User talk:Randykitty/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Randykitty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Reply
Genes, Brain and Behavior does indeed look a bit skimpy, I guess that might reflect its short history over its lifespan so far.
Per WP:LEAD, make sure the lede intro sect functions as an adequate standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
Phrasing like "Already in its third year" seems a little not NPOV, might want to trim that.
Abstracting and indexing -- looks like some of these entries need references to back them up.
Article categories -- this sect appears to be unsourced.
Further reading -- might be helpful to add a Further reading sect to recommend to readers additional reading material along the same topic.
Hopefully this is helpful,
— Cirt (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is, thanks a bunch!! --Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry
Please explain why you commented "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (January 2014)" -- not obvious why and what would need to be done to improve the page. Ankababel (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I may also jump in here - this journal is indexed by Thomson Reuters, BIOSIS Previews [1], and CASSI [2]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
OMICS Group creations
Please come for discussion this article is about films and movies -why redirecting to Publishing? Movieking007 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Redirection - OMICS whitewash
OMICS Publishing Group pages : Your help in whitewash
Srinubabuau6 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I de-prodded this, as its deletion might be controversial. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I hope you and your family are well.
Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your thoughts, Baerian. My father-in-law passed away and we miss him sorely. But he was suffering a lot in the last year so part of me is happy that his pain is over. --Randykitty (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Atlantic Geology notability etc.
I added some more info and sources to Atlantic Geology. I guess it's not really for me to tinker with the notices you placed on the page, so if you get a chance to review some time in the next few days, I'd appreciate it. Nutshell: I addressed notability by referring to GeoRef and Scopus, which along with ResearchGate also serve as other sources of data about the journal. Cheers! Kwinkunks (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seems good now, I've removed the tags. I also removed the RG reference. Not sure this is a reliable source (most -all?- content is user-generated)
and the IF info is wrong: the journal is not listed in any Thomson Reuters database, so there is no IF. But Scopus is enough for notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Just see that the journal is indexed by TR after all and does have an IF. I searched their list using the ISSN, but the ISSN in the article is the eISSN and TR uses the print ISSN... Searching for the full title I did find the journal. Will add this info in a moment. This removes any doubt about notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Kibi Nathan (or whatever his name is)
Sorry about that. I would have expected to get an error message. Deb (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Surgical_neurology_international
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Surgical_neurology_international. Jguard18 Critique Me 07:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. I've taken the article to AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the day if it gets deleted it doesn't bother me to much but I would like to see articles that have a possible potential saved but also I was originally debating to csd the article before but I didn't I guess a missed opportunity.Jguard18 Critique Me 00:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't: articles on scientific journals are not eligible for CSD. --Randykitty (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I know I saw it somewhere
Randykitty: You said to leave a message on your talk page if I had any questions, and since I do, I am doing as you asked. I know that there is a page somewhere where you have three options for editing, and you can click on any of the three options and it will give you a random page to fix. Do you know of this page of where it might be located? Any help you be greatly appreciated. Also, I hope everything is alright with your family. Thanks! EnergySta5 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, not sure about that page. Could it be this one? If that's not it, you can try asking this at the teahouse. Hope this helps and don't hesitate to ask further questions (although I may not always know the answer, as you see :-). --Randykitty (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Trouted
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: the lulz
- Nothing against a good trout, but what was the "something silly" that I did? --Randykitty (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Just felt like trouting someone that's all Jguard18 Critique Me 00:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Would you perhaps also have some almond slivers, goes very well with trout! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I keep getting these so it's useful to know what their ostensible purpose is. (Well, sort of.) Deb (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I sometimes use them myself, but if someone makes a mild personal attack or starts an AFD for something that actually quite clearly is notable. I don't think I've felt silly enough yet to "whale" somebody :-) --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Mohan’s Diabetes Specialities Centre
Can i know why the page content was deleted and redirected..? if any error was in the page it could have been intimated. it would be nice what was the error in the page so as i could rectify it in my further activities in the page.. i restored the content of the page.. please let me know before any actions taken. the page you have directed it was a biography whereas the page Dr. Mohan’s Diabetes Specialities Centre is an hospital chain in South india. Thank you !! (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 11:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, it is my impression that these clinics are borderline notable, the article was borderline promotional Mohan himself, and the article was basically mostly about. In such cases it is often better to combine articles. Since the (also mildly promotional) biography also mentions the hospitals, it seems better to me to combine the two. I see that you contacted Anna Frodesiak about this, so let's see what she says. If she thinks there's enough material for two articles, I'm fine with that. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again, seems like AF agrees with the redirect. So what do you prefer: maintain it as a redirect to the article on Mohan or take it to AFD? --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi.. Its an hospital with more than 30+ centres and 1000+ staff in south india its very notable in southern india.. I think the biography has lot of content about the hospital then it requires may be we could filter that V Mohan page rather redirecting it.. what do u say on this ?? (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't think so. Adding whatever sourced info there is on the clinic to the article on Mohan would strengthen that one. The size of these clinics really is not an issue. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi.. Its an hospital with more than 30+ centres and 1000+ staff in south india its very notable in southern india.. I think the biography has lot of content about the hospital then it requires may be we could filter that V Mohan page rather redirecting it.. what do u say on this ?? (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- hmmm if page has to be merged or redirected why not the biography be merged in the hospital page..I am not saying because i started the hospital article because most of them aware of hospital then the founder..people generally search about hospital then about the person..what do u say on this?? (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I knw i mentioned about the hospital details to tell its presence and notability. I und what you saying. I feel that the page on a well known chain of diabetes hospital in the country should exist rather than about the founder of a hospital. I perceive like people would search or will want to know about the hospital rather than the individual. Anyways see whats best. Thanks !! (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 19:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- If a redirect is left in place at the hospitals page, then that will lead any people looking for info to the page on the founder. As it stands, there are more sources about the founder, so I feel that it is better to redirect there. It already mentions the hospitals, so I'm not sure whether much needs to be merged any more. --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I knw i mentioned about the hospital details to tell its presence and notability. I und what you saying. I feel that the page on a well known chain of diabetes hospital in the country should exist rather than about the founder of a hospital. I perceive like people would search or will want to know about the hospital rather than the individual. Anyways see whats best. Thanks !! (talk) user:Sayowais Owais 19:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- In regarding the references.. this article has enough references on the hospital itself and inline citation as well. Whereas the biography article V Mohan has multiples issues among which is the lack of references and citations.. merging this page onto to page which has no credibility of its sources.. Need to a give thought again. Thanks !! (talk) (user:Sayowais) Owais 05:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
PRAXIS journal follow-up and other question
- Hello Randy, I hope you are doing well. I read that your father in law passed away. I am sorry.
I had a couple of questions for you from a while ago. First, I followed the guidance you pointed me to and I read WP:NJournals, based on that, I have added some more analysis on the notability of PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security, in its talk page. Could you kindly review it and weigh in? Thank you. Second, I am seeking your advice on something else. According to the WP guidelines on writing articles on journals, it is recommended to write a list of Editors-in-Chief. How do you go about referencing that? I believe using the journal itself is an admissible source for this kind of info. But how to cite it? It feels unnecessary to be entering an in-line citation for each Editor-in-Chief, referencing multiple volumes of the same journal. Is there a better, more advisable way? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:40, 19 Feb 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your thoughts. I'll have a look at those sources when I find a moment. As for the EICs, it is often difficult to find reliable sources for that. Sometimes a journal will publish an article on its history when it exists 25 or 50 years, for example, and then one can use that. If such is not available, I recommend that you ask the advice of DGG, who has a lot of experience with these things. I myself don't often add such lists, as I already have work enough maintaining all the articles on my watchlist and rarely have time to actually expand them significantly. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is always a source for EdIC if you can find a file of the journal, which is by inspecting it. (and in fact the vols back to v.15 are on line on their web site)I do not consider this original research--indeed, I consider it a better source than any bibliographic record, because it avoids transcription error. Myself, I too add such lists only when easily available. The virtue of adding them when it is convenient to do so, is that all the eds. in chief of a major journal are considered notable under WP:PROF We will usually not have articles on them all, but I leave them linked so they show as redlinks to indicate needed articles. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. Randykitty, DGG, thank you for your comments and advice. Allow me one clarifying question. This will help me not only with this article but with any other where I encounter the same question. One of the better options, as Randykitty points out, is to find a listing of names in a single document, and reference that. Otherwise, as DGG explains, when we can find the file of the journal online, as is the case for this journal, from vol. 15 onwards, I believe there are three ways of referencing it: 1) Making a note at the beginning of the EdIC section saying "according to the journals themselves...", 2)making one single reference to the webpage where the archived journals are 3) for each EdIC (usually it changes every year) reference each volume individually. The latter option seems unreasonably cumbersome,and I wonder if options 1) or 2) would suffice while in properly following the wikipedia guidelines/principles. Or, if there is some other options I haven't thought of... Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:43, 22 Feb 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly, for shorter articles I don't always bother with sourcing, reasoning that the info given (when not referenced) clearly derives from the journal homepage. But if you want to nominate an article for GA status, for example, that is not enough. I would opt for 2 in that case. Another option is that often a newly appointed EIC will introduce her-/himself with an editorial and that would be a perfect reference for that particular editor, of course. It often also says something about the predecessor, so then you have two in one :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. Randykitty, DGG, thank you for your comments and advice. Allow me one clarifying question. This will help me not only with this article but with any other where I encounter the same question. One of the better options, as Randykitty points out, is to find a listing of names in a single document, and reference that. Otherwise, as DGG explains, when we can find the file of the journal online, as is the case for this journal, from vol. 15 onwards, I believe there are three ways of referencing it: 1) Making a note at the beginning of the EdIC section saying "according to the journals themselves...", 2)making one single reference to the webpage where the archived journals are 3) for each EdIC (usually it changes every year) reference each volume individually. The latter option seems unreasonably cumbersome,and I wonder if options 1) or 2) would suffice while in properly following the wikipedia guidelines/principles. Or, if there is some other options I haven't thought of... Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:43, 22 Feb 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vell i nou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'm afraid I've had to decline the BLPPROD tag you placed on this article. The restrictions on placement of that tag are quite narrow, please see WP:BLPPROD, even self-published or otherwise unreliable sources are enough to prevent placement of the tag. (Please take complaints on those restrictions to WT:BLPPROD, I've done what I can.) At this point, you may wish to consider WP:AFD as an alternative. Thanks for understanding! --j⚛e deckertalk 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that, it's been a while since I read that policy. I was thrown off because BLPPROD says (third sentence) that the tag should only be removed if one reliable source is present. But that is not a necessary condition for placing it and as you say, even a crappy reference is enough to prevent placement. Weird to have these different criteria... In any case, learned something today :-) I'm too busy to take it to AfD (no time for BEFORE right now), so I'll just put some other tags on it and let it go at that. --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I define reliable in this context as being sufficiently reliable to prove the basic element of significance. For anyone with a published book from an established publisher, Worldcat will do that. As for Grinde, a book recognized as outstanding academic title by Choice is probably enough. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Silva Iaponicarum
Dear Randykitty, I think it's not ok to nominate a journal for deletion without having browsed its publications. The impact factor etc. shall be treated only as an indication. Please be aware that in many countries the Anglosaxon indexes have little importance and not every academic field sticks so rigorously to these statistics. Considering its popularity in Eastern Europe, I think Silva does meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Best, Uchinanchu2014 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps you can explain how it meets any of our guidelines (either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG). As far as I see, it meets neither. It is not in any Thomson Reuters database (so it simply does not have an impact factor), nor is it indexed anywhere else, I think. As for the popularity in Eastern Europe, you will have to provide reliable sources for that. Let me know if you can find those or need help adding them to the article. If they cannot be found, I'll take the article to AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is published by an informal group of three universities, without any single institution sponsoring it, so we can't even merge to the publishing body. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Vile names
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
From --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Reminds me of something Robert Heinlein once wrote (citing from memory now): When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- for source, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Panic , last item. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 4
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Helen Mason (endocrinologist)
Hey Randy - you seem to have removed my contributions in this article Christophe (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have explained my edits on the article's talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- did you? I must have missed them! Christophe (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Maths whatsit (mag)
Sorry, but the current version is different enough for me to decline G4. I'm not sure about the notability side of things, though, so I'd suggest prod or AfD again. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, I couldn't see the old version, of course. Given that it went through AFD before, I guess that PROD would be inappropriate, so I'll take it to AFD again. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Syntax: writing references within the body of the text vs. in the reflist
Hey Randykitty, I would like to draw your attention to the talk page of Polar Geography, regarding setting up the syntax style. I created the article using the "List-defined references"(WP:LDR). (talk) user:Al83tito 3:46, 4 Mar 2014
- Hi, I've responded there. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Ratul Puri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Business Today
- Val Murray Runge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to MD
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Is there a reason you removed the "Informa" category from this page? [3] Because it's clearly an Informa journal. [4] Jinkinson talk to me 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a simple reason: the journal is in the (somewhat superfluous) "Expert Review journals" category, which is in the "Informa journals" category. Therefore it is not needed (and even overcategorization) to put it in the Informa journals cat, too. --Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I didn't realize that Informa published all the Expert Review journals.
- Also, while I'm here--I was hoping I could get a response from you at the AFD for Gastrointestinal Nursing (where I voted keep), because I'm not sure if my argument is valid or not. Jinkinson talk to me 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, it looks like you responded. NVM. Jinkinson talk to me 21:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, while I'm here--I was hoping I could get a response from you at the AFD for Gastrointestinal Nursing (where I voted keep), because I'm not sure if my argument is valid or not. Jinkinson talk to me 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I didn't realize that Informa published all the Expert Review journals.
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Latin American Literary Review Press may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Latin American Literary Review Press |date= |accessdate=2014-03-03}}</ref> The [[editor-in-chief]]) is Yvette E. Miller.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce E. Johansen may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- }}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
RfA
I've made some comments more recent than you !vote on the current RfA DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Long rant and copied tags
|
|---|
NOTICE of suspected inappropriate conduct — Issue Number One — |
AIP Advances
Hi Randykitty, I've started a section on the talk page of AIP Adv, so we (and whoever) can discuss the bits we disagree on there. Joaosampaio (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've responded there. --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Removal of refs
You have removed the sole reference from Hungarian Studies (journal) and Journal of Roman Archaeology. Why? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- A link to the journal's homepage (which per WP:JWG should already be present in the infobox and the external links section) does not really accomplish much. These stubs consist of 1 (one) short phrase. Adding a "reference" that is just another link to the journal homepage in conditions like this is overkill. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was you who complained that one of them had no refs! Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ever heard of independent references? Reliable sources? Why do you think I put the word references between "" here? A link to the homepage may technically be a reference, but it doesn't establish anything and can only be used to source non-controversial material (who is the EIC, when was it established, what is the scope, and such), not things like notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- By all means add one then, what is there is fine as far as it goes. If you sincerely believe either of these journals are not notable please send them to AFD. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have been offline all weekend and am catching up with a lot of stuff. I have no time to start looking for references for these journals, so I cannot take them to AfD as I have no time for WP:BEFORE. Putting a "notability" tag alerting other editors to the problem is therefore completely legitimate (if it weren't those tags would have been deleted ages ago). If they bother you, well as article creator nothing holds you back! --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- By all means add one then, what is there is fine as far as it goes. If you sincerely believe either of these journals are not notable please send them to AFD. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ever heard of independent references? Reliable sources? Why do you think I put the word references between "" here? A link to the homepage may technically be a reference, but it doesn't establish anything and can only be used to source non-controversial material (who is the EIC, when was it established, what is the scope, and such), not things like notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- It was you who complained that one of them had no refs! Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
APL Materials
Hello Randy Kitty, I have edited the APL Materials page and added the journal home page as a reference. Also, the page was proposed for deletion, but i removed the message off the page. The journal is published by AIP Publishing, which also publishes several other notable journals that are indexed in the science citation index. What can I add to keep the page from being removed. I thank you in advance for any help and input you provide. Publishing AIP (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, it's too bad that you removed the deletion notice, because now we will have to go through the articles for deletion process, a waste of time. For a short stub like this one, adding the journal's home page (already linked in the infobox and under "external links" is absolute overkill and smacks of promotion. That AIP publishes other journals that are notable is irrelevant, this one is not notable. Please see WP:TOOSOON and do not create articles for journals that just got established and still have to show that they will actually survive. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I made some changes to the page. I searched and found that the journal is indexed in selective databases, which should help with the concern of notability. Publishing AIP (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm flabbergasted. Being included in the SCIE this fast is exceptional, but it checks out. I have withdrawn the nomination. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from IZA_Journal_of_Labor_Economics, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I will indeed take it to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Randykitty, I am not very familiar with the deletion discussions in the English wikipedia. As we have now our two opinions and gave our comments and arguments, how is this proceeding from now on? Thank you, best, Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have a look at WP:AFD, which explains the procedure. Normally, these discussions are evaluated after 7 days (to give the community a chance to voice their opinions) and then either closed or re-listed for further debate for another 7 days. However, there currently is often a backlog of AFD discussions that need to be closed, so it may be a bit longer than 7 days. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Randykitty, I am not very familiar with the deletion discussions in the English wikipedia. As we have now our two opinions and gave our comments and arguments, how is this proceeding from now on? Thank you, best, Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Japanese invasion of Gonzaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Gonzaga
- Japanese invasion of Legaspi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Legaspi
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
NOTICE of posting at Wikipedia:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.N.Stanway (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Thank you for your time, interest, and assistance on a subject that I am new to, Academic Journals. Best regards, Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) |
- My pleasure, thanks for the baklava! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Find Links App
Hi! I noticed that you have listed the find links app by Edward Betts on your user space. Would you mind explaining how it works. I have tried to feed in article titles and all I get is ""searching for article xxxxxxx 0 found (7 total)"". My question is what follows after these results. Answer on my talk page. Thanks in advance. Juhuyuta (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's weird. I just tried it and it works fine. I entered "American Journal of Orthopsychiatry" (a new article that I have on my to-clean list) and it gives one match (I admit I don't know why it also says "54 total"). If you click the link to the article found, an edit window opens and the article that you searched for will automatically be wiki-linked. I didn't do this yet for "American Journal of Orthopsychiatry", so you can play around with it if you like. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Es (Unix Shell)
I noticed that you merged this with rc. I'm not sure this was justified from the limited discussion: there were four people who appeared to have an opinion (2 keeps, 1 delete, 1 merge), and no-one responded to my disagreement with the merge. The original closing administrator also reopened it after being provided with additional citations (back in 2012), before this third attempt at deletion by Msnicki. I'm sure I could provide more contentious debate on this if there was anyone to debate with :) Wryun (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm a bit behind with stuff, I'll look into this tomorrow. Sorry about that, but I have some intermittent Internet problems. --Randykitty (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again, sorry that it took a while to get back to you. An AfD decision is not based on counting votes, but on the arguments that are put forward. One of the keep !votes did not produce any policy-based arguments. Your own keep !vote did not seem to be based on policy either. So both keep !votes can be interpreted as "I like it", which is not enough of an argumentation. The nom was for deletion, of course, but also indicated that merging was a good option. I agree that merging is better than outright deletion, so I went forward with that decision. Of course, if there is a more appropriate article where this could find a place, you are absolutely free to add some material on es to that article. If you completely disagree with the AfD outcome, you can go to deletion review (but be sure to read through that page before filing a DRV). Hope this helps and explains. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that an administrator could make that call, but I thought that as a non-administrator you could only act on non-controversial cases. Given that I thought I disagreed with the merge proposal for legitimate reasons (i.e. that it's not sufficiently related and looks out of place in the rc article - is that not a policy based argument?), and no-one had responded to those reasons, it seemed to me that there was insufficient discussion. Thanks for pointing out the deletion review; I'll consider it. Wryun (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NAC#Pitfalls to avoid does indeed say "non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions" (i.e., controversial topics). However, there are several remarks to make here. First, NAC is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Second, it says "should generally avoid", not "are forbidden". Third, the definition of controversial topic does not seem to apply here. Fourth, the advice not to close controversial debates is explicitly directed towards "inexperienced editor", which I don't think applies to me.
- The applicable policy is outlined in WP:NACD, which also advices against non-admins closing contentious discussions. Problem is that we currently often have large backlogs at AfD. This AfD was a case in point: although an AfD is supposed to be closed (or relisted) after 7 days, this one had been running for 9 days when I closed it. When the choice is between letting a backlog accrue or helping out, DRV has determined in the past that non-admins, provided they have enough experience, can close controversial discussions. This is what I did here. I just re-reviewed the AfD. There was one delete !vote (the nom), one merge !vote (with you opposing and the nom indicating that this was also an acceptable solution to them), and finally one keep !vote (yourself). There was one other opinion expressed, by Agumonkey, which one could interpret as a keep !vote, but that basically boiled down to I like it, not the strongest of arguments. That leaves your arguments as the main dissenting voice and I did not find them convincing or firmly based in policy. The nom's rebuttal that 14 citations on Google Scholar is not much are completely justified. In all, I stand with my decision and am perfectly willing to have the community review it at DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I guess a print reference is acceptable, but it is very weird that this connection is not mentioned neither on the publisher's website nor on the society's website. The article on the society even said that they "publish" the journal together with T&F, but that clearly seems to be incorrect. Perhaps T&F has an agreement with this society offering the journal for a reduced rate or something like that? (BTW, just a pedantic note: non-confidential stuff like this should be handled on WP, not by email and even more properly on the article's talk page itself). --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're quite right, it's not published by the Institute, it's published by Sage and handled by T&F. I've left a note at that article Talk Page. I'm also surpised there is no mention at the wesbite, but then I couldn't see any list of any of the other member journal options there either. Sorry if you think that's "wierd"! Sincere apologies for emailing - I thought it was more polite. I shall remenber not to do that again. Am also surprised that the articles for both IEHF and HFES are classed as "journals" in terms lf project banners, when they are clearly professional organisations. Perhaps that's the closest thing available? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- They're not "classed" as journals, the banner just indicates that this project is interested in those articles. As there is no "WikiProject Learned Societies", WPJournals decided years ago to include such organizations in their scope. It just means that someone will take a look if an article gets proposed for deletion and such... Don't worry about the emailing, but I think it should be reserved for delicate matters that cannot or should not be public (I share my password to the [[Web of Science] with another editor here and obviously don't want to post that for all to see... :-). Anyway, if we cannot source something, even if we know that it is correct, we actually cannot write it because what we write should be verifiable. But, again, a printed document is acceptable (as long as it is published and not some internal memo or something like that). --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Although Ergonomics (55 years old) and Applied Ergonomics both get a mention in the IEHF 64th Annual Report 2013, there is no sign of EiD. And I guess my membership invoice is not classed as a WP:RS, so not sure what to suggest. I've received it for nearly over 8 years, I think, so I can certainly vouch for it's validity! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is that annual report a publication with an ISBN or something like that, or perhaps available from the society website? In those cases it would probably be a RS. --Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's not. As a small organisation it only runs to 20 pages and it just has the Institute's Logo and contact details. I could look through past Annual Reports, but then that wouldn't be a "current source", so am a bit stumped really. I'll keep hunting I guess. Oh well, never mind Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Niro (talk • contribs)
- Is that annual report a publication with an ISBN or something like that, or perhaps available from the society website? In those cases it would probably be a RS. --Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Although Ergonomics (55 years old) and Applied Ergonomics both get a mention in the IEHF 64th Annual Report 2013, there is no sign of EiD. And I guess my membership invoice is not classed as a WP:RS, so not sure what to suggest. I've received it for nearly over 8 years, I think, so I can certainly vouch for it's validity! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your RfA participation
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your participation at my recent RfA, even if I couldn't sway you to support me. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. I understand the criticism that was raised by the community about my judgment with AfDs and such, but I can't say that I still really understand your objection, because superficially it seems you were criticizing my responses even when my responses were correct. Anyhow, you're not required to explain it, but I thought I'd mention it. I appreciate your input and I know our paths will cross again. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I think I do owe you an explanation, an RFA !vote, especially an oppose, should be clearly argued. I obviously did not a good job with that. In fact, my concern was mainly with your lack of AfD experience. Your answer to that particular question (was it Q11? I am working from memory here, a bit short on time) seemed to suggest that you were unfamiliar with relisting, so I mentioned that in my oppose !vote, even though it was not my main motivation. I just didn't want to repeat what everybody else had already said, because that's not very useful to anyone. AfD is a difficult point at RFA. Even if a candidate says that they don't intend to work in that area, they will have the mop if successful and may start using it anyway. AfDs are often contentious enough as it is, so we really can do without them being closed by admins that don't have a good understanding of the process. Having said all this, if you work a bit on AfD in the coming months, I'm sure that I'll support your next RfA, because you obviously are a solid candidate with the best of the encyclopedia at heart. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I adopt you as a mentor?
Hi Randy, I am a newbie on here. I recently became active on WP as a result of my current role as President of Chess Journalists of America in order to help strengthen the articles concerning chess on Wikipedia. I am looking for a good mentor and, coincidentally, noticed that you set my personal page for deletion. Even so, my pp had nothing to do with my joining since it was established long ago. As I understand it, the article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. I have been tempted to expanded it myself, but obviously I would have to fight personal bias to do so. Could you please direct me on how to get it properly updated. I'm sure I will learn some important things in the process. As a start, I am in the process of putting pertinent reference links to reliable sources on my personal user page. Thanks for your help and/or pointing me in the right direction. Respectfully, Frank Niro (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And, by the way, I am looking forward to interacting with you in the future on the subject of Academic Journals, another endeavor in which I am newly engaged. Finally, I appreciate that you took the time to post some helpful hints on my User Page. Frank Niro (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Frank, I'm always willing, provided I have time, to give advice (and hope that it is good... ;-) Just post any questions here. If I don't know the answer, I generally know whom or where to ask. AS for Frank Niro, we prefer to say that it is an article about you, instead of calling it a "personal page" (wee WP:OWN for some explanation; beware: starting here you'll have to read a lot of policies and guidelines, but generally they're pretty straightforward and logical and they'll help you navigate around the most obvious pitfalls here). Anyway, the article is insufficiently sourced and also does not explain why the subject is "notable". That is not a value judgment and has nothing to do with being good or bad or worthy or anything like that. It really means something like "having been noted", and that has to be verifiable with references to independent reliable sources. I "PRODded" the article, meaning that there is a week in which to find appropriate sources before the article will actually be deleted. If good sources exist, that meet either one of the guidelines that I linked to in the PROD template, then the article will stay and the template removed. As you note, you have a COI, so the best thing to do is to post any sources that you are aware of on the talk page of the article. I'll then have a look at them and possibly integrate them into the article. Hope this helps! --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Randy, I appreciate the helpful advice and I will do as you suggest. I have an abundance of sources that I have had to cultivate for the fact checkers working on my memoir. But, to be honest, spending time on the article about me is not the reason I became active in Wikipedia. There's a whole list of American chess personalities that are part of the [Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess] and are listed as stubs. Is it your intent to go through the list and mark others, besides me, for deletion? It is my goal, as President of CJA, to put together a team of chess journalists, including myself, to expand these articles. I didn't expect that there would be somebody looking to delete any of them in the meantime. Frank Niro (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No that is not my intention. I generally work a bit less systematic than that and follow links or check people's contribution histories. That's how I came to this article, too. Your goal seems very laudable to me! --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like we have a mutual understanding. Go here: Talk:Frank Niro and I expect that you will find some reliable references. Once again, I appreciate your help. Frank Niro (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I appreciated your thoughtful and compassionate participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
International Journal of Modern Physics
Hi, thank you for the edit on the International Journal of Modern Physics. I believe that you have the access to delete uploaded images. Can you help to delete one of the image that I mistakenly upload with a wrong license? File:International Journal of Modern Physics A, IJMPAcover.jpg It is now become a duplicate to the cover of International Journal of Modern Physics A. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPratiwi (talk • contribs)
- Hi, no I cannot directly delete a file as I am not an admin, but I have tagged the file for speedy deletion (referring to this discussion) and an admin will delete it shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Randy, I need some advice. If I would like to split the journals, so that each of them has its own Wikipedia page, what will be the best way to do it? User talk:WPratiwi
- Why would you want to do that? Provided that the correct redirects are in place, nobody will have any trouble finding info on them. This way, we have a more substantial article, splitting them up will result in 5 short stubs. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I agree with you that we do not want to create pages with no significant information. I am looking at how the Wikipedia pages of journals under Physical Review series and Journal of Physics series are being arranged, it seems that the arrangement of the Physical Review series is more suitable for International Journal of Modern Physics for now. In addition, I just found out that I cannot upload cover images for each of the journals. Another question, the International Journal of Modern Physics Journals actually have two other journals that should be included in this series: Modern Physics Letter A and Modern Physics Letter B. Can I just add these two journals to the page? User talk:WPratiwi
- Yes, I see no problem with that (make sure to also create the appropriate redirects). It also sounds like a good idea to re-work the article in the style of Physical Review, as the infoboxes as they stand now have a lot of redundancy. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please clarify
You reverted my edit with the summary "Revert to local reference as it was and as the others are." Can you explain what you meant by this?--Auric talk 19:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hah, this crossed: I was writing on your talk page and already answered there. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand. --Auric talk 19:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Genotype-phenotype distinction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ] |volume=45 |issue=531 |pages=129–159 |year=1911 |last1=Johannsen |first1=W. |jstor=2455747}}}</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot jumbled up the references just before you edited.
Just before you started editing on the page, Citation bot had also edited and it had made a mess of the author names in the references. You'll see the person named in the |author parameter is duplicated into one of the |last=|first= numbered parameter pairs. -- 79.67.241.229 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this sometimes happens if the old "author=" parameter is used. The article is an absolute mess anyway. If Fuster wasn't so clearly notable, I would have proposed it for speedy deletion as spam... Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Dream Focus
Hello Randykitty. Since you're an experienced editor, would you mind having a word with Dream Focus about of Summer Flame&action=history this edit? The user is restoring infobox parameters that have been deprecated and doesn't really seem to know what they are doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I made a minor edit removing the wikilinks for "United States" and "English" (overlinking). I almost reverted the rest of that edit, too, but finally did not do so. Have a look at this discussion on the talk page. Looks like the change where those fields were deprecated was not uncontroversial and might very well be reverted in the near future (I think that, given the availability of Wikidata, that would actually be preferable). I don't know whether that was the reason behind Dream Focus' revert (which was only explained by a preference, not really a strong reason to revert), but it is the reason for me not to revert back. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for directing me to that discussion, and thank you for being willing to look into the matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
First, feel free to revert my edit if you find the following arguments not-convincing:
- moving code-heavy refs to the bottom makes the article more friendly to new editors
- the location of the ref doesn't matter for ease of deletion as long as it is used in at least 2+ places, thus requiring that one looks for it (which in either case is not that difficult through a search function)
- grouping all refs in one place allows for more easy mass manual cleanup, alphabetical sorting and such.
The only thing that becomes more difficult is the copy and paste of the text, through that again can sometimes be a problem under a non-cleaned up text if the main ref is in a different place anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm, I guess I'm too used to the "old ways". Can't argue too much with your arguments (especially the first one), but admit I don't like it. Guess I'm a conservative after all, and an obsessive-compulsive one at that :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Some people will get upset about the change of code style. Are you simply moving the code, or are you making other fixes at the same time? If you are making other fixes, it may be prudent to do the moving in one edit and the fixing in a separate edit so that the changes can be clearly seen. Before you hit save I would also urge you to "find and replace" such that there's a single space before each pipe separator in the references. This makes the word-wrap so much more friendly. -- 79.67.241.229 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- You should post this on Piotrus' talk page, not here, as I am not sure he'll see this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- If anyone wants, instead of going from talkpage to talkpage we can just call him here? A simple @Piotrus: will do just that.--Mishae (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- If anybody dislikes this too much, feel free to revert; I don't feel strongly enough to revert war about this on article where I am not the principal author. I still think that in light of the arguments I presented above, it makes more sense to move extra code to the bottom, through with the visual editor slowly gaining acceptance, I think this will also be a moot point in a year or two. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Randykitty, I saw you did good work slimming down the overweight American Diplomacy. But I don't altogether understand your change from "Start class" to "Stub" on the talkpage. Or well, I understand calling it a stub, but not your reasoning: "Notability not clearly established". Stubs need equally to be about notable subjects, surely? I agree the references don't establish notability. But shouldn't the conclusion be PROD or AfD, rather than "Stub"? Do you think there are any reliable third-party sources out there that could be added? (Incidentally, surprisingly promotional DYK hook, wasn't it?) Bishonen | talk 14:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
- I went a bit fast there, mixing two things. I re-assessed it as "stub" and at the same time wanted to make a remark about notability and used the edit summary for that. So the notability thing was not my reason for re-assessing. I realize that was less than clear... I used to assess articles like this as Start myself, but changed after some remarks by, I think, Piotrus (I think it was on my talk page, not quite the time right now to look it up, but his argument was that to be start, an article should pass the DYK word limit). I didn't PROD it or take it to AfD (or even put a notability tag on it), because the website looks quite professional and it has been around for quite some time, so I think there is a good chance that there are some sources out there (but perhaps difficult to find, given the rather common name). I did slim it down, actually to below the DYK word limit, but it was already listed, so I wasn't screwing up somebody's DYK nom. However, I agree that the hook was kind of promotional and also rather uninteresting (by now there must be thousands of journals by now that are available for free on the web). Like AfC, DYK is not perfect and things slip through from time to time... --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am a bit confused about notability of the above person. On one hand, he have a reliable source US News and a PubMed RS for peer reviewed articles of which are over 50. PubMed doesn't provide citations though. Is he notable?--Mishae (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Google Scholar gives a few highly-cited articles (100 cites or more), but I don't see that on the Web of Science, where he has an h-index of 11 and 367 citations total, which is not enough for WP:Academic#1 in his field. There is the career award, if that is really a big thing, that might make him notable, but given hs citation record, I'd be surprised if that were the case. At an AfD I'd probably !vote "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's the reason why I put PubMed, since ironically I couldn't find him in Google Scholar.--Mishae (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- O.K. before I will create another article on non-notable academic, can you kindly look for Kirk Kindsfater? I can't find his h-index in GS, but he mentioned in PRNewswire which is considered to be an RS. Or its not enough?--Mishae (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- That source does not contribute to notability, as it apparently is a press release from the institution where he works. In GScholar I get one publication cited >100 times, but I don't see that in Web of Science, where he has about 160 citations and an h-index of 6. Again, very borderline, I'm afraid. If you want a source for researchers in all kinds of fields who most certainly are notable, have a look at this website. It only contains very highly cited people and many of them don't have an article here yet. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- O.K. before I will create another article on non-notable academic, can you kindly look for Kirk Kindsfater? I can't find his h-index in GS, but he mentioned in PRNewswire which is considered to be an RS. Or its not enough?--Mishae (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's the reason why I put PubMed, since ironically I couldn't find him in Google Scholar.--Mishae (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Userfication complete. :) Please never hesitate to ask; I'm happy to accomodate any request that might result in constructive new articles. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)