Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Journal of Fungi Protected

Hello, Randykitty, both the page of "Journal of Fungi" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Fungi) and its talk page has been protected for a long time. Now the jouarnal has been indexed by notable database PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/3359/). We would like to apply for a chance to re-edit the item “Journal of Fungi”. Thank you. Ccxiong10 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but PubMed is not a database, it's an access platform to several databases, some of which are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals but not others. PubMed Central is not selective, because it accepts any biomedical/life sciences journal (except for the most egregious predatory ones). Selective PubMed databases are the Index Medicus and MEDLINE, for example. Your journal is not indexed in either of those. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Will get back later. Ccxiong10 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Rio Cerrito

Thanks for the help on the article Rio Cerrito Its my first article and I'm trying to make it a good one. I appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTallahasee (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bruno Santori page

Good morning, the page I had inserted on Bruno Santori has been deleted. This page contains over 60 different references and is trusted by Wikipidia Italia. The page has been deleted because it is said to be of promotion. In fact, from the state of Malta I was expressly asked to translate the existing page on Italian into English. Can you explain to me how I can do? All the facts mentioned are real and demonstrable. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Santori

Graizie thousand for the certain collaboration --Bruno Santori (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm afraid that the state of Malta has no jurisdiction over WP... I had a look at the Italian WP page and it is already tagged as being promotional, too. I found about 4 copies of this page under different user names, which somehow all seem to be connected with you. Please note that using multiple accounts is only allowed under very special circumstances (which this certainly isn't). WP is not for promoting any subject, it is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Writing a biography here is not easy and it is even more difficult to write an autobiography. It is not forbidden, but strongly discouraged, because most people find it very hard or even impossible to write in a neutral way about themselves. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick reply. The Italian page was declared non-neutral as it did not mention sources. The sources have been inserted and the correction has been requested on the item. As for the inclusion maybe I was wrong to enter the changes not being logged, but the userid from which I'm writing is the only one in my possession. May I ask politely how could I do to make the voice appear? Thanks again --Bruno Santori (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but neutrality has nothing to do with sourcing. Something can be well-sourced and non-neutral and the other way around. In any case, different WPs do not necessarily handle things the same way. Userid's that were involved in the different version of your autobiography were Info.Bruno on WPCommons, Bruno Santori, and SantoriBruno. I'm not sure what you mean with "make the voice appear", from the Italian voci= voice or article, I guess this means "what can I do to have the article on WP". Well, in this form there's nothing you can do, because this is definitely way too promotional for the English WP. My advice is to contact the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music and ask there whether an impartial editor there would be interested in creating an article by you, possible using some of the sources present in the Italian article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gameloft Montreal

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gameloft Montreal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: subsidiary of notable company. Redirect/merge to parent company per WP:ATD instead if notability cannot be established. Thank you. SoWhy 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Deleted Page

Respected Admin the Page you deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himachal_Pradesh_State_Electricity_Board) was not Unambiguous copyright infringement

copied from http://portal.hpseb.in/irj/go/km/docs/internet/New_Website/Pages/AboutUs.html) as you have mentioned. In fact this is a Government Page with very Authentic information for the Purpose of General Public and their usages, as we all Know Wikipedia is a authentic, correct and reliable source of information that's why we tried to create this page for public, there is no motive of promotion or advertising because this is not a private firm or company so we only wanted to share information through Wiki. The Link you mentioned above (http://portal.hpseb.in/irj/go/km/docs/internet/New_Website/Pages/AboutUs.html) is infarct the address of this Government organisation redirected to official website www.hpseb.com , you can even confirm it by going on this address. This is so because the website is under construction mode and the link is redirected at the moment.

This article is a series of Power Sector / State electricity agencies of India. The series on this is on this Link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_electricity_agencies_of_India. All of these are Government organisation with authentic information and we also tried to put this organisation into this list of organisation. So I hope you will be satisfied with these facts I mentioned and hopefully that page will be recovered, because it is neither for the purpose of advertising or promotion nor misleading anyone, so this will be certainly a great thing if you allow to recover and publish. Have a nice day. Thanking You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdec (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I am sorry, but that website clearly claims copyright, so this is a copyright violation. Also, even if it was not a copyvio, companies (whether public or private) almost never describe themselves in neutral language as required for an encyclopedia like WP. If this company is notable and independent reliable sources discussing it in depth exist, you are welcome to write an article on it in your own words. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Mohamad Mahmoud Khalaf

Hi Randykitty, I just wanted to follow up on the deletion of the page - Mohamad Mahmoud Khalaf - I'd like to republish this page . Can you see any reason why I should not attempt to republish this, assuming it no longer contravenes Wiki's NOTFORPROMOTION guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamad Mahmoud Khalaf (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Creating an autobiography on WP is strongly discouraged (even though it is not forbidden), because most people find it very difficult to write about themselves in a neutral and encyclopedic way. The article you wrote was incredibly promotional (and most images were a copyright violation and will be deleted from Commons), so any article should be re-written from scratch in an absolutely neutral manner, supported by reliable sources independent of the subject. However, before attempting this again, I strongly recommend that you first try to contribute to other articles until you get a good feel of how things are being done here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Prix Maurice Ballot

Dear Randykitty, In response to your redirect from the new page Prix Maurice Ballot given by the French Astronomical Society, I would like to better understand your position relative to similar long-established content on Wikipedia.

The wiki page for the American Astronomical Society -- which is a peer of the French Astronomical Society-- lists 20 of its awards, virtually all of which have their own dedicated pages on wiki. Many of those are minor awards, for example the Chambliss Amateur Achievement Award (page created 2007), which is given "for an achievement in astronomical research made by an amateur astronomer resident in North America." This is virtually identical to the objective of the Prix Maurice Ballot which is "recognition of authors of works of the Society's observatory" (i.e. amateur or professional).

Similarly, the wiki page for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific -- another peer of the French society -- has a page for their Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (page created 2006), which is given for "significant contributions to astronomy or amateur astronomy by those not employed in the field of astronomy in a professional capacity." Again, virtually identical to the French society's prize.

The type of organisations, the nature of the three awards, the "noteworthiness", and the level of references provided on all three wiki page are virtually identical, yet the French award was deleted and the others remain. There are other such wiki pages for awards offered by other astronomical organisations outside of France. Please note that besides the happy award winners themselves, it is primarily the sponsoring astronomical organisations that document/write about their own awards.

In the above context, I respectfully request you to reconsider to restore the Prix Maurice Ballot page. Thanks for your consideration of this request. - Akrokerama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrokerama (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, Yes, there's an article about the Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and it's even a "featured list". Arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good idea and in this case it means you should look very carefully at that list. Besides a large number of references to dependent sources (documenting who got the award and when), there are also ample references to sources that are independent of the society that gives the award, thereby showing that this award actually is notable in the WP sense and an encyclopedic article on it can be written. This is not the case with the other examples that you give, but here "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" comes into play again (under its less reverent synonym "OTHERCRAPEXISTS"). WP has over 5 million articles and it is unavoidable that some articles will "fly under the radar" for some time (sometimes even years). I don't know whether those awards from the AAS, and the Chambliss award in particular, are notable, but the fact that those articles exist cannot be used as an argument to keep an article on another award. If we started reasoning like that, then WP articles would rapidly decline to the level of the worst article currently present. In time, somebody will get to those articles and either improve them by adding independent reliable sources, propose them for deletion, or redirect them, whatever is more appropriate. In short, if you want to write an article on WP for any award given by the Société astronomique de France, you will have to show for each one of them that they meet our inclusion guidelines. Please note that "notability" here on WP has nothing to do with "deserving" or "meritorious", it's purely used in the sense of "has been noted by others". As it is, not even the article on the society itself has really adequate sourcing, so perhaps you should concentrate on that, first. A lot of cruft can be removed from that article. We don't need a gallery with pictures of past-presidents, those belong in their respective bios. Long lists of activities and commissions are also not very useful. If you remove all that stuff (or write text on it supported by adequate sources), then a lot of space is gained. You could then remove the awards table and convert it to text, listing the awards with for each one a short description. An example of a good article on an organization is Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation. Or this one: Linguistic Society of America. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

St. Xavier's School, Behror

Hi! Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Xavier's School, Behror. However, I see that both The Banner and I have made the same mistake there: the school is not a branch of St. Xavier's College, Jaipur, but of St. Xavier's School, Jaipur, as is clear from the reference supplied (it is a secondary, not a tertiary, institution). Unless Banner objects (Banner?), could I ask you to re-close it as "redirect to St. Xavier's School, Jaipur"? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No objection. The Banner talk 20:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Tivoli Service Request Manager

Hi, can you confirm Tivoli Service Request Manager was a redlink to an article that never existed and not an AfD'd article? If it was an AfD'd article could you please send me the source code (just on case it tells me anything useful). That said its not really very urgent, just a slightly nice to have. Just to give background the main reason I'm looking at Tivoli Service Automation Manager (TSAM) is that Tivoli Process Automation Engine (TPAE) is a component (or as least was .. not sure if still is) used in Maximo and at least one more product. I'm mulling on a subplot on TPAE maybe having a section in another article, maybe Tivoli Software. And I hate redlinks ... especially as I am somewhat colour blind and cant always spot redlinks on some screens at some resolutions. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Took me a while to figure out what had happened. It was Maximo (MRO) that was deleted after AfD. When you reverted the edit that the closing script had made, I mistakenly thought that you had added the red link to the deleted article back. I have self-reverted, so things should be OK now. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI

Following AfD, Recognition of eSports as a form of legitimate sports was recreated as a redirect, which I just kept. Hope you don't mind. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael J. Brooks

I've noticed that you closed the AfD for the article of Michael J. Brooks, and I would like to salvage that in my own user space. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Four years of adminship

Wishing Randykitty a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation on User:WikipedianEnigmatica

I opened an sockpuppet investigation into our friend, because of the attack account. I can't be the only who thinks their the same person, right?💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Delachaux page

Hello Randykitty,

I noticed that you used speedy deletion for the page "Delachaux (company)" arguing G11 criteria. This page is a translation of the existing French page on this company. I'd be happy if you could substantiate which parts are considered as "unambiguous advertising" so that I can modify the translation accordingly. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbleger (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The whole first paragraph reads like an advert for the company. I also note that this has been deleted several times under different names (Delachaux, Delachaux (company), and Delachaux (Company), the one I deleted earlier today). Even without the promotional language, the article also didn't have any reliable sources independent of the subject. That this article exists on frWP is immaterial: different wikis have different criteria (and perhaps nobody on the French WP ever got around to evaluating this article). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Retresco

Hi Randykitty,

I hope that you're well. I'm writing because of the deletion of the Retresco page. The page I set up was a work-in-progress that I was aiming to add more substance to over the next couple of days.

Also, I tried to declare a COI as I'm the comms manager for Retresco but I may not have done it properly.

Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcarv retresco (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Pete, In cases like this, it's better to create the article as a draft. That will give you time to develop the article and when you're ready, you can request feedback and, if necessary, fiddle around a bit more before it gets moved into main article space. This will avoid it being deleted before you've finished. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Fungi

Could you recreate that, making a redirect to List of MDPI journals? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: you salted the article. I can't, hence my request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Unsalted! --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Arabs Today

Hello,

I was talking to the author of the above draft on the irc help channel when it was deleted. Is it possible to undelete it while we sort out the problems with the article? (Unless it was copyvio or something) Acebulf (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Kanishk Sajnani

Hello. I noticed you deleted the article and salted the title, but would you mind also indeffing the user who has recreated the article twice today, Jekyl84 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanghvi6722), and deleting Jekyl84's sandbox, since it's a copy of the article, and is being used for recreating it. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! This is Kanishk Sajnani here-in person. My profession is that of an Ethical/ White hat hacker. I've helped a lot of Major & well-known companies in the past. Never ever have I charged for my work. My Aim has always been to increase the level of Information Security in my own country. I admit that the first couple version(s) of my articles that went to Afd & were finally deleted, were made by myself. Now I know this is against Wikipedia's official policies, but my aim was never self-promotion. I just wanted to reach a greater audience through Wikipedia, so that my work could actually make a difference.

While making the first one, I was completely unknown about the rules. My article was deleted citing lack of notability reasons. After a while, when I was featured in a couple of other news articles & Interviews, I thought it was the right time to have a Wikipedia page on myself. Due to some reasons, it was still deleted.

This time around, I hired someone on a freelancing website to make the page for me. I received quite a lot of public coverage after my 2nd Afd. The page (for reasons best known to you guys) was tagged for speedy deletion. I don't understand why my page is still not eligible to be on Wikipedia. It's a well-known fact that getting a page up on Wikipedia is no less than running an Ironman marathon & most of the people hire editors to do the work for them.

But, my freelancer turned out to be a fraud & produced false claims of being an Admin on his User page. As soon as I became aware of this, I terminated my contract. My request to the Admins & Editors on Wikipedia is now this-

  1. Kindly review my page once again & look if it's really eligible to be on Wikipedia. If not, please state reasons.
  2. In case you decide to delete it, please don't SALT it. This may prevent any further Wikipedia contributor in creating a page on myself.
  3. If possible, please advice on what my future steps should be.

Best Regards Kanishksajnani (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kanishksajnani:, the concerns raised during the latest AfD were mainly regarding WP:BLP1E (before the speedy). That's not a clean part of notability policy, rather, how we deal with biographies. At a glance, all the coverage I could see was regarding the "travel the world" story. If you can point out an independent event, the article is possibly viable. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe, [1]. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo:, I honestly think that there's been a mistake by someone while reviewing my article. As a matter of fact, I have been covered in the news again. This time for finding out security loophole's in India's biggest Travel Portal IRCTC, having a user base of 58 million. All the related references are dated after 25th March, 2018. Most of them are in-fact just 15 days old. Please have a look.

http://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/cover-story/ethical-hacker-from-ahmedabad-pays-rs-7-for-food-worth-rs-231-informs-railways-about-lax-cyber-security/articleshow/63494813.cms

https://www.thebetterindia.com/138582/ethical-hacker-irctc-sajnani-train-indian-railways/

https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/ethical-hacker-pays-rs-1-3-for-kadhai-chicken-served-in-train-exposes-flaws-on-railway-website-343890.html Kanishksajnani (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'd say, looking at it, there is enough material for inclusion, although an admin will need to green light that. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Randykitty: We leave this to your sense of fine judgment. Hope you do the Right thing. Be it - giving a Green light or a Red light. Kanishksajnani (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no firm opinion one way or another. The way forward is to create a draft and when it's ready, submit it for review. If it is deemed acceptable, someone will unsalt the article and move the draft there. I'd also advice you to stay away from paid editing. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Randykitty: Thanks for the help. But don't you think, since the Speedy deletion was not done correctly in the first place (As the subject clearly had increased coverage & thus promised notability) proper steps should be immediately taken to undo the SALTing & page deletion? Clearly, this was a case of complete misunderstanding. Kanishksajnani (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the story about having hired someone to create the article, but think they've been doing it themself. In this edit on this very page an IP who posted material promoting Kankishk Sanjani on Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation shortly after the article about him was recreated today, linking to the freshly recreated article, admits being Kanishk Sanjani, with the IP's signature here then quickly changed to that of the user above, Kanishksanjani, as if having accidentally edited logged out. And the IP has returned once more to post the material on the IRCTC article, without the link, but with the name available in the linked sources. So what we're seeing is selfpromotion... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Possibly, perhaps even probably. If what they said is correct, they were violating WP:PAID. So I am not going to undo the deletion or salting, but they get the chance to do things correctly this time and create a draft and have it go through the ordinary process. Kanishksajnani, I hope you realize this is quite generous. Make this draft promotional and you'll get blocked indefinitely for spamming WP. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: The edits to the IRCTC's page were in-fact made by myself & not meant for self-promotion. It was sad to see that it was viewed as so. According to me, that piece of Information was important for the customers. Being an Infosec expert, I can vouch for the same. In fact, I later also removed my name from the same edit so that the crucial part stays up. Also, if you have doubts regarding me hiring a bad freelancer, I can send you a screenshot copy of my dispute filed for the same.
@Randykitty: I completely understand what you mean. Can I now create that draft myself or it has to be made by someone else in order to get approved? Kanishksajnani (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You can do it yourself, as long as you remember that it should be neutral and encyclopedic. It would be better to wait until somebody independent does it, but WP does not expressly forbid autobiographies. I trust I don't need to remind you of the warning just above. --Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

One Caribbean

Recreated after your speedy. At speedy again. John from Idegon (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

List of magazines in the Republic of Macedonia

I can accept that you made an honest mistake by initially tagging this for speedy deletion, but what on Earth were you thinking when reinstating the tag after that mistake had been pointed out? This is a clear-cut, factual criterion, and is obviously rendered invalid by the fact that the list is not empty. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • A list consisting of three internal links. That's nothing like a speedy, and I'm shocked that an admin would edit-war to reinsert an obviously invalid speedy deletion tag. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 66 (U.S. series)

Restore the Now That's What I Call Music! 66 (U.S. series) page or else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:F04F:4400:7D4C:7D2:1E52:98E1 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What was this article kept vs merged?

Randy, why would this article be classed as keep? [[2]]? Most of the keep arguments were made by involved editors and didn't have much in the way of policy support. On the other hand uninvolved editors were largely against and posted policy based concerns. Springee (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • If by "involved editors" you mean editors who previously edited the article, that really is irrelevant. And a "keep" decision does not preclude a merge, which can be discussed and decided on the article talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Does this mean the closing doesn't preclude bringing it up at articles for merger? I don't want this to be forum shopping. Thanks Springee (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Society for Exact Philosophy

Please undelete Society for Exact Philosophy to have an AfD. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Y. Katz

Hi Randykitty, could you please explain you reasoning in closing this discussion as keep. While a plurality of the votes were keep, it was not a majority. There were 4 delete votes and 3 redirect votes (an outcome which is closer to delete than keep). Also, two of the keep votes called in a "borderline keep". Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Rusf10, RandyKitty. Hi. I just want to state, as I have on the pages of other editors and administrators who close AfDs, that it is appropriate in almost all cases to let closer's decision stand because there will be close cases and it is important to respect the process rather than engage in ] endless brangling. In this case, however,I count: keep - 8, redirect - 3, delete - 3. And discussion was trending keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: thanks for proving that you stalk me. There are 4 delete votes, I myself as the nominator count as #4.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, AfD is, of course, not a vote, but in this case my reading was indeed that there was a consensus to keep. Even if one counts the "redirect" !votes in the "delete camp", that goes towards a "no consensus" at best (which defaults to keep). A merge is of course still possible and can be discussed on the article talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if one treats it as strictly a vote and wants it to be based purely on the numbers, which is not how it's done, it was a majority. 8 keep to 6 other, and that's without recognizing that redirect !=delete. Enigmamsg 17:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I really appreciate your monitoring of the nascent Communication Research Reports site. I've been working with our sponsoring organization to get more institutional knowledge about the journal archived so that it doesn't fall to the wayside as folks retire, so I sincerely hope to get more folks in there adding to the page (especially from our academic association).

Bowmanspartan (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Draft Page

Hello, you deleted the draft page I was working on due to notability issues. I was using news press as references and you deemed it as not being notable. There are tons of Wikipedia pages with just one reference which are gotten from news press. So, what is the real issue with my draft page? I have been getting talks about notability with just one reviewer really guiding me on what to do. So, I would be glad if you can really point out the issues with the page, so I can rewrite it with a neutral point of view. Also, I'm not paid to write this content. I just want to create a page for the compaby, because they have gained recognition in the UK. Thanks for your reply. Jamesreadings (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Elie Y. Katz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elie Y. Katz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of a draft page on Michel Kahaleh

Please re-review the page. It is not a promotional page- what makes it a promotional page? It is a page on a notable living person. How can I revive the page for source code? I do not want to copy paste the same things, but there are over 40 citations in it, and I want to keep some of it if i want to submit a revised version. Mgaidhane (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Please advise.

  • When you use phrases like (for example) "impressive research profile" or "his leading-edge research", then you've left the realm of encyclopedic content and become promotional. I'll restore the sandbox, but you will have to clean it up considerably and scrap all this kind of promotional language immediately. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for restoring the page. I understand the errors I have made and removed these phrases and words. Please re-review and if you feel that it still does not reflect a neutral tone or non-promotional language, please let me know. Mgaidhane (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

CSD on Draft:Oghenetega Efedede

Hi Admin, can I ask why was it "not irredeemably promotional", the article main editor has multiple articles that are G11 deleted which are linked to this company. Since the product (TV channel) articles are promotional G11, why this isn't.? This seem to be a SPA / COIN. I took it to XfD but if you can retract the decision, that will be faster. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • SPA/COIN is not a reason to G11 something, neither is the fact that other articles have been G11'ed. I don't see what's promotional about this one. Notable, perhaps not, but that's a different issue, but aas the founder/CEO of a TV channel, there's at least the presumption of notability and that an encyclopedic article might be possible. --Randykitty (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
noted, will wait for XfD results. I G11 due to the "external links", a search of net did not show any other channels reporting on the TV Channel and is a "youtube" channel. Thanks for explaining anyway. --Quek157 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted

Sir, can you please re-review the page Studypool? I think there are enough ghits"Studypool" now making it a notable online tutorial platform like many other platforms here[3]. If you kindly let me know the issues then I can try fixing them. Thanks in advance, --Quitede (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • No, I will not restore this page as it has been repeatedly deleted as promotional or after a community decision (AfD). If you think it is notable now, you can create a neutral version as a draft and submit it through the AfC process. However, please note that Ghits are not a good indication of notability, what you need are independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I am watching this page due to the above issue, I will hope before any drafts being submitted to AFC, please read through carefully WP:CORPDEPTH in addition to WP:NCORP. AFC had too much such drafts repeatedly rejected nowadays. --Quek157 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bryn Curt James Hammond

Hi Randykitty. You deleted my article on Bryn Curt James Hammond which was strictly written in accordance with Wikipedia’s terms of inclusion (notability) my page dedicated to author Bryn Curt James Hammond included citations from verified and reliable sources that are direct interviews with Bryn Hammond in respect to his life and body of work, and which are not blogs. These links include the Wikipedia recognised and reliable weekly entertainment magazines Heat Magazine (ABC Registered), owned by Bauer Media Group, and Now Magazine (ABC Registered), owned by Time Inc. UK.

There where several false allegations made which included my article only referenced gossip sites/magazines and only to coverage of a recent book. Heat and Now magazines are celebrity news outlets and the direct coverage with the author does not come under the remit of gossip. Gossip refers to idle talk or rumour behind a said entity’s back; this author was directly interviewed about his body of work that is based on court records, interviews and autopsy reports. Horror Channel, Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, Matt Doyle Media, Nerdly and Reel Scotland deal with Entertainment Media News, not gossip, and are reliable media news outlets.

Additionally, the citations reference interviews with the author, his life and his past, present and future body of work: The Summer of The Massacre, GoreZone Magazine (aka GZ Magazine), A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files (first and second edition), The Complete History of The Howling, A Case for Murder: Aaliyah Files and A Case for Murder: Anna Nicole Smith Files.

Other citations that directly discuss and interview the author and mention his body of work are taken from Bloody Disgusting, owned by The Collective; Dread Central, owned by Dread Central Media; LLC and Horror Channel, owned by CBS Studios and AMC Networks International. All are news outlets respected by Wikipedia and all have their own Wikipedia pages.

Further direct citations to establish the author Bryn Curt James Hammond as his own entity and his notability include Matt Doyle Media, Nerdly, BBFC, Radar Online, Reel Scotland and a citation for Horror Con; he has been invited as a celebrity guest author and an established author/critic to the 2018 Horror Cons in the UK.

In addition to the above I did included a few blog interviews as extra supporting evidence that show a high interest in Bryn Curt James Hammond and his work, but the bulk of the citations was as above.

I believe that the deletion of his page was an oversight on your behalf. Bryn Curt James Hammond may not be to everybody’s taste but there is clearly an interest in him and his work that makes him notable, and coverage spans from 2007 until the present day and I even cited an academic book that talked about the author and his work.

I wrote the Wikipedia page after much consideration of Wikipedia’s terms and conditions and after thoroughly reading what applies to people alive and dead, I believe Mr Hammond did fit into the stated criteria.

Citations used:

Heat Magazine – Interview and discussion about his book,

Now Magazine – look at his book,

Horror Channel – interview about his life and body of work,

Matt Doyle Media – interview about his life and body of work,

Nerdly– interview about his life and body of work / review of his book,

Bloody Disgusting – look at his book,

Dread Central – look at his book,

Reel Scotland – highlighting his appearance as a guest celebrity author,

Horror Con – highlighting him as a celebrity guest book author,LisaHadley2018 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


https://www.abc.org.uk/product/8055 >https://www.abc.org.uk/product/622 Hi the above links will help you understand what an industry reliable source is for future deletion suggestions. Four pages of editorial coverage and two pages (plus a front cover coverag tagline) which includes exclusive interviews with the author is not brief & is notable. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Draft Page

Hello Randykitty, I am contacting you regarding a draft page Draft:MB Salone which you deleted on the ground that it was similar to an earlier article that was deleted. I wish to disagree with your claim. I am not really aware of the content of the earlier deleted article but from your reason of deleting the draft, the earlier article was deleted on grounds of unambiguous advertising or promotion. I am well aware of the requirement and I believe I didn't make any of the mistakes in the new piece. I didn't use any promotion/advertising tone or content rather I used a unanimous tone, brought out the notability of the individual and referenced the piece.

Salome - is an indigenous name that means Sierra Leone and was the main issue pointed out. There was confusion and suspicion MB Salone the Music producer had a Link to Salome Today - a newspaper source cited. I had even to prove the difference between MB Salone the music producer and Salone Newspaper - amain stream newspaper in Siera Leone to avoid controversy and prove there is no link between the two. The draft article you have deleted was just a paragraph long, it didn't have any promotion or advertising content nor tone as the earlier deleted article that you claimed was similar. It was not linked to the earlier article and I would wish to have the piece restored. Can you please recheck this Anjakretfep (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your contribution, can you please guide me on where the article was too promotional. The article read
  "Mohamed Bailor Barrie (born August 17th, 1990) commonly known as MB Salone is Sierra Leonean music producer, based in Los Angeles America. He began his career in music production in 2011 as an understudy to producer Mike Snotty Miller-a Grammy awards winner. MB Salone is a five-times Duval Diamond awards nominee for the producer of the year award. Some of MB Salone's work has featured in main stream medias such as Lil Key's single “Short Right There” which he co-produced with Mr. Wilson, and premiered on MTV’s My Super Sweet 16 and MTV's Rap Game Season 2.
  In music production, he has worked with different Hip-hop, R&B and trap artists since he was an understudy including Fred Marshall, Kylie Beniamo, Dj UNK, Tokyo Jetz, Yung Dro, Lil Key, T. Rone, and many other up-coming artists. He released his first instrumental albulm on March 2018."

where was I too promotional?Anjakretfep (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted valid and correct information

Randy Kitty! Why did you delete the valid me correct information provided by me on maternal grandfather Pandit Maniramji Mewati Gharana’s wiki page. Who has given you such an authority? I have reported the matter to Wikipedia. There was incorrect and incomplete information on page Maniram, I furnished correct and valid information. Kindly restore the correct information provided by me. Mahineil (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • If there is incorrect/incomplete information in an article, then the appropriate way of handling this is to edit that article and correct/add that info. Creating another article on the very same subject, but with a different title is absolutely not the way to go. Any information you had in the article that you created is still available in the article history. However, if this person is your grandfather, it may be wise to read WP:COI first before editing that article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Article on Elk Antennas

Hi, my page got deleted by you. Is there any way I can get the source? I wanted to save it, but it got deleted and now I can't find it. BluePankow ✉ 14:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion without replay to deletion contest!

Dear you have just deleted Rami Shaheen with no answer for the deletion contest I have written! Can you Explain please --MaenK.HousehTalk 15:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ammar Mango

What is wrong with Ammar Mango article he is a notable person and the first to be PMP verified and certified in the middle east, regards --MaenK.HousehTalk 15:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Occupational Health Science

Hello. I wrote on the Occupational Health Science talk page a response detailing why I think the Occupational Health Science entry should remain. Thank for all your work on WP. But I think here, the entry should remain. Please seen the OHS talk page. Iss246 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hello Randykitty (talk). Thank you for all your efforts. I believe you recently relisted the page Majid Rafizadeh. I respect your decision. As the subject of the page, I previously requested deletion based on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. And for three major reasons, I was wondering if you would consider deleting it. I am not notable. Two major reasons which were laid by a senior wiki editor on the discussion " Delete [1] WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and [2] appears to be BLP problems, doesn't appear to be notable per GNG, merely being called a scholar isn't enough for WP:PROF as that requires being a distinguished scholar, not an average one. Galobtter (pingó mió)". Third reason is that almost everyone including very senior wiki editors agrees with the deletion. There is overwhelming general consensus. Again I leave the decision to you. Mr198013 (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I userfied User:BluePankow/Elk Antennas. Didn’t think you would mind, but if you do, feel free to delete it again. It’s def A7. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Move Discussion

There is a Page move discussion going on for Rajneesh. Would you be interested in participating? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

oh that's the thing. No problem Accesscrawl (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Annie Young-Scrivner Speedy Deletion

Hi,

The promotional tone you’re addressing on Annie Young-Scrivner's page was unintentional. This is my first try at this. I will trim out any seemingly unambiguous advertising through the Wikipedia guidelines and I will republish the page.

Thanks, Proteinlover (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Proteinlover: I've re-created the article as a minimal sourced stub at Annie Young-Scrivner. I think I've got enough there to show notability. Over to you to expand it neutrally from the sources there, or other Reliable independent sources. Obviously I've got no idea what the original version looked like, so hope that Randykitty will think this is an improvement and worth keeping! PamD 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This version seems neutral to me. I have no real interest in this subject, I just was going through the category of articles tagged for CSD#G11 :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Randykitty, could you please have a look at the article now? My neutral version has been completely over-written by what may well be a copy of the previous version. I've tried to trim it somewhat but not sure it's not still too promotional. My good faith attempt to rescue an article about a woman CEO may have gone wrong here. PamD 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's largely identical, but phrases like "During her career, Annie has had the honor of working in more than 30 countries around the world" are gone. It's not an outright G11 any more, I think. I did not check in how far the listed sources are reliable and actually support the statements made. I looked at two of them (Fortune, currently ref 5), which seems weird and doesn't source much. The first paragraph of the "career" section is mostly copied from ref 4 ("Document"). Not sure that's a copyvio, because I don't know what the status of documents filed with the SEC is. Perhaps Diannaa can help us here. In any case, looking at the other contributions of this and other SPA editors to Godiva Chocolatier, I get more than a whiff of paid editing... --Randykitty (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The material in an SEC filing is supplied by the company. While the SEC filing has to be assumed to be PD, usually the same material can be found in other documents such as annual reports and the corporate website. For example the details of Young-Scrivner's career also appear here with identical wording. I have paraphrased and placed the material in chronologial order. I also removed the same material from the user's sandbox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Management Inquiry

Hi friend, I saw your works on the article Journal of Management Inquiry. I did some works on the article too and found out that there is a slight discrepancy in the section "Section".

The section stated "The journal has eight regular sections", only 4 were listed. Can you help with the rest?

Excel! Thanks. Danidamiobi (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Recovery of user page:Kaahon/sandbox

Hi Randykitty, The user page:Kaahon/sandbox, URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kaahon/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload has been deleted citing the ground of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace". But we hereby would want to explain that there has been no intention of advertising or promotion of the website from our end. Kaahon is a web portal that has been working on research work for long and intended to have a Wikipedia page for sharing its information and knowledge to the greater audience throughout the world. We therefore, would wish to have the page retrieved. In addition to it, we request the Wikipedia guidelines to be explained to us in order to prevent such instances from occurring in future. Thanks! Kaahon (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done WP is not a place to promote your site. In addition, your use of the royal "we" suggests that this is a shared account and I apparently missed the fact that your username is the same as your website's, which is against our username policies. I'll have to block you in another minute. --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hasty delation of Judit Hidasi & Hasty proposed delation of Judit Hidasi bibliography

Dear Randykitty, thank you for your message and I love, worship cats, kitties but I am astonished now because I think you're not right but we are human beings and to err is human. I think you have not pay enough attention to the fact that I am an confirmed editor and I am aware of the facts of notability guideline for academics and the rule of WP:NSCHOLAR and the article in question is highly suitable for creating a wikipedia article. So These articles ARE NOT an Unambiguous ADVERTISING or PROMOTION. Your nomination for delation was pretty husty, I think, and I understand your intention to defend the interests of Wikipedia but on the one hand the article was about a famous and notable scientist, scholar, professor of linguistics from Hungary who teaches and researches not only in Hungary but in the universities of Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Germany and Romania, so she is known worldwide and his scientific efforts were honored with lotsa awarded eg. Order of the Rising Sun 3rd Class, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon by HM Akihito, Emperor of Japan on 8 November 2005 in Tokyo

so it was an unfriendly act to offend these articles but on the other hand if she were not a notable scholar, she would not have been invited to teach and research to the notable universities of the world therefore this article was abouut a notable woman, scientist who is respected in my country and in Western Europe (Germany) and Eastern Europe (Romania, Russia) and in the Far East (Japan, Taiwan).

Her article has been existing for two years and I do not understand why it were an un unambiguous advertising or promotion??!!!! If her own article were an advertising or promotion then all living scholars' articles would be advertisings or promotions and you might think she (who will be 70 years old on 11 July) should die if her article were rightful??!!! And it is pretty weird that you have nominated the article for delation at 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC) and it have been delated in five hours, at 18:47, 23 June 2018 by @Swarm: this is nonsense!!!! There ain't any time to revise it, to defend it for me, to explain my opinion.

You are not right, both articles Judit Hidasi and Judit Hidasi bibliography own several secondary sources and not only in Hngarian but in English, too. I think if a person can be found in a book of the Biographies of the Contemporary Hungarian Linguists, that person can also deserve the article on wikipedia. A biography has been written about Judit Hidasi in Hungary:

  • Kálmán Bolla (ed.) (2009). Judit Hidasi (PDF) (in Hungarian). In: Kálmán Bolla (ed.): Magyar nyelvész pályaképek és önvallomások (Biographies of the Contemporary Hungarian Linguists) 85. Budapest: Zsigmond Király Főiskola (King Sigismund University). Retrieved 2018-06-24. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help) ISBN 978-963-9559-44-8

I understand you do not know this linguist in your country but the scientists who research the communication in the world, they know her name. She is among the respected and notable linguists.

I hope I have managed to prove my arguments and standpoint that the articles in question should be kept on English wikipedia and now you will give up the idea to delate Judit Hidasi bibliography as you have written it to me, and you will restore the article Judit Hidasi without delay and I can remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}} and you'll accept this, you agree with me and you won't change my editing and you would no longer like to delate both of them. Best regards.Borgatya (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's a lot. I'll try to keep it short, though. The article was not deleted because of lack of notability (although in contrast to you, I'm not convinced that this person meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO). It was deleted for being promotional. I did not do this on my own. I saw the article and after considering it, concluded that it was too promotional for inclusiion and tagged it accordingly. Then there was a second admin, Swarm, who saw that I had tagged the article, had a second look at it and apparently agreed with my assessment and then deleted the article. So there's nothing overly hasty here. That the article was around for 2 years without anybody doing something about it is regrettable, but with the millions of articles that we have, these things happen. As for the bibliography, this is overkill. We have bibliographies for famous scientists like Einstein and Darwin, but even if Hidasi meets our notability guidelines, I think you will agree that she's not in the same class as Einstein or Darwin. For almost all but the most famous scientists, we include the 3-5 most important publications in their biography. And while people may have written a biography of Hidasi, I don't think anybody has written anything in-depth about her bibliography, so that fails our notability guidelines quite clearly. In fact, to me the presence of this separate bibliography including even the most minor publications of this person just reinforced the impression that this was a concerted promotional effort. As you're surely aware, any editor may remove a PROD tag and you could do this with the bibliography, too. In that case, however, I'll take the article to AfD and I don't doubt that in the end it will be deleted, too. As for the bio, if you're really convinced that this person is notable, you could start over and write a neutral, encyclopedic article in draft space and then have it go through the articles for creation process (AfC). The editors at AfC are very knowledgeable and helpful so that will reduce the risk that your article would be deleted again. Hope this explains and helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi Randykitty, the Tireless Contributor Barnstar is bestowed upon on you for your tireless contributions to Wikipedia, such as this category completion and this AfD relisting. Such contributions make a huge difference in the success of our community and encyclopedia! gidonb (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Steve McQueens"

Greetings. I think there's something wrong with the notice about previous AfDs at the top of the page. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Exigent3d

Exigent3d was NOT blocked solely for username issues, User talk:Exigent3d - There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents.... The G5 nomination of Garland wong is valid. I can fold the CSD nomination in to the SPI if you still have reservations. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  • That's the standard block message template (one of two) that people get if they have a username that is identical to that of a company/society/etc. See this unblock request, for example, that was identical and granted today. This is not a G5. Had you tagged it A7, that might be a different case. Filing an SPI is unwarranted. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
An unacceptable username, on its own, gets a {{uw-softerblock}} and the offer of a change of username or a start-over as a remedy.
An unacceptable username, with advertising, gets a {{uw-spamublock}}. It offers unblock as a remedy with no option of creating a new account.
Exigent3d was given a {{uw-spamublock}}. Unblock & name change is his way back, not a start-over or a sockpuppet account. Cabayi (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's what I also do. Soft block if it's only the username, hard block if they also produced a G11 article. Still, I don't think that one G11 article should translate into a life-long block and I don't think you'd get community consensus for that either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting a life-long block. An unblock request has never been refused, let alone submitted. On the other hand, ignoring the block is not a legitimate way back.
The activity of Ajaysingh.game shows that advertising for Exigent3D is still the user's principal objective (1, 2), that sockpuppetry is likely, and that an unblock (especially a sneaky under-the-radar self-unblock) is probably premature at this time. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You're talking about a newbie here, possibly not a native-English speaker. Expecting them to understand all that you write above is unrealistic. Man, here I was thinking that I often went too hard on such COI accounts and now I get criticized for being too soft... :-D BTW, the SPI is going to be inconclusive: the other account was blocked more than 2 years ago, so that's stale. This is a waste of time. If Ajaysingh.game is only here to spam WP, they'll get blocked pronto. --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WikEd_now_inserts_div_tags_all_over

This is the thread for the extra line issue. It's related to WikiEd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link. I'm glad that this has people's attention, because this is pretty irritating... I solve it by doing multiple previews and deleting the extra lines (and re-inserting lines that disappear), but it's a hassle... --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Your bossy and intimidating comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open

I created this, and someone put it in mainspace. An AFD was opened (improperly [4]), and spit at me for calmly presenting fact-based reasons why the (first draft) article I created shouldn't be deleted. I'm attacked and my arguments are straw-manned, misquoted or, at best, ignored (I guess I could consider that to be acceptance), though clearly based on policy and guidelines.

Last straw: [5]: Either my message was perfectly fine, or it came close to canvassing. It can't be both; youre is demanding doublethink, an intimation tactic. I had already asked that your personal attacks and condescension stop - with my first post to the page. Now I'm afraid to include the AfD in a list of open content discussions, that is notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access, Wikipedia:WikiProject Open, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/News and the like. I don't know if it's canvassing, but the many notifications that have been done are very strange, and at least close to canvassing, given that there are STILL no Open Access -related notifications at all; it appears all the ones I mention have NOT been done. I shouldn't be intimidated for making the notification the nom should have done ~5 days ago. Or told what to do ("you'll have to show that...", etc).

I pointed out that you (with [6]) were quoting me out of context, in what seems to me to be an a GREAT/obvious example of willful blindness, and you doesn't deny it. Specifically: I pointed out that the nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace*", and you chose NOT to do so repeatedly. Instead you insisted on advancing and defending your argument that I was wrong to say User:Nstru should be notified of this discussion - because (you really expect me or anyone to believe this solidly backs your argument???) you think moving a page definitely does not involve creation! Sorry, but refusing to to even see my statement that the nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace"*, as a reasonable statement is absurd, especially when it's used to attack me: [7] after following me around. It's just not believable. At least in terms of your contributions at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open, you seem to be here mainly to be bossy and intimidate, which is anathema to improving the encyclopedia.
*(that is, who moved it from draft space)

Please consider the following actions:

  1. Cease the intimidation
  2. Let's agree to restrict our discussion to responsive discussion of article content and relevant guidelines and policy.
  3. urge folks to follow Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, specifically what I quoted from it.

I've opened a discussion [8] in order to help that happen.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito, III

Hi Randykitty! An annoymous user put the page I created Mario Cerrito,III up for criteria for speedy deletion when you already tagged it not eligible for speedy deletion because of how different it was from the previous ones. I worked very hard on that article to make it a legitimate one. I came to you because you're an administrator and already tagged that on the page. Can you please help- thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTallahasee (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how it is substantially different from this. I also don't see where Randykitty removed a speedy delete tag. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Neil it is under the talk part of the page and "view history" I was just trying to make my first page on Wikipedia about a local person around my area who has done well in the independent film scene with a good amount of sources. If someone took the time to read the article and sources on the individual they would see it has more weight then a lot of other pages that stay on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTallahasee (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Sjeez, took me 10 minutes to find this. Don't really recall this but see that it has now been deleted for other reasons than G4 and good riddance, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Genome Medicine

I've never seen a journal before where the link to the editorial board doesn't include the name of the actual editor-in-chief (apparently Rabia Begum). Nor have I seen an editor-in-chief who was described as "chief editor". [9] Weird. Anyway, thanks for fixing the editor of the journal. I thought it was some weird situation where there were 6 editors-in-chief with one for each section but I guess not. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Some journals of large publishers have a professional EIC (Nature, Neuron, PLOS ONE, etc), whose only job is being the editor of a (or sometimes a few) journal. The BMC journals are like that, too. Apparently, this journal is being dealt with as the other journals in the BMC series, even though it doesn't have BMC in its title. Even weirder is Hindawi. Their journals have an editorial board, but not an editor. Articles that are submitted to them are assigned to a board member by the publisher's staff. In the case of Genome Medicine, I think the section editors are best regarded as the equivalent of an associate editor. It remains weird, though. Those professional editors are often relatively young people and would never even make the editorial board of more classical journals if they were ordinary faculty members. Anyway, thanks for creating this article! --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_21&oldid=1138904641"