User talk:Randykitty/Archive 6

Reply

Genes, Brain and Behavior does indeed look a bit skimpy, I guess that might reflect its short history over its lifespan so far.

Per WP:LEAD, make sure the lede intro sect functions as an adequate standalone summary of the entire article's contents.

Phrasing like "Already in its third year" seems a little not NPOV, might want to trim that.

Abstracting and indexing -- looks like some of these entries need references to back them up.

Article categories -- this sect appears to be unsourced.

Further reading -- might be helpful to add a Further reading sect to recommend to readers additional reading material along the same topic.

Hopefully this is helpful,

— Cirt (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is, thanks a bunch!! --Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry

Please explain why you commented "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (January 2014)" -- not obvious why and what would need to be done to improve the page. Ankababel (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• If I may also jump in here - this journal is indexed by Thomson Reuters, BIOSIS Previews [1], and CASSI [2]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Group creations

Please come for discussion this article is about films and movies -why redirecting to Publishing? Movieking007 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirection - OMICS whitewash

OMICS Publishing Group pages : Your help in whitewash

Srinubabuau6 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gastrointestinal Nursing

I de-prodded this, as its deletion might be controversial. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hope you and your family are well.

Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your thoughts, Baerian. My father-in-law passed away and we miss him sorely. But he was suffering a lot in the last year so part of me is happy that his pain is over. --Randykitty (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Atlantic Geology notability etc.

I added some more info and sources to Atlantic Geology. I guess it's not really for me to tinker with the notices you placed on the page, so if you get a chance to review some time in the next few days, I'd appreciate it. Nutshell: I addressed notability by referring to GeoRef and Scopus, which along with ResearchGate also serve as other sources of data about the journal. Cheers! Kwinkunks (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Seems good now, I've removed the tags. I also removed the RG reference. Not sure this is a reliable source (most -all?- content is user-generated) and the IF info is wrong: the journal is not listed in any Thomson Reuters database, so there is no IF. But Scopus is enough for notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• PS: Just see that the journal is indexed by TR after all and does have an IF. I searched their list using the ISSN, but the ISSN in the article is the eISSN and TR uses the print ISSN... Searching for the full title I did find the journal. Will add this info in a moment. This removes any doubt about notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Kibi Nathan (or whatever his name is)

Sorry about that. I would have expected to get an error message. Deb (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Surgical_neurology_international

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Surgical_neurology_international. Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 07:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification. I've taken the article to AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day if it gets deleted it doesn't bother me to much but I would like to see articles that have a possible potential saved but also I was originally debating to csd the article before but I didn't I guess a missed opportunity.Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 00:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• You didn't: articles on scientific journals are not eligible for CSD. --Randykitty (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I know I saw it somewhere

Randykitty: You said to leave a message on your talk page if I had any questions, and since I do, I am doing as you asked. I know that there is a page somewhere where you have three options for editing, and you can click on any of the three options and it will give you a random page to fix. Do you know of this page of where it might be located? Any help you be greatly appreciated. Also, I hope everything is alright with your family. Thanks! EnergySta5 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, not sure about that page. Could it be this one? If that's not it, you can try asking this at the teahouse. Hope this helps and don't hesitate to ask further questions (although I may not always know the answer, as you see :-). --Randykitty (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: the lulz

• Nothing against a good trout, but what was the "something silly" that I did? --Randykitty (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just felt like trouting someone that's all Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 00:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Would you perhaps also have some almond slivers, goes very well with trout! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I keep getting these so it's useful to know what their ostensible purpose is. (Well, sort of.) Deb (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I sometimes use them myself, but if someone makes a mild personal attack or starts an AFD for something that actually quite clearly is notable. I don't think I've felt silly enough yet to "whale" somebody :-) --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Mohan’s Diabetes Specialities Centre

Can i know why the page content was deleted and redirected..? if any error was in the page it could have been intimated. it would be nice what was the error in the page so as i could rectify it in my further activities in the page.. i restored the content of the page.. please let me know before any actions taken. the page you have directed it was a biography whereas the page Dr. Mohan’s Diabetes Specialities Centre is an hospital chain in South india. Thank you !! (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 11:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, it is my impression that these clinics are borderline notable, the article was borderline promotional Mohan himself, and the article was basically mostly about. In such cases it is often better to combine articles. Since the (also mildly promotional) biography also mentions the hospitals, it seems better to me to combine the two. I see that you contacted Anna Frodesiak about this, so let's see what she says. If she thinks there's enough material for two articles, I'm fine with that. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, seems like AF agrees with the redirect. So what do you prefer: maintain it as a redirect to the article on Mohan or take it to AFD? --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi.. Its an hospital with more than 30+ centres and 1000+ staff in south india its very notable in southern india.. I think the biography has lot of content about the hospital then it requires may be we could filter that V Mohan page rather redirecting it.. what do u say on this ?? (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't think so. Adding whatever sourced info there is on the clinic to the article on Mohan would strengthen that one. The size of these clinics really is not an issue. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

hmmm if page has to be merged or redirected why not the biography be merged in the hospital page..I am not saying because i started the hospital article because most of them aware of hospital then the founder..people generally search about hospital then about the person..what do u say on this?? (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I knw i mentioned about the hospital details to tell its presence and notability. I und what you saying. I feel that the page on a well known chain of diabetes hospital in the country should exist rather than about the founder of a hospital. I perceive like people would search or will want to know about the hospital rather than the individual. Anyways see whats best. Thanks !! (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 19:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If a redirect is left in place at the hospitals page, then that will lead any people looking for info to the page on the founder. As it stands, there are more sources about the founder, so I feel that it is better to redirect there. It already mentions the hospitals, so I'm not sure whether much needs to be merged any more. --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In regarding the references.. this article has enough references on the hospital itself and inline citation as well. Whereas the biography article V Mohan has multiples issues among which is the lack of references and citations.. merging this page onto to page which has no credibility of its sources.. Need to a give thought again. Thanks !! (talk) (user:Sayowais) Owais 05:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

PRAXIS journal follow-up and other question

• Hello Randy, I hope you are doing well. I read that your father in law passed away. I am sorry.

I had a couple of questions for you from a while ago. First, I followed the guidance you pointed me to and I read WP:NJournals, based on that, I have added some more analysis on the notability of PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security, in its talk page. Could you kindly review it and weigh in? Thank you. Second, I am seeking your advice on something else. According to the WP guidelines on writing articles on journals, it is recommended to write a list of Editors-in-Chief. How do you go about referencing that? I believe using the journal itself is an admissible source for this kind of info. But how to cite it? It feels unnecessary to be entering an in-line citation for each Editor-in-Chief, referencing multiple volumes of the same journal. Is there a better, more advisable way? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:40, 19 Feb 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for your thoughts. I'll have a look at those sources when I find a moment. As for the EICs, it is often difficult to find reliable sources for that. Sometimes a journal will publish an article on its history when it exists 25 or 50 years, for example, and then one can use that. If such is not available, I recommend that you ask the advice of DGG, who has a lot of experience with these things. I myself don't often add such lists, as I already have work enough maintaining all the articles on my watchlist and rarely have time to actually expand them significantly. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is always a source for EdIC if you can find a file of the journal, which is by inspecting it. (and in fact the vols back to v.15 are on line on their web site)I do not consider this original research--indeed, I consider it a better source than any bibliographic record, because it avoids transcription error. Myself, I too add such lists only when easily available. The virtue of adding them when it is convenient to do so, is that all the eds. in chief of a major journal are considered notable under WP:PROF We will usually not have articles on them all, but I leave them linked so they show as redlinks to indicate needed articles. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Randykitty, DGG, thank you for your comments and advice. Allow me one clarifying question. This will help me not only with this article but with any other where I encounter the same question. One of the better options, as Randykitty points out, is to find a listing of names in a single document, and reference that. Otherwise, as DGG explains, when we can find the file of the journal online, as is the case for this journal, from vol. 15 onwards, I believe there are three ways of referencing it: 1) Making a note at the beginning of the EdIC section saying "according to the journals themselves...", 2)making one single reference to the webpage where the archived journals are 3) for each EdIC (usually it changes every year) reference each volume individually. The latter option seems unreasonably cumbersome,and I wonder if options 1) or 2) would suffice while in properly following the wikipedia guidelines/principles. Or, if there is some other options I haven't thought of... Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:43, 22 Feb 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, for shorter articles I don't always bother with sourcing, reasoning that the info given (when not referenced) clearly derives from the journal homepage. But if you want to nominate an article for GA status, for example, that is not enough. I would opt for 2 in that case. Another option is that often a newly appointed EIC will introduce her-/himself with an editorial and that would be a perfect reference for that particular editor, of course. It often also says something about the predecessor, so then you have two in one :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vell i nou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Donald A. Grinde, Jr.

Hi! I'm afraid I've had to decline the BLPPROD tag you placed on this article. The restrictions on placement of that tag are quite narrow, please see WP:BLPPROD, even self-published or otherwise unreliable sources are enough to prevent placement of the tag. (Please take complaints on those restrictions to WT:BLPPROD, I've done what I can.) At this point, you may wish to consider WP:AFD as an alternative. Thanks for understanding! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying that, it's been a while since I read that policy. I was thrown off because BLPPROD says (third sentence) that the tag should only be removed if one reliable source is present. But that is not a necessary condition for placing it and as you say, even a crappy reference is enough to prevent placement. Weird to have these different criteria... In any case, learned something today :-) I'm too busy to take it to AfD (no time for BEFORE right now), so I'll just put some other tags on it and let it go at that. --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I define reliable in this context as being sufficiently reliable to prove the basic element of significance. For anyone with a published book from an established publisher, Worldcat will do that. As for Grinde, a book recognized as outstanding academic title by Choice is probably enough. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Silva Iaponicarum

Dear Randykitty, I think it's not ok to nominate a journal for deletion without having browsed its publications. The impact factor etc. shall be treated only as an indication. Please be aware that in many countries the Anglosaxon indexes have little importance and not every academic field sticks so rigorously to these statistics. Considering its popularity in Eastern Europe, I think Silva does meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Best, Uchinanchu2014 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps you can explain how it meets any of our guidelines (either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG). As far as I see, it meets neither. It is not in any Thomson Reuters database (so it simply does not have an impact factor), nor is it indexed anywhere else, I think. As for the popularity in Eastern Europe, you will have to provide reliable sources for that. Let me know if you can find those or need help adding them to the article. If they cannot be found, I'll take the article to AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It is published by an informal group of three universities, without any single institution sponsoring it, so we can't even merge to the publishing body. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vile names

If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.

Elbert Hubbard

From --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Reminds me of something Robert Heinlein once wrote (citing from memory now): When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

for source, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Panic , last item. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Helen Mason (endocrinologist)

Hey Randy - you seem to have removed my contributions in this article Christophe (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have explained my edits on the article's talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

did you? I must have missed them! Christophe (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Maths whatsit (mag)

Sorry, but the current version is different enough for me to decline G4. I'm not sure about the notability side of things, though, so I'd suggest prod or AfD again. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, I couldn't see the old version, of course. Given that it went through AFD before, I guess that PROD would be inappropriate, so I'll take it to AFD again. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Syntax: writing references within the body of the text vs. in the reflist

Hey Randykitty, I would like to draw your attention to the talk page of Polar Geography, regarding setting up the syntax style. I created the article using the "List-defined references"(WP:LDR). (talk) user:Al83tito 3:46, 4 Mar 2014

• Hi, I've responded there. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ratul Puri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Business Today

Val Murray Runge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MD

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Expert Review of Medical Devices

Is there a reason you removed the "Informa" category from this page? [3] Because it's clearly an Informa journal. [4] Jinkinson talk to me 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a simple reason: the journal is in the (somewhat superfluous) "Expert Review journals" category, which is in the "Informa journals" category. Therefore it is not needed (and even overcategorization) to put it in the Informa journals cat, too. --Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't realize that Informa published all the Expert Review journals.

Also, while I'm here--I was hoping I could get a response from you at the AFD for Gastrointestinal Nursing (where I voted keep), because I'm not sure if my argument is valid or not. Jinkinson talk to me 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, it looks like you responded. NVM. Jinkinson talk to me 21:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Latin American Literary Review Press may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Latin American Literary Review Press |date= |accessdate=2014-03-03}}</ref> The [[editor-in-chief]]) is Yvette E. Miller.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce E. Johansen may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RfA

I've made some comments more recent than you !vote on the current RfA DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Long rant and copied tags

NOTICE of suspected inappropriate conduct   — Issue Number One — —persistent failure to use article talk pages From E.N.Stanway (talk): One of the Wikipedia:Five pillars principles informs us that conflicts should be discussed "on the nearest talk pages" [emphasis added]. I propose that you research the topic and demonstrate that you have done so by specifying which "pillar" has specified this. It would appear that these so-called "nearest talk pages" would be the talk pages of the articles under discussion. Yet you have consistently and repeatedly refrained from using article talk pages, preferring instead to bring all of your challenges and complaints to my user talk page instead. It is an annoyance that you would bring a petty disagreement to my user talk page, you did in discussing the Paul Chaat Smith article, without ever even bothering to use the article talk page. It is especially annoying that you would use my user talk page to make such lame arguments with another editor. I insist that you henceforth provide thorough and complete explanations, of any and all challenges and complaints which you may have against my judgment, on the appropriate article talk pages. Since you have chosen to insist that user talk pages be used to the exclusion of article talk pages, then I insist that we use your talk pages for this discussion instead of mine until such time as you have shown that you will display consideration for other editors by constraining your complaints to the appropriate article talk pages. I insist that you refrain from removing this notice until all of these issues have been thoroughly discussed and resolved. E.N.Stanway (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE of suspected inappropriate conduct   — Issue Number Two — —improper deletions of comments From E.N.Stanway (talk): It appears that wikipedia documentation discourages the deletion of material from a talk page when it involves an on-going dispute about an article. Perhaps you could review the matter and let me know whether you think that I have a mistaken notion about this, because it would seem that you have removed material from the talk page for the Paul Chaat Smith article in an inappropriate manner. Deleting material from a discussion about an on-going dispute would seem to create the impression that an editor is attempting to manipulate the discussion by hiding its history, similar perhaps to someone who is trying to game the system. I insist that all of the discussions on all of the talk pages, about all of the issues which are in dispute, remain in place until all of these disputes have been fully discussed and resolved. I insist that you also note that quote boxes are specifically noted in wikipedia as being appropriate for talk pages. While it may have been annoying for you to make that deletion from the Paul Chaat Smith article, it is deeply offensive that you have removed comments from the article source of the Bruce E. Johansen article, not once but three times, each time without even the merest effort to discuss the issue on the talk page. You have clearly read that material, multiple times nowm, and are clearly aware that the material which you have repeatedly deleted from the article source is the very explanation of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen, which is a very contentious issue. This would seem to constitute bad faith, and I you now have an opportunity to explain yourself at Talk:Bruce_E._Johansen. I insist that you henceforth show good faith by properly addressing the issues, on the appropriate article talk pages, and by not deleting any more material from these discussions until all of these issues have been thoroughly discussed and resolved. E.N.Stanway (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE of suspected inappropriate conduct   — Issue Number Three — —willful ignoranace of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen, etc. From E.N.Stanway (talk): I propose that you review the wikipedia documentation regarding the placement of maintenance tags. I insist that you give special attention to the following paragraph: Responsible Tagging If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article, even though the reasons seem plainly obvious to you... it needs to show to others that you actually read the specific article and you honestly believe it has the deficiency indicated by the tag, it shows that you're not just tagging on a whim. It also shows you did not just copy and paste from a similar explanation for a related article with the tag in question. —  Wikipedia:Responsible tagging Also, this one seems to be especially appropriate: Tagging pages for problems Placing too many tags on an article is 'tag-bombing', disruptive, or may be a violation... —  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems This particular article is especially helpful in describing how to determine when tagging is inappropriate, by providing "four specific warning signs of overtagging", specifically, (1) too many tags, (2) vague tags, (3) wrong tags, and (4) unhelpful tags. I insist that you familiarize yourself with these signs, described in the article, so that we can discuss them with regard to each of the challenges and complaints which you have made not only against me and my work, but also against scholars whose work you seemingly do not even understand. It appears that your conduct fits the definition of "tag bombing", which is why I have quite properly characterized your conduct as metaphorical "graffiti tagging". Much like the spray-paint variety of graffiti, the main objective seems to be writing the offender's name, in this case in the edit log. Much like the spray paint variety of tagging, the proper remedy in a situation like this is removal, which is why wikipedia recommends that very solution for the offense: Removing maintenance tags Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. —  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems Please re-read this sentence as often as necessary in order to understand the concept, because you have repeatedly placed tags on the article about Bruce E. Johansen, among other articles that I created and which you have tagged. On at least four occasions prior to the beginning of your involvement in the Johansen article, other editors read and considered the article, as indicated by minor edits (edits #08, #11, #14, & #15) which occurred before your involvement. Yet none of those editors found any problem in the article which was thought to be worthy of the effort of placing a maintenance tag. So it seems a little suspicious that you found a list (edit #19) of supposed deficiencies where other editors have found none, yet about which you feel so strongly that you have continually replaced the tags without as much as a word on the article talk page. It also seems suspicious that you would create other similar lists of supposed problems with other articles which I created, once again where no other problem was ever found by any other editor, and again where you have declined to provide any explanation of your actions on the appropriate article talk pages, creating the impression that there may not be a rational explanation for your conduct. As suspicious as that may be, it is even more suspicious that you have repeatedly been informed (edits #21, #23, & #34) of a reason (one of the reasons) for the notability of Professor Johansen. Yet you have not even bothered to respond to the information, not bothered to even acknowledge receiving the information, and have removed the statement from the article source on three separate occasions (edits #22, #26, & #36) while replacing it with your graffiti. So I insist that you correct this sad situation by providing a lengthy and thorough explanation at talk:Bruce E. Johansen, of why it is that you do not believe that Professor Johansen is notable enough for wikipedia, and why it is that you have been so bold as to challenge my assessment of the issue, not once but four separate times. And since you have repeatedly denied me any explanation of this on the article talk page, then I insist that you provide me with a lengthy explanation of why this disparagement of my judgment does not fit the signs of overtagging which have been referenced above, specifically: (1) too many tags, (2) vague tags, (3) wrong tags, and (4) unhelpful tags. I insist that you reference each of these four indications of over-tagging while attempting to justify each of your many vague, wrong, and unhelpful tags. You seem to have contempt for Professor Johansen. Perhaps it is because of his scholarship on global warming, or perhaps it is because of some jealousy over his ability to write. I propose that you discuss this on the article talk page so that other editors may take part in the discussion. If you continue to insist using a user talk page to discuss these matters, then I insist that your user talk page be used for this purpose instead of mine. I insist that you leave this notice in place on this talk page until all these issues have been thoroughly discussed and resolved. E.N.Stanway (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE of suspected inappropriate conduct — Issue Number Four — —malicious deletion of images without explanation From E.N.Stanway (talk): This certainly does give the appearance of underhanded conduct, much like your other actions. As you know, the only documentation or notice that I received regarding these deletions was the six goofy identical banners placed on my user talk page at User talk:E.N.Stanway. In order to refresh your memory, I am reproducing one of these banners here: Thank you for uploading File:B.E.Johansen-2009book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) These statements would seem to imply that it has been determined that these images do "not qualify", yet you have neglected to provide any explanation of the manner in which this does "not qualify", only that "there is a concern". I would have expected to have been informed of any such determination that these images do "not quality" with a thorough description of how it is that they do not qualify. Your failure to provide me with this description seems to be an indication of one of three things. Either you are not competent enough to judge such things, or you are using this pretext as yet another means of intentional harassment, or both. The latter possibility seems to be supported by this statement from the banner: This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. You weren't even polite enough to provide a decent explanation the first time that the files were deleted, and for you to conduct yourself like that a second time seems to be an indication that you are completely unwilling to listen to reason, much in the same way as with your pathetic protestations against the notability of Paul Chaat Smith, Donald A. Grinde, Jr., or Bruce E. Johansen. So when you arranged for it to be deleted the second time, even after changes were made to the files, and once again without any explanation at all, then that makes a lie of the above statement. This is far from the only lie that you have told in this situation. This is merely one more instance fraud on your part. I am definitely entitled to a better explanation than what I have been provided, much in the same way that I am definitely entitled to a better explanation in the case of the incessant tag-bombing that you have perpetrated upon me. Now I insist that you provide me with this explanation. I want this explanation to specify what complaint you had against the files in the first instance of deletions and also what complaint you had against the files in the second instance of deletions. I insist that you provide these explanations at Talk:Bruce E. Johansen instead of my user talk page. If you insist on using a user talk page to discuss these matters, then I insist that we use your talk page for this discussion instead of my user talk page. I insist that these explanations include a complete explanation of what you think would be a proper way to document what is most definitely a typical usage of images. If you would care to suggest that the use of these images is not consistent typical usage, then that will be yet another indication that your competence is less than tolerable. It is quite obvious that any supposed objections to these images are merely a ruse as a means of harassing me. The vagueness of the tag alone impedes an understanding of the situation, and I consider that the general rules for tagging should apply, such as this one: If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article... —  Wikipedia:Responsible tagging The situation has now degenerated to the point that you have threatened to have me blocked from wikipedia, on the basis of uploading images for which you are unable to identify any problem. This would seem to constitute what is called "no-edit orders" at Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I am reproducing the notice here: Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "fair use" policy. images uploaded without conforming to this policy constitute copyright violations and simply re-uploading such images after they have been deleted constitutes disruptive editing that may get you blocked from editing. Please consider that WP must take copyright issues very seriously. If you have questions in this area, please go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, there are several very helpful editors there that can help you or answer your questions. Thanks. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC) So all of a sudden, after six times saying "thank you for uploading", you wish to insist that the problem can not now be fixed at all, but that you are going to determine that I am to completely refrain from uploading any more images. Perhaps you can explain whether your conduct is thoroughly dishonorable or just completely incompetent. I cannot imagine any other possibility, and if there is one then you should put it on the appropriate article talk page. I insist that you do not remove this notice until all of these issues have the completely discussed and resolved. E.N.Stanway (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE that there are many other issues which need to be discussed From E.N.Stanway (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC): There are many other contested issues here, in addition to the four described above. We can begin discussing these other issues when you adopt the appropriate methods of discussion as normally used on wikipedia. I suggest that you ponder how it is that you happened to become involved in so many articles that I created. Perhaps you stumbled upon them by coincidence as a result of some new-found interest in scholars and their work. The alternative would appear to be that you have intentionally targeted me through my "user contributions" page. I am curious whether you have put that page on your watchlist, because that would certainly account for the quickness with which you revert my edits. It is especially suspicious that none of all the dozens of complaints or challenges that you have made has ever been made by any other editor, and none of your complaints has ever been found be justified and none of the challenges that you have made against articles I created was ever sustained. Your repeated disparagement of the notability of Bruce E. Johansen has no more merit than your attempt to have the Donald A. Grinde, Jr. article quickly deleted. That proposal was quickly vetoed by another editor on the next edit. It had followed your repeated disparagement of the notability of Paul Chaat Smith. In that instance, you were informed that notability accrued as an author. After rejecting that, you were informed by another editor that notability accrued as an art expert. Yet you continued to protest that others should demonstrate to your satisfaction that Paul Chaat Smith was notable as an academic. None of the dozen placements of tags there was ever deemed to have merit. You are the one who began the use of phrases such as "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" in these disputes. I am concerned that you may not understand the meaning of such terms as they are used on wikipedia, and I insist that you familiarize yourself with the appropriate wikipedia documentation regarding those and other similar concepts. I propose that we discuss these concepts soon to discover whether this might be what is known as a "can of worms". You should also review Wikipedia:WikiBullying for what it says about "no-edit orders". Your invitation to have me blocked from wikipedia is a most welcome surprise. I assume that this was made in good faith, in accordance with wikipedia policy for the making of such assumptions. I interpret this as a good-faith offer, and I accept this offer. I am especially pleased that you have informed me of this "last notice" (twice, see User talk:E.N.Stanway), because this will certainly save time. I will now revert your edits to articles which I have created, on the basis of improper tag-bombing (graffiti), among other issues, and I insist that you review my statements regarding issue #3 above so that henceforth you may address all of those issues while issuing any further complaint or challenge against my work. I am assuming good faith in this offer to block me, and I now insist that you show good faith by providing me with this distinction. Your failure to honor this offer would seem to be an indication of bad faith and malice on your part. I insist that the notice of this blocking be provided as the next edit that you perform to my user talk page. If you require more assistance in order to honor your word, then I surely want to assist. I propose an immediate abandonment of politeness and diplomacy, as the ensuing bluntness may promote more effective communication. If a further aid to communication is needed, then I propose that we agree on a sharp decline in civility. We now have several barriers to progress which will require the assistance of other editors. I propose that you attempt to justify your disparagement of Bruce E. Johansen and his notability, as well as the other complaints that you have made against my efforts and judgment, in the appropriate manner, of course, on the appropriate article talk pages. The disputes will now be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I insist that you leave this notice in place until such time as all of these issues have been discussed and resolved. E.N.Stanway (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE of reverting of graffiti at Donald A. Grinde, Jr. article From E.N.Stanway (talk): Please note that maintenance tags which you have repeatedly placed on the article about Donald A. Grinde, Jr. are not in accordance with wikipedia standards. Please review issue #3 above for information about the proper characterization of this conduct as "graffiti". Please consult the appropriate wikipedia documentation in order to ensure future compliance, not only with wikipedia standards, but with widely-recognized standards of propriety and respect. The following citations are provided here as a courtesy: If you are going to put a tag on an article that proclaims it as seriously faulty, you should leave an explanation on the talk page of that article... —  Wikipedia:Responsible tagging Placing too many tags on an article is 'tag-bombing', disruptive, or may be a violation... —  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. —  Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems I insist that you recall the contempt which you have previously shown toward Professor Grinde by attempting to have this article deleted: Proposed deletion of Donald A. Grinde, Jr. The article Donald A. Grinde, Jr. has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC) If only you had bothered to read the documentation about the notability, you would have known that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." So when you proposed that I research "Referencing for beginners", it is yet another indication of you confused state. It is astounding that you would continue to attempt to discuss such things when you are so clearly unfamiliar with so much of the wikipedia documentation. I propose that you consider that you are not competent to judge the work of others, as clearly shown by this sort of drivel, and hence you are not competent to place tags on articles, as you have clearly shown. Your intention to have this article quickly deleted was, in two and a half hours, blocked by another editor. This is yet another clear indication that you are motivated by some sort of contempt or hostility and not by rational mental processes. Please recall the offer which you have made and which I hereby accept: Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Donald A. Grinde, Jr., without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Please make good on your offer by making a blocking notice as your next edit at User talk:E.N.Stanway. If you wish to continue your complaints, please go to Wikipedia:ANI. I insist that you take these matters to the appropriate article talk page, instead of my user talk page. I insist that you not remove this notice until each of these matters has been fully discussed and settled. E.N.Stanway (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE of reverting of graffiti at Robert Allen Warrior article From E.N.Stanway (talk): Please note that maintenance tags which you have repeatedly placed on the article about Robert Allen Warrior are not in accordance with wikipedia standards. Please review issue #3 above for information about the proper characterization of this conduct as "graffiti". Please consult the appropriate wikipedia documentation in order to ensure future compliance, not only with wikipedia standards, but with widely-recognized standards of propriety and respect. Please make a special note of the of the wikipedia documentation at Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems, where four signs of over-tagging are clearly documented. too many tags Please remember, once again, that you have placed maintenance tags about 85 times, during about 40 so-called edits, during which time you have contributed not a single sentence to an article or article talk page. Please note once again that no other editor has ever placed a maintenance tag on an article which I have created. Perhaps you would care to pretend that this is due to your superior intellect. vague tags Please consult the appropriate wikipedia documentation to familiarize yourself with the notion that maintenance tags should be documented on the article talk page. This is now a perfect opportunity to show not only that you really think that any of these tags have validity (which might indicate good faith), but that you can actually write a coherent sentence. wrong tags Please recall that none of the many complaints which you made had ever been deemed to have been valid. Please recall that your whining for deletion of the Donald A. Grinde, Jr. article was quickly ended by another editor. If you are still unconvinced of the wrong-ness of your actions, then you should try to justify your complaint about the notability of Bruce E. Johansen, or the unsuitability of the images which you had deleted, before you continue posting maintenance tags. unhelpful tags Please try to be helpful by writing some sentences in the article talk pages. The vagueness of the tags seems to indicate carelessness. An attempt at thorough descriptions would surely be very revealing. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to include a discussion about some of the biographical articles which you have created and why it is that you believe that the subjects of your articles are more notable than the subjects of my articles. Please consult wikipedia documentation for more information about proper conduct. Any further complaints about my work should be taken to the Administrator's buletin board for incidents at Wikipedia:ANI. I insist that you take any further discussion about these matters to the appropriate article talk page, not my user talk page. I insist that you not remove this tag until all of the conflicts have been completely discussed and resolved. E.N.Stanway (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC) NOTICE of reverting of graffiti at The Great Sioux Nation (book) article From E.N.Stanway (talk): Please notice that the maintenance tags which you have repeatedly placed on the article about The Great Sioux Nation are not in accordance with wikipedia standards. I insist that you recognize as well that the notion that you have promoted that maintenance tags are "necessary" is another of your frauds and lies. Please review issue #3 above for information about the proper characterization of this conduct as "graffiti". Please consult the appropriate wikipedia documentation in order to ensure future compliance, not only with wikipedia standards, but with widely-recognized standards of propriety and respect. Please be aware that the following statement, among others, which you have so rudely placed at User talk:E.N.Stanway, without even as much as a word on an article talk page, has precluded any further attempts at further discussion of these matters without the intervention of other editors. I propose that you now show good faith by enforcing this threat: This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at The Great Sioux Nation (book), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I insist that a notice of blocking should be the next notice that you place on my user talk page. If you are unable to make good your offer, then that would appear to be bad faith on your part. If you believe that there is any other possible explanation for the situation, then please take it to the appropriate article talk page. If you have any more complaints or challenges regarding my work, then please take them to the administraation bulletin board at Wikipedia:ANI. I insist that you not take more complaints to my user talk page, but to the proper article page instead. If you insist that a user talk page is to be used in place of the more proper article talk pages, then I insist that your user talk page be used for this purpose instead of mine. I insist that you do not remove this notice until all of these problems have been fully discussed and reconciled. E.N.Stanway (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

AIP Advances

Hi Randykitty, I've started a section on the talk page of AIP Adv, so we (and whoever) can discuss the bits we disagree on there. Joaosampaio (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've responded there. --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of refs

You have removed the sole reference from Hungarian Studies (journal) and Journal of Roman Archaeology. Why? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• A link to the journal's homepage (which per WP:JWG should already be present in the infobox and the external links section) does not really accomplish much. These stubs consist of 1 (one) short phrase. Adding a "reference" that is just another link to the journal homepage in conditions like this is overkill. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It was you who complained that one of them had no refs! Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of independent references? Reliable sources? Why do you think I put the word references between "" here? A link to the homepage may technically be a reference, but it doesn't establish anything and can only be used to source non-controversial material (who is the EIC, when was it established, what is the scope, and such), not things like notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

By all means add one then, what is there is fine as far as it goes. If you sincerely believe either of these journals are not notable please send them to AFD. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been offline all weekend and am catching up with a lot of stuff. I have no time to start looking for references for these journals, so I cannot take them to AfD as I have no time for WP:BEFORE. Putting a "notability" tag alerting other editors to the problem is therefore completely legitimate (if it weren't those tags would have been deleted ages ago). If they bother you, well as article creator nothing holds you back! --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

APL Materials

Hello Randy Kitty, I have edited the APL Materials page and added the journal home page as a reference. Also, the page was proposed for deletion, but i removed the message off the page. The journal is published by AIP Publishing, which also publishes several other notable journals that are indexed in the science citation index. What can I add to keep the page from being removed. I thank you in advance for any help and input you provide. Publishing AIP (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, it's too bad that you removed the deletion notice, because now we will have to go through the articles for deletion process, a waste of time. For a short stub like this one, adding the journal's home page (already linked in the infobox and under "external links" is absolute overkill and smacks of promotion. That AIP publishes other journals that are notable is irrelevant, this one is not notable. Please see WP:TOOSOON and do not create articles for journals that just got established and still have to show that they will actually survive. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I made some changes to the page. I searched and found that the journal is indexed in selective databases, which should help with the concern of notability. Publishing AIP (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm flabbergasted. Being included in the SCIE this fast is exceptional, but it checks out. I have withdrawn the nomination. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

IZA_Journal_of_Labor_Economics

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from IZA_Journal_of_Labor_Economics, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will indeed take it to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, I am not very familiar with the deletion discussions in the English wikipedia. As we have now our two opinions and gave our comments and arguments, how is this proceeding from now on? Thank you, best, Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Have a look at WP:AFD, which explains the procedure. Normally, these discussions are evaluated after 7 days (to give the community a chance to voice their opinions) and then either closed or re-listed for further debate for another 7 days. However, there currently is often a backlog of AFD discussions that need to be closed, so it may be a bit longer than 7 days. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Japanese invasion of Gonzaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gonzaga

Japanese invasion of Legaspi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Legaspi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE of posting at Wikipedia:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.N.Stanway (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your time, interest, and assistance on a subject that I am new to, Academic Journals. Best regards, Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• My pleasure, thanks for the baklava! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Find Links App

Hi! I noticed that you have listed the find links app by Edward Betts on your user space. Would you mind explaining how it works. I have tried to feed in article titles and all I get is ""searching for article xxxxxxx 0 found (7 total)"". My question is what follows after these results. Answer on my talk page. Thanks in advance. Juhuyuta (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's weird. I just tried it and it works fine. I entered "American Journal of Orthopsychiatry" (a new article that I have on my to-clean list) and it gives one match (I admit I don't know why it also says "54 total"). If you click the link to the article found, an edit window opens and the article that you searched for will automatically be wiki-linked. I didn't do this yet for "American Journal of Orthopsychiatry", so you can play around with it if you like. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Es (Unix Shell)

I noticed that you merged this with rc. I'm not sure this was justified from the limited discussion: there were four people who appeared to have an opinion (2 keeps, 1 delete, 1 merge), and no-one responded to my disagreement with the merge. The original closing administrator also reopened it after being provided with additional citations (back in 2012), before this third attempt at deletion by Msnicki. I'm sure I could provide more contentious debate on this if there was anyone to debate with :) Wryun (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm a bit behind with stuff, I'll look into this tomorrow. Sorry about that, but I have some intermittent Internet problems. --Randykitty (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi again, sorry that it took a while to get back to you. An AfD decision is not based on counting votes, but on the arguments that are put forward. One of the keep !votes did not produce any policy-based arguments. Your own keep !vote did not seem to be based on policy either. So both keep !votes can be interpreted as "I like it", which is not enough of an argumentation. The nom was for deletion, of course, but also indicated that merging was a good option. I agree that merging is better than outright deletion, so I went forward with that decision. Of course, if there is a more appropriate article where this could find a place, you are absolutely free to add some material on es to that article. If you completely disagree with the AfD outcome, you can go to deletion review (but be sure to read through that page before filing a DRV). Hope this helps and explains. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I understand that an administrator could make that call, but I thought that as a non-administrator you could only act on non-controversial cases. Given that I thought I disagreed with the merge proposal for legitimate reasons (i.e. that it's not sufficiently related and looks out of place in the rc article - is that not a policy based argument?), and no-one had responded to those reasons, it seemed to me that there was insufficient discussion. Thanks for pointing out the deletion review; I'll consider it. Wryun (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NAC#Pitfalls to avoid does indeed say "non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions" (i.e., controversial topics). However, there are several remarks to make here. First, NAC is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Second, it says "should generally avoid", not "are forbidden". Third, the definition of controversial topic does not seem to apply here. Fourth, the advice not to close controversial debates is explicitly directed towards "inexperienced editor", which I don't think applies to me.

The applicable policy is outlined in WP:NACD, which also advices against non-admins closing contentious discussions. Problem is that we currently often have large backlogs at AfD. This AfD was a case in point: although an AfD is supposed to be closed (or relisted) after 7 days, this one had been running for 9 days when I closed it. When the choice is between letting a backlog accrue or helping out, DRV has determined in the past that non-admins, provided they have enough experience, can close controversial discussions. This is what I did here. I just re-reviewed the AfD. There was one delete !vote (the nom), one merge !vote (with you opposing and the nom indicating that this was also an acceptable solution to them), and finally one keep !vote (yourself). There was one other opinion expressed, by Agumonkey, which one could interpret as a keep !vote, but that basically boiled down to I like it, not the strongest of arguments. That leaves your arguments as the main dissenting voice and I did not find them convincing or firmly based in policy. The nom's rebuttal that 14 citations on Google Scholar is not much are completely justified. In all, I stand with my decision and am perfectly willing to have the community review it at DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ergonomics in Design

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

Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I guess a print reference is acceptable, but it is very weird that this connection is not mentioned neither on the publisher's website nor on the society's website. The article on the society even said that they "publish" the journal together with T&F, but that clearly seems to be incorrect. Perhaps T&F has an agreement with this society offering the journal for a reduced rate or something like that? (BTW, just a pedantic note: non-confidential stuff like this should be handled on WP, not by email and even more properly on the article's talk page itself). --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You're quite right, it's not published by the Institute, it's published by Sage and handled by T&F. I've left a note at that article Talk Page. I'm also surpised there is no mention at the wesbite, but then I couldn't see any list of any of the other member journal options there either. Sorry if you think that's "wierd"! Sincere apologies for emailing - I thought it was more polite. I shall remenber not to do that again. Am also surprised that the articles for both IEHF and HFES are classed as "journals" in terms lf project banners, when they are clearly professional organisations. Perhaps that's the closest thing available? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• They're not "classed" as journals, the banner just indicates that this project is interested in those articles. As there is no "WikiProject Learned Societies", WPJournals decided years ago to include such organizations in their scope. It just means that someone will take a look if an article gets proposed for deletion and such... Don't worry about the emailing, but I think it should be reserved for delicate matters that cannot or should not be public (I share my password to the [[Web of Science] with another editor here and obviously don't want to post that for all to see... :-). Anyway, if we cannot source something, even if we know that it is correct, we actually cannot write it because what we write should be verifiable. But, again, a printed document is acceptable (as long as it is published and not some internal memo or something like that). --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Although Ergonomics (55 years old) and Applied Ergonomics both get a mention in the IEHF 64th Annual Report 2013, there is no sign of EiD. And I guess my membership invoice is not classed as a WP:RS, so not sure what to suggest. I've received it for nearly over 8 years, I think, so I can certainly vouch for it's validity! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that annual report a publication with an ISBN or something like that, or perhaps available from the society website? In those cases it would probably be a RS. --Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. As a small organisation it only runs to 20 pages and it just has the Institute's Logo and contact details. I could look through past Annual Reports, but then that wouldn't be a "current source", so am a bit stumped really. I'll keep hunting I guess. Oh well, never mind Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Niro (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your RfA participation

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your participation at my recent RfA, even if I couldn't sway you to support me. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. I understand the criticism that was raised by the community about my judgment with AfDs and such, but I can't say that I still really understand your objection, because superficially it seems you were criticizing my responses even when my responses were correct. Anyhow, you're not required to explain it, but I thought I'd mention it. I appreciate your input and I know our paths will cross again. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I think I do owe you an explanation, an RFA !vote, especially an oppose, should be clearly argued. I obviously did not a good job with that. In fact, my concern was mainly with your lack of AfD experience. Your answer to that particular question (was it Q11? I am working from memory here, a bit short on time) seemed to suggest that you were unfamiliar with relisting, so I mentioned that in my oppose !vote, even though it was not my main motivation. I just didn't want to repeat what everybody else had already said, because that's not very useful to anyone. AfD is a difficult point at RFA. Even if a candidate says that they don't intend to work in that area, they will have the mop if successful and may start using it anyway. AfDs are often contentious enough as it is, so we really can do without them being closed by admins that don't have a good understanding of the process. Having said all this, if you work a bit on AfD in the coming months, I'm sure that I'll support your next RfA, because you obviously are a solid candidate with the best of the encyclopedia at heart. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I adopt you as a mentor?

Hi Randy, I am a newbie on here. I recently became active on WP as a result of my current role as President of Chess Journalists of America in order to help strengthen the articles concerning chess on Wikipedia. I am looking for a good mentor and, coincidentally, noticed that you set my personal page for deletion. Even so, my pp had nothing to do with my joining since it was established long ago. As I understand it, the article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. I have been tempted to expanded it myself, but obviously I would have to fight personal bias to do so. Could you please direct me on how to get it properly updated. I'm sure I will learn some important things in the process. As a start, I am in the process of putting pertinent reference links to reliable sources on my personal user page. Thanks for your help and/or pointing me in the right direction. Respectfully, Frank Niro (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And, by the way, I am looking forward to interacting with you in the future on the subject of Academic Journals, another endeavor in which I am newly engaged. Finally, I appreciate that you took the time to post some helpful hints on my User Page. Frank Niro (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Frank, I'm always willing, provided I have time, to give advice (and hope that it is good... ;-) Just post any questions here. If I don't know the answer, I generally know whom or where to ask. AS for Frank Niro, we prefer to say that it is an article about you, instead of calling it a "personal page" (wee WP:OWN for some explanation; beware: starting here you'll have to read a lot of policies and guidelines, but generally they're pretty straightforward and logical and they'll help you navigate around the most obvious pitfalls here). Anyway, the article is insufficiently sourced and also does not explain why the subject is "notable". That is not a value judgment and has nothing to do with being good or bad or worthy or anything like that. It really means something like "having been noted", and that has to be verifiable with references to independent reliable sources. I "PRODded" the article, meaning that there is a week in which to find appropriate sources before the article will actually be deleted. If good sources exist, that meet either one of the guidelines that I linked to in the PROD template, then the article will stay and the template removed. As you note, you have a COI, so the best thing to do is to post any sources that you are aware of on the talk page of the article. I'll then have a look at them and possibly integrate them into the article. Hope this helps! --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Randy, I appreciate the helpful advice and I will do as you suggest. I have an abundance of sources that I have had to cultivate for the fact checkers working on my memoir. But, to be honest, spending time on the article about me is not the reason I became active in Wikipedia. There's a whole list of American chess personalities that are part of the [Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess] and are listed as stubs. Is it your intent to go through the list and mark others, besides me, for deletion? It is my goal, as President of CJA, to put together a team of chess journalists, including myself, to expand these articles. I didn't expect that there would be somebody looking to delete any of them in the meantime. Frank Niro (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• No that is not my intention. I generally work a bit less systematic than that and follow links or check people's contribution histories. That's how I came to this article, too. Your goal seems very laudable to me! --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a mutual understanding. Go here: Talk:Frank Niro and I expect that you will find some reliable references. Once again, I appreciate your help. Frank Niro (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I appreciated your thoughtful and compassionate participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of Modern Physics

Hi, thank you for the edit on the International Journal of Modern Physics. I believe that you have the access to delete uploaded images. Can you help to delete one of the image that I mistakenly upload with a wrong license? File:International Journal of Modern Physics A, IJMPAcover.jpg It is now become a duplicate to the cover of International Journal of Modern Physics A. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPratiwi (talk • contribs)

• Hi, no I cannot directly delete a file as I am not an admin, but I have tagged the file for speedy deletion (referring to this discussion) and an admin will delete it shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randy, I need some advice. If I would like to split the journals, so that each of them has its own Wikipedia page, what will be the best way to do it? User talk:WPratiwi

• Why would you want to do that? Provided that the correct redirects are in place, nobody will have any trouble finding info on them. This way, we have a more substantial article, splitting them up will result in 5 short stubs. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I agree with you that we do not want to create pages with no significant information. I am looking at how the Wikipedia pages of journals under Physical Review series and Journal of Physics series are being arranged, it seems that the arrangement of the Physical Review series is more suitable for International Journal of Modern Physics for now. In addition, I just found out that I cannot upload cover images for each of the journals. Another question, the International Journal of Modern Physics Journals actually have two other journals that should be included in this series: Modern Physics Letter A and Modern Physics Letter B. Can I just add these two journals to the page? User talk:WPratiwi

• Yes, I see no problem with that (make sure to also create the appropriate redirects). It also sounds like a good idea to re-work the article in the style of Physical Review, as the infoboxes as they stand now have a lot of redundancy. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify

You reverted my edit with the summary "Revert to local reference as it was and as the others are." Can you explain what you meant by this?--Auric talk 19:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hah, this crossed: I was writing on your talk page and already answered there. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. --Auric talk 19:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Genotype-phenotype distinction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] |volume=45 |issue=531 |pages=129–159 |year=1911 |last1=Johannsen |first1=W. |jstor=2455747}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation bot jumbled up the references just before you edited.

Just before you started editing on the page, Citation bot had also edited and it had made a mess of the author names in the references. You'll see the person named in the |author parameter is duplicated into one of the |last=|first= numbered parameter pairs. -- 79.67.241.229 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this sometimes happens if the old "author=" parameter is used. The article is an absolute mess anyway. If Fuster wasn't so clearly notable, I would have proposed it for speedy deletion as spam... Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dream Focus

Hello Randykitty. Since you're an experienced editor, would you mind having a word with Dream Focus about of Summer Flame&action=history this edit? The user is restoring infobox parameters that have been deprecated and doesn't really seem to know what they are doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I made a minor edit removing the wikilinks for "United States" and "English" (overlinking). I almost reverted the rest of that edit, too, but finally did not do so. Have a look at this discussion on the talk page. Looks like the change where those fields were deprecated was not uncontroversial and might very well be reverted in the near future (I think that, given the availability of Wikidata, that would actually be preferable). I don't know whether that was the reason behind Dream Focus' revert (which was only explained by a preference, not really a strong reason to revert), but it is the reason for me not to revert back. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to that discussion, and thank you for being willing to look into the matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

re: Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

First, feel free to revert my edit if you find the following arguments not-convincing:

• moving code-heavy refs to the bottom makes the article more friendly to new editors
• the location of the ref doesn't matter for ease of deletion as long as it is used in at least 2+ places, thus requiring that one looks for it (which in either case is not that difficult through a search function)
• grouping all refs in one place allows for more easy mass manual cleanup, alphabetical sorting and such.

The only thing that becomes more difficult is the copy and paste of the text, through that again can sometimes be a problem under a non-cleaned up text if the main ref is in a different place anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mmm, I guess I'm too used to the "old ways". Can't argue too much with your arguments (especially the first one), but admit I don't like it. Guess I'm a conservative after all, and an obsessive-compulsive one at that :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some people will get upset about the change of code style. Are you simply moving the code, or are you making other fixes at the same time? If you are making other fixes, it may be prudent to do the moving in one edit and the fixing in a separate edit so that the changes can be clearly seen. Before you hit save I would also urge you to "find and replace" such that there's a single space before each pipe separator in the references. This makes the word-wrap so much more friendly. -- 79.67.241.229 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• You should post this on Piotrus' talk page, not here, as I am not sure he'll see this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants, instead of going from talkpage to talkpage we can just call him here? A simple @Piotrus: will do just that.--Mishae (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If anybody dislikes this too much, feel free to revert; I don't feel strongly enough to revert war about this on article where I am not the principal author. I still think that in light of the arguments I presented above, it makes more sense to move extra code to the bottom, through with the visual editor slowly gaining acceptance, I think this will also be a moot point in a year or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

American Diplomacy

Hi, Randykitty, I saw you did good work slimming down the overweight American Diplomacy. But I don't altogether understand your change from "Start class" to "Stub" on the talkpage. Or well, I understand calling it a stub, but not your reasoning: "Notability not clearly established". Stubs need equally to be about notable subjects, surely? I agree the references don't establish notability. But shouldn't the conclusion be PROD or AfD, rather than "Stub"? Do you think there are any reliable third-party sources out there that could be added? (Incidentally, surprisingly promotional DYK hook, wasn't it?) Bishonen | talk 14:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

• I went a bit fast there, mixing two things. I re-assessed it as "stub" and at the same time wanted to make a remark about notability and used the edit summary for that. So the notability thing was not my reason for re-assessing. I realize that was less than clear... I used to assess articles like this as Start myself, but changed after some remarks by, I think, Piotrus (I think it was on my talk page, not quite the time right now to look it up, but his argument was that to be start, an article should pass the DYK word limit). I didn't PROD it or take it to AfD (or even put a notability tag on it), because the website looks quite professional and it has been around for quite some time, so I think there is a good chance that there are some sources out there (but perhaps difficult to find, given the rather common name). I did slim it down, actually to below the DYK word limit, but it was already listed, so I wasn't screwing up somebody's DYK nom. However, I agree that the hook was kind of promotional and also rather uninteresting (by now there must be thousands of journals by now that are available for free on the web). Like AfC, DYK is not perfect and things slip through from time to time... --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Shepard Hurwitz

Hi, I am a bit confused about notability of the above person. On one hand, he have a reliable source US News and a PubMed RS for peer reviewed articles of which are over 50. PubMed doesn't provide citations though. Is he notable?--Mishae (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Google Scholar gives a few highly-cited articles (100 cites or more), but I don't see that on the Web of Science, where he has an h-index of 11 and 367 citations total, which is not enough for WP:Academic#1 in his field. There is the career award, if that is really a big thing, that might make him notable, but given hs citation record, I'd be surprised if that were the case. At an AfD I'd probably !vote "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the reason why I put PubMed, since ironically I couldn't find him in Google Scholar.--Mishae (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • O.K. before I will create another article on non-notable academic, can you kindly look for Kirk Kindsfater? I can't find his h-index in GS, but he mentioned in PRNewswire which is considered to be an RS. Or its not enough?--Mishae (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That source does not contribute to notability, as it apparently is a press release from the institution where he works. In GScholar I get one publication cited >100 times, but I don't see that in Web of Science, where he has about 160 citations and an h-index of 6. Again, very borderline, I'm afraid. If you want a source for researchers in all kinds of fields who most certainly are notable, have a look at this website. It only contains very highly cited people and many of them don't have an article here yet. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Randykitty/Frank Niro

Userfication complete. :) Please never hesitate to ask; I'm happy to accomodate any request that might result in constructive new articles. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)