Jump to content

User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for your attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Shahid Alam. I particularly appreciate your participation in analyzing sources and reference to applicable guidelines. I hope it might help other editors in the long run. Thanks again! JFHJr (㊟) 08:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Americas Quarterly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trafficking (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) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi. You reverted my de-stubbing of CytoJournal. WP:STUB encourages WP:BOLD removal of stub tags from articles that are not stubs - "n article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject".

The article in question (along with the many articles I de-stub, pretty much the only activity I do on WP anymore) has several paragraphs of informative information. IMO a stub resembles this - PNP agar* - two sentences with barely any content (but still valid enough to not require deletion). *though even this is almost borderline not-a-stub

Stubs also need to be readily expandable. I doubt the CytoJournal article could get much bigger. Reliable sources just don't exist.

CytoJournal is correctly tagged as an Orphan. If you think it requires further expansion consider the {{expand}} (or whatever is being used these days).ZayZayEM (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, I saw you de-stubbing several journal articles and agreed with that. I don't agree with this one. The article is categorized as a stub by WPJournals and doesn't meet criteria for "start class". Bit strange to evaluate something as "stub class" and then remove the stub template. I see nothing in WP:STUB that makes it imperative to remove the stub template here, so I was also BOLD and reverted. However, I really don't care enough for the stub template (or for this particular journal article, for that matter), to make an issue out of this, so I agree to let it be. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say by the projects standards and examples it certainly no longer counts as stub and should go up to start. In general, I just think its said that there are so many fine 'short' articles that are marked as "stubs" which should be saved for articles that are woeful dictionary-like entries. Short two-three paragraph articles are perfectly acceptable encyclopedia entries. ZayZayEM (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Start class: "No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." This stub does not contain any credible claim for notability, which is what it needs before it gets bumped up to Start class. I think that interpreting "stub" as a "short dictionary like entry" is a bit too narrow a definition. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ive taken a bit ofa break from de-stubbing to think about this. I've never really been into wiki-projects but they mostly seem to have taken on the article class scales from stub to GA to A. I've been de-stubbing (tag) a lot of articles that on the talkpage are "stub-class"
  • Can a really long article still be up for speedy deletion? Would such a long article still be considered stub-class?ZayZayEM (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A long article can certainly be up for speedy. The obvious case is copyvio, but I could also imagine someone writing a long article about their grandmother, without ever giving any assertion of notability, making it A7-eligible. However, I think that most of the times a long article is still classed "stub", what has happened is that it was expanded without anyone bothering to update the class. For academic journal articles, I class them "start" if they are sizeable, but if it is a toss-up between start and stub, I stick to stub if there is no assertion of notability (for journals: listing in selective databases -not DOAJ of Google- or independent sources -rare) and otherwise go for start. As not many other editors are assessing journal articles, I realize that this is perhaps not what other projects do, but as I have done this now for several thousand journal articles, I am loath to change all that... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians on My User Page

I see you deleted the category from my user page. What category could/should I put on there? Allen (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I did and I should have posted a note on your talk page about that. Something came in between and I forgot, sorry about that. "Wikipedians" is a top category and should remain empty. But there's a legion of subcats to choose from (by interest, country, etc). Have a look and take your pick! I got to your page because someone had added it to a mainspace biographical article and that one plus your user page were the only pages in that cat... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Elsevier

Bonjour Guillaume! A topic you love .. ;) I've restarted a discussion about Elsevier sponsored journals. Please also see the section above it. I hope 2012 treats you well. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

APA Style

Hey Guillaume. Regarding the APA style page it looks like there was a previous discussion on the talk page that did not reach a consensus about removing this material as a "how to." I do get your point, on the other hand I'm not sure the few examples on the page qualifies as a "how to" in comparison with the manual itself. Why don't we reopen the discussion. I'm happy to go with the consensus, but I think we need to keep the material up so people can evaluate. Avalongod (talk)Av —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Hi. We are trying to make the wikipedia page of our publishing house less confusing. Therefore I changed the link from mdpi.org to mdpi.com. You are right that mdpi.com is an outgrowth of mpdi.org. Nontheless mdpi.org/MDPI Verein is almost irrelevant while mdpi.com/MDPI AG is a rather large and important international open access publisher. Before I make any further changes I would like to consult you: We would like to create seperate wikipedia pages for mdpi.org/MDPI Verein and mdpi.com/MDPI AG. Any objections?Athiesen (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the best thing to do is to expand the current article before splitting it in two. However, given that you are directly involved with these entities, please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV carefully. It is very difficult to write objectively about a subject that you are intimately involved with, unless you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines very well (I have edited articles with which I have a COI myself, but I have several years of experience and tens of thousands of edits here, even then it is sometimes hard...). It is not forbidden to edit if you have a COI, just discouraged, for very good reasons... (as "large and important international open access publisher" above already indicates: for someone not directly involved, this publisher is perhaps less large and important, compared to giants like BMC or PLoS). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume2303, please revert all Barchester Towers characters

I'm sorry if you have not heard of Barchester Towers, which you consider unnotable. The book is published at Penguin Classics and Oxford World's Classics. Furthermore, to remove non-notabilities, one should throw it out for the deletion board to decide, and not decide on your own. DORC (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think I have said anywhere that Barchester Towers is not notable, even though that article is very badly sourced (there must be better and more reliable sources out there about this novel). However, I don't see why every character from that (and other Trollope novels) should have an individual article. This is common policy throughout WP: unless a fictional character has "out of universe" notability, with reliable sources (other than the novel/movie/etc itself, of course), there should not be an article about that character. I guess that with "deletion board" you mean taking this to WP:AfD. At this point, I don't see any need for that, as the case is abundantly clear (none of those articles had any source, so they also violated the WP policy of no original research). Redirecting is a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this and does not need an AfD. I will therefore restore the redirects, please do not revert again without providing sources and evidence of out-of-universe notability according to WP policies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I did not create the Barchester Towers page, so I cannot be taken to task for the poor sourcing in the article itself. With characters and plot summary the original source naturally are with the novel itself. I fail to find any precedent in the AfD concerning "out of universe" notability. In fact I do not understand what you mean by "out of universe". Is there something in the guideline which states explicitly, for a novel's characters, that they must have "out of universal" notability? Can you give an explicit example? Why the hurry to redirect when we are now discussing this issue? DORC (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody is taking you to task about that article, I just remarked about its state. And, no, I did not make up the term "out-of-universe". What it means seems quite self-evident to me: Notability beyond being important as a character in a specific story. For more detailed explanations of the guidelines, see WP:INUNIVERSE (and WP:MOSFICT in general) and WP:PLOT. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is a book (say) The Oxford's Companion to Trollope, which specifies the character(s), would that count as "in universe" or "out of universe"? Not only is the guideline unclear, there doesn't seem to be any policy followable concerning fictitious characters, contrary to what you say. ("There is no special guideline for the notability of fictional elements (such as characters and episodes) on Wikipedia") Would a scholarly work on Trollope mentioning the characters count as "out of universe"? DORC (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've checked randomly on Stephen Dedalus and Maria_Bolkonsky, neither of which exhibits "out of universe" notability. DORC (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • With almost 4 million articles, it is generally not that difficult to find articles that do not comply with policy. A reasonable (even though still not perfect) example of an article about a fictional character that goes beyond in-universe narrative is Darth Vader (and this from someone who -being a science fiction fan- thoroughly dislikes Star Wars...). An "Oxford's Companion" would be a reliable source, but if it still would not go beyond "John Doe is a character in novel X, who murders Pete Smith", it still remains in-universe. None of the articles on the Trollope characters go beyond bare plot and, hence, have no place in a serious encyclopedia. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • PS: I just had a look at the two articles you mentioned. I redirected one to War and Peace, but the other one (although badly sourced) clearly discusses the character in an out of universe context, going above and beyond who did what to whom in the fictional universe. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your troubles. I thought of a possible solution, by putting the names under a heading Characters of the novel. Too busy to do this now though. Thanks anyway. DORC (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about my two quick little articles (Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature and The Council of Editors of Learned Journals) and the extra work my errors gave you. I thought I was getting better but... Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

Elsevier

Hello Guillaume,

your edits of Elsevier are very reasonable, I am sorry for reverting so fast. Just one question: why have you also removed the QFK CK website also from the external links section? It is hardly unnotable, in fact, the Guardian article proves its notability! Am I wrong?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph we discuss is about the site Cost of Knowledge (how did I transform it into QFK?), created following the call by Timothy Gowers to boycott Elsevier. The petition was signed by ~4500 scientists, and was reported Guardian and several other newspapers.
I think we agree that the article in the Guardian establishes notability. But then the site is not unnotable (it is indeed not a secondary source, but it has a right to be mentioned somewhere, either in the text or in the external links section).
Am I wrong? Sasha (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
PS In fact, the Guardian article starts with a snapshot of the site.
  • Actually, I don't think that this makes the web site notable. Neither is it a reliable source, I think. As it is, I find that our treatment of the boycott is already a bit unbalanced: we cite the critical pronouncements from the Guardian, but not Elsevier's defense. Adding a direct link to a site collecting signatures for a boycott... I'm not sure that we should do that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning. However, one might as well argue that Elsevier's site is also not a reliable source (nor a secondary ref). As to the balance, I agree with you, I will try to fix that. Sasha (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Please have a look now. a) is it better? b) do you think adding a ref to the site would be inappropriate? Sasha (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (e.g. adding the text below in the External links section)

===Cost of Knowledge boycott===
* [http://thecostofknowledge.com/ Site calling for boycott of Elsevier]
* [http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/elsevieropenletter Response of Elsevier]

  • I don't think you can compare the two sites, the CoKB site was "made by a mathematics student", quite something else from a large multinational company... In any case, i think that your proposal to provide balance is very good, go ahead! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the petition has already been signed by several Fields laureates et cet. I do not think it's important who constructed the site (and neither who designed the Elsevier website). There is lots of independent media coverage devoted specifically to this site, see here.
Would you like to move this discussion to the talk page (to make it more accessible)?
Sasha (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Palliser novels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Drummond (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) 10:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

hi, I received your Speedy deletion nomination of Spaceteacher, I'm very new here, so I haven't completed the article yet. I fully understand "A7. No indication of importance" comment and I will add appropriate content. Perhaps I should move the page only into Czech wiki version, as the site operates only in the Czech Republic. Would that be appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrhel (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Online Innovations page

Hi There

With ref to my close affinaty to Online Innovations. I have read and understand the terms of use. I would appreciate it if you could reveiw my content. I have ensured that it is factual and cited the necessary.

Am I stretching here?

Regards

~~Kevingreysa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingreysa (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It is very difficult to be objective for a subject that you are closely associated with. And creating your first article to WP is already difficult enough without COI problems. I recommend that you first work on subjects that you know about, but are not involved with, before tackling an article on your own company. And, of course, if the company is really notable, someone might write an article about it anyway. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

International society for Music Education

Hi there, I think that removing an approved article and redirecting it to a stub page with virtually no information is quite an unreasonable thing to do. If you study the dates, you will see that the stub was created while the main article was under review. I fail to understand your comment about 'promotion'; ISME is an international NON PROFIT Organisation affiliated with Unesco. With best wishes, --Dr Evangelos Himonides, Institute of Education, University of London 10:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Himonides (talk • contribs)

  • "Promotional" has nothing to do with "non-profit" or "for profit". The article is in an unacceptable promotional tone and not neutral. In addition, the title is incorrect and against guidelines. How the article got "approved" is beyond me. I am going to revert your changes. Please don't re-revert. The article has to be at the correct title and needs to be neutrally worded. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The article was created by the History Standing Committee of ISME, comprising international scholars. If you are willing to be helpful, please advise about how to make the title compliant. We disagree about your interpretation of neutrality of wording. This behaviour is unreasonable; you are removing a well researched piece of text and replacing it with a stub. Regards --Dr Evangelos Himonides, Institute of Education, University of London 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Himonides (talk • contribs)
  • I've taken your comment about naming into account and performed a reverse forwarding. Please do not undo the entry. We dispute your judgement about the article's tone though. There is nothing promotional about it. Regards ,--Dr Evangelos Himonides, Institute of Education, University of London 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.Himonides (talk • contribs)
  • I'm currently trqveling and don't have timer right now, but will look into this again once I getr back. Meanwhile, you and the History Standing Committee need to (urgently) read our conflict of interest policy and ask yourselves whether the article as it stands would be something that you expect in a serious encyclopedia (just try reading it inserting a different name for ISME and you'll see what I mean). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vignesraj

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vignesraj, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Elsevier

Bonjour,

I was much too busy until now to have time to answer you.

On the page 'Elsevier' of Wikipedia you can read: 'Elsevier employs more than 7,000 people in over 70 offices across 24 countries. In addition, there are 7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers and 600,000 authors for its publications.'

On February 15th I added after publication the important precision: (all of them, besides rare exceptions, perform that work without being paid by Elsevier).

Your arguments were: (Unsourced, and wrong anyway Elsevier pays its editors, board members and reviewers get reductions on books and such (and their numbers put the number of boycott signatories rather nicely in perspective...).

I do not agree with your statement. I am member of the editorial board of the journal 'Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis' (ACHA) since 1993 when we created this mathematical journal with Academic Press which then moved to Elsevier when it bought Academic Press in 2000. Incidently, ACHA was created by the group of scientists who developed wavelet theory, which has a deep relation to music (i.e., your field). I would like to testify that I have never been paid by Elsevier, neither have any reduction on books. The only 'priviledge' members of the editorial board get is a free copy of the journal, that technically makes sense since we need to follow what is published in ACHA (while our academic institutions have not all suscribe to get it). Last week Ingrid Daubechies, one of the three chief editor of ACHA signed the petition 'The cost of knowledge', resigned and publicly mentionned that she has never been paid by Elsevier. I have been associate editor in two other mathematical journals and in 40 years of career I have only recieved a mug from SIAM (Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics) to thank me when I left the editorial board.

Let us consider the figures given on wikipedia: 'In addition, there are 7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members, 300,000 reviewers and 600,000 authors for its publications. The company publishes 2,000 journals and 20,000 books [1]'. Note that in reference [1] those 977 000 persons are mentionned as 'partners'. Let us now assume that for each of those 2000 journals one chief editor is paid by Elsevier (I have no proof of this but I can ask the three chief editors of ACHA), this would make 2000 paid editors, i.e., 0.2% of the scientists working for Elsevier. This is what I mean by 'rare exceptions'. After you discarded my addition, I put it back with 'few exceptions' hoping to please you better, but you removed it again. I have talked to biologists, physicists and chemists who confirmed me that in their field too all those scientists are not paid by Elsevier (besides the case of some one who has been running a chemistry journal for 31 years and who recognized receiving money from Elsevier).

My point in adding the sentence you have discarded is that Elsevier never explain that. No mention of this is made in reference [1]. If you are an academic scientist you will certainly understand why we think this is a problem.

I have been asked by CNRS to write a recommendation concerning relations between researchers and publishers that you can download from http://wavelets.ens.fr in 'Publications', paper n° 316.

Looking forward to hear from you, best regards,

Marie Farge, Directrice de Recherche CNRS


Ecole Normale Supérieure, 24, rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 5.

Tel: 33-(0)1-44-32-22-35 Fax: 33-(0)1-43-36-83-92 Email: farge@lmd.ens.fr Web://wavelets.ens.fr— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.89.223 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour, Elsevier has actually historically been one of the more generous publishers towards its editors, board members, and reviewers. Academic Press may have had a different culture and as it still is operated separately from the rest of Elsevier, this may still be the case. I know many editors in my field (neuroscience, not music) and they are all paid for their efforts. I have been EIC of a journal with Blackwell, and I was also paid. These payments, I can assure you, are not trivial and amount to a fair part of one's total salary (depending on the size of the journal and the work involved, this may be up to $20,000 -that's the highest I know, there may be higher). Elsevier actually pays a slightly higher rate than Blackwell (now Wiley-Blackwell), which is already a rather generous publisher. Book authors receive reductions if they buy other books, as far as I know, this also goes for article authors. For most journals, board members of course hardly do anything, so not paying them a salary is quite reasonable (it is my understanding that this is actually different in the field of mathematics). Authors never get paid, by any publisher. Nowadays, I have to put aside a sizeable chunk of my research budget to get my work published in OA journals, unless, of course, I go with Elsevier or other non-OA publishers. One of Elsevier's problems is that some of their journals are very large and therefore cost a lot. Everybody seems to get hung up on the fact that they have journals that cost $20,000. Nobody seems to complain about a mediocre journal from another publisher, providing 4 issues yearly with a total of 200 pages and costing over $1500. Brain Research (one of the more expensive Elsevier journals) gives you more pages in a single issue and has about 50-60 of those in a year. In any case, I have no references to source my assertion that editors get paid, but you don't have one that clearly shows they are not paid either, meaning that according to WP standards, you cannot put that in the article. The statement that authors don't get paid does not belong in the Elsevier article at all (it could be mentioned in the article on academic publishing), as this is industry standard all over the academic publishing industry, whether subscription journals or OA journals.

Given that you are counselling the CNRS on these issues, here's a thought that I think you should take into consideration. Suppose tomorrow all journals become OA. No more subscription rates to pay! Libraries will save big amounts of money. We researchers, however, will now face considerable expenses getting our research published (somebody will have to pay the cost of peer review, typesetting, correcting grammar/typos, maintaining web sites, etc, etc). Do you think that in the current climate, governments and universities will take the savings made on the library budgets and give them back to us? Of course, not! It's another welcome cost-cutting measure. Just as the decision that we now have to pay M2 students out of our lab budgets means that the government does not haver to pay them separately any more and, under the guise of social justice, has taken a sizeable chunk out of our lab budgets.

OK, end of this rant, back to work. Hope this clarifies my reasoning here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • PS: I'm looking at the document that you mentioned in your post and some of the information in there is severely outdated. Wiley-Blackwell, for instance, does not require that authors sign away their rights (that was changed years ago). Authors keep the copyright, but grant the publisher license to print/post online their work. I'm not sure, but I think that is nowadays the policy of many journals (and please also note that this issue is not specific to subscription journals either). I also understand from your article that mathematics authors supply a publisher with camera-ready copy. That is very domain-specific. I still remember some journals, many years ago, in the life sciences that followed this practice, but this has been abandoned long since. At this point, I don't know of any journal in my field following this practice. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited American Journal of Bioethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University (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) 19:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

IA, The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology

Re: your recent deletion of content from this entry, I don't understand "reference fails verification." If you follow the JSTOR link and expand each decade, it lists the titles of the theme issues. Martindelaware (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Which means that we're just copying that directory, right? And it said "fails verification", because you have to continue clicking; the information is not on the page linked... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Theme issues from the 2000s are readily visible on the page linked. While the tabs for the 1990s, 1980s, etc., have to be expanded, the information is still on the page linked; it's just hidden under a collapsed tab.
    • A selective listing of theme issues is not a directory in that not every issue is listed. Quoting from WP:NOTADIRECTORY, "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." I do agree that listing the contents of every single issue would not be appropriate, but the coordinated publication of multiple articles on a single theme—many of which are significant enough to have their own WP entries—is significant. Martindelaware (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • This list is not selective in that all special issues seem to be listed. If any of these entries are "famous", you can re-add them with appropriate references showing that this issue is indeed famous. That it covers a theme on which we have an article is, needless to say I hope, not proof of being famous at all. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Manuvar page

why you added redirection to FP7? The whole project page has disappeared (many hours of work)! what to do? --Boris Krassi (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Almost none of these projects confirm to Wikipedia's guidelines and all are listed in the FP7 article. Unless you can make a very strong case that this one is fundamentally different from all those other projects, that's where a (short) description belongs. Hope this clarifies. BTW, you seem to be directly involved in this project, please read WP:COI, too. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

FP7 page is complete crap in my opinion, just a list of projects, no information. I wanted to start making the difference. Of course we are different (competitive funding we got) and similar (reference to other work we place). Yes, I am involved, but I did try to follow the guidelines, proper language, links, references. With ManuVAR we do not promote anything. The project is ending. No sales, no fame. Just a piece of scientific information.

What exactly I have to prove? FP7 is only a funding body. That's it. --Boris Krassi (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • All FP7 projects got competitive funding, that alone is not enough justification to make a subject encyclopedic. The article that you wrote is not promotional in tone, but suffered from the same problems that are recurrent with this kind of projects: opaque language, "bureaucratese" expressions, woolly talk that is not very concrete and basically says nothing (example: "The goal of ManuVAR is to provide new technology and methods in order to -increase productivity and quality and reduce cost of manual work in the whole system (product and process) lifecycle; -facilitate adaptation to system customization and changes; -support efficient knowledge and skill management through the system lifecycle"). I know that the EU pushes project participants to create as much of a web presence as possible (we never have this kind of problems with NIH/NSF-funded projects, for example), but WP is not the place for that. See also my notes on research projects. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis. You do have a point about the EU projects. I can see that you have been engaged in the discussion with other people on this subject. But I have a creative proposal for you. It is clear that there is a significant and genuine (not only bureaucracy-inspired) interest from the EU projects to be represented on Wikipedia. It is also clear that the main obstacle is the way the articles are written. At the same time the FP6/7 article is not the right place for a long (thousands) of projects. My proposal: can we create a template and guidelines for the EU projects? E.g. we can specify & limit the administrative information, request the content of certain sections (with the emphasis on the results), provide guidelines on the language. The added value for the encyclopedia is not that "yet another" EU project is going to be presented, but the cross-links between the projects and subjects they study and advance. What do you think? Can we critically look at the text and try to improve it? That will be a bit more constructive than deleting the whole article.--Boris Krassi (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The issue is not whether the projects desire to have a presence on Wikipedia, but whether it is good for Wikipedia for these projects to have a presence here. very few projects meet the notability criteria. I'm mystified why only people managing European projects "desire to have a presence on Wikipedia". Nobody ever creates articles about NIH- or NSF-funded projects, or projects funded in any non-European country, for that matter. if a project is successful, it will results in publications in scientific journals (which are reliable sources) and those can be used as sources in the WP articles on those subjects (albeit sparingly, as they are primary, not secondary, sources). If those publications are cited a lot, that might help their authors to clear the bar for notability and get a biographical article here. But the project itself is almost never of much interest for WP readers. Internet listings are available (Cordis) and WP does not need to copy that. There are sufficient rules and guidelines on WP on how to write articles, on don't really think that adding one is going to be of much use. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgia Historical Society

Could you please help me understand your comments below? "Your addition to Georgia Historical Society has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators"

Are citing websites, specifically newspapers, that discuss the programs listed below not acceptable proofs? What type of cites would I need for the language below? I am the Director of Communications for the Georgia Historical Society, and we want to do this the right way. Thanks. Maibrandy (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Maibrandy

  • There were three problems with your edits (and also your post here). First of all, the text was taken verbatim from a copyrighted website. That you are related with this website and perhaps have the authority to release this text into the public domain is irrelevant, because anybody could create an account and then claim to have this authority. There is a process called OTRS, where such permission can be given in a legally valid manner. However, even if that permission would be given, copying the text from the website is a bad idea, because of the second problem: Wikipedia articles have to be non-promotional and neutral. Text from a website designed to tell the public about all the wonderful things the society is doing is bound to be in violation if that. Probably, it could be edited to be more neutral, but (and that is the third problem), if you are the director of communications of this society, then you are probably not the person to do this. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not going to fight you over it :)

It was borderline. We differ. Not worth falling out over. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Tim, I agree it's borderline and certainly not worth a fight. My reson for restoring the notability tag on it, is that I hope it will stimulate someone (perhaps the article creator) to dig up some source and then it won't be borderline any more. Without tag, many people may not even perceive a problem. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Still very much borderline to me, but just on the right side. I agree re ebsco/proquest. They are just tiny weights in the scale pan. I very much doubt it would survive a full deletion discussion at this stage. I'm pretty much done with it though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Stella Nardari

1. Where is the AFD for this article?

2. Why was there no conservation or "mini-bio" included in the "redirect"?

3. Stella Nardari-Vecchiato was Italy's oldest living person and 10th-oldest in the world. Yet we see standalone articles on 109-year-olds, like this one:

Rose Cliver

There seems to be an anti-Italy bias.69.15.219.71 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • 1/ I really don't remember. 2/ I don't watch the page this redirects to. As far as I recall, there was a minibio. 3/ Rose Cliver is as non-notable as Nardari. Just growing old is not sufficient reason for a bio in WP. If Clive still has a bio, that just means that nobody has gotten around to taking it to AfD yet. See als WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody here has an "anti-Italy bias". Please assume good faith. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
That's actually not correct. "Growing old" can be sufficient for a biography in Wikipedia, especially if the person is the "oldest person ever" (like Jeanne Calment) or the world's oldest living person. The real question is, "how much coverage in the media is needed for that person to count as notable?" I agree that Stella Nardari-Vecchiato didn't have enough coverage for a standalone article, but a mini-bio should be OK. Since you have no objection to that, I'll try that route.69.15.219.71 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That growing old makes one notable is very much a minority viewpoint. Jeanne Calment was an exception, as she generated a lot of interest and coverage. Most of the time, the only sources we have for these old people is some short article in a newspaper telling us that "he still smokes" or "she likes to sew". The standard WP:BLP1E stuff, in other words. If there is sufficient coverage, they will meet {{WP:GNG]] and/or WP:BIO and a bio can be written. If they don't meet GNG/BIO, there should be non bio. Most of the articles in the project one these supercentenarians are abominable, but I lack the energy and courage to clean all that up against the to-be-expected opposition of all the score-keeping hobbyists there. So, by all means, go ahead and add some more stuff to the Italian article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: 'Throne'

I guess you have a point. I hadn't done a book article in a while, so maybe I just wanted the challenge. But admittedly, all I could really find was Publishers Weekly. (sigh) Been a long day. -- James26 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I know... :-) Haven't had the courage to check the sources on the author. I'm surprised that somebody who has not yet even published anything already has sources making her notable. Are those really reliable sources about her (and not just in-passing mentions)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No, no, you're probably right. I've done articles on plenty of other books in recent years, like Paranormalcy, and those had more notability prior to launch. Like I said, maybe I just wanted this one to have more notability than it appears to right now, for the challenge of it all. I'll just focus my efforts elsewhere. -- James26 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant the sources in the article on the author, not the Throne article (can't even remember her name now, has been a long day here, too...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Philosophy Documentation Center list of journals and series

I am restoring your deletion of this list because the titles listed confirm the range of titles hosted by Philosophy Documentation Center. This entity is both a publisher and discipline specfiic aggregator of information about philosophy. The point of this list is to show a range of titles available in electronic format that are produced by publishers in many countries. It is evidence of support for highly specialized research in philosophy and related fields, that is lost by reference to a see also list that contains a smaller number of titles. The list could be paired down but I believe elimination is a loss of useful info about this entry. +++

  • The problem with this list is that it is eclectic and purely arbitrary. I'm not saying you don't have good judgement in selecting the journals that should be listed here, I'm saying that your judgement, like mine, is irrelevant. If you have a reliable source that discusses the range of journals/subjects covered, then you can cite that. As it stands, it is purely original research. I urge you to reconsider. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I added as source the International Directory of Philosophy that provides information about the research centers and publishers in the field that sponsor journals and conference proceedings, as well as information about the range of subjects covered by Philosophy Documentation Center. +++

Addresses and journals

About this edit - When you have a publication, you state where the offices are located. It's true with newspapers, and it's true for academic journals too. For instance the Houston Chronicle states where the headquarters are located, in Downtown Houston. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The comparison is not really apt. Academic journals are much smaller operations than a large newspaper. I was editor for 10 years of a not-so-minor scientific journal and, basically, the editorial office was wherever I put down my laptop. Mostly, the fact that academic journals still display an editorial address is a leftover from the time when authors had to submit paper manuscripts, so a mailbox was needed. Nowadays, everything goes electronic, hence the "laptop as office"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They do have a facility specifically dedicated to the journal - This map of named spaces states: - http://www.law.washington.edu/Gateshall/NamedSpace.aspx "Lowery C. Mounger, Jr. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Suite - Room L180-183" - It's within the law library WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so they have a small dedicated office in the library. Do you really think this is encyclopedic information? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If that's where the operations are based out of, yes. A small town newspaper would also have a small office in a building somewhere. The details do not have to be in the lead, though. They can be in another section of the article, or otherwise outside of the lead paragraph. If you want I'll bring this up at the WikiProject page, or a noticeboard. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To me, this info is absolutely trivial and uninteresting. Not every detail needs to be noted. We don't mention what brand computer the EIC is using or which manuscript-handling software (if any) they employ. So why mention where their desk stands? I don't think that you'd get a community consensus for including this kind of trivial stuff. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Domestic Fox

Hey Guilaume, Just wondering why exactly you reverted my change to the domestic fox page. I am the person working closest to the institute at this time and have the most up to date information on what has occured over the past year regarding Sibfox. Click their URL if you have doubts - it is no longer active. I can also show email transcriptions between myself, sibfox, and the researchers at the institute as proof - although im not sure why I need to make that public and would prefer not to. Sibfox didnt need to make their credentials public to get on the wiki - which is what caused the fiasco in the first place. They were unlicensed. I also have links to the AZA accredited sanctuary where my confiscated foxes are being held. There are videos of them and a description of the confiscation on their site.

I, along with the researchers at the fox farm, are attempting to make possible widespread proper distribution of the foxes as pets and need to put public ally how this can be done, this is why we are utilizing the wiki page. There were requests on the wiki's talk section for this information, so I simply provided. i am making NO MONEY off of these importations. it is NOT A BUSINESS. By leaving a link to Sibfox's (broken) URL and refusing to allow the updated URL to our importation site, you are perpetuating old information and blocking our progress with bringing surplus experiment animals into the U.S. Where is there a "conflict of interest"? Do you want me to make one of the researchers email you personally? Mostly, Im not sure why you reverted my changes and would like an explanation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domesticfox (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Wikipages are not "to be utilized", they exist to provide neutral and encyclopedic information. Whether or not you make money of this is not important. Unless you have reliable sources discussing the use of these foxes as pets in the US, this stuff cannot be added to the article. And if you don't understand that you have a conflict of interest, there's not much I can do for you. Please refrain from editing that article directly. If you have any worthwhile sourced information, post it on the talk page and somebody else will add it to the article. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, go ahead and keep the wiki outdated. No one needs information on how to get them as pets. They can keep asking in Talk forever. Good on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domesticfox (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Modern Law Review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity (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) 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we talk by voice?

Hello. You have been posted concerns on The Cost of Knowledge, Elsevier, and Academic journal publishing reform. Some of what you have written I do not understand, but you are an experienced editor so you must have good reasons for talking about merging content. I am writing to ask if I can arrange to speak with you by Skype or Google Hangout video chat or if I may call your phone, wherever you are in the world. I think I would come to understand you more quickly if I talked to you than if I posted questions on Wikipedia. How do you feel about this? Are you free today? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm very sorry, but that will not be possible. Our communications will have to be on these talk pages. Let me know what you don't understand and I'll try to be clearer in my writings. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Mcgee

It's not disruptive - it's fact. - Also, don't threaten me. --RedMongoose (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, Bro, Keep pretending you're in control - It's great how much you wikitards get bent out of shape, despite abusing wikipedia yourselves. --RedMongoose (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

IW in Behavioural genetics

Hi! As you work in this field, you are sure to solve the problem. Could you please give me a piece of advice? Yesterday I created the following art. in the Polish WP: pl:Genetyka zachowania. It is the Polish for Behavioural genetics. While creating the article, I found out confusion concerning interwikis. On the one hand, the English article is linked with ru:Психогенетика. On the other hand, this Russian article indicates another article in the English WP, namely: Psychogenetics (created by you). Judging from the latter, the only difference between psychogenetics and behavioural genetics is terminological. To my mind, we are to include the former article in the latter as its part, with the corresponding redirection being made: psychogenetics → behavioural genetics. Besides, that will make it possible to put interwikis in order. Now I’ve got embarrassment: what interwikis should I insert in the Polish article created? Not knowing your science (behavioural genetics), I am not so bold as to tackle your article Psychogenetics myself. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, I've seen your interwiki activities, thanks for creating those articles! The correct IW would be to "behavioural genetics", in my opinion. I can't read Russian very well, but it seems to me that "Психогенетика" would transliterate as "Psychogenetika", which probably explains why that goes to "psychogenetics" here. But in English the term has basically disappeared. I am not even sure that we should keep the stub that I created, except that it is a nice tidbit of information that would not really fit into the article on "behavioural genetics". In any case, you are correct that the appropriate IW is to "behavioural genetics". I have done this for the ru wiki. If bots are going to find this a problem, I'll redirect "psychogenetics" to BG and merge it there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I’d like to apologise for any inconvenience. I’m sorry I forgot adding a piece of translation: the Russian WP article informs that the word Психогенетика is tantamount to the term “behavioural genetics” in the English-speaking countries (the first paragraph of the article). That was why I supposed that the IW was incorrect there. Your reply elucidates the matter and finally dispels my doubts.

And yet I don’t understand the reason for the existence of the two different articles in the English WP even in the case when the two concepts (“behavioural genetics” and “psychogenetics”) coincide. Such a demarcation can easily mislead the unsophisticated reader, doesn’t it? And why delete your stub? The text seems to be useful for the encyclopaedia, if only because it contains information about the history of the term “behavioural genetics”. For example, prof. Lichko, one of the leading Russian psychiatrists, begins his textbook with the history of the term “psychiatry” pointing out that it has lost its original sense, with the consequence that disputes aroused about its substituting by “pathological reflexology” (Vladimir Bekhterev) and other terms. Perhaps it is a typical introduction to a field of science. The same can seemingly be said of your stub. I don’t grasp your assertion that your titbit does not really fit into the article “behavioural genetics”. But I can’t argue here because this scientific discipline is beyond my scope. Personally, I’m fond of psychiatry. Thanks for your reply and help. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Sometimes when you're too close to a subject, you don't see the obvious... You're completely right of course! I have merged the "psychogenetics" stub (would never have become anything more) to the BG article. Thanks for helping me see this! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Pie Magazine

Hello, I am not an experienced editor on Wikipedia. I have edited a couple of things here and there. I do write online. I am in fashion. I have worked in this industry for several years. I have written about Pie Magazine in the past. I do not understand why you are nominating the magazine's wiki for speedy deletion to be honest, as it is a significant publication in Canada. Many celebrities are in the magazine, it is in every chapters, and certainly has a greater readership then fab magazine and others which are also wiki articles. Can you clarify this for me, as it seems you have deleted it several times? I would like to know why you are doing this. Thank you. In this way I might edit it differently, or update you on what is going on in fashion, as you seem to be a person in biology ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WM324AHI (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh my, I hardly know where to start on this one... First, I've never deleted anything here. I'm not an administrator (we call them "admins" or "sysops") and only they can do that. Everybody else can only propose something for deletion. This way, there's always a minimum of 2 people that vet an article before it is deleted. Second, as far as I can see from the logs of Pie Magazine, it was only deleted once. Perhaps you also created it under different names? Third, if something is deleted repeatedly, perhaps you should take that as a sign that something is maybe wrong with it? I patrol many articles, but this one I actually faintly recall, as it was written in a terribly unencyclopedic and, indeed, promotional way. WP is not intended for the promotion of anything. Fourth, that I am a neuroscientist is absolutely not important, neither do I have to know squat about fashion. Anybody can edit here and anybody can recognize spam if they see it. Fifth (I'm losing count now), the current version is written in a more neutral way, so I don't think it will get deleted as spam this time (but others might disagree with me). Nevertheless, the article still fails to make clear why it deserves an article in an encyclopedia. Merely existing, even if Hugh Hefner has been on the cover, is not sufficient. A subject has to be "notable" in the WP sense. That has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "quality", "deserving", etc. The criteria are here. "Notable" means that others have taken note and this can be demonstrated by the existence of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If Pie Magazine is such an important fashion magazine, then why are the only sources a link to a blog (that doesn't even mention the magazine, seems like something went wrong there) and two links to SNAP Barrie, a minor local website publishing material submitted by advertisers? I had a look at your user talk page and it looks like you never got a decent welcome here, so I have put a "welcome template" on top of the page. I strongly recommend that you read the guidelines and policies linked in that template (at least the more important ones), that will make your life here decidedly easier! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I am very new to this, and don't often edit on wikipedia. I did edit one article in the past, but it was a bit of a touchy topic, as I was debating the name of an entire people with an english speaker, and being Indigneous for what ever reason at the time I felt a bit prickly about it ;-) silly really, as this is about community in every sense, and I really feel that from you. Thank you for the welcome, and the contributions. I did join the Canada page, and the magazine page, and will review what you have outlined. I am sorry I did a very basic outline on the topic. I can see what you are saying regarding sources. I will expand the article after reading things over. I hope you have a nice night and thank you for the welcome! WM324AHI (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I just see that the article was also deleted under "A7" (does not indicate importance) under the title "PIE Magazine" (capital M). The current title is incorrect in any case. If the magazine's title is "PIE", then the correct article title would be "PIE (magazine)". If the word "magazine" is part of the publication's title, then the article should be named "PIE Magazine". Let me know which is correct and I'll move the article to the correct title (do not copy and paste, please, because that is an incorrect procedure). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Jane Roskams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regeneration
Jeanne-Germaine Castang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vatican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

--Johnhastings3 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the message and edits!

Categories

Hi, thanks for your comment. It does help & is reasonable -- to a point. I don't understand your placement of Category:Environmental social science journals as a subcategory within Category:Sociology journals, though. For me, the only logical classification for an interdisciplinary social science field is as a subcategory within Category:Social science journals. What am I missing? Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. To share an idea of where I'm coming from, see: Society and Environment: Scholarly Journals. This is a list I've developed over a decade or so. Not every one would be classified primarily as an (interdisciplinary) environmental social science journal. But many of them arguably would... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ISHM

Hello, I edited the ISHM article yesterday. All my edition was undone. I added relevant members of the ISHM that were already in the english wikipedia. I would like to know that rule of wikipedia in which it sais just presidents can be listed. Specially when there is very few information on them, untill I translate their respective articles from the German and French wikipedia. I read that " To list" is not very .. into wikipedia style. But I dont think it was so long. Anyway, I referred all, twice. And the sentence that many members are authorities in the scientific and history world is a fact that I referred. And it was undone too, ( aside from the " list"). Anyway. I think the article lacks many things and I am gonna try to expand it. The core of the ISHM is the International congresses. Now there is just a list of them. I would keep that , but I would expand it . The two main activities of the ISHM are the congresses and the Vesalius magazine that is published with their abstracts. I have a picture of the cover of Vesalius, I took it myself. I also created a map, a world map with the pressence of the ISHM in the wold, according to data of september 2011. I think the best thing to do is to expand the list of congresses, which is at the same time the history of the ISHM. Each congress had a topic, and some main organizers, many of them, those I listed. I dont think the presidents shoudl be listed like that. I woudl simply include them in the congresses. I have biography like for making all that. To expand in a historical way the listof congresses, and include there the presidents, and mention the charaters I said , in the congresses they organized. Map of the ISHM and also a section for Vesalius. It is, according to sources I will add soon, the most complete an specialiced magazine on the History of Medicine. I am gathering some information on Vesalius Journal. So what do you think about my ideas, I dont say you are wrong about undoing my edition, all I say is, I have archives on the ISHM I made myself, and data, and I can turn those lists into prose, and historical aspects, and add some sections, one at least. Tell me what you think. Thanks.--DeraDerron (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

West Virginia Law Review

There is not simply one editor or "edited by" for a law review. It is reviewed by a board of editors. I will be cleaning up this page. Thanks for the comments. --Tonydatuna24 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is the case for each and every journal, not just law reviews. Nevertheless, we only list the "head honcho". As far as cleaning up goes, all you need do is return to this version. It contains the ISO abbreviation in the infobox (the Bluebook one belongs in the text), which also lists previous titles (the history field is for "1894-present"), no unsourced information, removal of academic titles, layout according to the manual of style, removal of a long list of people involved with the journal (violating WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:JWG), removal of extraneous biographical details, etc. etc. etc. Some of your reversals really escape me. Why replace the "official template" (under external links) with something that looks the same? This template was made explicitly for this situation. Please revert. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you erasing content from this page? For instance why did you erase Chief Justice Ketchum from alumni? Please dont change facts about something that you know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonydatuna24 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The content you re-added to the page is: (1) the claim that this is one of the oldest law journals in the US. Originally it was stated "fourth oldest", then "fifth oldest". The oldest or even second oldest is notable, but at some point, this becomes trivial. (2) Biographical information about William Willey (consistently referred to as "Professor Willey", something w don't even do in biographies). If Willey is notable, this information belongs in his biography, not in this article, which is about the journal. Whose son Willey was or was not is absolutely trivial here (even though it might not be trivial in Willey's bio). I will remove this info and would appreciate if you would stop inserting it.(3) The deletion of Ketchum was a mistake, no clue where that came from. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome ! I mainly contribute on the French-language Wikipedia, but I use the English one a lot too and I do happen to edit a few articles here and there. Also, I love cookies : thanks ! *gives back some dinosaur-shaped biscuits around* --Eunostos (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So do I

I’d like to join other users’ acknowledgements. Last year you eventually helped me with my English because you corrected my grammar errors in my revisions within the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals. Besides, you’re a specialist in neuroscience which, in turn, is close to psychiatry, my favorite medical discipline. Just as neuropathologists are acquainted with it very well, so you, too, know psychiatry, no doubt about it.

You helped me the other day again while revising Konsultativnaya Psikhologiya i Psikhoterapiya. It is nice to take part in the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals when you control revisions there. Unfortunately the English WP, not to mention the English-speaking journals, is too difficult for me because my English still remains poor. But I’ve performed some interwiki activity in the Slav part of the WP because I, too, wish to thank you very much for your help and warm welcome. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you both, it's nice to be appreciated! Glad I could be of assistance! As for Eunostos, I speak French, so if English is a problem, you can also write me in French. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind Welcome message. Would you please look at this edit?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_New_York_Review_of_Books&diff=481471141&oldid=481451796 It seems to me that this information is essential in this article, as it merely describes the content of the publication, which one can see, in any case, in its table of contents in each issue. Most appreciated, thanks! -- 66.65.112.230 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Thanks. I would ask that you please look again: Note that the statement is also referenced to Commentary (magazine). What if the blog reference were dropped, and the material were simply: In addition to domestic issues, the Review covers issues of international interest, including frequent articles about Israel.[1] I think if you'll look at the link to Commentary, in which writers at Commentary describe this aspect of The New York Review of Books, you'll see that it is a key component of the content of this magazine. Thanks for your patience. -- 66.65.112.230 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I had a look at the Commentary article, which does not substantiate the phrase you give. It talks about a piece in the review and nowhere says something like "the review regularly publishes about Israel". The addition of this text and this reference is therefore improper. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to keep bothering you about this, but did you scroll down? The Commentary link shows a series of more than a dozen articles focused on the New York Review of Books, at least 10 of which discuss articles in the Review that focus on Israel, Israeli policy or US policy concerning Israel. Again, sorry, but I think this is important, and that to remove all mention of this from the NYRB article is to ignore a key component of its content, which, in any case, one can see from the table of contents in each issue. -- 66.65.112.230 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Middle East conflicts are an important part of international news, so it would really be notable if the review did not pay any attention to Israel. Using the link to the Commentary as a source for the statement that you propose to include is borderline POV and synthesis and original research at best. Please feel free to launch a request for comment on the talk page of the article on the review. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree totally with Guillaume2303.I think as it relevant to the article I will copy it to the talk there--Shrike (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Commentary article

[ x rjensen talk page]

Hi, A bare list of names, even if they are all wikilinked, is absolutely unencyclopedic and against the letter and spirit of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Similar for a list of staff people (I removed that and only after that saw you had reverted my previous deletion). Lists like this are uninformative, except perhaps for a few people who know the subject intimately (which is not the public we're writing for). Without independent reliable sources detailing why a certain person's contribution to a magazine is notable and important, lists like this need to be deleted. Please revert. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

who publishes in a journal defines the journal--everyone knows that. Wikipedia likes lists that are useful. Lists like this allow people to browse and see how many names they recognize from their own interests & then go to their Wiki article--that is exactly what Wiki is good at. Indeed there is no other easy way for the reader to do it. This is not a directory -- (the directory is at Commentary's website). Guillaume2303 seems to be a biologist with scant expertise in political magazines, so his advice is not well founded Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • My comment would be the same if this were a biology journal with a list of important biologist that had at one time or another contributed to it. indeed, [WP:JWG|the writing guide for journal articles]] explicitly warns against the inclusion of such lists. At best they constitute OR/SYNTH, at worst they are promotional namedropping. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
not in the humanities --humanists & historians pay a lot of attention to where authors publish, and look carefully at what "big names" a magazine signs up. (in science they do something similar with citation indices) Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited UCD Law review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish law (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) 10:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

American Board of Pain Medicine

Please explain why you removed the entire section on our maintenance of certification program. This is completely relevant information to list on the organization's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cburke1130 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The jist of it is that Wikipedia does not exist to promote your organisation (read that link carefully, and in detail, and also read WP:COI while you are at it). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

BJA published by Oxford University Press

I am the Marketing Manager for the BJA at Oxford University Press, writing on behalf of the BJA editorial board members and RCoA. My assistant, Laura Brannagan, has in the past attempted to bring the content you have edited on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Anaesthesia up-to-date. However, I recall that every edit she made, you undid unnecessarily as the edits she had made were in fact up-to-date. I see the IF and rankings have been brought up to date. However, the journal cover is not current yet I can't seem to update it. Please could you advise, and more importantly, in going forwards, if I wish to update this page once the Impact Factor and Ranking has changed, plus any other editorial information changes such as content, Editor-in-Chief, may I rest assured that I can do this without you 'undo-ing'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystamonopoli (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  • If you look carefully at the edits by Laura that I undid, you will see that she: (1) inserted inappropriate in-text external links, replacing perfectly good wikilinks, (2) added IF info (with an incorrect year, 2009 instead of 2010) that is already present in the next section (and in the infobox), (3) added an unsourced claim ("BJA remains the oldest and largest independent journal of anaesthesia"), and (4) added unnecessary biographical details on the EIC. If you are the marketing manager at OUP, you should refrain from editing articles on your own products, unless you have an extremely good understanding of WP's policies and guidelines. If there is information you think should be added/changed in a particular article, you can post that on the article's talk page and somebody else will carry out the change (or tell you why it cannot be done). Please have a look at WP:COI, which applies in this kind of cases. If Laura (or you) make similar changes again, I will again revert them, as they are incorrect and against our policies. As for unnecessarily removing stuff, I see that you removed the licensing and origin info on the cover image file. Unless you want to have it deleted for copyright problems, you should leave that information in place. By clicking the link "upload a new version of this file", you should be able to update the cover image. Hope this explains and helps. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your rationale for removing the following link from this article about a Norwegian "university" foundation with a $ 500 000 budget over 3 years, and links to A former MP, Berit Ås?

Lysbakken involved in another money affair. Another money affair that links to top names (toppnavn) in political party SV, appeared in advance of SV's annual national conference. NRK reports that former SV-leader Berit Ås has received money for a women's project without applying for the funds, which were given by ministers Audun Lysbakken og Tora Aasland.

Is Aftenposten not a notable source? --183.88.30.45 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • This addition has now been removed by several sysops and other editors. Instead of posting this kind of random notes on people's talk pages, you should seriously discuss this on the talk page of the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, if you create the talk page, then maybe we can take the discussion there, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nordic_Women%27s_University&action=edit&redlink=1. --171.98.246.61 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
If what you are saying is correct, then you are encouraging me to breach regulations of wikipedia. My creating that page, is not particularly realistic. But my contribution to such a page is realistic. But the current state of affairs is also OK. Feminism is probably a good thing, but the cronyism revealed by Aftenposten will probably put an end to the financing of that foundation/ "university". Next stop, Stiftelsen kvinneuniversitetet i Skandinavia/ Scanidinavian Women's University. Cheers mate. --171.98.246.61 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Link to discussion a related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway&oldid=482456873. --Gerrymanders (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bargh on PLoS ONE

  • Guillaume2303: "Stevan, I disagree, Bargh's blog is not necessarily a reliable source and he obviously has a beef with this one single article)"

necessarily a reliable source? What is necessarily a reliable source?

I can't decide the merits of Bargh's beef, but he's not the first to raise questions about the reliability of PLoS ONE's refereeing. The WP entry will be one-sided if such concerns are suppressed. (And unless Bargh is using the pseudonym of a journalist, he's not the one making this critique...) Stevan Harnad 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

  • Stevan, Bargh is complaining about an article that claims to show that one of his own previous studies was wrong. And, whether or not he's right, that's just one of the thousands of articles that PLoS ONE is publishing. I don't think it is correct to put a serious allegation of unreliable peer review into that article based upon the blog of someone who's pissed that an article criticizing him got published. And "not necessarily a reliable source", because even though Bargh's a respected scientist, that doesn't make a blog he writes necessarily a reliable source. I'm not saying that he's wrong in his critique of PLoS ONE's peer reviewing, I'm only saying that you need a better source (based on more than being upset about one single article) in order to include this here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Page redirects

Hi

I have noticed that you are deleting a lot of articles to leave redirects in their place. More importantly I have noticed that you are not then moving the material to the redirect page.

Can you at least tag them first (or at least with merge etc.) to give people a chance to address the issues you consider exist? Acting as judge and executioner without any input from other editors is not really the best way forwards. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem is that there is nothing to merge. First of all, almost all are exceptionally badly written in EU "grant-speak". Second, none of them was sourced to even a single independent reliable source, so there is actually no sourced content to merge anywhere. Finally, regarding giving people the chance to do something, several of these articles had only a single edit, when they were created years ago, making it unlikely that there are any interested editors. In any case, the content is still available in the edit histories, so if you want to merge anything that seems worthwhile and can be sourced, please go ahead. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki problem

Hi! Could I ask you a question about an article on your topic? I created the art. Nature versus nurture in the Czech WP on March 17. To my surprise, bots have not been adding interwiki for two weeks now. Well, my native language is not Czech. But the text has been revised by a native speaker of Czech. So there is no doubt about the article’s style and grammar. Then what is the reason for the fact that bots do not perform their work? --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see now, you added all those links by hand. Yes, that is unusual. Normally, as soon as you add 1 interwikilink in a new article, a bot comes by within hours at most and adds all others reciprocally. I don't know why this didn't happen this time (it shoudl be independent of the style/grammar of the article), but I don't know much about these interwiki bots either. You could ask User:Headbomb, who knows a lot about bots. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant all the articles except the English one where I had added the Czech interwiki by hand. There isn’t the Czech link in all those articles, e.g.: fr:Inné, pl:Nature versus nurture, ru:Социогенетизм или биогенетизм etc. But if it is not your topic, then I beg your pardon. Perhaps I’ll try to appeal to someone in the Czech WP because it is the Czech article that engenders a problem for bots. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Ah, I didn't check those other language versions. That is very weird indeed. But with the Czech linked from the English version, bots should pick it up here, too. You could also ask here at the helpdesk. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve just posed the problem there. I hadn’t even knew about the WP:Help desk until you advised it. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with article on Common Genetic Misconceptions

Genes are not one-dimensional. This is plainly false. Please correct this error-of-fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.24.59 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A source for the fact that genes are not one-dimensional? Would you like a link to materials on what a dimension is? The number of coordinates needed to describe an object in physical space determines dimensionality. There are exactly zero physical objects in the universe that are one-dimensional; an object occupying physical space must be described by at least three-dimensions. Are you disputing that genes exist in physical space? Or is your position that molecules are not real objects? Consider the connected syllogisms below. I hope you see my point about the language of dimension. I do not use wikipedia often, and this is the first time I have ever edited an article, but it is distressing to see such a basic ontological error defended so aggressively, with my attempts to correct the error consistently blocked and ignored. There are other problems with the article, but taking the position that nucleotides are one-dimensional is as blatantly false as asserting that 1+1=3. If your position is that we ought to construct an alternative definition for what a 'dimension' is, that probably belongs in a physics wiki, not genetics.

1) All genes are strings of nucleotides 2) All Nucleotides are molecules 3) Therefore, all genes consist of ordered groupings of molecules

4) All molecules are real objects (they exist in physical space) 5) All real objects (that exist in physical space) have at least three dimensions 6) Therefore, by 3, 4, 5, all genes have at least three dimensions

As you can see, this a tautologically true (and quite boring). I hope you see my point about the language of dimension. I do not use wikipedia often, and this is the first time I have ever edited an article, but it is distressing to see such a basic ontological error defended so aggressively, with my attempts to correct the error consistently blocked and ignored. There are other problems with the article, but taking the position that nucleotides are one-dimensional is as blatantly false as asserting that 1+1=3. If your position is that we ought to construct an alternative definition for what a 'dimension' is, that probably belongs in a physics wiki, not genetics. If your position is that a gene is only a representation of nucleotides (not an actual grouping of molecules), that symbolic representation would still be necessarily at least two-dimensional, i.e., we could not depict the symbolic representation without recourse to at least two coordinates.

To put it another way, molecules have mass. Even if it is very small, we do have the ability to measure this mass. Any object which has mass has three-dimensions.

  • Thank you for this lecture, but this is not the place to post it. Please also sign your posts, so that I actually know who's talking to me without having to check the edit history. WP is an encyclopedia and it doesn't matter what you or I think about molecules, genes, and whatnot. We cannot write what we think. We need to write what we can source. This article is pretty bad, but that is not a reason to make it worse by adding more unsourced stuff. If you have a source stating that these molecules are not only three-dimensional, but also that this matters and regarding them as one-dimensional strings of bases is a serious misconception, then by all means add it to the article. But without sourcing, I'll keep removing it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

International Journal of Ecology & Development

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I declined your request for speedy deletion (G12) on International Journal of Ecology & Development, because the copyvio was recently introduced and an acceptable revision was available in the page history to revert to. —SW— gossip 14:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Topic: the New York Review of Books", Commentary, accessed March 11, 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guillaume2303/Archive_11&oldid=859475096"