User talk:Randykitty/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

DYK nomination of Frans van der Lugt

Hello! Your submission of Frans van der Lugt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andres Gifford, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Universidad de los Andes and Universidad Catolica (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) 08:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Andres Gifford

I have restored the BLP-prod, because the only reference does not mention him. It confirms only that the law firm exists, it does not confirm anything about Mr Gifford. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, although a while ago somebody declined a BLPPROD (can't exactly remember when/who/where) that I put on an article because there was one RS, even though it didn't mention the subject and it was explained to me that this was sufficient to deny the PROD. I actually agree with you, otherwise just adding a link to some random website would make it impossible to use a BLPPROD... --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• They were definitely wrong (a) for common sense, as you say, but also (b) because the actual wording of WP:BLPPROD is "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." (my emphasis). Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't find anything on him. He's either verifiably not notable, or perhaps he has a middle name that hinders the search. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User Bjerrebæk

I know that in the past you had to deal with him, so my question is can you verify if his edit here is correct. I left him a message on content removal on his talkpage and read couple of debates that you and @Deadbeef: had with him. You see, the sources are present but he removed the content because of POV (which had to do with Jens Stoltenberg being anti-semi), which is not a legit argument in this case because the sources were The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva and some other well respected newspapers. I would like to hear some weighted and neutral feedback on this issue.--Mishae (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Misha, the issue ios now being discussed on the article's talk page and I suggest that you give your opinion there. Personally, I steer away from most articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Frans van der Lugt

The DYK project (nominate) 02:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Please see my comments here before asking for your old accounts to be blocked. Thrub (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the warning. I had already thought about the timing of the block, but hadn't thought of the crowd you're referring to... I'll propose a solution that hopefully avoids this problem and still will be acceptable to all involved. --Randykitty (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

Just wanted to stop by and wish you good luck on your adminship i whole hearty support you . Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 05:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Me too!--Mishae (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, where can I vote?--Mishae (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mishae, at the top of my userpage is a box where a bot automatically lists any RFA (request for adminship) or RFB (request for bureaucratship) that is currently ongoing. In it is a link to my RFA, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jakin (magazine)

Hello. I don´t know what do you mean with "clarification needed". The quote by Koldo Mitxelena exactly is: "before, we knew that Basque was waiting to be cultivated and even so we often failed to fulfill this duty, because we were not capable of doing so with sufficient purism. Now we are seeing the people from Jakin struggling to express difficult topics in Basque" (in Mitxelenaren Idazlan Hautatuak, ed. Patxi Altuna. 1972). Can you help about that? Another question: is necessary a disambiguation article? (Jakin, Georgia; Alo Jakin; Jakin (magazine)). I don't know how I can make it, but in other languages Jakin is without (magazine). Thank you (Ketxus (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

It means that there should be another verifiable ref besides the quote, a book is verifiable but can carry an undue weight to the subject. Wikipedia doesn't allow it.--Mishae (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My problem actually was more that I did not understand what you were trying to say. I have re-worded it. Also, I have transformed Jakin from a redirect into a disambiguation page. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (Ketxus (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Altmetrics

We have been battling over the altmetrics page, on a seemingly minor point. We should discuss it here instead of perpetually undoing each other's edits. The change I am referring to is [1]. I am sure that altmetrics do NOT include citations. I included a Venn diagram that explains the difference [2]. Could you please explain why you think altmetrics ARE about citations?

This paper [3] has several definitions of altmetrics, none of which specifically include citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alperin (talk • contribs)

• Problem is, none of the sources specifically exclude citations. The text has been around for a while, so the burden of proof is on you. If you have a reliable source that unequivocally states that citations are not part of altmetrics, then your proposed change can be made. So not just yet. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The distinction is implicit. Look at this paper by Jason Priem (who coined the term altmetrics) [4]. He says "So-called “alternative metrics” or “altmetrics” [4] build on information from social media use, and could be employed side-by-side with citations". Altmetrics are social media and citations are not social media. The definitions in the paper I cite above assert similarly, from other authors. --Alperin (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Below are the other from the paper cited above, with inline comments from me on how they affirm my point of view:

• “Altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—aims to measure Web-driven scholarly interactions, such as how research is tweeted, blogged about, or bookmarked” (Howard, 2012).
  • Web-driven interactions preclude scholarly citations
• “Altmetrics are new measurements for the impact of scholarly content, based on how far and wide it travels through the social Web (like Twitter), social bookmarking (e.g. CiteULike) and collaboration tools (such as Mendeley) … What altmetrics hope to do is provide an alternative measure of impact, distinct from the Journal Impact Factor, which has been categorically misused and is unable to respond to the digital environment that scholarship takes place in today” (Galligan, 2012 August 29).
  • Again, social Web is not citations. And specifically refers how they provide an "ALTERNATIVE" (not addition/complement) to JIF (a citation measure)
• “Altmetrics specifically looks at the social Web and uses it to mine information for the analysis and detailed examination of scholarship” (Altmetrics, n.d.).
  • Again, social Web (i.e., not citations)
• “Altmetrics go beyond traditional citation-based indicators as well as raw usage factors (such as downloads or click-through rates) in that they focus on readership, diffusion and reuse indicators that can be tracked via blogs, social media, peer production systems, collaborative annotation tools (including social bookmarking and reference management services)” (Taraborelli, n.d.)
  • "beyond" traditional-based indicators. Not addition to.

--Alperin (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you respond to the comments above? And perhaps allow my edit if you agree? --189.138.95.114 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I have provided sufficient evidence to justify my edit. I've put it back in the main article. I think if you wish to undo it, we need to get 3rd party adjudication. --Alperin (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I have said before, you should discuss this on the article talk page, not here. I'm currently rather busy and have no time to look further into this. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alperin, as far as is current practice, citations *are* reported by #altmetrics platforms. E.g. altmetric.com counts citations from news outlets, and ImpactStory counts citations from Wikipedia. I see your point not at all backed up by the community. Just to be on the safe side, I have asked the editors of the special issue on altmetrics for clarification. But for now, *please* leave in the original text until your point is supported by an independent source. -- Egonw (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Law & Politics Deletions

Not interested in getting into a Wikipedia debate, but I want to suggest something with regards to the deletions you made on the Journal of Law & Politics page. One of the reasons many folks are uninterested in helping the Wikipedia project is because of the sort of cursory deletions of the sort you made here: generally finding some policy to defend the move, automatically reverting any further changes that get made, staking out a Wikipedia fiefdom. There is certainly information in what you deleted more than promotional material, including the history of the Journal, notable contributors, and other activities the Journal engages in, valuable to a range of individuals who might look to the page for information (I would point to several other academic legal journal pages with similar information, but won't because I don't think you should delete those either). I am not affiliated with the Journal, as you suggest, and find getting into a debate on here about your edits to be petty, so will leave it at this. Wikipedia's loss. Give it some thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:1A80:38F:39E9:DF3C:678A:8F67 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of facts. That means that you just cannot post promotional stuff, any content needs to be neutrally worded. This is explained all over this site as well as in the "welcome" templates that anybody who recently edited that particular journal article got on their talk pages. If you don't want to understand or accept this and prefer just to revert people's edits instead of "getting into a debate on here", and then make dramatic statements and leave, well then you really don't belong here and it is your loss, not WP's. Should you have second thoughts, I'm always willing to help newbies navigate WPs reefs and cliffs, and you're welcome to discuss any article issues on the article talk page or post questions here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies, I shouldn't have posted this. I should have just let it be. Good luck with your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:1A80:38F:9576:3AB4:69F0:9ABF (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Utrecht Journal of International and European Law

why do you keep deleting my edits on Utrecht Journal of International and European Law???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenagrace31 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please read some of the links in the "welcome" template on your talk page. Your edits were not conform our guidelines. 1/ You added a "reference" for Urios, which is just a link to their homepage. 2/ This should be an encyclopedic article. Taxt such as "You can visit the link" etc is not acceptable. 3/ "The most issue is Legal Aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility" is not only ungrammatical, but we do not post tables of contents, that's what the journal's own website is for. If others say something about content in the journal, that might be worth reporting, but not this.

Navigating WP is difficult in the beginning. If you have a connection with the subject that you are writing about, this is even more difficult. My advice to you is to get acquainted better with WP. Meanwhile, if you think there is (sourced) content that should be included in this article, the best way to do that is to post on the talk page and discuss it with others first. Hope this explains and helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tinman gene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pericardial (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) 08:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Donald Jensen

Hi, I found this hepatitis C physician and would like to know what's his notability? So far he have 100 peer-reviewed articles and, as you can tell by a link, he is being mentioned in an interview by Chicago Tribune. Is he notable based on that?--Mishae (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• He's got some very highly cited articles on GScholar. In combination with that excellent source that you found, his notability is well established. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seta Dadoyan

Hey Rankyditty, if you have a moment, could you please have a quick look at this nomination and the article? Won't take but two minutes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		A beer on me!
		Perhaps I should leave the honor of first wikilove-congratulations to an editor who knows you better, but I just have to say: 97% support, even with the confounding account issue - that has to put a smile on your face! Congrats and best of luck in your new role! Snow (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelling/Goldberg Productions

It appears to me that your speedy deletion of Spelling/Goldberg Productions was premature. There was plenty of context and criteria A1 was not appropriate. As the criteria description states: "Context is different from content". Please restore the article, and leave it up to contributors to expand the article if there is not enough content.--Notwillywanka (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have re-reviewed the article and the content is just a single (rather incoherent) sentence. I see no reason why undeletion would serve any useful purpose. Of course, you are free to work on an article on this company, if you have reliable sources that show notability. I would discourage you of creating "articles" that consist just of a single line without sources, as they are bound to be deleted rapidly. If you need more time to work on an article quietly, you can start one in your userspace and once it is ready for "prime time" move it to the article space. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, it should have simply been made into a redirect to Spelling-Goldberg Productions. The user requesting it Sour camdy, seems to be a new editor who just wants to "do away with" (my words and opinion) anything Charlie's Angels. I had no way of seeing what was in the article, as it had been deleted, wanted to make sure it wasn't a different company or production from the correct one. Cheers.--Notwillywanka (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

My sincere thanks to the community for the trust placed in me. I will do my very best to prove myself worthy of it! --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations you naughty feline! -- Atama頭 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Miauw! Drmies (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

National Security Law Journal

Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia a better place, and for cleaning up the article for the National Security Law Journal. I admit that I am biased, but I do not think the page should be deleted. The journal has already produced two volumes, attracted notable speakers, and has been independently listed as a good resource on national security law by the ABA and three separate universities. I would be more concerned with entries like The Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, National Security Law Brief, George Mason Law Review, and George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. Comparatively, I think the NSLJ entry is supported by more outside sources. I completely agree that the page needs to be cleaned up so it does not appear promotional, though. User talk:Ayesnik — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I find time, I'll have a look at the journals that you mention. However, the argument you make (i.e., that the ""National Security Law Journal should be included because we include other journals, too) is here sometimes called: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, less reverently, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and does not carry much weight. As any editor, you're perfectly welcome to remove the PROD templkate, but I must tell you that in that case I'll take the article to AfD. Given your comments on my Commons talk page, you should also familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• You're right. I'll remove myself from the debate. Ayesnik (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

scisearch

There was no mention of the terms in the target article and the historical information which was present pointed at the Dialog representation. Thus, the meaning you attribute to these terms was never represented in the article in any verifiable fashion. The only valid reference I could find was to the now no longer updated Dialog dataset, and there was not sufficient information, in my opinion, to add that to the Dialog article. I feel justified in deleting them based on the information I had in hand, which pointed to the redirects not being valid based on info in the target article, the target article's history, or readily verifiable information I had at hand at the time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have added SciSearch to the SCI article (with a reference), so I hope that's enough to restore the redirects. Thanks. (I'm answering here to keep as much of the discussion together as possible). --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll bring the redirects back to life, but the article does need some significant overhauling. In the SciSearch piece, for instance, this is no longer updated and is a piece of Dialog as an augmented SCI content set; these considerations should be woven into the narrative. I'll see about coming back to the article later to do some composing of revised text. <Be bold, but not stubborn> is something I try to edit by. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! And you're right about the article needing work. In fact, that whole group of articles needs work: when I looked for a reference for SciSearch, I got the impression that TR doesn't use "Web of Knowledge" any more and just has merged it into Web of Science (the difference between the two always was a bit unclear to start with). These are important articles (in the sense that they are visited a lot by our readers), but I just never got around to doing much on them. Any help will be greatly appreciated! --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

forbes and WP:NOTNEWS

hi i wanted your help since you are an administrator. on the Vladimir Putin one user disrputed the article by removing the forbes articles about the worlds most powerfull person, that list is used on many world leaders articles so there is no reason the putin article should not mention it, secondly the same user also added this: "In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of international consensus on the illegality of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea" which is news and does not belong in the intro per WP:NOTNEWS. Am asking you to help me remove all of that unconstructive editing because am unable to do it myself 115.187.78.204 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm not familiar with that article and don't edit articles on political figures. I would advice you to try to discuss any issues you have with the article on its talk page first. If that does not work (and note that "work" does not necessarily mean that you get your way, it just means that there would be a reasonable discussion and if most editors there disagree with you, you'll have to accept that), then you could take this to an appropriate noticeboard. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• It is obviously not a content dispute, its a blatant violation of wikipedia policy! i think is better if i go the appropriate noticebroad directly 115.187.78.204 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you think that's best, go ahead. But if you haven't tried to discuss the issues with the editors in question first, then beware of the boomerang... --Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wbct

You added the template, but missed the actual block(I tookk care of it), have you considered adding easyblock? It does the block and adds the template for you, it's pretty slick.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, that's strange! I used Twinkle. I'll have a look at easyblock. Thanks for the heads-up and for fixing this. I'll have to check what Twinkle actually does here, I thought it took care of the blocking, too (as it does with deleting), but perhaps it only does the templating and the block has to be done manually. Still discovering how all those buttons work... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think twinkle just adds the warning (although I have never used it for block warnings, I didn't even know it was an option), easblock also shows how long they were blocked for (or if not at all). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah I just did a test on User:ThisIsaTest‎, Twinkle does not actually block, just a notification. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Good to know! Darn. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Camarillo Classic redirect

I understand the AFD discussion and did not fight the trend toward merge. I agree with your decision. But isn't something missing in this step? When we kill and article as insufficient to stand on its own, when we merge, shouldn't that mean you transfer the content to the merged page? OK, I'll have to do this, its available from history. You admins should be aware that most of the general public does not know that quirk. And when you fully delete an article, that information is lost to all but administrators, permanently. It can't be used to transfer content. Trackinfo (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's why I redirected without deletion. This way interested editors can find the previous content and merge as they see fit. "Interested" editors means people like yourself and the people that edited the article and participated in the AfD discussion. If any of them don't know how to retrieve the old content, I mentioned it in the closing statement so I'd expect them to come here and ask for help. Sometimes admins perform the merge themselves. But we don't always have time and sometimes the article content is of less interest to us and in those case, the job is left to others... --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict: You even missed the place to redirect it to. I am adding that now: Adolfo Camarillo High School. Trackinfo (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I already did before I responded to you. The script that I use to close AfDs (User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js) is undergoing modifications and some things still go wrong. Sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page

The page named Shayantan Dasgupta was deleted by you, may I know why. Regards Accessatlantech (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• The "article" did not contain any indication why this person is notable and was written in a rather promotional style. As far as I can see, there was nothing salvageable there. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post reliable source?

The Washington post says that Elsevier has required academics to take down their own articles. Is that not a reliable source? Sorry for undoing your edit without talking, I thought I'd made a mistake and not included it. Sorry, I see you only took down one of my sources, not the Washington Post one. For the controversy around charging for Open Access, would you accept personal blogs like http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-elsevier-open-access-exclusive.html or Elsevier's policies as references? http://www.elsevier.com/connect/what-changes-when-publishing-open-access-understanding-the-fine-print#sthash.dTcOLuCV.dpuf

I think a personal blog of a professional academic, under their own name, should be considered a reliable source; reputation for honesty is essential for an academic. Especially when the blog is posted on the website of a reputable university, like http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/03/10/elsevier-will-not-immediately-stop-charging-users-for-cc-by-permissions-and-will-not-relabel-mislabelled-articles-i-suggest-academia-takes-legal-action/

I've put in more extensive references. I am confident that they are reliable, verifiable sources (you could always e-mail the academic and check), and I believe the information is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.41.240 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed that section again. It contains mistakes ("all rights reserved" is not contradictory to something being OA) and none of the sources you use are reliable sources in the WP sense. A source needs to be reliable on its own, it shouldn't be necessary to email somebody to ask about something. Elsevier's OA policies in the link you give above look to me to be completely standard and not much different (if at all) from PLOS or BMC. In any case, using that link to conclude something is amiss with their policies would be unacceptable original research. --Randykitty (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

On passing the Rfa. I actually thought you'd have more pushback about the prior accounts and am pleasantly surprised it went so smoothly. NE Ent 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! And yes, I also expected that there would be more pushback. However, I think that the strong guarantees from two such eminent admins as Drmies and DGG were very important to assure the community that the edit history of the previous account did not contain anything they needed to be concerned about. Also, during the past week I revealed my identity to several admins and two bureaucrats. They all looked into the previous account and didn't identify anything that raised concerns. I know that RFA can sometimes be brutal, but from what I have seen in the past few months (I only started frequenting them since somewhere last year), things are quite civil and reasonable and consensus generally is abundantly clear in either direction, without any PAs or incivility. We still need more people becoming admins, but the process is much better than it was in the past, I think. In my case, I must say that I find the overwhelming support that I got from the community (with even the oppose votes not directly being concerned with any of my contributions that they could see) very gratifying. I'll certainly try to live up to expectations! --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

SkyFly Airlines

Hi, I was wondering why you didn't delete the page SkyFly Airlines? It doesn't exist or at least I can't seem to find any references to it anywhere online. The page you linked to as it's real website is a website for a "virtual" airline. It's not real and the person who created the page only created that one page on Wikipedia. I wrote on the talk page that I think it might be a scam or something. I'm new to article deleting but this article really seems to be a fake. Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• It took me 30 seconds on Google to find a link to their homepage, which I included in the article. So they exist... --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• There may be a webpage for something called SkyFly Airlines but it's not a Congolese low-cost airline with 7 aircraft on order. It's a fake page for a fake airline that doesn't exist.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. The link I found is indeed not for a Congolese airline, I went a bit too fast there. It's not really a fake page, though, even though it is about a "virtual airline" and who knows it might be notable in its own right. In any case, when I search for "SkyFly Congo", I find some links that suggest it's a scam (but on a discussion board, so not a reliable source), as well as mentions on a few more respectable websites ([5] and [6], for example). So I don't think there is enough evidence right now to delete it as a hoax. I suggest you take it to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Ok, I will try to get help there. Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchuria Airplane Manufacturing Company redirects

I usually edit only the german WP, so I know few about the deletion procedures here (in the german WP, a simple speedy-DR is enough in such a case). The fact is that the company did use the the expression "Manchuria Airplane Manufacturing Company" itself in english. I did not find those other possible translations outside WP derivatives, so I was sure that these translations were created by wikipedians who did not know that there is that official english name. So at least in the german WP, such redirects are deleted because they are OR.--Antemister (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirects are considered an aid to navigation here, so any plausible term that readers might use is normally used for a redirect, even plausible typos. Redirects are cheap. I've never heard of a redirect being called OR, we only apply that term to article content, not redirects. It always surprises me that different language editions sometimes do things so differently :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Bro, don't worry about the Forzine article because it has nothing to do with promotional stuff.. we are just putting it for every people to gather information in such magazine. Thank You. Carlo ramos08 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi Randykitty, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 08:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Acalamari! As promised during the RFA, I'll send you an email in a few minutes with my identity and the names of the previous accounts. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for years of support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the mop-cupboard! JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RFA :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Conga rats! --j⚛e decker^talk 14:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated congratulations! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tsuneo Tanaka

Hi, I need you expertise regarding notability on the above guy. I found three T Tanakas, one is microbiologist, another is a diplomat and third is an academic of some kind too. Can you see if any of the academics under the same name and last name are notable. Hint: GS gives a whooping 1100 articles for all T Tanakas, so currently I can't trust it. Will appreciate any hint.--Mishae (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Mishae, The problem here is that "Tanaka" is a rather common name, like "Smith" or "Jones" in the US. It makes it very difficult and laborious to look these people up in citation indexes like GS. Web of Science is slightly less difficult (but only slightly...) if you know ll places that the person you're interested in has worked at. But basically, you need to check every single publication and see which particular Tanaka published it. If they have a homepage where they list all of their publications, it becomes easier (but you still have to search for every single article by hand. Nowadays we also have ORCID or ResearcherID. If they signed up for those, of have a Google Scholar profile, things become easy, but unfortunately not many researchers have done so yet. Hope this helps a little bit... --Randykitty (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, on ResearcherID one of his articles is cited over 158 times and he have 35 in total. ORCID doesn't have him, and I need an h-index. I can't do the math in article quantity. Like, according to ResearcherID he have 35 in total, one cited over 158 times, one 49, one 50, one 57, 9 under 10, the rest are over 10 and below 40. What does this amount tells you? Is he notable?--Mishae (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There is a link on ResearcherID to "citation metrics" which give you his h-factor, which is 19. I'd say borderline notable. An article on him might go to AfD, but would likely be kept. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of My page

Hi Randykitty,

Can you please help me - Torque Pharmaceuticals, page has been deleted. It is reputed Pharmaceuticals company from India. Also, I will be thankful to you if you can help me for editing this page, regarding advertising. I will remove or edit the advertising content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilmehta9 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilmehta9 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry that it took a while to get back to you. I have reviewed the article again and it has several problems. First of all, it is unacceptably promotional. Second, there is no indication that this company meets our inclusion criteria (see also WP:NCORP). Hope this helps and explains. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my page?

My page was about a well known friend who killed herself.

Her life was very very interesting and she was psychopathicly insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusStopSide (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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.

Good Worldwide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to App

National Security Law Journal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Allen

Prokar Dasgupta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Medical Research Council

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Agency Insight Page

I understand Agency Insight was removed for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This was not it's intention - would it be possible to get an idea of which bits were not suitable - most info was referenced from reputable sources - UK marketing magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siginsight (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Agency Insight Page

I understand Agency Insight was removed for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This was not it's intention - would it be possible to get an idea of which bits were not suitable - most info was referenced from reputable sources - UK marketing magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siginsight (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Marketing magazines are not always the best sources, as they can be pretty promotional themselves. Have a look at WP:What Wikipedia is not, reliable sources, and our notability guidelines for companies. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks - I notice other similar companies have these sources and very similar content, but have not been deleted. Is there a reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siginsight (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, very simple: there are over 4 million pages and only a limited number of editors and admins. If nobody looks at these pages and tags them for deletion, they sometimes linger for quite some time... --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Randykitty, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page

A page that I created name "The Man in the Shadows" was deleted due to the fact that apparently I made up the information inside it. I did not make it up. There is a man who people call him 'Ghost' who lives in the forest outside of the town Balldale. I have pictures that I can show you to prove that he exists. Would you like to see them?

Cheers mate - Snow24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow24 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• No thanks mate. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 2005, she presented the paper, "Sermonizing Women: Christian Civic Virtue and the Public Sphere]," as part of the panel, The Public Sphere and Literary Form.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wadewitz |first =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ajax Magazine

Hi there, I was just wondering why you removed the category:Dutch-language magazines from the Ajax Magazine page? The entire Magazine is written in Dutch, regards (Subzzee (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

• It's in Dutch magazines, which is a subcat of Dutch-language magazines. See WP:CAT#Categorizing_pages. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I missed that. Thanks! (Subzzee (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

Impact factor

Hi, I'm FactorCheval and you have deleted my sentence. Actually, the text, as it is, seems to imply that the Impact Factor of a journal is related to its importance, but there is actually no scientific evidence for this. Obviously, saying that biology is more important than mathematics is ridiculous, but not more than the pseudo-science behind Impact Factor, which should be not supported by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChevalFactor (talk • contribs)

• So you wanted to correct a perceived weakness by adding a ridiculous one? We don't add anything unless you have a source for it. Using the IF to compare journals within fields is, like it or not (I don't), well established. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A-7 not for buildings

Hallo, it looks as if you speedy-deleted a building at Courthouse in Września, although A-7 only applies to "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events" and a building is none of those. Could you reinstate it? PamD 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right, went a bit too fast there. I have restored the page and removed the CSD tag. Sorry about that! --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - the poor kid working on it has had his article erroneously deleted and been accused of editwarring and sockpuppetry, all on his school project and before anyone so much as offered him a "Welcome" template (done now!). WP:BITE and all that. A chapter of accidents. PamD 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjeesj... Didn't see the accusations, should have checked his talk page. Well, I learned something for next time, still new at this... Thanks for helping out! --Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Asylum (MUD) Page

Good day, Randykitty,

On 4/19, you deleted an article, 'Asylum (MUD)', based on G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Would it be possible to retrieve the content of the deleted article and obtain one more level of detail of feedback/ comments/ suggestions from you so that I can improve/ rewrite the article please? Thanks for your help with this.

Regards, Wenhsiu (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenhsiu (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have userfied the page into your userspcae at User:Wenhsiu/Asylum (MUD), where you can work on it to make it ready for mainspace. Before moving it back into mainspace, please make sure that your article meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Also, the way it is currently written is mostly "in-universe" and reads almost like a manual. WP is an encyclopedia and articles need to reflect that. Your article should tell us why this game is important, how it was received (reviews, etc), and more such stuff, rather than how to play the game. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Randykitty, this helps a LOT ... Your point about how this reads like a manual is a good one (will read WP:NOTMANUAL), and I will focus more time/energy on putting in information to support why the subject is important and how the game was received. Another one of my 'lessons learned' from this is that in the future, I will put articles through more thorough review before moving it out of AfC. It may not seem like it, but I had put many hours of research chasing down citations that were cite-able (lots of 'citation candidates' didn't meet WP:Citing Sources) and trying to filter out non-factual info, etc, so having it deleted without being able to 'find it' kind of knocked the wind out of me. Getting the draft of the article back helps tremendously, even if a significant rewrite is imminent. Thanks again! -Wenhsiu (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Councilor: A Journal of the Social Studies

Hello, I am A.Minkowiski. You declined speedy deletion of this journal.I am just letting you know that the journal seems to be non-notable( Not even in Thomson reuters list, no citations or impact factor found) and I think article is written only to promote the Journal. Thats why I tagged for CSD#G11. Would it be better for AfD ? A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 19:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article is written in a neutral way, so g11 is not appropriate. I did not havetime yet to look at the journal itself. Have a look at WP:NJOURNALS andd if you feel that this doesn't meet those requirements then AFD would indeed be the way to go. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Restored. I took the view that content consisting solely of what it claimed to do, with no independent sources and no circulation was pretty spammy, but I'm not going to argue if you consider it to be neutral Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! I see your point. Unfortunately, for most academic journals, this is all you can say. And we do get a load of promotional journal articles, too, but they generally are pretty blatant ("leading journal in the field", "publishing the very best papers", etc). Circulation is never an issue with academic journals (some very notable ones have circulations of a couple of hundred, but given that most academic access them through libraries, that doesn't say much about the size of their readership) and nowadays, most are online anyway (a rather different situation than with magazines). There are currently no independent sources, but there may be some out there. If I don't find them, I'll !vote "delete" in the AfD and it'll be gone in a week from now. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding AERA American Educational Research Journal

I'm sorry to keep having to undo your changes to the American Educational Research Journal. This is an AERA journal that is published in partnership with Sage Publications. If you look at the cover of the journal (http://aer.sagepub.com/content/51/2.cover-expansion), you will find the AERA logo and a note that points visitors to the aera.net website for access. Also, if you look at the Editorial Board, the AERA information is listed at the bottom (http://aer.sagepub.com/content/51/2/local/ed-board.pdf). The Sage logo appears in the Table of Contents (http://aer.sagepub.com/content/51/2.toc.pdf), listed alongside AERA, indicating the partnership. Finally, AERA owns the the copyright to all of the articles, indicated at the top right corner of each one. Here is an example (http://aer.sagepub.com/content/51/2/220.full.pdf+html). This is not personal opinion. This is actually the correct publisher information. Legreen123 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• you know, publishing implies: typesetting, printing, mailing, maintaining a website, marketing, etc. Is that what AERA does? If so, why do they need Sage at all? Publishing is different from editing (which involves determining the journal's scope, reviewing manuscripts, deciding what gets published, etc). Saying that a journal is published by a society "in partnership with" is absolutely unclear. Saying that a journal is published by Sage "on behalf of" a society is clear: Sage handles the nitty-gritty details of the publishing part (and also implies that the journal is owned by the society). A partnership could be anything, a co-owned journal, for example. You edit-war about other xchanges, too: why is it important to change the standard " Journal page at association's website" into the non-standard "AERA Journal Webpage" in the infobox? Why do you insist on removing the "official" template? Why do you insist on adding the "AERA Journal Webpage" to the external links section, where it does not belong? As for all the arguments that you give above about placement of logos and such, that is all open to interpretation, meaning original research and synthesis, both of which are not allowable on WP. but if you have a reliable source that says that the journal is published by AERA in partnership with Sage, please give it. If not, please undo your last revert and restore the correct version of the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page

You recently deleted our company page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopatron. We have received emails from a number of people who wanted to learn more about our company's history and mission that they were unable to find us on Wikipedia. We do not use this as a marketing/sales vehicle. We did not put up this page. We are more than happy if it is revised in the event it seems too promotional, etc. But this page is a critical path for people to learn about our company, so we humbly request you reinstate the page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemeringue1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have looked through the history of the article, but I really cannot find a version that is neutral enough to confidently restore. WP is not a directory of companies and your history and mission can (and should) be on your own website. Nevertheless, I have restored the page including the deletion tag, so that another admin will review it and perhaps have a better solution than deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

El Mednifico Journal

Hi Randykitty, This page (El Mednifico Journal) is not unambiguously promotional, because... its just a company profile regarding something new in the field of science which is happening in a third world country like Pakistan. By deleting this page you will be hindering the progress of a nation. Kindly provide with the improvements to be made in order to undelete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aw.usmani.duhs (talk • contribs)

• The problem with this article is not only that it is promotional (although you are removing most of that stuff), but also that it does not meet our inclusion criteria for academic journals. As for this being "new", even within Pakistan itself the establishment of a new journal is nothing out of the ordinary, so I don't really see how deletion would be hindering the progress of a nation... --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, please let me know how to improve it in order to stop the deletion process. i have already removed all the promotional http links. Moreover this is a new journal currently indexed at Google Scholar, DOAJ, Index Copernicus, Open J-Gate, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory and JournalSeek and efforts are on its way to get it indexed at scopus and pubmed. I just have to mention one more thing that El Mednifico Journal doesnt charge a single penny from its authors or readers, this may be the reason for the delay to get this journal indexed at Scopus or Pubmed because of shortage of funds, even though we are trying our best and we will hopefully be indexed there. Kindly consider the circumstances. Waiting for your response Aw.usmani.duhs (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that at this point I don't see any way to keep the article. Even if the reviewing admin would decide that it is not promotional enough for speedy deletion, I would still propose it for deletion, because it does not meet WP:NJournals. None of the indexes that you mention are selective enough for NJournals. PubMed is not enough either, unless you get the journal in MEDLINE. As far as I know, funding does not influence whether a journal gets accepted by any selective database, only scientific quality counts. You also need a significant history. This journal is simply too young to meet our inclusion criteria. Perhaps it will in the future, but at this point nobody can tell. --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the speedy reply. Yes, i do understand that. People working in El mednifico Journal are all volunteers (this include all the junior and senior editors, submission officers, layout designers etc - literally everyone). Even the maintenance of servers for the website, server for our official email address (@mednifico.com)and server for our monthly newsletter is managed by donations from the editors (mostly Pakistani's), so technically we face some difficulties to get our self indexed at mainstream data bases . MEDLINE indexation is on our agenda, its our topmost priority and it will be achieved soon. Please consider our request to stop its speedy deletion. i know i am asking for too much but atleast give us a chance. We have struggled very hard to initiate this Journal and will continue to work harder for its sustenance. Waiting for your response, please do not disappoint us. With respect from Pakistan Aw.usmani.duhs (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I understand your problems and sympathize with your efforts. However, everything you say reinforces the impression that you are here for the good of your journal, not to improve WP. WP is not here to promote anything, commercial or not. Once the journal is notable, we can have an article here, but not sooner. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Randykitty for the help, i really do appreciate it. 39.50.186.27 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

YoWorld

Hello Randykitty,

Recently you deleted a Wikipedia page called "YoWorld". I really had nothing to do with that page, but I do understand why it was created. It was about an internet game named YoVille. Recently, the previous owners of YoVille, Zynga, decided to shut the game down. The original owners of the game, Big Viking Games, bought the game in order to save it from shutdown. Since the game was sold, for copyright purposes, the game had to be renamed to YoWorld. There is already a page for YoVille which can be found here, I have been working on this page myself. All that needs to be done is a simple name move. I was wondering if you knew how this could be done. How can the title YoVille be moved or changed to YoWorld?

Any help would be great! TheMysteryYo (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, depending on what page skin you use, you should have a tab at the top of every page that says "move". If you click that, you can move an article to a new name. Let me know if you have problems and I can do it for your. --Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, very much appreciated! --TheMysteryYo (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of The Journal Database

Hi Randykitty,

please help me in the The Journal Database page. its showing speedy deletion. How i remove it. Nehaysingh (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of Advanced Renewable Energy Research

I was rather surprised to learn about an IF=9 journal I had never heard of, not to mention an "American Electrical Society" It seems some others have been fooled also: [7]. I do the deletion and track down the contributor tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• What a joke! Not sure whether it ever existed (although it probably did at some poin given the Georgetown link), but it seems to have died an unnoticed death. I was wondering why I didn't see this earlier (I trawl "newpages" daily for anything having the words "journal" or "magazine" in the title), but I just see that it has been created via AFC and those don't show up in newpages. And nobody added the WPJournals tag, because that way I'd have seen it, too. A journal from an American society with an editor in Iran... Good catch! --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker)Fun. It seems to be a blend of fact and fiction: see publisher, DRJI and someone listing membership of its board. I don't know why no-one spotted the ... unlikeliness? ... of this title having been founded in 1920 (I don't know when the term "renewable energy" was first used, but I doubt it was in use at that time) by a misspelled and, I think, nonexistent, society! PamD 12:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand it's not in COPAC by ISSN or title, and the "publisher"'s website's home page lists several other untraceable titles such as the German Journal of Social Sciences, so it does look like a pure hoax, with a lot of effort gone into it. All very strange. PamD 13:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

But then again seethis on CABdirect, so perhaps it did briefly exist. But with most of the content of that WP article being obvious lies. PamD 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It did exist. The fictional part of the article is because it was copied from the page for Journal of the American Chemical Society. Copying material from good articles and ascribing it to an insignificant or non existent subject is relatively frequent form of disruptive editing, though sometimes such copying can reflect a good-faith desire to use an established page as a model, and the accidental omission to change all of it. DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal)

I thought that the promotionalism was removable,and removed it. Judging notability for Russian journals is difficult. I would be inclined to let an established Russian journal have the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree about the promotionalism, I tagged it that way because I didn't think it was very notable and didn't want to make the effort to make it neutral and then PROD. But I'm fine with leaving it around, though. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding All AERA Publications

The following are AERA Publications that are published in partnership with Sage Publications as indicated on the journal covers, table of contents, editorial board, and the copyright note on the beginning of each article, top right corner:

• American Educational Research Journal
• Educational Researcher
• Review of Educational Research
• Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
• Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics
• Review of Research in Education

Legreen123 (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. Sage publishes these journal on behalf of AERA. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychological Injury and Law (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (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) 08:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Kang clan

12 words of unreferenced nothing and you dispute? We need content not obstruction. Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but an ethnic group is not A7 eligible. PROD or take to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Academy of Management Journal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• It is also on the ''[[Financial Times]]'' list of 45 journals used to rank business schools<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3405a512-5cbb-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0.html |title=45
• 8f1f-00144feabdc0.html |title=45 Journals used in FT Research Rank |publisher={{Financial Times]] |date=2012-02-22 |accessdate=2013-03-10}}</ref> and is one of the four general management journals

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

May I to restore article Breil (company) with other fine sources? Merge is wrong decision. Regards--Puccetto (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have looked at the AfD again and am not convinced by the arguments that were given there against redirecting, which seems to be the consensus solution to me. If you had any fine sources, why didn't you present those at the AfD and only come with those now? I stay with my decision to redirect, leaving the article history intact in case anybody wants to merge something. If you disagree, you are free to raise this at deletion review. However, you cannot unilaterally undo a decision reached at AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

done Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 2--Puccetto (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies

Honestly, what is the point of placing four tags on this article that you know full well is notable and which largely duplicate each other? One about notability (if you insist) and one about sources really does the job perfectly well. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The journal does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NJournals, which is designed to make it easier for journals to meet the bar, much less the more tough WP:GNG. If you know of evidence for notability, then please add it to the article. The tags, if you read them, all address different issues. There is only "one source", so more are needed. That one source is a "primary source", so secondary sources are needed. In addition, that primary source is not an "independent source", so those are needed, too. If the one source had been an independent secondary source, then only the "one source" tag would be justified. As it is, all three sourcing files are justified. --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Shopatron page

Hi Randykitty:

I understand you deleted my company's page for being promotional. This was created before my time at the company, so I cannot comment on the substance of your findings. That said, we've been in business since 2001, and I would welcome the opportunity to delete all objectional/promotional content so I can restore the page. This is simply to enable people to get basic information about our software and company history.

Thank you for any help/support you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.21.125 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• If your company is notable, somebody will sooner or later create an article about it. It's better to wait for that, because it is very difficult to write a good, neutral and encyclopedic article about a company with which you are involved yourself. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Charles River Media Group

Hello. The speedy deletion tag was put in when the article was not quite finished (but a paragraph saved). I understand it may have sounded promotional and can remove all objectionable material. I do think it serves Wikipedia to have the entry since - outside of the corporate/production wing - Charles River Media Group is the production company behind Ascendants (see that wikipedia page) as well involved in multiple film projects of note. Thanks for helping if we can work this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisneelix (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• My advice would be to re-create the article in your sandbox first. That way you can work on it without being interrupted. When you're done, ping me and I'll have a look and move it to mainspace if I think it is ready. --Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way I can access the deleted page so I can revise the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.35.100 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have "userfied" the article to your user space at User:Wikisneelix/Charles River Media Group. Please do not restore it to main article space before carefully removing anything that could be construed as promotional and carefully showing the notability of the company. You should also carefully read our policies on verifiability and reliable sources. For example, imdb is not a reliable source and you should use wikilinks to refer to a wikiarticle, not use it as a reference (again, not a reliable source). --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Avshalom Caspi

I'm wondering what is this guys' h-index? According to his site, he have many publications. As far as Donald Jensen article goes, I couldn't find GS source as you told me. Perhaps they removed it, or he just goes under a different name? I must assure you though that I used Donald, Don, Ron even, with no avail. Any suggestions???--Mishae (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Echinodorus

We appear to be editing the same page at the same time. My plan (after dinner) is to reformat the references. Please note that according to the revised taxonomy, Echinodorus isthmicus has been moved to a different genus, so a photo of it on the Echinodorus page is inappropriate.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Rataj made as much a mess of this as of Cryptocoryne, I guess. Anyway, you should remove the figure lower on the page, because it's the same one that you've been putting into the infobox (barring a different name). --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I was planning to do that, after dinner. Large page requiring a great deal of improvements.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Cecile Raubenheimer page

Hi RandyKitty: Cecile Raubenhemier is a client of our company and we noticed that her wiki page was deleted due to not meeting notability guidelines. I was unaware this was happening and that we had the ability to contest this. The information that was entered into Wikipedia was very little of her resume/experience. I have a long list of tv show episodes, music videos, guest news appearances and movies that she has been in. How can we get her page back up on Wikipedia? We would love to add the additional information as well We are happy to provide evidence of her career and I thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.127.222.88 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not Randy, so I don't know why it was deleted. The deletion discussion is there and is only was voted delete once, with no objection. I need to point out that I have found sources that might help you a bit:

• [8]
• [9]

Now, you need to know though is that not every actress is notable to Wikipedia, according to their policies. We do allow videos, like YouTube and such, but only as an external link. Keep in mind that all the external links should be minimal, the more references your article will have, the more chances it will get a pass. Here is an example of one that I wrote about: Samantha Hess. Also, for the future, if its not hard, please use a Sandbox to create your article. It is the best way to prevent deletion, in my opinion (though I never used it). There, people like me and Randy can come and check and fix some grammatical or other mistakes, and hopefully bringing your article to the world! Hope it helps. --Mishae (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• In addition to what Mishae says above, I have a few other comments. Lists of vieo appearances, episodes, and such do not show notability. Coverage in independent reliable sources does. The article was deleted after an AfD discussion, so cannot be simply re-created, you will need very good evidence of notability to overrule an AFD decision. In addition, given that you say that Raubenheimer is a client of your company, I would strongly advice you not to edit anything related to her. Please see WP:COI and note that there is currently quite a controversy here about paid editing. --Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Structured cognitive behavioral training page

Hello Randykitty, I recently wrote and uploaded an article called "structured cognitive behavioral training" and it has been prefaced with a question of subject notability. I do understand that this subject may seem quite similar to cognitive behavioral therapy, but there are some critical distinctions that I've perhaps failed to make convincingly. Part of the problem, I think, is that the distinctions are based around two separate ideas that are not always being used together. In other words, there is a difference between "therapy" and "training" and there is a difference when the training is highly "structured" and when it is not. I've found cases where it is considered training (without being overtly structured), for instance. I do believe this topic warrants its own page. Are there any suggestions that you may have that may help me?

Thank you for your time,

Wellness writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellness writer (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Notability" has more to do with sourcing. If you have good reliable sources that demonstrate that this is an independent subject, then you can demonstrate notability. Subjects that are not notable eventually will get deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I did reference a number of different studies that were done in the areas of cognitive behavioral change efforts that were classified as "structured" and/or "training." I will add sources.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellness writer (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Silent Models NY Page Deletion

Hello Randykitty. I am a representative at Silent Models NY and created a separate page today for our company which was deleted. We were previously a part of the partner company Silent Models Paris' Wikipedia page but would like to have our own page detailing the New York agency since the partnership has been ended. I understand that the page was supposedly classified as spam/ advertising and did not meet nobility guidelines but I would love to see how we can get the page back up and what changes/ additions/ references we can add to the page to prevent it from being classified as spam. Thank you so much for your help! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellaatee (talk • contribs)

Your page was deleted not only because it was spam but also because since you are the company representative you violate WP:COI policy. Plus, it wasn't deleted, it was merged into Silent Models. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a site where you can put any company you want, some small businesses are not notable here. As far as branches go, not all branches need separate articles, see for example Microsoft and Microsoft, Russia. Microsoft, Russia doesn't have separate article because the office was opened in 2006, same thing goes with Electronic Arts, Russia, an office which was opened in 2007. However, sometimes Wikipedia doesn't even mention it, perhaps, its not an important subdivisions? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishae (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for your contributions! ExpertEditor25 (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yuri Kovchegov and formulas

How do I get the formula from a reliable source and into the article, I have an issue with it? FYI its in research section. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishae (talk • contribs)

• Hi Mishae, sorry, but I don't really know anything about formatting formulas. If you try the helpdesk, I'm sure there will be someone there who can help you. --Randykitty (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Another question, like, I know that Einstein's article uses formulas but its because they are famous, but I don't know the difference between well known and new formulas. Is it O.K. here: Alexey Gorshkov or it adds undue weight?--Mishae (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • O.K. Apparently somebody thought that it actually not notable, so I assume there will be AfD for my article soon. Makes me wonder what is the requirement for inclusion for physicists? Gorshkov have an h-index of 25, seems notable to me, your view?--Mishae (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Usually, 25 is considered notable for physicists. --Randykitty (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it baffles me what's wrong with the article? I already added info from press. Should I remove the tags then?--Mishae (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any tags, so I assume all is OK now. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant this one: Alexey Gorshkov It have the orange tags on the top, should I remove them if I added some info from a press, or I need to add more? Like, I can't find any more info on Gorshkov.--Mishae (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

History in Africa

Why did you remove two refs leaving this unreferenced? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's really quite simple. First, with such a short stub it will be pretty clear that the name of the EIC comes from the journal's own website. Second, and more importantly, adding "references" to the journal's homepage and the editor's own faculty page are primary, non-independent sources that many editors find promotional. I have seen short stubs be tagged (and deleted) as spam just for that reason. --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

QualityUnit Page

Hi, i'm trying to improve the page but I just realised that it has been deleted, could that information be moved to my sandbox so I can work con it to improve it? Thanks :)La cate35 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I just had a look at that page and don't think that it is a good idea to restore it, not even to your user space, as it is irredeemably promotional. You can try WP:REFUND to see whether another admin is perhaps willing to restore it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Points of Views

Although we have had our differences, I respect your hard work, assiduity and sincerity in trying hard to make Wikipedia better. Like you, despite my limited time available, I seemed to be getting hooked on Wikipedia, but don't worry my time is limited. I wonder if you would take a look at the Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery entries. Despite the number of references, they seemed to have a limited point of view for a very controversial subject. An editor believes no changes are needed. Can you give me your unvarnished opinion? Thanks LeBassRobespierre (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for your kind words. Yes, even when people have the same goal, they may still differ on how to get there... :-) I had a look at Psychosurgery. I don't think the problem is so much one of POV, I don't really see any overly positive or negative bias. However, I do think that the article is lacking some essential info (such as the benefits and side effects of any procedures) and needs a discussion of the ethical aspects/debates surrounding these procedures. I have posted a comment on the talk page to this effect. --Randykitty (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I thought I would add one to the litter. thanks for your prompt response!

LeBassRobespierre (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Proxy Robotics

Where did the Proxy Robotics wiki page go? I had it in my sandbox and followed the instructions to request un-deletion. Please see my sandbox for the link.

Thanks.

Spinlock55 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I see, it was moved from your sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Proxy Robotics, where it was deleted because it had not been edited for more than 6 months. I see that you requested it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND, so you should just wait until that request has been handled. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)