Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vedic_mathematics_(book)

Hey Randykitty, Please participate in the debate. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Journal

I came up with the below article which was created in 2009 and was last edited in 2010. It lists no reference. I thought to nominate it for Afd but Since you are working on the topic of journals have a look at the page.

  • I've updated the article and provided some references. It's in some very selective databases and (for a mathematics journal) has a very decent impact factor, so this would sail by WP:NJournals without any problems. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey yet another here and this time created and edited by the same users and exactly 3 years ago.

And I see that you have contributed to Sankhya (journal). I am currently working on the same topic. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Going through your edits it seems that your interest (Specialization) is Journals. Can you point me a relevant discussion here on wikipedia on Journals on History of Mathematics or an external link listing journals on the topic of History of Mathematics. I am shortly going to make an article on Ganita Bharati and it will then be a good research for me. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  • There's no discussion/article on this subject that I can recall. The best I can advice you is looking for a cross-section of the categories "mathematics journals" and "history journals" (or history of science journals". But I don't think there are all that many journals on the history of mathematics. User:David Eppstein is a mathematician and might be able to give you better advice. --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I consulted David Eppstein before on separate issues but this is a different case. Probably I have to search a bit more. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Order Lead Time to Lead Time

Hello Randykitty,

Redirecting to Lead Time is in my eyes not correct action, because as the same source you redirect in Wikipedia mentions http://www.leadtimes.org Lead Time Terminology in Manufacturing, the Lead Time is composed by 5 lead times and the Order lead time is only a small portion of it. You can also reference to Stevenson, W.J. & Hojati M. 2002 “Operations management.” Vol. 8. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. I would add this as a next step when I get the separate page for Order Lead Time back. My intention is to share the formulas of how to calculate this time that can improve revenue models of the industry by knowing the order behavior of the customer. Hopefully this helps to clarify any doubt you may have.

How can I get my original order lead time article back?

Thanks!

hans.ehm.infineon (Diskussion) 12:55, 13.05.2013 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans.ehm.infineon (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "Order lead time" is just a special case of "lead time" and there does not appear to be any special reason to create a separate article for it. You should modify the lead time article if necessary, not create a new article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connections (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International affairs (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) 00:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass tagging without addressing the issue on talkpage

I noticed you added (or restored) a lot of tags on the article Tablature, so i'd like to invite your attention to Wikipedia's guideline WP:TMC, specifically the following:

  • Avoid tagging articles if you can easily fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article.
  • Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below
  • Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work. For example, there is little point in polishing the grammar of a section that needs to be dramatically re-written to comply with content policies. Focus on the biggest one, two, or three problems.

have a nice day! Da Vynci (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Well, WP:TMC is in the nutshell, and the template you add (or restored) is from there, so i don't see any reason why we shouldn't follow the template instruction . I don't understand why you rather see a fellow editor getting blocked, than adding a little explanation for each tags you added in the talk page. You tagged (or restored tags) literally every paragraph (like 10 tags, i lost count), other people can't read your mind how / where the perceived problem is. Yes, 2 person added the tags, but no one wants to do make suggestion, nor even point out the problem. When someone ask you to follow the instruction, then you threaten to get the person blocked. The point is to improve the article, not adding tags. Da Vynci (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Stop icon

Your recent editing history atTablature shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

  • You're wrong, I'm afraid. If you look at the article edit history, you'll see that 1/ you reverted edits by two different editors and 2/ you reverted more often than I did. I'm not even close to violating 3RR in letter nor in spirit. You're beyond it. --Randykitty (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OMG!

The world is coming to an end! Drmies (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in another 10 years, it will be the world on its head and the French may be forced to buy their own wine from the Chinese: in recent years, several high-end wineries were sold to Chinese investors :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hanns And Rudolf

Thanks for comment on page. Looks better now. Please remove speedy delete. talk 16:48 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but as I explained on the talk page, I will not remove the speedy deletion tag. Should the reviewing admin disagree, I'll PROD the article or take it to AFD, as this does not meet WP:NBOOKS. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Society for the Preservation of Wild Culture

Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, on talk page. Thanks for your assessment of this page on lack of citations. Can you give me some guidance on what references you're referring to I'll go over them and find citations or delete where appropriate. Ostrichfern

COI and sock/meatpuppetry

Thanks for your edits at OMICS Publishing Group. Having been away from Wikipedia for a very long time, I've been getting up to speed on the editing patterns and made a few new comments at SPI that might be of interest to you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Meyer (author)

What do you make of this article? I can't find anything reliable on him, or proof that he's done anything significant. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • There's a definitive whiff of fringe here. Seems like he created a publisher to publish his stuff, but they also publish things written by others (a lot of it appears to be from long-dead authors -possibly in the public domain- but not exclusively). The German and Hungarian articles don't have any more references. The name is rather common, too, making searching not easier. I can't find anything substantial about Perseus Verlag either, apart from listings in directories. Google Scholar gives some hits for '"Thomas Meyer" Perseus', but nothing that gets cited more than a handful of times. I've tagged it for notability and for being unsourced (I don't consider a link to his company as a source). If nothing comes forth within a few weeks, we can PROD it or take it to AfD, perhaps someone there would be able to come up with something. --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Scopus article

Hi. I am curious about material that was removed from the Scopus article. With this edit I see, in the edit history, the comment "trivial study in marginal journal". I am wondering how this is seen as a trivial study, in the first place, and how this is a marginal journal? The journal itself is peer reviewed and I think the articles it publishes are original research. I'm not saying you are wrong, I am just wondering what your rationale is. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Never mind. So far I am not impressed with the quality of the article itself. Within the abstract and first couple of paragraphs of the "Introduction" there are several noticeable grammatical errors. I also have one or two other issues with this article. At the moment I don't trust the synthesis or conclusions of the authors. You probably made a good call. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Near East University

If you have a moment, could you please have a look at recent activity at Near East University, and perhaps weigh in? thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Cripes, what a disaster... I have done a surgical intervention (much like you already did), but expect the SPA to revert soon... --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • He did, multiple times, and is now blocked for 3RR violation. Seems impossible to get in touch with this person... I miss the orange bar of doom, that was almost impossible to ignore, let alone to miss. I can imagine that a new editor perhaps misses those subtle notification signs at the top of a page... --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:History of mathematics journals

Cannot understand what are you doing? See this. It is a much neglected field and I am trying to improve the coverage. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • That's fine, I'd have created the cat when it was needed here, instead of first creating the cat and then perhaps create the content that goes into it. In any case, please avoid overcategorizing articles. If a journal is in "History of mathematics journals", which itself is in "History of science journals" and "historiography of mathematics", then the latter two cats should not also be added to the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Good. This field is a little problematic though. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

John Albert Goodwill Walker

You PRODded this, and I deleted it. Undeletion has been requested (at least, it was re-created with content "this post will not go away..... " which I interpret as an undeletion request), so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer-Review Boundary 2

Hi,

I added a discussion to the talk page of boundary 2 regarding their apparent lack of peer-review.174.49.172.92 (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Template

Hello. There is a template in the first paragraph of the "San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment" article that may not be working properly. It shows up as part of the text of the article: {{:as of[may 10|lc=yes :}} --- (I put the colons inside the brackets so it would not affect your talk page). --- I would fix it but I have not seen this type of template before. Hopefully, you can fix it. Thanks. And keep up the good work! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

Thank you for your edit on this topic. I have updated the article to show the date the last article has been published online, which can be easily verified. The recent gap in publishing is (as can be verified) irregular given the frequent activity associated with the journal. If you consider this piece of information as unnecessary/inflammatory, then so be it. I would like to add that the scientific community has been looking down on this journal over the last few years and several issues have been raised over whether Dr. Rozvany is even active. In fact, there is a score of accepted AND "ready to be published online" articles ACCORDING to the publishing houses we have contacted, that have not yet appeared online because they need the final approval of Dr. Rozvany the chief editor. Mind you, I am referring to articles that have been accepted, assigned a DOI and the corrected proofs are available with the publishing house. Please feel free to contact corradmin2@spi-global.com to verify these allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketdesign (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Please read WP:RS (as I already told you elsewhere. Whatever corradmin2@spi-global.com can tell me or not tell me is not information that can be used on Wikipedia. Any bones you have to pick with this journal or its editor you should pick elsewhere, not here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Society of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

The article International Society of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apparently non-notable organization; unreferenced and no assertion of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully invite your comment

Here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_MoStudies_Review_a_publisher_of_review_articles.3F

Thanks! '-) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Dewritech. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Stitch Movement, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Dewritech (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disputing your reversion of my edit of Journal of American Studies

I invite you to view my reasoning for disputing your reversion of my edit at: Talk:Journal of American Studies--DadaNeem (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Randykitty. You have new messages at DGG's talk page.
Message added 22:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Factual Mistake Solomon7968 22:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malla Reddy College of Engineering & Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (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) 11:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice job on WP:BOLD merge of medlars article into medline article

It was the obvious answer to the impoverished medlars article, but I didn't do it because of the tricky past editing history loss in the lost article that results from an improper merge. Is the medlars past edit history someplace where it can be seen? If so, bravo-- you did the correct and obvious thing. SBHarris 23:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The MEDLARS article itself was just blanked and replaced by a redirect, so the history is still accessible here. Glad you agree with the merge, I think it also made for a better MEDLINE article. I've added "mergedto" and "mergedfrom" templates to both, to make it easier to navigate to the history. --Randykitty (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Good. The shortish MEDLARS article was unlikely ever to be expanded, and its info lives on better as a precursor history for MEDLINE. Again, nice solution. SBHarris 23:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 or 2013 IF

Hi. I noticed on Shisha Tom's talk page that you gave this person some feedback. Very recently this person has changed 2011 impact factors to 2012 impact factors and here is Shisha-Tom Contributions. My understanding is the Impact Factor comes out every two years, so it should be either 2011 or 2013. In any case, the respective academic journal web sites do not seem to reflect anything beyond 2011.

Do these edits need to be changed to, or changed back to, 2011 impact factor values. Maybe he has a new version of the JCR? I am asking you because maybe you are familiar with this person's editing behavior, and I don't want to get bogged down in a protracted discussion with what might actually be a simple solution. So, what is your opinion on these matters? (Thanks in advance)

Also, here is Cell Press' 2011 Impact Factors ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Steve, not to worry, the 201 IFs were published a few days ago. IFs are published yearly, but they are calculated over 2-tear periods, which is what probably put you on the wrong foot here. If you have access to an academic library, you may have access to the JCR. The new edition has been out to short for most publishers to have already updated their websites, although some have already sent around emails to editorial board members and other contacts announcing the new ratings. Sorry for the slow response, I'm currently on a short vacation with only intermittent Internet access. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you seriously propose to add a section like this for every volume published since 1975?

The answer is no. But deleting a section in the Journal Citation Reports article that contains valuable information usually hidden behind the subscription paywall with links to sources, in my humble opinion can be viewed as an act of arrogance. Not every Wikipedia reader has access to the Web of Knowledge, firstly, and the whole citation thing is a matter of a scholarly and public debate, secondly. With best wishes --Murus (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Biomedical Optics Express

I just want to let you know that I agree with your recent edits and rationale at the 'Biomedical Optics Express' page. --Steve Quinn (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion?

I don't understand why this article should be deleted. This appears to be pretty big news especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. There are three sources that I cited that came from notable journalistic sources like SFWeekly, KTVU, and KPIX. Additional news sites that I didn't cite as sources include Yahoo News [1] and MSN News [2] with several additional others, so it's not only local news. Soppyman (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to take the time to actually explain your reasoning or are you just going to keep marking it for deletion over and over again? Soppyman (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Me thinks the reasoning is explained at the AFD. You can give your arguments on why I'm wrong and this needs to be kept there. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper reporting ephemeral events. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And it's gone. Thanks Randy. Soppyman, see such guidelines as WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not for shaming people who already are having a hard enough time. Please refrain from creating such articles. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of ADC Review Journal of Antibody-drug Conjugates page - Please reinstate page

Just a request - professional courtesy - to reinstate the page for ADC Review / Journal of Antibody-drug Conjugates. This pages refers to a real (ISSN listed and indexed; see: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/828718061 ) open access, peer reviewed, medical publication launched earlier this year. Just like any other medical journals, it should be allowed to be placed among other medical and peer reviewed journals. The language used on the page was not designed as an advertisement, nor designed to promote the journal. Given the upcoming and expanding field of ADCs, this journal is a relevant addition to published materials designed especially for the academic and medical research community - hence a reference made to this journal (as a page) on WikiPedia - in line with the rules of Wikipedia- is acceptable. Again, I understand that advertisement and promotion should not be part of WikiPedia, so if you don't agree with the language or content on this page, improve rather than delete the page. Thank you for your help and considerations. Hofland (talk

  • Sorry, I'm not an admin, so I cannot reinstate the article. I thought it was too promotional and apparently the reviewing admin agreed with me. If it gets reinstated, I will propose it for deletion, as the journal does not meet our inclusion criteria (see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your concern, but the article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. Also, given the importance of ADC in cancer therapy and the inclusion in ISSN and OCLC databases (with, according to the publisher, other databases following), this is a relevant - non promotional - inclusion (everything that could possibly be promotional for this page has been removed..... Again, thank you for your concern (I do appreciate it) however, if you want to improve the page, please do so by editing not by removing it. Hofland (talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Having an ISSN and be included in WorldCat is absolutely meaningless. Even predatory OA journals will have an ISSN and OCLC. The same goes for "being within the scope of the Wikiproject Academic Journals". Anybody can add such a tag to the talk page. I added it, because this way a "bot will list the AfD for this article on the project page and more editors experienced in evaluating academic journals will so hopefully participate in the AfD. In any case, your journal for the moment is not "notable" in the WP sense (which is something that has nothing to do with "worthy" or "good" or "bad") and as I explained, does not meet our inclusion criteria. That is not a judgment on its quality, which simply doesn't enter into the discussion. If it indeed gets listed in selective databases (not DOAJ or Google Scholar, but MEDLINE, Scopus, or the Science Citation Index, for example), that will be the moment to create an article. Not now when it has barely published anything yet. --Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I respectfully disagree with you. Based on the inclusion criteria you are using, other new publications should not be included either (this includes anything in the category Publications established in 2013, see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Publications_established_in_2013 - which, in some cases, and in contrast to the page for ADC Review / Journal of Antibody-drug Conjugates, includes blatant "press release like" promotion and marketing. Also, while the publishers are working on being included in other databases, it will take some time before this happens (2 - 5 years). While there is indeed a requirement NOT to promote or to "market" products, a brief reference to the publication should not be barred, especially since this journal is covering the needs of a growing research community of people in academia, life-sciences and pharmaceutical industries involved in the development of ADCs. Furthermore, an independent editorial board has been established to guarantee the quality of the content in this publication I'd like to suggest to accept this page as a stub and judge the validity of it's existence in 6 - 8 months and see how this journal holds up. Thank you for your consideration. Hofland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgdon's secret garden (talk • contribs) 19 June 2013

Hello. A second discusion involving you is currently underway at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5thfloorlattimore (talk • contribs) 1 July 2013 Thank you.

Impact factor article section deletion

Dear Randykitty,

You have deleted without discussion a section in the Impact factor article by merely stating:

I agree that this is a spoof, but you cannot write that without a reliable source; remove incorrect info about Master List (updated continually))

— Randykitty

instead of dropping the mentioning of an ISI-clone and changing "annual" to "continuously" in the case of the Thompson Reuters Master Journal List. Indeed, the evaluation of journals by Thompson Reuters is done continuously, and the results are made available through the Web of Science database immediately.[3]

However, in case of the journal impact factor ratings, journals are added to the list annually, when a new JSR is released.[4]. See, for example, the 2013 list that you chose to delete: [5] That means that a certain journal can be found in a Master Journal List database,[6] which is free to use, however that does not mean that its impact factor has been calculated. You should be aware of the fact that a lot of second-tier journals claim having an impact factor of unknown provenance. Not all of developing countries' scholars have access to the JSR. I've seen stuff on the internet when Thompsons' actual ratings were distorted. Therefore, checking into the Master Journal List can be the only option to decide on a reputation of a certain journal before submitting. That is why I feel strongly about emphasizing both the impact factor spoofing and the availability of a Master List.

Another thing, the current pull towards eliminating journal impact factor ratings may result in chaos. That is why I shared the information about Thomsons self-policing and supressing journals suspected in citation inflation.[7][8][9]

In short, there is a lot of confusion with bibliometrics both in real life and on wikipages nowdays.

I have no doubt that all your eliminations are of good-faith nature, and not a result of playing the get-as-many-edit-counts-as-you-can game, but nevertheless, it is always nice to have a third pair of knowledgeable eyes to get involved. I know that as a novice editor and reviewer (7 months and 16 days after registration) you will be also highly appreciative of such an opportunity. So, how do we proceed further? Best, --Murus (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Wow. As a newbie, I'm quite honored that an editor like you with months of experience and hundreds of edits behind its belt is willing to provide me with some guidance! And I'm impressed by the good faith that you are displaying in not suspecting me of playing an edit-count game. So I humbly present you here my (probably clueless) replies to the issues you raise:
    • The TR Master Journal List is, as far as I know, updated whenever one of the TR databases decides to include a new journal. The JCR does this three times a year, other databases perhaps at other times. So saying that it is updated "annually" is incorrect, I think. The JCR itself is published once a year of course, but that is a different matter altogether.
    • I was under the impression that WP is not a self-help guide. It is not our function to warn people. All we do is report information that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. You give no source at all about the "spoof" site. Yes, I agree, it looks very much like a spoof site, but what you and I think is absolutely not important. As long as there is no reliable source about this spoof site, it has no place in the article.
    • Finally, (you included this in a separate section, so I hope you'll forgive me for replying in this section) there's the issue of including year-by-year statistics about how many journals are covered/got added this year/etc. These are pretty useless statistics, in my opinion. If they are in the article for 2013, then why not for the other years, too? That would make for a pretty boring and rather useless article, I think.
Hope this clarifies my thinking behind the edits I made. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Randykitty, thank you for your input. Before getting into particulars I would like to ask you if you are a paid worker for the Wikimedia Foundation. A simple yes or no would suffice. Thank you in advance for your coming reply! I would also appreciate if you kindly drop me a note on my page, looks like we are both extremely busy persons. With best wishes, --Murus (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
That's a strange question and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. In any case, as a matter of principle, I don't give out any personal information, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Paramedic Society

Can you take a look at my move suggestion? See also WP:BITE. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • A move would not solve the problem that there are no sources for this organization. As for BITE, I assume that you didn't look at Jbignell's talk page (including its history). Several users (including myself) have been trying to give Jbignell advice on article creation. And please note that the first CSD notification on his talk page dates from 2008 (for an article several times re-created and each time deleted again). One AfD was even initiated by DGG, about the last person who'd ever BITE a newbie. Unfortunately, Jbignell just doesn't seem to get it and keeps assuming that what he deems important automatically makes something notable and worthy of inclusion here. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Minds and Machines

Hi, Randykitty. I have undone your deletion of the Google Scholar rankings of philosophy journals. The google rankings have received some attention from professional philosophers, and are not 'out of line' with other rankings (e.g., the Australian 2010 Core (the last year it was published) Minds and Machines was an "A journal", and the cluster of top journals is consistent in the Australian rankings is consistent with the informal polls conducted at Leiter Reports and both are largely consistent with the European rankings. In fact, if there is an outlier in the group, it is the ESF list). There is some controversy over GS, to be sure, but they are no more controversial in philosophy than the ESF rankings, and Minds and Machines is primarily a philosophy journal. -5thfloorlattimore

  • OK, so you disagree with a small part of my edit and then revert all of them?? Anyway. Are there any reliable sources out there that document that "(t)he google rankings have received some attention from professional philosophers"? There is a huge literature about the use of impact factors, for example, so including those in journal articles is uncontroversial. The Google rankings are new and I don't recall ever seeing them described in any scholarly article or even mentioned on any journal's website. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You asked for consensus on talk before changing the Minds and Machines page. I agree with this principle. However, it is the changes that you have introduced which have generated the disagreement. Regarding impact factors, the literature you mention, but apparently have not read, is not without controversy, and one area of controversy concerns their use in the humanities, where there is generally a longer lag between publication and impact, the half-life of articles is considerably longer than in the sciences, and the coverage in the databases covered by the web of science is historically spotty (although this last point has improved recently). These issues are compounded for interdisciplinary journals such as Minds and Machines. For this reason, there is good reason to include a range metrics. Finally, as an aside, methodologically, the European Science Foundation (ESF) ranking is the *least* methodologically sounds of the lot: indeed, it was the result of a committee which followed no methodology whatsoever except for their professional judgment. So, whatever your methodological misgivings about GS are, aside from its novelty, the case for the ESF effort is flimsier still.--5thfloorlattimore
  • Please centralize the discussion on the talk page of the article itself. As an aside, I agree with you about better not including the ESF rankings, but (at another journal article), consensus turned out to be otherwise, so that's the way it has to be. --Randykitty (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to say, but a blog-discussion-forum such as this does not qualify as a reliable source WP:RS. Also, it may be merely that the databases need to catch up, which someone states during the discussion. I suggest taking further comments to the article's talk page and I also suggest stop focusing on one editor. There are now four or five other editors involved besides 5thfloorlattimore. As an aside, why not put something on your User page. You've been here since 2009, I think it is about time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for starting a discussion about merging various open access articles. Although I had a counterargument to your proposal I appreciate your making it and your general interest in developing encyclopedic information around the topic of open access.

I would like to have a brief chat with you about the structure of open access topic articles on Wikipedia, if you would agree. I am emailing you now with my contract information and if you would phone or Skype sometime then I would appreciate it. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the coffee, you've discovered my weak spot :-) However, I prefer discussions about topics like this to take place on-wiki. That leaves a record and allows other editors to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi Randykitty, Thanks for your continuing contributions to Wikipedia! Hope your summer is going well... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And hope the same for you. At least the weather finally seems to be returning to something approaching normal! --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Common misunderstandings of genetics

I feel like reverting an entire edit which corrected at least one spelling mistake because you don't agree with my changing to U.S. English is a little over kill. I wasn't paying attention and auto-correct listed them as spelling mistakes. How about we compromise and I will put back the U.K. English if you leave the rest of the edit intact? NicosRM (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Changing an article from British to US spelling is against policy and I have seen people who do that repeatedly, get blocked (see WP:RETAIN). You can restore the other edits, but you should not change the spelling variety. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clifford Edward Wright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S&M (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) 11:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic journal banners

Hello. According to the Stub templates and categories section of the Writing Guide (WP:JWG): "... if the article contains an infobox and indexing information, it should be rated "Start class" on its talk page... . So, I am advising that academic journal articles can normally be placed in the start category. Let me know if you agree. So, for example, this edit should probably changed to class=start. I will be glad to do it, I just wanted to use this as an example. Regards. And, by the way, enjoy your coffee! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • If I were to be stranded on an uninhabited island, I guess coffee would be the thing I missed most... :-) I recently changed my rating behavior following this discussion. But perhaps we should have a larger discussion about it in WP Journals, because you're right, the JWG (and also the examples in the rating guide, I now realize, say differently. --Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree about the coffee. I suppose a larger discussion at WP Journals would be helpful. I see what happened here [10], [11], [12]. I am thinking that articles that are rated Stub will not move into "Start class" because there isn't much more information available for the large majority of academic journal articles. I suppose a larger discussion will lend credence to whatever method we agree upon as a group. We can then link to the discussion as back up when needed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right about articles not moving forward if we follow this "DYK rule". That is, I think, a strong argument to do things slightly different at WP Journals. I don't really care too much and am willing to be convinced either way, but we should have consistency over the project. Another argument I once saw (but unfortunately don't remember where) is that an article is not a stub any more if it is beyond the point where it could be speedily deleted (journal articles can only be CSDed for spam or copyvio, but just assume it is about a person). For journals, that means if there's a claim to notability supported by some independent source (such as inclusion in a selective major database), it would pass this bar. We've been actually a bit more conservative than that, instead insisting also on the presence of an infobox. Anyway, perhaps you can start this discussion at the project talk page, perhaps copying this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the way I am reading the chart on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment page is -- all academic journal articles with the complete information that is usually contained in the articles, appears to deserve a "B" rating. For example, when we write:
Journal such and such, is a (monthly) peer reviewed (scientific journal) published by (Steve & Randy Scholarly Works). The editor in chief is Joe Shmoe (High Fallutin' University.) The journal covers (editing) (discussion) and all other topics related to Wikipedia. And so on, whatever content is available. Combine this with an infobox and impact factor and maybe include an "Abstracting and indexing" section -- and according to that criteria, we probably rate a "B" -- because the information is complete.
Of course, some journals will have more available. For example, some have an accessible history. But still, even without a history section, if the information is complete, then the articles probably rates a "B". Well, what do you think? Pretty radical, huh? (By the way, thanks for your interest). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. If we take that literally, WP Journals will be the project with the most highly-classed articles of all! :-) Having said that, I think there is also merit to Piotrus' "DYK standard". Perhaps it's best to start a discussion at WP Journals (and invite Piotrus there). Before making radical changes, we'd better get a consensus on this... --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with initiating a discussion at WP:JOURNALS, and no problem with inviting DYK members to the discussion. However, DYK is a Wikipedia project with its own criteria pertaining to DYK submissions. They have standards that make DYK work. However, this does not mean that editing on Wikipedia follows from DYK requirements. There are already policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and WP Journals already has its own set of criteria at WP:JWG. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say, that I think DYK rules do not apply to WP Journals articles, simply because these are not DYK submissions. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry for not being clearer, I didn't mean to invite all members of WP DYK, but just Piotrus, because he's kind of at the origin of this whole discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No, no, I understood that you meant Piotrus. I was just generalizing -- so the misunderstanding is my fault. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ISQ

Let's work together: See my editing comment. If you don't agree, let's discuss it on the Talk page. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I noticed you added {{notability}} to Vipul Periwal. Vipul Periwal proved the divergence of string peturbation theory. How is that not notable? Dimension10 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say, after looking at this article, I can see that Mr. Periwal probably does not meet notability guidelines per WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I am guessing that more sources need to be provided to establish that Mr. Periwal meets the notability criteria on Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Steve is right and that is why I tagged the article. After checking Google Scholar, it looks like Periwal may be notable, but the article doesn't show that. Note that "notability" has nothing to do with "merit", so whatever he discovered or not, is almost immaterial. Please have a look at WP:PROF, WP:NBio, and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Randy, I replied in our above discussion pertaining to article ratings. Sorry it took me two or three days. I did not realize that much time had passed. I actually thought it was yesterday. I must be either busy or in the twilight zone. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That was a wonderful series, I'm not sure whether (like me) you're old enough to remember the original series, but probably you've seen re-runs. Anyway, there's no deadline here, so don't worry about a few days of delay. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I initiated a discussion at WP Journals here. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

China History Forum Han Lin Journal

"CHF Han Lin Journal (HLJ) is China History Forum's online academic journal and publication for Chinese History and Culture."(How to reference to CHF Han Lin Journal?) Beiyang Army is one (maybe the only) article to cite it.(Beiyang army. —Let me know if you can access this inline URL, as registration may be required). I had joined the original CHF, after a search engine directed me there from a term relating to Lao folklore. The original site was founded as a scholarly forum by a US Sinologist, who died of a massive heart attack at about the same time as his site crashed due to what was — in effect — a denial-of-service attack. CHF was reestablished under new management in 2008 2007, and I just renewed my membership today. Every time I've encountered what I think to be a valuable resource on the history of Thailand and her neighbors, I've run afoul of Wikipedia's conventions on writing articles about such sources, and, for the most part, have been reduced to inserting piecemeal citations into into 100s of articles. I've my own library of templates for doing that, but it can take me hours to develop one. I've never received a response to request for help, or know of an easy way to correct my templates used in numerous articles (e.g., Talk:Asian_Correspondent.) You're the most knowledgeable editor in this regard that I have (painfully) encountered to date. Of course, the easy way out is to just forget about it, the way I did with Twentieth century impressions of Siam. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm not sure what your question us. In any case, if a source is reliable, then you can cite it regardless of whether it has an article here or not. This goes for the vast majority of academic books, even though they are seldomly notable themselves. It rarely is worth while to develop a specific citation template for a specific source, we generally only do that for the most frequently used ones. What I personally do most of the time is find an article's doi (I think bibcode works too) and enter it into {{cite journal |doi=xxxxx}}, and then use Citationbot to complete the reference. Hope this helps a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Citation bot may help when I have a doi, but it wouldn't help at Beiyang Army#Sources, which has a dead link, a China History Forum link that requires registration, and a link to a photograph that more likely belongs to the Ma clique. Nor does it help me with Talk:Asian_Correspondent.—Pawyilee (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior

I understand why you took away the link to Amazon. My question for you is, how then do I quote the material? It wasn't quoted to give Amazon a free link. Than you for taking a look at the article.Jacqke (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In order for this to meet WP:NBOOKS, there should be multiple (reliable) reviews and it should be possible to take the info from those. Amazon is rarely ann acceptable source for anything, because it is usually promotional and never independent. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This seach string bombs at Google, but gets great results from the Dogpile

    "The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior" +review

—Pawyilee (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Good man! Dankjewel, I.N. Cognito. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Library Quarterly

You undid a reference I added to Library Quarterly noting the source did not mention the journal..here is the source: "The database is also expanding into modern small and fine presses. The first volume of James Lamar Weygand's three volumes of modern printers' devices has been incorporated. The University of Chicago has given permission to add the devices that appear on the cover of their publication Library Quarterly. These can be accessed as a unit by typing "LQ" in the keyword section of the Search page." I think this will help people as it will provide a way to search the covers of LQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs)

Hey, what are you doing?!

My edits on Gamestar are in depth as I can go with what limited resources I have! And you're decimating it to nothing! - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Trivia? This is basically all the information on this magazine that wasn't wiped out over 18+ years. Shall we erase half of the dictionary while we're at it?

And as for the gallery, I've checked thoroughly, and multiple images can be covered under the legal options available. And you haven't even given enough time for it to be tidied up. It's existed for less than 3 hours! Give it a damn chance! - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I saw you met me half way with labels for clean ups and multiple views. Thank you. That's pretty much all I was ever after. And edit war? Perhaps skirmish. I'm the last one wanting to fire an edit gun. Gets messy really quick.

Again, thank you for leaving it for tidying up and whatnot. - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm fine with you leaving in the sections that I think should be removed, for the moment, until you can get sources. I would appreciate, however, if you could restore the other edits that I made to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia.. and writing this article about automotive retail awards in India. This article was created by someone in the past and was deleted. Now I am re-writing it with the references I got from CNBC TV 18 and some of the press communications of the award winners. I want to know whether this is enough for not marking this page for AFD? I am searching online for more relevant articles related to these awards. I am also uploading the picture gallery related to awards. Varuna27 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do here. Re-creating an article that previously was deleted at AfD is even tougher. I am not an admin and cannot see the previous (deleted) version to see whether what you are doing is very different. However, the sourcing that you have in the article is absolutely not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The best thing to do would be to move the article to your user space and work on it there. That way, you will not be interrupted, as editors get quite some leeway to work in their userspace. Once your done, you could then ask an admin to review it ans move it back into main space if it is deemed acceptable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This article is substantially different from the one that was previously deleted, so G4 doesn't apply in this case. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

response to your deletions

i am not going to get into a war with you. if you want to keep the inaccurate information on the page, you win. the items you deleted (and the deletion I made) were not sourced, but they were placed in response to items on that page that themselves are not sourced and that I believe are clearly and demonstrably wrong. Your comments about NIH are directly to this point and do not seem to reflect reading what I wrote: NIH funds medical research (and is already covered by an open access agreement); most faculty in the humanities and social sciences, as I wrote and you deleted, receive little or no direct research funding at all. As this was the point of the sentences you removed, the page now continues to read as if all professors work in the sciences and medical reserach, and despite having no direct references to support my claim that are not primary research, it is clearly, factually untrue.

My problem is that this page is already full of highly argumentative unsourced claims. My preference would be not for me to put in rejoinders but for unsourced allegations to be removed--for example, the sentence I removed is unsourced and, having researched this question extensively, completely untrue.

I am simply a professor with no commercial interest in publishing other than my own works, but in the humanities, and much of what is written on this page simply does not describe anything like the financial or contractual or funding arrangements of faculty in the fields I know about. You can continue to revert the page, and it can continue to put forth an argumentative position based in reading one side of a very political debate. You removed my claim that Creative Writers and Studio Art professors' work is considered "research." I have only *Primary* source material to back this up, but I guarantee to you that it's true.

Let's just go to Harvard. Here again I have only *primary* documents, Harvard's 2010 budget (http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/annualfinancial/pdfs/2010fullreport.pdf). From page 5: only 8% of Harvard's operating budget comes from grants of any sort (both governmental and private foundations). Now look at page 4: for the entire Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which includes many sciences as well as non-scientific fields, 13% of revenue total comes from *any* sponsored grants. This backs up exactly one of the claims you deleted (but as I understand Wikipedia, Harvard's operating budget is primary source material). From my internal knowledge of universities, the amount of government-sponsored research in English, Philosophy, and other humanities is near 0. The number of world-renowned published authors who earn significant income from their publications is large. If you have *facts* to dispute these facts I am interested to see them. But as it stands the Open Access page represents as fact many claims that are anything but.

The sentence you deleted: "However, this argument has no relevance to academic publishing, because scientific journals do not pay royalties to article authors and researchers are funded by their institutions and funders"--is itself unscourced. If you have evidence that "academic publishing" includes only "scientific journals," please provide it. As a working professor, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that "academic publishing" encompasses many more things than "scientific journals," yet now the page passes judgment on a matter of opinion and fact that is entirely incorrect. The Open Access argument works fairly well for scientific journals, but it works much less well for areas outside of the sciences and for publications other than journals, and this page gives an opinionated, often unsourced, and often incorrect view of this topic.

Further, I notice that you reverted two different sets of changes, the second of which was the deletion of the unsourced (and demonstrably inaccurate) claim I mention above. I do not believe this comports with WP:REVERT, in either case but especially in the second. This page is on a highly contentious topic and I believe the page as it exists is extremely unbalanced/not NPOV, and I was doing my best to balance it. Simply deleting my edits without comment on the Talk page does not seem to me to fit with Wikipedia policy. Wichitalineman (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Listen, I don't disagree with you. The article is badly sourced and inaccurate at places. However, adding more unsourced POV is not going to make things better. For what it is worth, I think that the effects of OA, although its goals are lofty and I completely support them, will be nefarious, even in the sciences. Much funding that used to go to research will now be diverted to publishing. The funding that used to go to libraries will, of course, not be used for this, those budgets will just be cut. The net result will be: less money for research. Add to that the facts that an OA journal does not need any significant investments, is profitable from the day the first article is published, and has an incentive to publish as much as possible (as opposed to traditional journals, which have a page limit), and you have, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. However, as far as WP concerns, the crucial part in the previous sentence is "in my opinion". I cannot add my rant to an article, unless I get a source for that. Same goes for your points... Now if you'd like to have a serious go at that article, remove the unsourced stuff (or initially just tag it with "needs citation" tags) and add sourced stuff, you have my absolute blessing. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@User:Wichitalineman, your original edit did not make clear that you were referring only to the social sciences. I'm not sure if that's generally true even in that case, but it's clearly not true in the sciences, or on average. At any rate, you always need a reliable source for this sort of thing.
I know you are correct. I see that you've worked hard to keep this page as close to NPOV as possible, and it was in fact that accuracy of some of the material in the "concerns" section that inspired me to add in 1.5 of my own. I am too close to the debates on this topic and should write my own research article(s) rather than twist WP articles toward my take on things. I usually try to stay out of stuff to which I'm too close. I will tag that one sentence with "Needs Citation" for the time being... Wichitalineman (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see that someone modified that sentence to make it better. Of course, part of my whole problem with this area is Suber himself, who provides much less support for his claims than one might expect. As an example, he recently had an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education where he claimed that all work by professors is "taxpayer-funded" and therefore must be given away for free, because payment of tuition is taxpayer funding. It's an interesting conceptual argument, but it is not what anyone else means by taxpayer funding, and would apply to all kinds of commercial enterprises as well as colleges and universities. Note that the basic claim that anything "taxpayer-funded" must be provided without charge ot the public is on its face inaccurate: there are many examples of material that is directly taxpayer-funded to which either or both (a) the public has no access at all (secret scientific research and almost all military and security activities); (b) the public is routinely charged use fees for every usage of the resource (government parks and natural areas; toll highways). Yet Suber repeatedly makes this assertion with no statutory or case law to back up his claim, and others follow.Wichitalineman (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
On a non-content related note @User:Randykitty, I understand your concern about open access publishing, but I don't think the whole system is destined for ruin for a number of reasons. If I published my current research project in, say, Physical Review X, the publishing cost, ~$1650, would be less than 1% of the total amount spent on the project. However, I wouldn't need to pay it myself, since my university, like many others, has a fund to pay for open access publishing fees for qualified journals. My university does this because it makes good financial sense. In 2012, 25.2% of the total library system budget (not just collections) went to the five largest publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, NPG, and I forget the last one). The change to e-books and electronic journals is not saving the library money; 60% of our collection budget now goes to electronic resources, but we're not getting more for our money. From 2011-2012 we got access to 10.7% more electronic journals, but 18.2% less print journals. Being able to cancel even a few of these subscriptions (not that this is easy due to bundling agreements) can save way more money than is ever spent on OA publishing fees.
There's many crappy OA journals for the reasons you mentioned, but the story doesn't hold for better journals. PRX is run by the APS, which isn't beholden to stockholders, and doesn't have any incentive to turn it into a cash cow. Since its inception, it's published far fewer articles than its long-running sister journal, Physical Review Letters. The same thing holds for the journals published by the British equivalent of the APS, the IOP. Just my opinion. Best, a13ean (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Where I work, personnel charges and many other things come out of the overall budget, not my research budget. So I basically just pay for "consumables". But publishing charges do come out of my research budget and publishing just one article may eat up 10% or more of my (steadily-diminishing anyway) annual budget (and my employer expects me to publish at least two articles/year). Suppose all journals would go OA. Publishers would still make money (there are good commercial reasons why Springer bought BioMed Central and why the Nature Publishing Group bought Frontiers). Libraries budgets would plummet (after all, with all journals on the web for free, all they'd need to do would be to maintain a website). Now if the money freed up by that would be plowed back into research, we might not lose too much (we still would lose some: pharmaceutical industry, for example, "uses" much more articles than they publish and under the traditional system pay a larger share of all publishing costs than they would under a complete OA system). Unfortunately, politicians and administrators don't see things this way. If they see a falling library budget, they see a way to reduce expenses and they won't shovel out the saved money to researchers to pay for publishing their results. In the end, the cost of publishing will in effect just get taken out of our research budgets, without concomitant increases. The losers are scientists at less-well-funded institutions and scientific research as a whole. And, please, don't come with the argument of waivers being available for scientists without funding. I know of a case of a scientist who had become jobless, still managed to write a good article, and had to pay for its publication out of pocket (and although the fee was reduced, it still had to come out of the unemployment benefits). And this was no predatory OA journal, this was the very respectable PLOS One. I know it has become fashionable to bash Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, et al. and to tout the advantages of OA. Reality, as always, is a little bit more complex than that. --Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It's entirely true that provosts/trustees will try to cut library budgets whenever they think they can get away with it. I'll stand by my criticisms of Elsevier et al., but I may see a very different situation on the ground, as a researcher at a large institution in a field that's almost exclusively funded from grants. Best, a13ean (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Journal of Human Genetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BIOBASE (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) 11:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Burton

I restored the PubMed source also. It shows the papers after 2009. I consider it appropriate. If you do not, then just move it to external links. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

more generally, what are we do to about this editor? DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at those contributions, but don't see what you are hinting at. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

About b2

I contacted DGG about a semi-protect. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I really wonder how on Earth such a (relatively obscure) journal can engender such hatred... The IP talks of "my students". Poor people who have to study with such a troll... --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder whether it is involved with some previous attacks on US literary journals... It's the only explanation I can find. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

Did you know that WikiProject Academic Journals -- Assessment seems to use WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team assessments? I didn't know this. I just found the page. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The WP Journals version was based on the other one, which is kind of like the template for all wikiprojects. Too bad that for the moment not many people are participating in the discussion on this that you started on the WPJournals talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome note

Thank you i got your welcome note, please help in future editing.Dorisaviram (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request of removal of deletion tag

HI, I just noticed you have placed the speedy deletion tag in my article Astha Tamang Maskey. I have provided enough references to prove that it is notable. So please review this thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf Qadri

Hi, as you know I'm not so much expert in wrinting on Enlish wikipedia. But the Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf Qadri should not be deleted. But editing is possible. He was a renowned Scholar. ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI (talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Watch the page Talk:Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf QadriABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked users on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

When a user listed at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention gets blocked for any length of time, the bots will automatically remove them. If more sanctions are required, start a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  • The block of that user was unrelated to its username. There is no incident to report, so ANI doesn't seem to be the appropriate place to go to. In all, I think this is still the place to post given that the concern (but not the current block) is about the username. Thanks for your advice, though. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case, you may be better off waiting for the block to expire and then re-reporting to UAA. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it, because that pesky bot has yet again removed my report, now as a "comment"... Anyway, chances are that this user will simply not return after the block expires and the problem will have solved itself. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Associations of environment journalists may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"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:
  • * Pakistan: [{National Council of Environmental Journalists]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain?

This? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Open access journal

Hi, while tagging you removed redirect from Talk:Open access journal. Was it intentional? kashmiri TALK 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Irresponsible Editing

Hey, I just had to undo seven very unprofessional and irresponsible edits you did on the Academic Journal page. Let me remind you Wikipedia is for the truth which is not served when you make bad faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDJankins (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Academic conferences

Hi. I am irritated by your handling of academic conferences, especially that of TACAS. Academic conferences in computer science play the role of academic journals in other disciplines (Happy to explain this phenomenon if so desired). In this respect, I checked the guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide. Extrapolating this to conferences, I conclude that the venues, PC chairs and web references (if still existing) of the conference instances are among the core info to be included in Wikipedia. I thus am reverting the page to the proper version, and intend to complete it with listing PC chairs during the next days. I would appreciate to hear and discuss strong arguments for deletions from that page prior to them taking effect. SnnamreHregloH (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Journal of Sociology

Hello. I am wondering if you came to any conclusions pertaining to this discussion? Also, I am sorry that Dr.Sosteric was offended.

I am currently reviewing academic journal articles that carry the title "Electronic journal of..." which are listed here. For example, I am pretty sure I am going to PROD the article, "Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics". Besides lacking notability, it may also be unreliable. I am in the process of checking on that. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Ha! I had completely forgotten about that one. I just had a look. I don't think that SocIndex is enough to be notable. PROD will not have much chance, the editor will remove that immediately I bet. So it seems that AfD is the only option. Not a pleasant one, given his penchant for dropping huge walls of text instead of addressing issues concisely... As for the EJoTP: I PRODded that a while ago, but someone found that it is indexed in Scopus, which generally is accepted as being sufficient evidence of notability (personally, though, I'm starting to think that Scopus is about as selective as Google Scholar, i.e., hardly...) I have no idea about its reliability though. --Randykitty (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

THE Journal of Conflict Resolution

The front cover of the journal quite clearly states The. Well, not worth getting into a hissy fit over, but just wondering for your thoughts on the front cover.

Also, are you a "journal addict"? I mean do you ache to create articles for scholarly journals that don't have them yet? I can help you, if so! I've made one already (Diplomatic History). LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, a while ago I had a similar case (can't remember the name, though) and was slapped on my fingers because the journal's own website didn't use "the" in the title. That's the case for Journal of Conflict Resolution, too (see here and here). So if even its own publisher treats it as if "The" is not part of the title, we shouldn't do so either. As for journals, that's indeed my main interest, although I rarely create articles: I am being kep busy enough with cleaning up articles created by people working for publishers or trying to keep down POV pushers and people who insist that their journal really is the best in the field... I also regularly patrol newly created pages to check for new articles on journals (unfortunately, some of the worst creations come from the "articles for creation" process and those don't show up as newly created articles, as they are just moved into mainspace (same for articles created in sandboxes, by the way). However, those I often catch once someone tags them for WPJournals (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Academic Journal articles by quality log). I look orward to seeing more of your new articles. My user page has a number of helpful links and the journal article writing guide has lots of helpful suggestions. For a list of the journals that are most cited opn WP but still don't have an article, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Missing1 (but note that the first three entries are not academic journals, but magazines; the list is not perfect, it's made by a bot). Let me know if you need any help with a particular issue. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK! Thanks for taking the time to get back to me. I'll make some new ones soon, then I'll post details here so you can give them a look over. Best etc. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Imprints as company-AND-brand versus brand-only

I've decided not to revert your reversion, for reasons given further below, but I just wanted to share, in reply to your edit summary, that Saunders and Mosby are in fact today only brand names, not companies. Although you are correct that some imprints are run by their parent companies as independent companies, and that therefore imprints are not always just brand names (like Cheerios), Saunders and Mosby are not in that category; they are no longer run as independent companies, and they are now just brand names. But there are 2 reasons why I won't revert: (1) there are no references to cite to verify this fact (it's not the kind of thing that a company explains, in writing, to the public); and (2) there are so many instances in life of brands whose status (subsidiary-AND-brand-versus-brand-only) cannot practically be known by the public that, really, who cares if the Wikipedia articles on these two particular ones fail to get it correct, anyway (all that matters is that it's "close enough", which your edit is). We can expect Wikipedia to get it correct on widely known instances (for example, the various food brands of General Mills, or the various OTC health-and-beauty brands of Proctor & Gamble), but we can't expect Wikipedia to be able to be correct for lesser known instances. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • You're right about all that. I know that Elsevier runs Cell Press and Academic Press basically as independent subsidiaries (even though many things -like online publishing platforms- are integrated). I have no such knowledge on Saunders and Mosby, but there are no sources. If they were just ordinary imprints, they would in all likelihood not even be notable enough for an article. But both were very respectable companies with long histories before being acquired by Elsevier and based on that, need an article and I'm reasonably sure that there are at least some sources out there (for example things published when those companies existed 50, 75, or 100 years), even though they may not be available online. So there is potential for expansion. Once we have a good source that confirms that Elsevier now only uses these imprints as brand names, not as semi-independent subsidiaries like AP, we should change the leads to "was an academic publisher"), but for the moment I think it is indeed better this way. --Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Biozentrum University of Basel

Hello Randykitty. I need your help about the issue "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (June 2013)". Could you explain me what exactly is wrong with the external links? Thank you! Best --Indlekoferw (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox journal discussion

Be prepared to be amazed (as you mentioned in the infobox journal discussion). The closing Admin deemed that the result of the discussion was no consensus [13]. I requested that this person review the discussion and his/her decision on their talk page here. Also for further amazement see this entry on the closing Admin's page from User:Pigsonthewing[14]. It could be that this person believes the discussion closed in their favor, and went ahead and created a template. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The template in question redirects to here from the above talk page. Then when I click on the template on the top of the page -- {{Infobox settlement}} -- it redirects to here. Does this make sense to you? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, I just saw that it had been closed as "no consensus". I can live with that, because it still means that there will be no merge. The "infobox settlement" thing seems to be a completely unrelated matter. Andy works a lot with templates and this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the journals infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ulrich Mohrhoff 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:
  • ''The World According to Quantum Mechanics: Why the Laws of Physics Make Perfect Sense After All'' ({{ISBN|978-981-4293-37-2}}, was published in 2011 by [[World Scientific Publishing]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deseret News 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:
  • owned by [[Deseret News Publishing Company]], a subsidiary of [[Deseret Management Corporation]] (a [[holding company]] owned by [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (LDS Church).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_3&oldid=1143254576"