically tagged (Timothy Pawlik). I tried to address each of your issues by eliminating detail. Completely eliminated sections for Honors and Awards, as well as Editorial Roles. I then incorporated only major accomplishments widely recognized in the medical community within the body copy to fairly chronicle Pawlik’s career and establish his authority in surgery. Can the issues/warnings at the top of the page be removed given the extensive changes made? Thank you!!  Boiler63 (talk)


As a second question, I’m trying to understand why Timothy Pawlik’s credentials after his name keep getting removed. Wikipedia says specifically:

“When the subject of an article has received honors or appointments issued by either the subject’s state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. “

Stephen William Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA is given as an example.

I didn’t even include all of Pawlik’s credentials, just the main education ones. However, someone deleted these (for the second time) on 24 October at 19:20. He has many, but they’re all legitimate. MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA and all relate directly to his job. Left off FACS, FSSO and FRACS, which also directly relate but are lesser known.

Thank you for any help with this. Boiler63 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Singer

Hello, what is the reason for the removal? I put many sources Javad (singer) (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  • As the template explains, the problem is that the draft is promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

International Journal of e-Collaboration

You OK with this journal? I saw you in the history--I also saw User:Jpbowen, who was the editor responsible for a highly promotional article on IGI Global, and I've just been reading up on that outfit. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  • The Germans have a good word for this: "Jein", short for Ja/Nein. The journal is indexed in Scopus, which meets WP:NJournals. MIAR shows that it's in a bunch of less selective databases, among them Emerging Sources Citation Index, indicating that at some point one of Clarivate's highly selective citation databases. AFAIK, there are no discussions of this journal (positive or negative) in reliable sources. The source you list criticizes IGI Global's book publishing (albeit only briefly), but says nothing about their journals. So I think that the current article is the least bad solution: a neutral presentation nothing more or less. The publisher would appear to be a bottom feeder, but without solid sourcing, we can't write that in an article. Perhaps there are some more sources now, 5 years after the last AFD, which would make an article on the publisher possible (and in the journal article we could write "published by the controversial publisher IGI Global"...) --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Good morning

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/deleting-a-shelly-device/247006/2 2001:8F8:153F:FD76:D549:35B2:F2F6:4262 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  • ??? Good morning to you, too, but what's the meaning of that link? --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Tenth anniversary on Wikipedia!

  • Thanks, Chris troutman, hadn't realized it was 10 years since this kitten saw the light of day :-)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Randykitty/Archive 31,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

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

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Query on Ayman Sadiq

Hi, hope you're doing great. I've noticed you've redirected and protected the page Ayman Sadiq as it was subject to a deletion discussion, the result of which was delete. But it's been almost 4 years and a half year since the last AFD. I believe the subject meets notability guidelines now. I'm interested in creating a draft and making it suitable for mainspace, and move it here. Trilokadiponglar Bhilku (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  • That is indeed the way to do it: create a draft and submit it for review. Mention the AfD on the talk page. A reviewer will com by (patience, that may be a few months) and if they agree that the article now meets our inclusion criteria, they'll move it to main article space. Good luck! --Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo (disambiguation)

Would you be so kind to mark this as no consensus rather than keep? All of the keep arguments were countered, it's moot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Sorry it took a while to get to this. Yes, you challenged every "keep" !vote, but in almost all cases failed to convince them to change to delete. I'll stick to "keep". Deletion review is here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete Copyrighted Content

Could you purge this copyrighted content from the edit log? I think it might be copied from Google. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Randykitty!

Happy New Year!

Randykitty,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Thanks Moops! And my best wishes for a healthy and happy new year to you and your loved ones. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Vivacious

Hello! I'm wondering if you'd be able to restore the Vivacious (drag queen) article to draft space? Or, do I need to submit a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion? Thanks for any help! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, on what grounds would you like the deletion to be overturned? Are there new in-depth reliable sources available? --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    The subject got on my radar after appearing on the premiere of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15), also in which Ariana Grande wore an outfit made famous by Vivacious? I guess I was curious to see what the article looked like four years ago when deleted and which sources were used. I don't see harm in having content restored to the draft space, but if you're unwilling I can submit a request at the appropriate channel. No problem with you keeping the page on your watchlist if you're skeptical about a premature move into main space. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit short on time right now, but will undelete and move this later. You've been around long enough to know when not to move something into main space and I trust you'll leave that decision up to an uninvolved editor, no need for me to watchlist it. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done

Please help me Undelete my Draft Segun Nabi

Please help me Undelete my Draft Segun Nabi it not a unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company,it a person bio of a popular nigeria juju musician Realdbeat (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Two different admins (the one who tagged this draft and the one who deleted it - me) found this promotional (which may apply also to a person, not necessarily a company. Sorry. I recommend that you have a look at some articles on similar subjects and then try again, avoiding buzz words like "talented" and such.--Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome or Help

I only edit simple errors or omissions. I think I was banned from Wikipedia a long time ago and I do not know the status of that ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk • contribs)

  • This is not the place for this. --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Augustinianum (journal) text and gallery acceptance

Dear Randykitty, regarding the Augustinianum (journal) article from which you deleted part of the text and the entire gallery, we would like you to reconsider your decision. In your comment you argue that there is a lack of sources. I want to assure you in this particular issue that the editor of Augustinianum is the owner of both, text and gallery, and that he gave me all permissions required: hence the source of the text and the gallery is the journal itself. I beg you to reconsider your decision in order to let the readers of Wikipedia to have access to this information. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Ana Alvarez Cruz (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry, I see why the publisher would like to have that text in the article, but it is way too promotional. Also, stuff like that should not be sourced to the journal itself, but to reliable sources that are independent of the journal. As for the gallery, 3 similar pictures that only differ in their color don't really bring much to the article.
you talk above about "we", who are these persons?
Finally, you also say that you have the editor's permission to use this material. What is the nature of your relation with the editor and the journal?
BTW, the links in the article to the journal website are dead, can you give me the current URL? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

File:2018 cover Moreana.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2018 cover Moreana.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Africa: Rivista trimestrale di studi e documentazione

Dear Randykitty,

You flagged this article doubting its notability. Now academic journals don't normally get reviewed themselves, however this Africa journal is referenced in some 50 older extant en.wikipedia articles, and in university/institute library catalogues all over the world.

  • Would that suffice to prove its notability?

Thank you, cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, no, being cited in WP articles does not contribute to notability. WP in fact, cannot be used as a source, as it is user-contributed... Neither do (notoriously unreliable) library records. Yes, reviews of journals, even while not unheard off, are rare. That's why we created WP:NJournals, o make it easier for journals to pass the bar. The easiest way to do this ("easiest' relatively speaking) is by being included in a selective database. That there are some citations to a journal that has been around for 70-something years is to be expected and nothing out of the ordinary. I could propose this for deletion (see WP:PROD and WP:AfD), but given those 70+ years I am hoping that someone can come up with at least one acceptable source, hence the tag to alert readers/editors that independent sources are needed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for answering. Well, we have JSTOR, a selective database, which includes this Africanist journal. Would JSTOR do? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • JSTOR has never been accepted as a selective database in the sense of NJournals. However, I'm pinging DGG (a specialist university librarian) to see whether he thinks this is still the case. --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    JSTOR is a good service, but it's an access platform (similar to Science Direct and Wiley Online Library), not an indexing service. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Greatest Administrator Wikipedian Editor nice keep it up and welldone my best firend Mrs Farhan RR (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Glitch on talk:Religious Confucianism

Are you familiar with the glitch? Does fixing the talk page as you did make it start archiving again? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, I never did anything to that talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mol pain logo.gif

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 17:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjitha Menon (2nd nomination)

Not the best close. This was a copy-paste move from a draftified article. The article should have been deleted, and the draft fully reviewed and (probably) accepted. However, I've now moved the draft to article space to merge the histories and restored the last-best version. I'm not going to take this to DRV (obviously, based on my history merge action) but you should keep an eye out for these kinds of AFDs. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  • This was indeed a problematic AfD, with the nom being blocked for socking. Apart from that, you were the only one arguing for deletion, but a histmerge could solve that, as you did. --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, they were sock-blocked today. I hadn't thought to check their creations. They were blocked in relation to another sock I was actively tracking. It's usually a good idea to have a little more info in the closure note when things are interesting like this. Keeps folks like me from writing these kinds of notes. ;) I think this is the first time we've interacted. So... nicetameecha. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind this edit? Far as I can see, both files give the same visual result. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (copied from my talk page)

The main difference is that I removed the white background. I can't find the policy page now, but the general preference on Wikipedia is generally to have logotypes with transparent backgrounds. That way it looks good no matter what color the background is on the page. There's also a rule to prefer PNG over GIF. — trlkly 19:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
You moved this here? I would've seen your answer on your talk page, too. Anyway, I'd love to see those policy pages, as this seems to be a lot of work for hardly any improvement, we can use our time better than this, which a bot could do just as well. --Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent AfD Closures

You must be tired after closing those "List of songs recorded by X" AfDs, AND even closing them carefully based on the arguments for each one. Frankly, I wanted to toss my laptop across the room after just reading them. Here, have a cookie to relax.

Joyous! | Talk 22:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Chocolate chip, my favorite :-) Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

An AFD you closed was started again less than a day later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Geeta_Dutt_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 11:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Sjeez! Thanks for letting me know, I've closed this. --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
ohoo wow!!! Mrs Farhan RR (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Today Question my Brother!!

My favorite country is British. I will definitely meet you when I come here! should you meet me Mrs Farhan RR (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

MC stan

Can you please make a new MC Stan article the bigg boss article has no information on him and it needs information as it s a redirect and no one gets any info besides that he won if they check the article after typing MC stan we need more infomation on the article 71.169.160.200 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  • No, I cannot. At the AfD there was an overwhelming majority of editors that opined that an article on MC Stan was not warranted. In addition, I only was the closing admin, that is my role is solely to evaluate consensus and I am under no obligation to edit any articles involved in that AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of United States tornadoes in May 2008

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of United States tornadoes in May 2008. 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. 134.6.245.131 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Leo Liu has been nominated for deletion a second time. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leo_Liu_(2nd_nomination) I have had no prior involvement with this article; the purported sources for this article came up recently at WP:RSN They are all clearly unreliable, and I do not think that the assertions that there are multiple reliable sources for this person were at all well-founded. There are multiple persons with the same name, unrelated to this teenage blogger. I realize that closing AFDs is a tedious and thankless task, but I think this is one that came to the wrong conclusion. That is why I started a new AFD myself as an outside disinterested third party. Banks Irk (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  • If you think the close was wrong, take it to WP:DRV. Opening another AfD less than a week after the previous one was closed "keep" is plainly disruptive. I've taken this to WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of WP:DRV before, but it's hardly disruptive to have the identical discussion at AFD vs there. All of the "Keep" votes were by recently registered SPAs who claimed there were numerous sources they never identified. What is the difference where it is discussed? AFD actually seems to have wider participation than DRV. Banks Irk (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  • You don't go shopping until you get the desired outcome. Doing so is WP:DISRUPTIVE. If you really think that the previous close was wrong, you go to DRV, you don't start a new AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please strike your false accusation at ANI that I did not notify you of the 2nd AFD. Banks Irk (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I did not accuse you of not notifying me of the second AfD. I accused you of opening that second AfD without first discussing the close of the first AfD with me, which would have been the courteous thing to do. There is more that I would have to say about this, but the ANI thread has been closed and I see no reason to re-start that just to give my side of the story. I do want to add that I stand by my evaluation of consensus at this AfD. Case closed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    Hi Randy, FYI I just self-rvt'd my close; sorry, I didn't realize you had more to say, or I wouldn't have joke-closed it. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, but it has been closed again. This thing has completely been blown out of proportion. My first reaction when I saw the second AfD was to close it procedurally. I did not intend to "haul" Banks Irk before ANI, I just posted a notification leaving it for somebody else to close it. Or not as the case might be. I'm not a regular at ANI, I probably should have been more explicit in what I intended with my post. As for the close of the first AfD, I still don't see how else it could have been closed and stand by my decision, regardless the boomerang/trout/and other invective directed at me at ANI: Much was made of the fact that two of the "keep" !votes were relatively new users, but nobody apparently noticed that the other two were experienced editors with thousands or even tens of thousands of edits. The nom gave arguments about the reliability of sources, but despite them arguing every !vote, they did not convince any participant, new or experienced. It's not the function of a closer to go out and judge for themselves whether sources are sufficient or not, that would be a WP:Supervote and is a big no-no when closing an AfD. So the situation was 4 "keep" !votes, with the nom arguing every one of them but not convincing anybody (and note that the more experienced editors where the ones who came in last). There was no way to close this differently that would not have been a supervote. If I had been asked to reconsider my close, I might have re-opened it and relist, but after all that has been said, I'm really not sure how I would have handled that hypothetical situation and would perhaps have advised them to go to DRV instead. In any case, anybody familiar with my AfD closes knows that I don't simply count !votes, but actually think about the arguments brought forward before a close. As for the ANI thread, I'm surprised that nobody was even remotely interested in what I had to say. I went away for half a day and found that huge discussion already closed. Anyway, it's closed now. --Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • What did you think about the arguments brought forward by the voters before this close? Levivich (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • You mean in the ANI thread? --Randykitty (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    No, in the first AFD. I hear you that the one delete voters arguments didn't persuade any of the keep voters, but you're also saying you're not just counting delete and keep votes, you're also thinking about the arguments (I understand that to mean, weighing the arguments). I'm curious what your analysis was of the arguments made by the five voters in the first AFD. Levivich (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here you go: 1/ Carinco Tuck. New editor, but policy-based argumentation and added sources to the article. These were contested by nom (but nom contested/badgered every !vote). 2/ Hesi0913. Also a new editor, but again a policy-based argument and takes issue with challenge by nom of previous !vote. Again challenged by nom. 3/ BoyTheKingCanDance. Experienced user with 90k edits, so should know what they're doing. Policy-based argument, albeit not very detailed. I usually take !votes like "there's coverage" without going into specifics as just so much hand waving, but in this case there are two detailed !votes preceding this and BoyTheKingCanDance obviously supported these. This is the only !vote that wasn't challenged by the nom. 4/ InterstellarGamer12321. Established editor with >9000 edits. Same as previous !vote.

In short, even if I had ignored the !votes by the new editors (and I definitely gave them less weight), there were two bona-fide "keep" !votes and the objections of the nom were not accepted by anyone. So unless I would dive into the article myself, the only possible outcome was "keep". Diving into the article myself, I would feel obligated to !vote myself, as a closure at that point would boil down to a supervote. And why would I do that in a case as clear as this one? In retrospect (but hindsight is 20/20) I could have relisted, to give more experienced editors the chance to chime in (although when I closed it, the discussion had petered out with no further comments posted for 4 days).
Anyway, I hope I have answered your query. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mind having a talk with Invasive Spices again?

They're back at it at Yam (vegetable), using old non-cleaned up versions full of citation garbage and inaccuracies like as the basis for their edits 

{{ Cite journal |
              language   =en|
              publisher  =[[John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]]|
              location   =[[Portland, Oregon]], US|
              year       =1990|
              volume     =12|
              first      =Jules|
              last       =Janick|
              id         =9781118064382. 9781118060858. [[American Society for Horticultural Science]] (ASHS). [[Timber Press Inc.]]|
              lccn       =79-642829|
              issn       =0163-7851|
              title      =[[Horticultural Reviews]]|
              series     =[[Horticultural Reviews]]|
              doi        =10.1002/9781118060858}}{{ RP |pages=181-2}}

instead of the cleaned up 

{{cite book
 |last1=O'Hair |first1=Stephen K.
 |year=1990
 |chapter=Tropical Root and Tuber Crops
 |editor-last=Janick |editor-first=Jules
 |title=Horticultural Reviews
 |volume=12
 |pages=181–182
 |publisher=[[Timber Press]]
 |doi=10.1002/9781118060858.ch3
 |isbn=9781118060858
}}

undo massive cleanup efforts, just because they want to sneakily go back to how they think the citations should look like, rather than base it on the existing citation style that is already established in the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I have protected the page, which should calm things down. It the disruption starts again once the pp expires, blocks may be needed. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Not sure that's the best course of action, especially since it disables all editing (including productive IP editing) on account of one person, but I suppose we'll see. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow!

Hey, Randykitty,

I think you single-handedly closed most of the AFD discussions over the past 24 hours! When do you sleep? Make sure you get outside once and a while and enjoy some winter sunshine when you can. But your productivity and contributions are admirable! Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm procrastinating... There some stuff I need to do that I heartily dislike (hint: concerning forms, taxes, more forms, other documents, etc), so I'm looking for excuses not to do it. I'll force myself tomorrow and Wednesday and then can get back to normal... You're right about getting out, my partner also yells at me to get up and move around... :-))) Anyway, thanks for your note, it's nice to feel appreciated! --Randykitty (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Davydov

You might want to reconsider this deletion. The article Maxim Davydov was hijacked on 12 August 2022 (see this diff), thus replacing the orienteering competitor with a completely different person (martial artist). I think it is the nominator's responsibility to check the article's history before nominating articles for deletion, which apparently was not done here. The version before the hijack is this version. All hidden currently, obviously. I normally do not follow deletion discussions, but noticed this because the article was on my watchlist. Oceanh (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, got some time to look into this and you appear to be correct. I'm not sure how to handle this and have asked for advice on WP:AN. --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Sorry for the inconvenience. Oceanh (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The original article has been restored. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Srini63/sandbox

Hello Randykitty, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Srini63/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted revisions of Natalie White

Hey there. Now that it's redirected instead of deleted, can you undeleted (old revisions of) the "Natalie White" article please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you want e to do, those old revisions were not deleted and are available from the history of Natalie White (as I mentioned in the close of the AfD). --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
    Not all revisions are shown to the public; this log proves it, i.e. prior revisions were deleted per 2nd nomination. I thought about requesting it at WP:REFUND. George Ho (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Those revisions were not deleted by me, but by Spinningspark, so you should contact them about a possible restauration. --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
    Spinningspark is now deceased, unfortunately, and his account is globally locked. George Ho (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • How sad, I saw them around quite often. Given this, I'll undelete those revisions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I see somebody else already did. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_31&oldid=1146214211"