User talk:Randykitty/Archive 14

• Would be nice to have one more GA article in this project :-) I don't have much experience with GAs, given that most of my contributions have been in the are of academic journals, where
  indepent reliable sources are often quite rare. That's a problem in this article, too. We usually require an independent source for things like circulation, which is here sourced to the journal itself (and if I click that link, I don't see any circulation totals at all, so this fails verification even for that primary non-independent source). It would also be nice if more of the references had online links if available (but print sources are perfectly fine if an URL is not available). In general, it is extremely important that everything is sourced and that the sources actually verify the claims made. That's about the advice I can give right now, you could also try to ask the GA reviewer of Genes, Brain and Behavior for their opinion, they were very helpful with that article and have more experience with that than I have. Hope this helps a bit. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for your feedback! Finding independent reliable sources has definitely been a challenge for this article. I have scoured the internet, JSTOR, Westlaw, LexisNexis, and HeinOnline looking for everything that has been written about this journal, and I am fairly certain I have included all relevant information that exists in secondary sources. Unfortunately, many of the sources are stuck behind paywalls -- and even if you have access to Westlaw or Lexisnexis, your subscription may not give you access to those particular sources. Nevertheless, I will go through the sources over the next few days to put in as many links as I can. I also fixed the link to the citation for the circulation totals, so that should be working now. I'll also get in touch with TLSuda (the GA reviewer for Genes, Brain and Behavior) to see if they have any advice. In any case, I truly appreciate your willingness to lend a helping hand and offer advice :-) It is a rare quality around here! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have access to (parts of) JSTOR and
  Highbeam through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library accounts, so let me know if I can help here. They also have accounts available for HeinOnline, so you should perhaps apply for one of those. They continuously work on enlarging their offerings, so you should ask them about LexisNexis and Westlaw. BTW, did you try Google Scholar to find more sources? --Randykitty (talk
  ) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have access to JSTOR, HeinOnline, LexisNexis, and Westlaw through an affiliation with a university, but I have never used Highbeam -- I'll check in with the library about requesting access to it. I also tried searching through Google Scholar, but I didn't have much luck there. I'll definitely keep looking though! I also reached out to TLSuda to hear what they have to say, but I haven't heard back yet. I will certainly let you know if anything else transpires. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, I guess my first clue I was too late was the pinkness of the background and the "do not modify" at the top? Not one of my finest, most aware moments! Thanks for not calling me an idiot in the edit summary (you would have been justified in doing so) :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would have called you an idiot if I had never ever done anything "less aware" myself... :-D --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about this editor. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Man, missed that one, he has even fewer edits! --Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is probaly what you are looking for. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed it is, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I had wanted that box and could not find the template. The one I found was on a page that said, "Do not use this template..." But I really wish you would have told me before you deleted the picture so that I could have had one up right away to replace it. I've flagged the former picture for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777desha777 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Don't worry, took me only a coupe of minutes. BTW, the new picture needs a source (not "digital" or something like that, but where you got the file: website, own work, etc). It also needs proof of permission: you list Silbermann as the author. If that is the case, only Silbermann can release the article under CC and you'll need proof of that ("will be provided upon request" is not acceptable, I am afraid). I tagged the file for this, which gives you a week to get the necessary formalities done (perhaps you'll need to go through
  the OTRS system. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk
  ) 15:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused by your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lab Consulting. You closed stating that you would userfy the article, but deleted it outright instead of moving it to preserve the page's history. Was there a reason for that? The reason that multiple editors (including myself) advocated for userfying was to preserve page history. ~ Rob^Talk 14:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed that you restored it. Nevermind; I guess you were in the middle of userfying. ~ Rob^Talk 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a bit muddled, because I didn't pay enough attention and also restored two version from 2010... Should be OK now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

In response to the deletion of the Patty Walters article, the individual is a notable musician because of his solo work on YouTube which gained him significant recognition in various articles, both printed in magazines such as Kerrang (scans of one of the three printed journal articles, which discusses Walters in-depth, that had been used as a source can be viewed here) and on various online articles, and his work with other bands (such as Sunrise Skater Kids and As It Is). Additionally, there was not a single source in the article considered unacceptable per Wikipedia guidelines as some on the AfD page had tried to say, the majority of which were secondary sources. Also, on the AfD page for the article, five people cast a vote on whether or not the article should have been deleted with an outcome of three voting that it should be kept to two voting that it should be deleted; the majority of those who voted on the AfD page voted for the article to be kept. Walters is a notable individual who has been recognized in-depth in a variety of articles. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, please note that
  WP:DRV. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 15:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, I will take the article to
    WP:DRV. I do not feel that the reasons for deletion were stronger arguments, they said that Walters needed to be discussed in-depth in a reliable article (which he was in various articles such as the one that I mentioned above), that the sources provided were not reliable (however I rebutted each individual claim on the AfD page with a Wikipedia policy), and that Walters is not notable, however he has done much outside of As It Is, most significantly working on YouTube to the point where his YouTube work was significant enough to receive recognition in various articles, as well as other collaborative works outside of his band. Thank you. --Peter Dzubay (talk
    ) 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the housekeeping

	A celestial body deleted from the list of planets for you!
	Thanks for the deletion binge this morning! —jameslucas (" " / +) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also thanks from me for your help on my first article! FelixNaumann (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Randykitty, hope you are well. We're hitting 100 degrees here for the next two days.

Every time I get mail from one of these pay-for-play journals I check to see if we cite them anywhere. Today's spam was for "International journal of humanities social sciences and education" (no punctuation, haha), and I found one article from that journal ($100 for online submission outside India) cited twice, in Alikhan Bukeikhanov and Leninshil Zhas. So I look at those articles and I'm thinking, well, you know, it's on some Kazakh topic, there's not much scholarship in English, we should treat these things on a case-by-base basis, etc--and then I look at the article itself. It's written by "Zhamiga T. Tanatarova, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Vice-rector for Scientific Affairs and International Relations, Kh.Dosmukhamedov Atyrau State University, Atyrau, Kazakhstan", which sounds wordy but legit. So far so good, and just when I'm about to allow it, I read the first two lines.

Attention to the history of various complex periods suffered by Kazakh people, carrying it to future generations is the main task of historians. Manifestations of supremacy of command administrative system during the period of the Soviet power, its multiple faces must still be studied in detail and put forward for public discussion.

I cited the second sentence lest the English of the first one wasn't atrocious enough, but the first sentence already makes clear that we're dealing with a theory of historiography that does not pass muster anywhere but in one place. Anyway, I'm going to remove this. Sad since, as I said, there are so few sources on such topics. And I'm going to browse around for "arcjournals". Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad. But in general, these "journals" publish only crap. A while ago, one outfit accepted and even published an "article" entitled "Take me off you fucking spamlist" or something similar and the body of text was just the same phrase repeated over and over again... --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• In other news, I've been personally and individually selected by Faculty Row for inclusion in their Academic Hall of Fame! Check it out--I'm one of America's Top Professors! Beat me to that, Mr. European neurosurgeon. I'm gonna celebrate with a big old can of Miller Lite. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm impressed. Although perhaps you didn't pay your dues, because using their search facility, it seems they already have thrown you out again... Here it's not a 100, but getting close and I just had 2 pints of cold Kilkenny's with a good old Canadian friend :-) --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, I'm writing so that the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum page may be exempt from deletion. I am the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum Editor in Chief, able to use the Forum's information where and how I see fit. I have not infringed on any copyright by using the Forum's information page as the basis for the wikipedia page entry. You may see the information used on the wikipedia page is the same as the "About" section of our Forum site page, found here: http://bciptf.org/?page_id=30. Please let me know what steps are needed to allow for the wikipedia page's existence. Thanks Baywalker4

• Indeed the text of the wikiarticle was the same as in the link you give. That webpage also has a clear copyright statement. Unfortunately, I have no way of verifying that you are authorized to release this text under a CC license. There is a mechanism for this (
  WP:NJournals
  .

I see that Ubiquity has given you an excellent and extensive answer to your questions already, so I will leave it at this. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you removed descriptions of this journal as a review journal despite the fact that its website says that it is a review journal right in the title. Can you explain why you did this? Thanks!

• Because in that very same phrase, they contradict this by stating that it is a "journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs" (my emphasis). The latter doesn't sound as a "review" to me, but as a research report. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Max Read. Since you had some involvement with the Max Read redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GamerPro64 02:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

king mez article you deleted today was just recreated again. could use some salting methinks. 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very confused as to what's happening here but a page I created got deleted and I'm not sure why. Please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshheirs00 (talk • contribs)

• I assume you're talking about the article
  WP:DRV is the way to go if you disagree with the outcome of the deletion discussion or if you feel that there are new elements that would justify creation of this article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. The user page is a clear violation of a promotional user name, but the page itself may be of a notable journal (once trimmed of promotional content). What do you think?--I am One of Many (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. The British Journal of Sports Medicine page is a STUB and I would like to improve it. I was trying to use Harvard Business Reviews as a template. I can get fully certified permission to upload an image. Can you help me understand what I did wrong? Thanks for your advice. karim

• Please see
  WP:JWG for some tips on how to improve/write neutral articles on journals, even if you have a COI. You can also have a look at our (few) "good articles" (such as Genes, Brain and Behavior), to see how to improve an article. As for images, the writing guide has instructions on how to upload them under "fair use", no official permission needed. A bit short on time, but hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 09:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Thanks for your kind remark. I have modified the Category:Natural science journals redirecting it to Category:Scientific journals. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Freshheirs00 has asked for a

I was about to PROD this (not in Scopus or PubMed, no IF) but I wanted to get your opinion on whether the listed databases (EBSCO databases, ProQuest, and Expanded Academic ASAP) are selective.

• Hi, I'm afraid those databases are not selective enough to meet NJournals... I'm surprised that a journal that has been around so long did not at least manage to get into Scopus, which really is not all that difficult. --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Randykitty, apropos of British Journal of Sports Medicine but with wider relevance: "Bi-weekly" is ambiguous to me (either 26 or 104 times a year), and, according to Wiktionary, is particularly ambiguous in British English. It's probably best avoided, just like dates in the form 6-11-1952 (6th November to me, probably 11th June to many readers). I used "24/year" as per the journal's home page. I've also replied at length to the editor's request on my talk page for help (all I'd done was fix a typo and make a redirect to turn blue a red link, having noticed his plea on this page), and uploaded a cover image for him as a Good Deed.

It might be useful if the notes at

• Hi; sorry for the slow answer, I'm currently pretty busy in RL. We have two categories (Category:Biweekly journals and Category:Biweekly magazines) with together almost 300 entries that all use "biweekly" in the sense of "every two weeks". How should those be better named? Thanks for your suggestions for the writing guide, when I have more time, I'll integrate those. I myself always use the "magazine cover" template, as there is no difference for fair use for magazine or journal covers. The image gets sized automatically at 200 px, unless it was not uploaded in lo-res, then you have to specify it as you did, until somebody gets around to rescale the image (fair use doesn't permit hi-res). --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice that there exist both Category:Biweekly magazines and Category:Fortnightly magazines, which appear to be defined identically! (And Category:Bi-monthly magazines with a hyphen, just to add a little inconsistency). The various categories (for journals, newspaper, magazines) all have notes about their content, including defining "bi...ly" (I've just added one to Category:Bimonthly newspapers which didn't have one). I note that there is Category:Biannual journals, defined as 2 issues/year - ie using the "Bi" prefix in the other sense - where perhaps every two years would be "Biennial", which is a bit subtle! Possibly Biweekly would be better renamed as Category:Fortnightly journals, though I struggle to find a short clear alternative to "Bimonthly". I still think that in the infobox it's clearer to say 6/year, 24/year, 26/year or whatever, rather than use the ambiguous term there.

The image I added to BJSM didn't seem to get autosized, but perhaps I only looked at it when "Previewed" rather than saved, and changed the size manually before saving it. Would that explain it? When I first looked at infobox with image added it was far too wide. PamD 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, normally preview will give you what you see after saving. I just checked and id does indeed display too large if the size isn't specified. I tagged it for downsizing and a bot will come by at some point, but at just over 50 Kb, it might not even do that. Strange. Didn't know about the "fortnightly magazines" cat, but I guess they should be merged. We also have Category:Japanese semimonthly manga magazines, but "fortnightly" seems clearer to me and I think it could be used in the infobox without being ambiguous. Bimonthly (and bi-monthly) remains a problem, unless we'd go for the awkward "Journals/magazines published every second month" or something like that. Never really noticed that "bi" was used in different ways for "biannual" and "biweekly/monthly"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: just see we also have Category:Semimonthly magazines, to distinguish between those published twice a month (24/year) and those published every two weeks (26/year). For journals, those are combined... --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. I just saw this edit of yours, and I was wondering why you removed the category; "social science journal" is as accurate a descriptor of EPW as I can think of, and I frequently use it as a source on the 'pedia, so I know it well. Could you please explain? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• That cat should not contain any journals, but they should be put in appropriate subcats, which I have now done. I have cleaned up the article, removing some unsourced puffery and making clearer that this is not just an ordinary news magazine but a peer-reviewed academic journal, indexed in sources such as Scopus. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, that makes sense. I think I saw your edit after you removed the parent category, but before you added the new one, which is why I was a bit mystified. Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I got to the article via the "social science journals" cat, so that was the first edit, then went through the whole article and references and that took a while... I don't like to make many successive small edits. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! And thanks for helping me last time. Could you perhaps help me with userfying this article and its history? It was deleted 17:53, 29 March 2008 after this AfD disucssion. It was a close vote with a slight favoring keep. I'd ask the closing admin, but they appear to no longer be active. --Bensin (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand what it is you'd like me to do. There's an article there, are you asking for the history to be restored? --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The article that was deleted on 17:53, 29 March 2008 (see link to log above) was overwritten with new content. So I need the content (and history) that was deleted on 17:53, 29 March 2008. --Bensin (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the publisher to Routledge, but This link says it's published by Taylor & Francis. What was the source you had for changing the publisher to Routledge?

• The journal's homepage: just below the cover image is the imprint under which it is published. Routledge is, of course, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, which employs several imprints (apart from Routledge, also Taylor & Francis, Psychology Press, CRC Press, and Garland Science). So it is published by the T&F Group (as the link you gave above says), but not under its T&F imprint. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I found some troll edits on the history of the article

• Good catch! I also revdel'ed some similar edits on John Hopcroft. For good measure I have blocked the account, although given that their last edits were over 2 years ago, it is unlikely that this troll will ever return. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 1croonjosie (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you often add bibliographic information to the infobox of journal articles, and that when doing so you often describe the information in question as "easy to find". E.g. here and here. I wanted to know what the website is where you are finding this information if doing so is indeed easy. I looked at the JACH NLM catalog listing and I didn't see the OCLC, for example, so that's apparently not it.

• Go to the source, not the NLM cat (their LCCN numbers, for whatever reason, are more often wrong than not). In the infobox, click on the print ISSN. That'll take you to WorldCat. The OCLC number is the last part of the URL (it's also somewhere in the text on the screen, but taking it from the URL saves time. For the LCCN, copy the print ISSN and paste it in the search box at http://catalog.loc.gov/ and hit enter. If there's a LCCN, it will take you there (not all journals have one though). Their info for a CODEN is usually correct (can't remember ever getting a wrong one). If it isn't there, go directly to CASSI here and again use the print ISSN (some databases don't have the online URL, I guess in time that'll change...) In all, takes two minutes to get the necessary info :-) Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're feeling me I can't put the publisher's name as SAGE. That's the way the company itself does it. It's an abbreviation. This makes no sense to me. It'd be like writing Fbi. Cicarlson88 (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• I originally also questioned this (discussion here). See
  Sage Publications, but note that the last one was shot down quite rapidly. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

However, I don't think there is a conflict of interest given that I graduated in 1987, no longer am a behavior-genetics researcher, and Professor Hirsch died 7 years ago. I simply noticed that there was no article about a man who had an important influence on the development of behavior genetics. JRicker,PhD (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I have occasionally also played with the idea of starting a bio for Jerry Hirsch myself, but never got around to it. He definitely meets our inclusion criteria. I am familiar with his work and his criticisms. He was right about many things, although he sometimes would go over the top (in my opinion) and I most certainly think that if he had formulated his critiques in a less virulent way that people in the BG field might have actually listened to him. As it was, Jerry Hirsch's influence on BG as a field was much less than what it could have been and I don't think his influence is even noticeable any more today. There's a recent book that may be helpful, perhaps you already saw it (Misbehaving Science by Aaron Panofsky), giving a good idea of how BG got stuck in the "variance partitioning mode" that Hirsch so abhorred. Ironically, I think that he unwillingly contributed to the entrenchment that took place. I see that you already started in your sandbox and that you already have the obit that Wahlsten wrote. I'd have to check whether there were any other obits (Behavior Genetics?) Regardless, there are sources enough. There's Tully's article in PNAS about the "Hirschian" vs "Benzerian" approaches, for example. And I once heard that the BGA was actually founded in Hirsch's living room? Not sure there's a good source for that, though. I've placed your sandbox on my watchlist and will keep an eye on your advances and chime in if I can be of any help. Don't hesitate to post here if you have a question, I'll be glad to help. --Randykitty (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with much of your overall assessment of Professor Hirsch, although I think his influence continues today in ways that are not easy to see for a number of reasons. Most important, I think his polemics alienated many people (and not only those he criticized), so that his accomplishments, especially as an organizer and advocate for BG in its early days, are not discussed as much as they probably would have been. But as you noted, his vilification of those he disagreed with also may have added much fuel to the fire. As for your other comments: (1) yes, I've been reading Panofsky's book; (2) there are a number of other obituaries; (3) I'm very familiar with the Hirschian/Benzerian issue (I remember reading the paper when it first came out, and a discussion also appears in Seymour Benzer). I don't think I've ever heard the living-room anecdote before, but it sounds a bit like an "origin myth"; and Hirsch's living room was pretty small :-) Thank you for responding and for your willingness to help. JRicker,PhD (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The source for this story was Hirsch himself. Not in print, so not useable here, but it was my understanding that thje group of people present was quite small. Some of those people are still alive (I think Norman Henderson or Steve Maxson may have been present, for example, and even Benson Ginsburg is still alive and kicking), but oral testimony is not allowable as a source here, so we need one of those people having published something mentioning this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm beginning to to find details about this anecdote. Here is what I have so far: “A professional association for behavioral genetics (all species) began to take form on March 30, 1970 at a small gathering in Urbana, Illinois hosted by Jerry Hirsch and Richard Rose of the University of Illinois and organized by Richard H. Osborne, editor of Social Biology…” (p. 10) REFERENCE: Gottesman, I. I. (2008). Milestones in the history of behavioral genetics: participant observer. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(10), 1042-1050. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Irving_Gottesman/publication/228622372_Milestones_in_the_history_of_behavioral_genetics_Participant_observer/links/0fcfd50be3e6e10f2a000000.pdf JRicker,PhD (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I remember seeing that article. Gottesman is still around, as is Richard Rose. At least this article can be used to surce the fact that Hirsch "co-hosted" this meeting. Looks like Osborne was the person who took the initiative, though. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for inspiring me to look more closely at the founding of the BGA. It should help me in another project I'm working on. I've just read the paper by Osborne & Osborne (1999), which contains reprints of short updates published in Social Biology from 1969 to 1973. As I suspected, the living-room anecdote is an "origin myth" that, if Hirsch actually said it (did you hear him tell the story?), was the result of a false memory he constructed over the years (if I find anything about an informal living-room meeting, however, I'll let you know here). The planning for the eventual founding of the BGA apparently began in 1966 after Dobzhansky, at the 3rd Princeton Workshop Conference (the American Eugenics Society was funding this series of conferences) mentioned the idea. Over the next several years, informal and formal meetings were held. The 1970 meeting mentioned by Gottesman seems not to have been an informal one. Here's the relevant information from the Osborne & Osborne paper (I'll put the reference in my Sandbox): "It was decided that a formal organizational meeting should be held, and Jerry Hirsch offered to host such a meeting at the University of Illinois, Urbana, on March 30, 1970" (p. 210).

    The initial organizational meeting for an association of behavior genetics was held at the University of Illinois on March 30, 1970 with Jerry Hirsch as host and R. D. Bock and R. J. Rose assisting in the arrangement of an agenda….A group of seventeen individuals participated in the organizational meeting at the Illini Union. Three others who had planned to attend were unable to do so because of airline strikes. Present were Gordon Allen, V. Elving Anderson, R. Darrell Bock, Jan Bruell, Arthur Falek, Irving I. Gottesman, J. P. Hegmann, Kenneth E. Henry, Leonard L. Heston, Jerry Hirsch, Arnold R. Kaplan, Seymour Kessler, John C. Loehlin, Richard H. Osborne, Richard J. Rose, Steven G. Vandenberg, and George Winokur. R. H. Osborne acted as informal chairman for the meeting. (p. 211)

    JRicker,PhD (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I actually heard this story not just once, but several times from Jerry himself. And it never was my understanding that this had been an informal meeting, his words were "BGA was founded in my living room". But perhaps it was indeed a false memory and the actual meeting took place in a university meeting room. Most likely, at least some of those people could have been invited to Hirsch's home for a social gathering and he later mixed up those memories. Seventeen people would be a crowd for any living room and if his was indeed as small as you say, then this is what must have happened. --Randykitty (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The last time I will clutter up your Talk page :-) Your comment suggests that both accounts are correct. I spent 10 years in Hirsch's lab (as an undergrad and grad student). He always entertained visiting guests at his house. He probably invited participants over on various nights after meeting at the Union. They would have continued the day's discussions in his living room (and kitchen and dining room). I suspect he was using humor to describe the founding of BGA. In essence, BGA was founded in a meeting room in the Illini Union and at his house :-) Again, I won't clutter up your Talk page anymore. Thank you JRicker,PhD (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the help you've given me so far on my first article. I'm spending the month of August trying to develop my Wiki expertise. I appreciate your assistance. JRicker,PhD (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit - is it not just as encyclopaedic to mention a journal's previous ISO abbreviations as to mention its previous names? Template:Infobox_journal/doc does not forbid this. --Kwekubo (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• There's no formal injunction, but it clutters up the infobox. Personally, I also don't think that old abbreviations are very interesting at all (even though there should be redirects from them to the article, in case someone cites an older article). In any case, we don't list those abbreviations in any other journal article that I am aware of (and I've seen thousands... :-). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese Chemical Letters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese Chemical Society. 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) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I was going to create a page on this journal. However, I ran into a problem with their ISSN. All the sources I could find including their own website say that the journal's ISSN is 0010-0285. But when I previewed a version of the infobox with that ISSN in it and then clicked on the corresponding link to Worldcat it took me here instead. Do you have any idea why this might be the case?

• Strabge, never seen anything like that! The ISSN mentioned for that journal is quite different. The OCLC number you're looking for seems to be 1411264, which does mention the correct title and ISSN. No clue why WorldCat is acting like this... --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty,

Thanks for clarifying on my talkpage and helping me as a new user. So I had created the article with pure knowledge that I had as an article about Avdhoot Bba Shivanand was not available on wiki. I was like how can there be something not available on wiki. Thus with a very pure intent of starting a draft on wiki and letting the community edit and lead I initiated the article. But its deleted :( and it says its advertising :(

Can I get help to edit and remove the sections of advertising such that we can bring the article back?

thanks ~~gaurangkatyal~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurangkatyal (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I just had another look and there is really
  neutral point of view. I recommend that once you have digested that, you start again and properly source everything that is claimed in the article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty,

you have added a notability tag to Nigel D Oram. Could you please assist in editing this article and if necessary finding suitable sources to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia Policy. thanks. Garyvines (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Before tagging, I searched the Web of Science, which only gives a handful of citations to works by Oram. WoS is not always very good in areas like archeology, so I also searched Google Scholar, which gives some more citations, but again nothing that stands out, even in low-citation density fields like archeology/ethnology/etc. A Google search for "Nigel D. Oram" gives just 29 hits, 7 of them WP related. One is to a review of one of his books, but that's all I found. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A search on "Nigel Oram" gives far more results in various areas - not all the Australian ethnographer, but many are - - I see quite a few books and citation in a search on Google Books and nearly all the 160 results from Scholar for "Nigel Oram" are the subject. Any chance you could follow up? thanks Garyvines (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• The number of GScholar hits is not important, that just reflects how many items (articles, books, etc) the subject has published, not whether they were noted. The latter is indicated by the number of citations, which are too low to indicate notability according to
  WP:PROF#1. But if you see good sources discussing the subject in depth, by all means add them to the article and if satisfactory, I'll remove the notability tag. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 06:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

can you just highlight the lines that you think are promotional in my article.Earlier when i posted my article i was only informed about the issue that were, there is no category its orphan and links are not appropriate we provided links as well as category and now you just deleted my page by saying that its promotional.So please kindly highlight the promotional lines for my guidence so that i can rewrite it again. Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracechilcott (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The whole tone of the article is promotional (from the prominently emphasized uptime to which customers it is suitable for to way "you" can choose for options). There's no real sourcing either (the company's own website, a press release on Yahoo Finance and a brief profile on the website of a partner). Article creation is one of the hardest things to do here on WP and articles on companies are the most difficult ones. I recommend that you start editing other articles in your area of interest/expertise before trying this again. I have placed another "welcome template" on your talk page, this one with more links than the one that was already there and suggest that you read at least some of the guidelines/policies (especially those on
  notability in the WP sense. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 11:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's indexed in

The data that SCImago uses and on which they base the statistics they calculate for journals, come from Scopus. So if a journal is in SCImago, it implies listing in Scopus (can also be verified directly, see link to Scopus journal list on my user page). The same does not go for the SCI: listing in SCImagi does not imply listing in the SCI (or the SSCI). According to the TR master journal list, Canadian Woman Studies is not indexed in any of their databases, not even the SSCI. --Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Randykitty! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk ) 09:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Hate to bother you. I'm relatively new to the AfD process, and am trying to figure out how to best contribute there, so I take a look at the reasoning behind closure decision. When you closed this discussion, you said the result was "Keep", yet in your statement you said "The two sources highlighted by Luckynumber78 are too brief to qualify under GNG." The statement seems to be a rationale not to keep. What am I missing? Anyway, thanks for your help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Holey moley! Thanks for contacting me. I pressed the wrong button, this should have been "delete"... I'll correct this right away. Sorry about that! --Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)