User talk:Randykitty/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hallo Randykitty, I make some corrections, it is now better or no? Karticija1 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to

P.S. Not knowing French, I wonder if I am to use a cap in the second word: "Moulin rouge" or "Moulin Rouge". If you understand French, you know better than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SU ltd. (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your revisions, Randykitty. --SU ltd. (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, frankly, I'm not sure about the cap either. And if you don't like a subject, then don't work on it, there are enough other things to do around here :-) Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The journal has been printed since 1924 and not 1920 as you can see from their own site here--Anguicre (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The english version is wrong --Anguicre (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I don't understand what you are talking about, I don't see any journal called "Harefua". --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Harefuah--Anguicre (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• The English version says 1920... --Randykitty (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

All up for deletion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Randykitty!

Thanks for your help. I did not know I should not have copied and pasted until after I did it and the message came up. Thank you so much. As for the title, I opened discussion on the talk page and no one seemd to object to the change. Do you really think that the (affiliation) is more appropriate? It just seems so misleading and no one else uses that kind of title.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

• My opinion on the title doesn't carry much weight, as I edit articles on churches only rarely. Just seemed to make more encyclopedic sense. In your place, I'd go to the talk pages of the Christianity and Religion Wikiprojects (linked from the talk page of
  WP:MOSTITLE). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd leave the new page as a redirect. Don't worry too much about making errors, we all do and nobody gets really upset about an honest mistake. As for the title, I read the discussion on the talk page. Not really conclusive, I agree. As for advice on the title, perhaps you should contact User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, who edits this kind of pages more often, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Hope to talk to you some other time! Sosthenes12 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Thank you so much for helping me to undo my mistake! I did not know about the move function until after a bot alerted me after the fact. Thank you so much!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, can you please help me how I can change the page Center for Techology Transfer - University of Belgrade not to be deleted? Can you suggest me what to do? Thanks. MartAleMaj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Centers like this are only very rarely
  WP:ORG to see what is needed. Hope this explains and helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 09:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well actually I thought the note referred to verifiable sources etc, so they are all verified and by reliable places, hence I thought I had met your exacting criteria. Sadly no, you're a hard taskmaster (or mistress), but I will just leave it as is, because every one of those articles is a scientific "thing of beauty", which of course makes it a joy forever :) Ybidzian (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is, many scientists publish lots of articles, after all, that's what they do for a living. Most publish 1 or 2/year, but some will publish 500 papers or more over a whole career. We cannot list all of those, so we have to make a selection. A good criterion is to look at citation rates and select the three highest-cited ones. (Unless, of course, some of those articles have been the subject of in-depth coverage themselves -as opposed to mere citations- but that is exceedingly rare. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have the

• As
  WP:AUTOREV says, that is a suggested number. Basically, if an admin trusts somebody to be a responsible editor, then they can give them autopatrolled rights. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 10:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. As it stands now, "Univ Prof Dr phil" means that he has a PhD and is a professor at a university. I suggest modifying the lead to "Johann Konrad Eberlein is an Austrian art historian, director of the Institute of History of Art, and professor at the University of Graz (Austria)." The word "professor" could be wikilinked. We also can remove the word "Graz", as I guess it is obvious that the University of Graz is in Graz... :-) That leaves the "Dr. phil.", but it is a bit silly in an article on a professor to write "He has a PhD", which at this point is basically all we can say. If a source comes up that says when/where/or in what subject (or ideally all three) comes up, that could be added to the article. What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sir,

This has ref. to your opinions about deletion of L V Vaidyanathan's wiki.

One colleague of Dr L V Vaidyanathan sends this article "Cut Cost to Profit" which appeared on some British Magazine where some tribute is being paid to Dr L V Vaidyanathan. May be, it can add to his credentials. But Unable to get the name of the magazine. Please visit link : http://myfacebookpages.blogspot.in/2013/03/cut-cost-to-profit.html --Cvrsekharan (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Without knowing where and when it was published, I'm afraid this is not of much use. --Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Android shadow of death, Randykitty. Unfortunately FreeRangeFrog has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

PROD on page

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

• If an article is PRODded, that means it has been reviewed.... --Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, there's nothing wrong with the fact that the page was reviewed, since I assume you did it with the curation toolbar instead of Twinkle or manually. I routinely "unreview" pages that are marked for deletion so we can have as many eyes on them as possible. See this discussion for reference. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't use the new curation tools, but patrol using the classic new pages feed. I definitely remember that the instructions for new page patrol stated that a page should be marked as patrolled if somebody was dealing with it (like having added maintenance tags or a PROD). Seems like the two sets of instructions are contradictory... --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that too. There are two distinct sets of logs. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:14, 5 March 2013 (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) 11:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Randy,i saw your comment on the site i have created. Please let me know if I am ok with the references I have included. I have newspaper articles that i can include but they do not have an electronic link. i could send pdf files of them.....please let me know as i want to comply with the forms of wikipedia. thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddieM85 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 March 2013

I declined to delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canterbury X111 People place article outlines on subpages or AfC because they intend to write the articles, Deleting it after only 12 hours is premature, though it would be reasonable to delete after that time in article space. If nothing is written in a week or too, that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fine with me, but I think you should keep an eye on it. According to the autobio created by the same editor, this is another subject with which they have a conflict of interest. --Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty, Hi. I think you and RockMagnetist might be mistaken about the h-index of 4 for Teresa Maryańska in your contribution to the attempt to delete the page on her. I think your 4s are miles away from what WoS reports and she has quite a high level of citations in this relatively low citation field! Could you have another look and let us know what you find (and modify your contribution in the Afd about the index even if you leave your vote them same). Best wishes :) (Msrasnw (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

I was wrong - I was using WoK (albeit via Wos). I think WoK H=12 is enough though. What do you think? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

I took the 4 from the nom. I'll check on this tomorrow, it's too late now... --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This H-index stuff is a minefield. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC))

RandyKitty: I'm an easy-going academic writer who doesn't get irked by much. However, I'm perplexed that you reversed the edits I made to the page for "School Psychology International Journal", which in the real-World (not the wiki-world), I edit. This is a very respectable academic forum for writers in my professional field. It's listed by ISSI as #10 in the World for Impact Factor ~ this I mention for there's nothing 'predatory' about this Sage-published journal. I added encyclopedic information such as 'scope-and-mission' of the journal, theme-issues, 'most-cited' papers, and corrected a few grammatical errors. All were reversed by you. This is the sort of information that academics, researchers, graduate students and others interested in this fairly-arcane field want to know about ... it's certainly not 'promotional' information. Would you please reconsider your reversals? Thanks. Cavenmcloughlin Cavenmcloughlin (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you feel perplexed. I have placed a "welcome" template on your talk page with links to core WP policies and guidelines and advice you to familiarize yourself with those. As editor of this journal, you should also peruse
  journal article writing guide. Hope this explains and will help you navigate WP. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So the clarification flag is utterly redundant. I have that article in hand, as I work in this field, and the article is also entirely clear. Best wishes. --Tallard (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• What do you think, that I go around placing such tags just for the heck of it? As I tell my grad students when they get a manuscript back and claim that "the reviewer didn't understand a thing": If someone who is interested and tries to understand what you are saying doesn't get it, then perhaps your writing was not clear enough. WP articles are not written for specialists who "have that article in hand", but for lay people. In the article as it stands, that Yukon camel just kind of falls out of the sky. There is no indication what it is, what it is related to, or what its relevance is. I try to understand what you are saying but don't get it. That probably means that a casual reader will understand even less. Hope this explains. Oh, and by the way, please read
  WP:AGF, that might make future interactions with other editors more friendly and actually improve your WP experience. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 10:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Please refrain from removing the empty line between the infobox and the text. --Leyo 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• ??? Any particular reason why? I must have done this hundreds of times and this is the first time somebody complains. I do it because removing empty lines will make more text fit onto a screen when editing. --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason is the same as having an empty line between the text of a section and the title of the next section. --Leyo 22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Which I also routinely remove for the same reason as given above for the infobox, so unfortunately, I'm still in the dark. --Randykitty (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You remove the empty line above section headers?!? I have not seen anyone doing this before. Removing the empty line between a section′s title and its text (as I did in this edit) is of course a different story. --Leyo 14:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it the other way around; of course I leave a white line before a section title. As for the infobox, I guess I don't see that as a section, so I never thought of it needing a white line, because in addition it is not followed by a section title, but by the first sentence of the lead (I guess that is what threw me off with your second remark). So I still don't really see why there should be a blank line after an infobox, I fear. Is this policy? --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It not hardcoded in a policy, but common sense. See also this comment. --Leyo 13:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajdučka_Republika_Mijata_Tomića&diff=542053360&oldid=510113553] Randy, who questioned the truthfulness of this article? The article contains the references. These references are links to several different sources from different peoples (Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian). These links are now dead, but that is not the reason for deletion. The sites are reorganized, so these articles exist no more, or the magazines went out of the business. Kubura (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty,

thanks for your comment in Chem. Res. Toxicol. However, in such case a short message on my talk page would be more efficent. I noticed your comment after some serious editing work today. I will perform the changes in near future, when I will include the new impact factors for 2012. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry about that, you're absolutely right, I should have done that. Will do so in future! Sorry for the hassle... --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again - I am writing here as you don't seem to want further debate on the Afd on Teresa Maryańska. I think your little list of Polish journal's with Polonica in their that are in WoS and the JCR is potentially problematic. Looking at the list one can see it includes Acta Geologica Polonica. But I think it is important to note that WoS coverage of this is limited. I think it only starts its coverage in 2004. One of Maryańska most highly cited papers according to GS (74 citations including ones in good journals including Science and Nature) Gradzinski, R., Z. Kielan-Jaworowska, and T. Maryanska. "Upper Cretaceous Djadokhta, Barun Goyot and Nemegt formations of Mongolia, including remarks on previous subdivisions." Acta Geologica Polonica 27.3 (1977): 281-318 - is not in WoS. I think indices are getting better but use in this kind of case is I think very problematic. H-indices seem to me something that should be used with great care specially when one is trying to delete something and I am very uncomfortable with people making strong claims about lack of notability of esteemed (old) professors whose llfe work we are discussing. I do hope T. Maryańska doesn't read that she may not be notable! Best wishes  :) (Msrasnw (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

• I didn't intend that comment as part of the AfD discussion, as it is starting to digress, I think we should stop the discussion there. In the case of Maryańska, it is clear that whatever the "true" citation count may be, indices are not going to help us in deciding about notability, so we should stop discussing their merits or lack thereof (an individual AfD is not the place for that). I just couldn't resist adding that final comment, because I all too often see things like "only US journals are included", "other-language bias", and such. It's just not true and all too often just an excuse to promote sub-par stuff. What is true, is that while nowadays Polish researchers (or people other former East-block countries) can publish wherever they choose, it was different in communist times, which may explain why she published mainly in this relatively obscure journal. Apart from that, I agree that AfD can be rather brutal at times. But so can peer review and I just hope that any researcher ending up at AfD has developed the thicker skin you need in the modern scientific environment... And we need to keep explaining that "notable" is not a judgement of the quality of somebody's work, but only an assessment of whether it is encyclopedic... --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In article about Dallas character Cally Harper Ewing was 4 references and book reference.--Alrofficial (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nogie Meggison‎‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nogie Meggison‎‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I noticed that you contributed to this article and I am notifying the author and all of the article's significant contributors (6). - ʈucoxn\^talk 09:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Randykitty; I'm dropping you this note because you've used

• Sounds to me like you are mixing up "worthy" with "notability in the WP sense". The latter has nothing to do with "good"/"bad/"worthy"/"deserving" etc. To see what is needed to establish notability, see Wikipedia:Notability (people) (and for academics: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Sir, thank you for the links! As per the criteria for
    Ricky J Sethi meets critiera 1, 2, and 4. Hence, I would argue that both should be considered notable. I shall be sure to research additional reliable sources to support those over the next two months time or so (I must, once again, apologize for not being able to be more diligent in my Wikipedia contributions just now).Gumby55555 (talk
    ) 02:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen the Bry article yet, but I think that you misinterpret
  WP:AFD to have a more formal discussion about the notability or lack thereof of these persons. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 10:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Sir, I have reverted the previous removal of the notability tag and will also be sure to research it thoroughly in the next two months or so. As a quick side-note, we had discussed Dr. Lynn Bry's page in our previous talk discussion but I know you are very diligent and prolific and, given your Wikipedia workload, it might have slipped your memory (but I believe it is in the archived page of your talk). Thank you again! Gumby55555 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I indeed forgot about that, sorry! I look forward to your improvements to these articles. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm ToastyMallows. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Scharoun Ensemble, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ToastyMallows (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, sorry for the inconvenience. I have just created a new stub, {{

• Great, that already looks a lot better. But it still categorizes journals as books, because this template adds the cat "Linguistics book stubs". It makes perhaps more sense to create a cat "linguistics journal stubs", which can then be categorized in the "linguistics journals" cat. --Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but first, articles tagged with {{

Ling-journal-stub}} must reach a minimum of 60. Will take care of that! Regards, --Fadesga (talk

) 09:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So, Category:Linguistics journal stubs created. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My randy kitty bites my toes when I ignore it, but thank you for jumping write in and making JSS a proper academic journal article. Please note there are TWO publishers of the online PDFs: the Society for bandwidth-hungry fancy ones, and the affiliated Siamese Heritage Trust for plain vanilla. The articles undercut much of what is presently in Wikipedia articles on Thailand's monarchy, constitution and history - especially legal history, in which Britons of India were the chief meddlers. Robert Lingat, a French legal scholar and JSS contributor, untangled much of that, but he had only limited recognition as the world's foremost authority on the subject - and that in the obscure Louisiana Law Revue Volume 2 - until his magnum opus was translated into English after he was dead. I need help to unravel the mess, and hope you can recommend someone. I've asked an anthropologist at University College London, and a professional writer in Scotland, both having Thai wives but neither any respect for Wikipedia. The problem is systemic bias, a term which should be used by way of explanation rather than pejoratively. Systems must be biased to work at all, but it takes proper bias to appreciate that. The Universe is the prime example. Chinese physicists, culturally biased against thinking parity must be conserved, proved Parity violation. (I have a citation for that, if you insist, but it's from a Hungarian physicist-historian, even more obscure than Lingat.) Do understand that I respect your bias, as Wikipedia, too, "must" be conserved——hopefully, with proper bias. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC) (Edited for Parity violation. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please list the names of your other wikipedia accounts. Thank you.Bamler2 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Where does that come from??? If you think I'm a
  sockpuppet investigation anytime you like. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please list the names of your other wikipedia accounts or state that you have never registered for any other accounts. Thank you. Bamler2 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why you're asking this and I see no reason at all to answer such a question coming out of the blue like that. If you allege no wrongdoing, there is no reason to ask this question. Thank you. --Randykitty (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

With such a hostile attitude, I can only conclude that you are a sock and should be banned from Wikipedia. You should nevwe come back. WP is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Bamler2 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Talk about hostile. You come here subjecting me to some second degree interrogation without any apparent reason. As I said before, if you think I did something improper, feel free to request a
  WP:ANI. If all you have to say are vague accusations, then just go away. WP is indeed a privilege and doesn't give you the right to come here with this kind of attitude. Please refrain from posting here again. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Join the club. Bamler2 has accused me[1] of stalking him. He'll might say this is proof. LOL....William 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm your sock! I'm ahead of you, he's taken me to ANI now (see notice below :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • No I'm stalking your sockpuppet. Bamler2 may end up getting hit with a
        WP:BOOMERANG for taking you to ANI....William
        13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • To be less flippant, I think that would be merited... Don't know what (s)he wants, but it does look like a case of
          WP:NOTHERE. --Randykitty (talk
          ) 13:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a thread open at ANI where you were mentioned (pls note that I have whatsoever no relation to this thread, I was just asked to notify you). Please comment there if you find it is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't know why this landed on your plate, but thanks for letting me know. And I see that just today you became an admin so congratulations are in order, too! (Although, that may also mean you'll have to deal with this kind of nonsense more often... :-) Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. Indeed, this is a kind of what I expected, this is fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read your post on my user talk and I understand that minor characters with barely any significance should not have their own articles. However, I believe that these two characters are quite significant based on how the format of the show works. Every episode focuses on one or two specific characters and fleshes out their backgrounds through a series of flashbacks, which is also done on LOST considering that these shows are created by the same writers. The only secondary and minor characters that I am creating their own articles for are those who have had an episode centering on them. For instance, Victor Frankenstein and Dr. Whale had their backstories unfolded on the twelfth episode of the second season. Characters who is not very important, such as those who appear in only one episode, yet have no backstories, or those that appeared in an episode where only the character who is the one focused on that episode is associated with will not have their separate articles planned out. If you look at the characters of LOST on Wikipedia, for example, the characters of Bernard and Rose are secondary characters, yet they have one episode featuring the both of them and they both have their own article. Also, considering that the characters that I plan on making articles for are from well-known fairy tales and stories makes them pretty notable if you ask me, since practically everybody knows who they are supposed to be. Everybody knows who Dr. Frakenstein is, especially since you have to read the book in high school for an English class. Dr. Whale is just another persona of Dr. Frankenstein, which again, is how the format of the show works. Everybody knows the story of Sleeping Beauty, Mulan, Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, etc. If they can't tell the story properly, they still have a basic idea of it. And considering that Disney has popularized many of these stories and also owns ABC, Once Upon a Time has taking references from the Disney versions of the stories, such as Grumpy the dwarf. I feel that these reasons are enough to make the characters notable as long as they have been known for generations, even if they are only secondary or minor characters. Like I said before, any new characters created specifically for the show will not be analyzed deeper unless they have at least one backstory for an episode or they are major characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs)

• I think you just proved my case: these characters have absolutely no notability outside of this single TV show. We have an article about Victor Frankenstein, we don't need another article that just focuses on one single TV series. As the links to our guidelines that I posted on your talk page say: a fictional character needs to have notability outside of the book/TV series/movie/etc in order to be notable here. The same goes for the fairy tale characters that you talk about, they have articles and additional ones are not needed. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, now I see that you are deleting articles of major characters. I mean, really? I don't think you understand just how popular Once Upon a Time really is and how the twists that the writers made on the characters are becoming more and more widespread than any other versions of these storybook figures. It's almost beginning to hit LOST status. Like I said, I understand that we should not create separate articles for secondary or minor characters unless they are popular enough, well, considering how big of a hit this show is becoming, this is affecting the secondary characters and some of the notable minor characters as well. The way the writers put their own spin into these characters should make them so different from the rest that they deserve their own articles chronicling the events that happened to them in the show. Also, as you know, the fairy tale characters that are major characters are also part of their respective characters who are living on Earth, so it would just seem weird to delete them like that. If you did watch the show, which I assume you don't, you would understand. Trust me, a lot of people would back me up on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs)

• Yes, really. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines. "Notability" has nothing to do with popularity and whether or not I have seen this series, or like it, nor the inventiveness of its writers enter into this. What counts is that there are no sources and that these characters are not notable outside of this show.
  not a fansite. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 07:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Well, explain why there are separate pages for the Disney versions of these characters like
  Belle. The versions of these characters of Once Upon a Time are growing just as popular, if not exactly popular, as these characters that Disney has used and taken their own spin. Yet, the Disney versions have their own separate articles. Why can't the characters of Once Upon a Time have their own articles made just for them? Considering that the show is the probably the most well-known version for these stories next to Disney, then explain to me how that is fair if the Disney versions can have their own articles and Once Upon a Time cannot. If you don't want the Once Upon a Time character articles, why don't you just delete the ones pertained to Disney then, since that is what you like to do is control other users' contributions. Like you said, WP is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, right, sweetie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs
  ) 23:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, "sweetie", if you take a minute to look at, say, the article on
  Snow White (Disney), you might note some differences with those on the OUaT character articles: 1/ It only gives a short description of the plot that the character was involved in, 2/ it discusses how the character was developed, 3/ it discusses the impact of the character on popular culture, 4/ and last but not least, is meticulously documented with sources. And note that "character" here really is specific to the Disney version. And, of course, Disney has made these characters so popular that by now many people probably think that they are the original ones... So, in short, those articles are encyclopedic. An unsourced article just describing what a character did in a series is not. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 10:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Huh...strange...you know what I just noticed. Surprisingly, you haven't deleted some of the character articles that is about some characters that you probably would deem not notable outside of their show. You know, such as
  Prince Charming. It's quite surprising considering it would down by now since, apparently, it violates the rules of Wikipedia. I mean, I'm happy they're still up, don't let any of this acknowledge you otherwise, darling. But since you're so adamant about certain characters only having their own articles and not other separate articles pertaining to other adaptions of them that are just as popular (Disney and Once Upon a Time, for example), it makes me question your intentions when you leave certain articles alone. So tell me, why do those articles get to stay while others such as Snow White or Captain Hook must be deleted? Oh, I would love to hear your explanation on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs
  ) 18:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I had not yet seen those. I have redirected them like the others, as they suffer from the same problems: zero out of universe notability illustrated by zero independent sources (and basically just being
  some editor's interpretation of this show. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 23:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have deleted this from Wikipedia, as you requested. I have seen many examples of companies on Wikipedia that are both similar to AEIR and with a small amount of content, and I find AEIR to be more interesting than theirs so I was just wondering what enables a company to be on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John 1728 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please see
  WP:ORG. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sjeez, stupid me! I just saw this T shirt thing yesterday and thought it was completely novel and indeed was baffled not to see DGG. He deserves one for every day of the week, but I guess that we should give others a chance, too :-) Thanks for the heads up! --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you know that your tags have been removed from this article by another editor. If you disagree, please re-add them. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I have re-added the notability tag. I have to look into that award, as that seems to be the only thing that might show notability. From the fa.WP article (via Google Translate...) it doesn't look as exclusive as claimed, so perhaps this should go to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at Steve Quinn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am the writer of the article you have just removed. I don't understand your reason to remove it. It has been a project for school, which took long time to finish, and in my opinion justified. So if you could say me your reason for taking it away I would appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OI-10-x.aia (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry about your efforts disappearing like that, but there are very many problems with that article. Here are just a few: 1/ It ocntains a lot of general info on the award, not just the 2012 version, and if that stuff belongs anywhere at all (which is doubtful, see below), it should be in the main article. 2/ A lot of the detail given is utterly trivial (so don't merge that stuff to the main article). 3/ The article is extremely badly sourced. There are no independent sources. 4/ It is not well written. Just one example: "There are different recycling bins throughout the city. There are four: one is for plastics (yellow), another one is for paper and carton (blue), other is for the glass (green), and the last one is just for the remaining waste (gray)". This phrase contains grammatical errors and suggests that there are just 4 bins (one of each type) in the whole city. 5/ The wording is not
  WP:MOS
  .

Most importantly, the article doesn't make clear why we need a separate article for the 2012 award and why this cannot be a single line in the main article (see

WP:N, for more information). For all these reasons (but especially the last one), I have redirected this to the main article. I hope this explains a bit. Don't feel too discouraged by this. Creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do on WP. I recommend that to start, you first contribute to existing articles, to get a feel for how things are done here, only getting to article creation at a later stage. --Randykitty (talk

) 20:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Just a simple symbol of gratitude from me to you for your recent contributions to talk ) 19:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, my favorites! As for the journal, I just found a link and it looks like there will be a successor with the same title. I'll post that link on the talk page and if the re-start really happens, we can incorporate that in the current article. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note that, although you haven't reached 3RR, it's still considered edit warring. The other party has likewise been warned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're right I shouldn't have done that last revert. It probably was the inane "quote" in the non-reference that made me see red. Next time I won't let myself be provocated and take a deep breath first. --Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Luckily the issue should be gone within a week. I fail to see why the editor does not actually !vote at AFDs, as s/he has been invited to do multiple times. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't understand it either. He's combative about really everything. A more collaborative stance would be easier on everybody and be much more productive. The irony is that it all started with that wrong AfD closure meant "to save the community time" and look how much time has been wasted now by Drmies, you, me, and himself over this issue. Perhaps he doesn't feel this is wasted time: looking at his edit history, he seems to spend most of his time here discussing policy and guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• And failing to understand half of them... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Globality Studies Journal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan (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) 09:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

For reliability of the source, see http://infopedia.nl.sg/aboutus.aspx. "All entries are based on verifiable, authoritative sources and are accurate as far as we are able to ascertain at the time of publication. The articles present information objectively and do not contain the writer's or the editor's personal experiences or opinions." and is written by the nation's library board. See http://eprints.usq.edu.au/2355/1/Wicks_Lim3.pdf; Critical studies generally focus on Lim's strengths as a short story writer: "Catherine Lim and the Singapore Short Story in English" by Robert Yeo, in Commentary, 2, 1981; "An Interview with Catherine Lim" by Siti Rohaini Kassim, in Southeast Asian Review of English, December 1989; in Literary Perspectives on Southeast Asia: Collected Essays by Peter Wicks, 1991; Women in Bondage: The Stories of Catherine Lim by Lim Yi-En, Singapore, Times Books International, 1999. Is she so significant that all her books should be considered notable? I don't know, but she is often regarded as the foremost writer in Singapore. She is given very extensive coverage in the National University of Singapore post-colonial website. http://www.postcolonialweb.org/singapore/literature/c.lim/c.limov.html. Further academic mentions: http://english.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v7is1/lai.htm; http://www.postcolonialweb.org/singapore/literature/loh/loh5.html; http://www.postcolonialweb.org/singapore/literature/loh/loh7.html; (used as a text in college) http://dartmouth.smartcatalogiq.com/en/2012/orc/Course-Descriptions-Undergraduate/AMES-Asian-and-Middle-Eastern-Studies/AMES-40DORC (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all this info. However, this is not the place to post that stuff. Although they look pretty meager, you should use these references to source the article on Lim and establish independent notability for the articles on the books. If you cannot establish notability for the individual books, the articles should be redirected to the article on the author. And instead of using Infopedia itself as a source, you could perhaps use the sources that they list for your articles. I'll post a query on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see what other editors think about Infopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

She has won the S.E.A. Write Award. Not the Nobel Prize, to be sure, but does it make her or her books more notable? DORC (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I assume that would help make her notable. But only if the award was given for a particular book, would it also help to make the book notable. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If I were to compile all her short story collections (with plot summaries) into a combined list, would that be a feasible solution? DORC (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you integrate this stuff into the biography itself? For the moment, that is still a very short article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

She wrote ten collections of short stories. I suppose adding all that would make her personal article too bloated and unbalanced. I'm thinking of compiling her stories into a list that would prove useful for readers. DORC (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, that looks like a bit too much to me. She's notable, but she's not Charles Dickens... Unless you have sources that show individual notability for her books, you should not create separate articles on them. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful for readers of Singapore literature I suppose. She's not Charles Dickens but her first two collections have been used as set texts for GCE 'O' Levels. Anyway thanks for the input - I've always thought that when a writer is notable the books they write are automatically notable. Thanks for dispelling that erroneous notion floating in my brain. :) DORC (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on my talk p., You said you were asking for my advice, but it might have been a good idea to ask it earlier. Further discussion should go on the article talk p. I'm not entirely sure you realize how much of a morass this can lead to. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure myself and I realize that I should have asked earlier... Sorry, I goofed... --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I did look at the categories I added to Ethogram. There is an element of personal opinion as to which articles go in one category or another - it may be 'obvious' to you that a category should or should not be used, but thus may not be obvious to other editors. Please respect other editors by using the edit summary or Talk page to explain your edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --AngelHM (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

re: [2] So "(79 words) "readable prose size"" is not an issue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I guess it's debatable. I used to class short articles like this as a stub, too, but then was chided by someone for that. Since then I class it "start" if it has an infobox and a reference. But I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise and go back to my old practice. WP:Stub doesn't offer much guidance, either... --Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • True, it does not. I guess my best rationale for this is the DYK policy: minimum size for a DYK is 250 words of readable prose; anything smaller is a stub. That's the rule of thumb I stick to :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good idea! I'll follow your example in future. --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Check User:Dr pda/prosesize.js for a handy tool. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's a useful tool. BTW, I just saw that [editor] has much more stringent criteria even for what is a stub... Don't know what "Wikipedia rules" they are referring to, though. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty,

when I was preparing the article for the German Wikipedia I realized that the journal changed in 2013 the name from Arzneimittelforschung to Drug Research. I will update the article and move it to Drug Research (Journal). If you have some objections, please let me know. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good (but make sur that the dab -"journal"- is in lower case). --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, lower case was a good reminder. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, first I'm hearing of it being used in that way. Regardless, I know of no better template to say external links present but no inline citations at all. In any case, you might want to look again since that template hasn't been there for a while. Next time look at the article before leaving stuff on my talk about things that are done. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I had seen the article, don't worry, but thought you should be aware of this anyway so that you won't slap this tag on other pages when it is inappropriate. There are several other tags that might have been appropriate in this situation: {{
  nofootnotes}}, {{third-party}}, {{one source}}, {{primary sources}}, and probably some others, too. In general, for a short basic stub like that article was, an external link to the homepage of the journal is often considered enough. Of course, that doesn't show any notability, but that's a different question. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, man, give me time! I'm still working on it...--Monozigote (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• If you work first in your sandbox (or another subpage of your usepage), you can work as long as you want without anybody bothering you. In addition, I was "giving time": BLPPROD only leads to deletion if no source have been added after TEN days... --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got time to work "first" in the sandbox. What I should have done is placing an {{Underconstruction}} hatnote. Still, I've got too many fingers in too many pies... I need a rest. Ta ta--Monozigote (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• ?? It doesn't take more than a second to move a finished article/stub from your sandbox to main space, sorry, but that really is a silly argument. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Regarding the page I created,

Regards, Zaen

• Excellent! --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Randy kitty. I feel this article falls under attack page category according to wiki WP:BFAQ#ATTACK. So, Go through the guidelines and let me know. Henrymark20 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is certainly not an attack page. Yes, there is negative information about that company, but unfortunately for them, that information was published in impeccable
  reliable sources. Your socking and other charades (like taking this to a frivolous AfD) really won't change anything to this. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 13:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Check, when there is negative information about the company published in impeccable reliable sources the same reliable sources include few lines positive about the company.So, if you unfortunately overlook the positive context--I feel you can include even the positive information. Henrymark20 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• All these things have been discussed on the article's talk page ad nauseam. If you want to, post more of your drivel there. Any further postings of you or your other socks here will just be deleted. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Bible Review (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Bible studies

Oxonian Review (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Michael Fitzpatrick

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on my first new page. Whimsley (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Article creation is one of the more difficult things to do here... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you. It is true that I have respect, and knowledge on the subject. But, I've been careful to add neutral and verifiable information. However, it is also true that I am newbie and I'm learning to work with Wikipedia. greetings --AngelHM (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just be careful! :-) As for the SCImago stuff, for the moment it is better not to include that stuff, but there's a discussion on the talk page of the Academic Journals Wikiproject (here) about whether or not to include this. You're welcome to give your opinion there. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"actually, does Participate in HINARI, just listed by them porque is OA: non-selective indexing)"

It really does participate in HINARI (see "Primary Care Pediatrics" in http://extranet.who.int/hinari/en/browse_journal_titles.php?j_init=P). The name of the web magazine quoted some as "Primary Care Pediatrics Journal" and sometimes as "" Primary Care Pediatrics. " Thanks, greetings --AngelHM (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• You misunderstood me: I did see that it is listed by HINARI. HINARI is an organization providing cheap access to journals for developing countries. However, such a listing becomes rather trivial if a journal is OA and the listing is just taken from DOAJ (which we don't include in "indexing" lists either, we only include selective listings). --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On a user talk p., you said with respect to an academic bio,(Alice Eagly) that " You cannot base a biography on somebody's CV and some of their own publications. ". Actually, you can pretty much do it. An official CV or biographical page on a university site is a RS for uncontroversial biographic information. (in 6 years here working on many hundreds of these I came across just one case where it was not accurate--that article got deleted). The book information should ideally be sourced from WorldCat also, but that is easy to add. For Alice Eagly, who holds a named professorship at a major research university , that meets WP:PROF and the article will not conceivably be deleted. Otherwise, the best source of additional information for notability is book reviews for the people who have published books, and for the scientists, a list of the most cited papers with citation figures and a computation of h index from Google Scholar or elsewhere. With 2 books from major presses getting reviews in RSs, the person meets WP:AUTHOR; with a high enough h index (the number depends on the field), it shows importance as an expert scholar and meets WP:PROF.

If it will be any use to you, the standard advice I give is something like this (I adapt as necessary--use anything of it you care to)

First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. In a field dependent on journal articles, list the 3 or 4 most influential articles, getting citation figures from Scopus or Web of Science or Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source.. Do not include conference presentations, book chapters, and other minor published work. Such a list needs to be frequently updated, and belongs in the CV, not an encyclopedia.

Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio. If the person has any notable students who would qualify for Wikipedia bios, include them. Their PhD & postdoctoral advisors probably also qualify for bios here; add them and link them, even if they do not yet have articles.

It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.

Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid

WP:Peacock terms

: do not use words of praise, or state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, or CVs, which are usually more expansive.

And be certain never to use material copied from other sources unless it is in the public domain, or released to us under a free license Even when it might be possible to get permission, there is generally no point in doing so--a person's web site or CV is usually unsuitable for WP, because it is usually written to some degree as a press release, praising rather than describing the subject and containing material we would not include, such as a full list of every minor publication. It is therefore always better and much easier to rewrite. In doing this, remember to also also

Close paraphrase. Rewrite from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas. DGG ( talk

) 02:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

DGG ( talk

Hi RandyKitty. I am wondering whether you would let me know what sort of criteria make a journal notable and 100% capable of escaping deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, the best way to show notability is to show that a journal is included in a major selective database, such as MEDLINE (but not PubMed/PubMed Central), ISI databases, or a smaller database that is major in a certain restricted field (such as American history). Alternatively, you can try to show that it meets
  WP:NJournals, but generated so much significant controversy (by publishing bogus articles, or by using fishy business methods, or by spamming researchers) that people would write about them in reliable sources. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 09:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, that helps a lot. What about Ebsco? Is that considered selective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• They don't take just anything, but they're not highly selective either. In general, if that is all there is, that is not considered enough to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the information. What about having individual subscribers that are highly selective, e.g. a 1st tier college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. Very rarely an argument for notability is made based on a certain journal being included in many libraries (several hundred), not just a few (even if they are first tier). Sometimes it flies in an
  AfD, sometimes not. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 09:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I can see that. How would you describe the difference between MEDLINE and PubMed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Most people assume that PubMed is just the online portal to MEDLINE, but that is incorrect: MEDLINE is much more restrictive than PubMed. The latter also includes all journals that are included in PubMed Central, which is much less selective (actually: hardly selective at all, they only select on some technical characteristics of a journal) than MEDLINE. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• One last question, what would be the equivalent of MEDLINE for Law, Criminal Justice, and Social Science disciplines? — Preceding (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For social sciences, there is for example the

Thanks, Randykitty, for your welcome. I wondered if you could clarify primary and secondary sources for me. In academia, I thought primary sources were seen as more reliable than secondary sources. Thus I looked specifically for articles written by people who had been involved in the historical events, although these articles were written later. I also had one secondary source at that time. Subsequently, a note was placed on the article noting that it relied on primary sources and needed additional citations for verification. I have now added in other secondary sources (under References, having made the previous References into a Notes section) but I remain confused about how Wikipedia distinguishes primary vs secondary sources and their use in articles. I would really appreciate any help you can give on this point. Also, at what point are notes made at the top of articles removed or changed, and by whom? Thanks in advance. Gardener234 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Gardener234. Tags can, in principle, be removed by anyone but make sure that the problems indicated are really resolved, otherwise they usually get put back rapidly. Often it is better to let somebody selse do that.
  WP:RS. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk
  ) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why my page keeps getting redirected and the text I entered disappears. Do you have any thoughts on how I can avoid this? Thanks for your help. (Culturclopedia (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC))

• Hi, we don't talk about "my page" here, nobody
  WP:NJournals. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 11:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I looked at the guidelines you recommended and will amend what I wrote accordingly. Culturclopedia (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Journal of Music Education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of the Pacific (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) 12:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Omax Corporation should NOT be tagged under speedy deletion. The Bot was inaccurate in the source that it found, and I have since changed the wording of the intro. I have given multiply secondary sources for the article. All of the text has been cited. The bot also inaccurately claimed that the article was only to promote an entity, person or product: I have not included any bias that was written from my sources, only important information about the company. Thank youWolverineOfTheCascades (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, the bot was accurate, I checked this myself. Perhaps you didn't copy the text directly from LinkedIn, but you must have copied it from another place that either was copied from LinkedIn or that was copied by LinkedIn. Otherwise, I really can't explain the large similarities between the LinkedIn text and your article. Even after you modified the text a bit, it still was a copyvio. In addition, the wording (as can be expected from something written by the company themselves) was promotional an not neutral. As you will have seen by now, the article was reviewed by an admin who agreed with the CSD tag that I placed and in consequence deleted the article. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it was from a different source, and I cited that source and actually right before it was deleted I removed ALL of the wording that would appear promotional. Also before it was deleted I did some serious rewording, and I don't agree that it was a copyright violation; I re wrote the content to my own words. Keep in mind you have to actually USE the information from the source, as Wikipedia only allows secondary research.WolverineOfTheCascades (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, you have to use the source, but also your own words. Copying or close paraphrasing are against copyright and not allowed. If you have issues with the deletion, you should contact the deleting admin. All I did was tagging the article (although I fully agree with the admin's decision to delete it, given the problems that I signaled). --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• The user has contacted me, but there is no meeting of minds on either the copyright violation or the spam. I've protected the article now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that, thanks. Hope that the editor will read the links that you gave and learn from that... I only tagged the re-creation as spam, but it was a borderline copyvio again, too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There was a mere 2 minute span between the bot flagging the video and you marking it for deletion. That's 2 minuted for you to see the article flagged by the bot, read what the bot stated, check the sources the bot gave, and then flag the article for deletion. You could have spent a little more time on the matter. Second off the Article was clearly not spam, wikipedia states spam is " advertisements masquerading as articles", yet I removed all of the words, and phrases from the POV of the company, and cited a quote from a rival company; not tom ention I have multiple edits before the creation of this page that have nothing to do with what the article was about, or about corporations or businesses in general. 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolverineOfTheCascades (talk • contribs)

• By the way Jimfbleak, it's funny how you protected the article, but you just told me I'm free to create the article again on my talk page. You giving out conflicting information Jim. WolverineOfTheCascades (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two minutes was quite enough to see both the copyvio and the POV language. What you should do is create the article in your user space, trying to avoid
  weasel words and writing in as neutral a way as possible. Article creation is one of the toughest things here on WP and we cannot let copyvio go through. Paraphrasing is not enough, it need to be your own words. If you create the article in your user space first, I'll be happy to have a look at it and suggest how to modify it so that it won't get speedied again (and I'm sure Jim will do the same if you ask him). Once we have a neutral and acceptable version, Jim can lift the protection and the article moved from user space to main space. But you really need to understand that the version that you put up is not acceptable. Please read the links that both Jim and I have provided, this will help you avoid problems in the future. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 16:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suman Sahai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suman Sahai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LFaraone 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antiviral Research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis (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) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Randykitty, thanks for the welcome message. Could you tell me why the reference I added in Review of Accounting Studies should be removed? I think I have problem to find it out in so many guidelines. Towatw (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• For a short stub like that, information that obviously is taken from the journal's own homepage does not need to be put in the form of a reference to that homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, I see. Towatw (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, clearly I need some help with this stub article. I am not used to starting articles about science journals, and as you can see, I am not too clear about what counts as a suitable reference. Can I somehow demonstrate that the publication has been cited in numerous other publications? Does that make it notable or not? It publishes descriptions of new taxa therefore it is important in and of itself to malacologists, but how do I establish that? Thanks, I would be grateful for any help you can give me. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried just now adding three more potential references. Let me know if they are acceptable or not. Invertzoo (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit busy right this moment, but meanwhile have a look at our
  writing guide for journal articles. --Randykitty (talk
  ) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will, thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have written an email to the

AMNH library staff asking them if they can look up for me the impact value of this journal. They are very busy, but maybe they will do me this favor. Invertzoo (talk

) 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Busy or not, they won't be able to get you that because the journal is not indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (see here) However, it's in The Zoological Record and that established notability. I'll add that to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a nice AMNH librarian wrote back to me a while ago explaining that she could not find it. Thanks so much Randykitty for finding it in the Zoological Record! Invertzoo (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the journal cover for the infobox?

Hello again Randykitty. The editor in the Netherlands says I can take a low-res image of the cover from the website to put in the info box, but I don't know about the copyright questions; what do you think? I asked him if Dutch copyright law had a "fair use" clause and he said, "Dutch Law I know to be relaxed about using copyrighted images. That is, if there is no complaint by the copyright-holder(s) then no action will be taken (third parties have no say, except in contemporary music). If there is a dispute, then there will be a strong urge to deal with it outside court (lawsuits, American style, are still very rare here). And if there is some proof of permission being given (such as in this and my previous email) then there is no problem at all. So for the record: as publisher and copyright holder of Miscellanea Malacologica I herewith grant you permission to use images of the front covers of all published issues of Miscellanea Malacologica for public display on the internet, provided that there will be only a change in size and/or colour. I have to make an exception for the single issue which has a portrait of on the front cover." Any input on this? Obviously it's not that simple here on Wikipedia. Invertzoo (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, Dutch copyright law is not applicable here, because Wikipedia's servers are located in the US. I'm not even sure that the (small) image of a shell would be sufficient to have copyright apply altogether. Without that shell, the cover would not be copyrighted and could have been uploaded to Commons. Anyway, I've uploaded a cover and added it to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi RK,

Would you mind clarifying your concerns on the talk page? There's a number of sources for the article, so the reasoning behind the tag is not obvious to me. You're also welcome to start an AfD if you feel that's appropriate. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Man–machine dilemma is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man–machine dilemma until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking a much-need break so if you see more, raise an SPI or email a checkuser. Much appreciated. That one was just vandalism, deliberately spelling the name wrong as the correct name needs admin approval to create.

Hi, I noticed that you changed the infobox of