Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 34

Accession numbers

Hello, I know you think I did terribly on the AfD and I'm sure that's right, but you clearly conscientiously look at evidence and change your mind when the evidence requires it. Could you search please by accession number in WoS? A1977EF70800002 or A1977EF70800006 or A1978GL25600010. To me they show "Papers" indexed beyond a doubt. Thanks Sheijiashaojun (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Brian Orr

Randykitty, what to do about this? It's yet another resume, as we see so often, and with a COI editor, User talk:Onkusorrus, who seems to be blissfully unaware of our requirements for secondary sourcing... I see now that User:Bduke offered to help, and that article surely needs it. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Drmies, long time no hear. I had a quick look and his citation record indicates that he's notable (usual cut-offs: several articles >100, h way above 20, total cites >1000). I have no idea how important the awards are. The most notable one seems to be the William F. Meggers Award in Spectroscopy, which is given to one man yearly (women are apparently not eligible). As it stands, I think the article falls under G11, with no objection against recreation of a more neutral article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor Bapinghosh is removing maintenance tags and has WP:OWNERSHIP behavior towards the pages created by him/her. He/she is strongly suspected to have been WP:PAID by Prajnadutta whose article was repeatedly declined and deleted. See proof. Bapinghosh avoided WP:AFC review and moved to main-space to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. See this. 2409:4061:2C19:9EE0:804B:51A:8761:321D (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I would request to visit their talk-page, you can find the person is subject to WP:PAID. The user will continue the behavior and evade WP:SCRUTINY. Thank you. 2409:4061:2C19:9EE0:804B:51A:8761:321D (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The list of suspected paid creations are Fire Ball Securitas And Consultants, Manan Shah (Business Person), Draft:Loka (singer), Draft:Prakriti Nautiyal and Prajna Dutta. 2409:4061:2C19:9EE0:804B:51A:8761:321D (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The talk page you link to is from another editor and, again, nothing proves that Bapinghosh is involved in UPE. Before undertaking any action or even tagging the article, I'd like to see some evidence. The article on Dutta is not overly promotional and contains multiple references in RS that mention/discus Dutta, so I don't see why you are tagging this for notability. Frankly, the only disruptive behavior I see up till now is yours... And I told you to take the discussion to the article talk page, not my talk page... --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Randykitty: I suspected because of User:Prajnadutta and Prajna Dutta are same. You can only confirm that. I am dropping the stick here. Thank you. 2409:4061:2C19:9EE0:804B:51A:8761:321D (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Partial block request

Hello, I've asked that you also be considered for a partial block on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_Asian_History_(journal) and gather that I have to notify you. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Book review publication

Hallo Randy, Asian Review of Books has a bunch of incoming redlinks and I started a draft then wondered whether it was likely to pass notability. It's of its nature not the sort of thing to be much written about, so difficult to source - the most independent things I've found are an annoucement of a 2011 talk celebrating its 2000 launch, and the editor's mini profile in the China Morning Post. Any thoughts on it, please (from you or your talk-page-watchers)? Not exactly academic journals, but not a million miles away! PamD 08:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Pam, not being an academic journal complicates things, as it is unlikely to be included in any academic databases. MIAR doesn't recognize the title, neither does JournalSeek. So that leaves GNG. I think that the sources you found, while minimal, may make it squeak by GNG, at least enough to have any AfD end in "no consensus". Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lenny Castro

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lenny Castro. 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. Since I am not an admin, I cannot place the Deletion review tag on Castro's page. If you could do so, that would be appreciated. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a journal article

Hello,

I came across Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology which I created in 2010. I think since I was relatively new, I didn't realize that the publisher's website is full of blatant falsehoods. Apparently the publisher is listed in Beal's List of predatory journals. This came to light after I created the article. There is a link to this list in the references. On the publisher's website, it gives an easily seen impact factor. Yet, this journal in not listed in the Web of Science - see Master List. Also, it doesn't seem to be listed in Scopus [1]. Anyway, I am going to PROD this article and hopefully it won't be necessary to go to AfD. This will save time and energy. Maybe I should post this blurb on the Academic Journals Project talk page. Regards, ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting that JzG noticed the discrepancy in 2017 but the page was not prodded or sent to AfD [2]. JzG also removed the abstracting and indexing listed in this article [3], and rightly so. In any case, I was totally misled - obviously. Well, I am surprised this is still on Wikipedia. Hopefully, not for much longer. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree this is surprising. And it seems to be the only thing positive about this. The information on the website is not reliable. It has been labeled as a journal produced by a predatory publisher, which means its peer review process is probably sketchy. They might actually spam researchers about submitting articles, and so on. The page views for the last month were at about 300 before I posted about this on the talk page of the Academic Journals project. So, if 300 per month is the average, then that is about 3600 readers per year that we are advertising to about this journal. It might be best to get rid of this article. So, what do you think is the best way to handle this? And we should probably seek consensus from the Academic Journals project. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As I said, this has been posted on the Academic Journals project talk page. The prodded article is also posted over at WikiProject Physics and on the main page of WikiProject Academic Journals. So far there has been no disagreement with prodding and deleting this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My gut feeling is to keep it, because it meets NJournals. But the article should clearly reflect that the publisher is a shady one. That way, instead of 3600 advertised readers, we'll have 2600 warned readers. It's not the first predatory journal on which we have an article... --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Randykitty. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

You have undone three of my edits using rollback. Exactly which of the five reasons to use rollback did you think applied? 46.208.152.48 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Vandalism, which is what I call removing sourced content without givinig a reason and edit warring instead of discussing. Oh, and "to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban", per ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Journal of Cultural Economics

Hi! I work on resubmission of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Journal_of_Cultural_Economics And I don't understand what is the difference of my page that was rejected with the page of this journal for example, that doesn't have any references and is not rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Economic_Papers

or this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Economic_Journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:[79.50.133.233|[79.50.133.233]] ([[User talk:[79.50.133.233#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/[79.50.133.233|contribs]])

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Lavanya Vemsani

The article for Lavanya Vemsani, currently at AfD, mentions some academic journals that she is involved with. The journals are red links. If she is editor of a notable journal, then she would pass notability, but I don't have access to the list of selectively indexed journals that you do.

From the article: Vemsani is the editor-in-chief of American Journal of Indic Studies.[1] She is also the editor of the International Journal of Dharma and Hindu Studies, and associate editor of the Journal of South Asian Religious History. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  • The American Journal of Indic Studies was started in 2018 and only ever produced a single issue. It's therefore not surprising that it isn't included in any selective databases. It clearly misses NJournals. The International Journal of Dharma and Hindu Studies only existed for 4 years and then folded. As far as I can see, it never got indexed in anything significant and this one, too, misses NJournals. I did not look into the third journal, the Journal of South Asian Religious History, because the claim is only that she was associate editor, so even if that were a notable journal, this would not meet NPROF. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vemsani, Lavanya (2018-06-11). "Note from the Editor". American Journal of Indic Studies. 1 (1): iii. doi:10.12794/journals.ind.vol1iss1ppiii. ISSN 2573-1939.

Some Titanic survivors have their own articles, others don't. Why is that?

Milvina Dean, Barbara West and Lillian Asplund have their own articles as well as other survivors such as Edith Haisman and Eva Hart. What makes these survivors more notable than the others who don't have articles such as Winnifred van Tongerloo, Alden Caldwell, or Ruth Becker? --KevinBartholomew (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)KevinBartholomew

(talk page watcher) I don't know about the others, but an article on Winnifred van Tongerloo, under the title Winnifred Quick, was discussed and deleted under the Articles for Deletion process. I've now added a templat at Talk:Winnifred Van Tongerloo to link to that discussion. Millvina Dean seems to have a lot of good sources and an obituary in the Daily Telegraph. PamD 07:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I've added a couple more redirects, and also added the "Old AfD" template to the talk page of several redirects, to clarify for future editors. (See my recent contributions). It may be worth checking the other missing people you are concerned about, as they may have similar histories of page deletion where redirection was intended, variant forms of names, etc. PamD 07:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@KevinBartholomew: Forgot to ping. PamD 07:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Derby-single-Hallo Bandoeng.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Derby-single-Hallo Bandoeng.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Donavon Warren

I came across this name after watching the movie, Wheels as he was the producer of the movie. I would like to know if he is notable for having a page now because the one that was created back in 2017 or 2018 was deleted by you. I can provide you with some reliable, independent sources at your request which proves the subject passes both WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Keers

Thanks for your comments on the site that I created for Rob Keers. It is true that I do have a connection to Rob Keers but the entry has been written by several authors. I'm just the one that uploaded it. Regarding notability, Rob Keers has made substantial contributions to the field of psychiatric genetics. Most importantly his 2016 paper on a polygenic score of sensitivity has been cited 73 times already. The authors and I provided links to several of the papers that he was involved in. All of these have been peer-reviewed by experts in the field. Hence, his work has been scrutinised and found to be important by others. Please let me know whether there is anything I can do respond to your concerns. Thanks a lot.Mpluess (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Qatalog

Please could you explain to my why you have nominated this page for speedy deletion. I feel that the page has evidence of notability. If it has promotional material that can be rewritten. What is it about the page you find promotional? Do you consider that there is evidence of notability and if not could you please explain why not? Amirah talk 18:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Philosophers Annual

Hi, I saw you deleted the list of names of philosphers whose papers were chosen by the PA. The source is the PA page which lists all those whose papers were chosen. See http://www.pgrim.org/philosophersannual/past.html. I don't think it's necessary to list the names, but many do have wikipedia pages of their own. But if you deleted this because there was no source, that is not correct. Thanks for your attention.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

CactusRoy

I think his/her familiarity with how to close an AfD means this is likely an experienced editor - despite the account only being registered a few hours ago. Maybe someone active on fr.wikipedia or possibly even a sockpuppet? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Is there a rule somewhere that comments have to be in English? It's a bit unCanadian to require English-only comments (at least on Canadian subjects). That said, CactusRoy's verbal attacks and name-calling alone are enough to sanction them. But the two issues aren't connected. Nfitz (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I assume then that Canadian "Anglo" newspapers publish letters to the editor in French and the other way around? Could it also be that contributing only in English is also un-Thai, un-Turkmen, un-Japanese, etc? Should French-speaking Belgians be allowed to post in French on the nlWP? Seriously, exactly because people have different maternal languages does WP have different language editions. If Roy can only contribute to the enWP by using machine translations, they should consider contributing to the frWP. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Good points - but the question is what are the rules here. (personally, I always use French when I make the rare comment at the French Wikipedia - but I've never checked the rules here, and I can't find the relevant rule here). Nfitz (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There's no "rule", but the relevant guideline is WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Recommended but not required. Seems fair. On a non-related note, I'm suddenly struct between the similarity of names between User:CactusRoy and the now retired User:CactusJack, who was unfortunately driven away by BearCat's deletionism - though outside an AFD interest, probably not the same person - unless there's a big newfound interest in sovereignty-association. Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that the spirit of "unavoidable" in ENGLISHPLEASE includes cases of people contributing to discussions in a language they don't master and telling people "just check the post in my native language if the machine translation doesn't make sense". I think "unavoidable" more applies to verbatim citations in other language sources. Like you, I think it's basic politeness to write in French on the frWP, etc. I only make exceptions if I need to contact a local admin when doing small wiki patrols. I'll post in English then, but start with apologizing and explaining that I don't speak Swahili, Turkmen, or whatever language that wiki uses. I think that falls under "unavoidable"... --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with everything you said - but I didn't think the na word was considered acceptable anymore in Canadian English. Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit tired, so perhaps a bit slow: "na word"? --Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
'native' - might depend on usage, but I thought it was generally best avoided one, two ... though I admit I'm not seeing any clear guidance. Nfitz (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Kitty, long time. How you doing? 🐱 Bishonen | tålk 15:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC).

Experimental Techniques vs Experimental

Thanks for your note. Still learning at wikipedia writing. I hope to keep getting better. I fixed the "title" in the infobox to reflect "Experimental Techniques". The previous erroneous mention of "Experimental Mechanics" was from using the journal pages format and missed that change. Everything else is correct for Experimental Techniques --Autonomic2001 (Autonomic2001 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC))

A query

Hi Randykitty, I've a query. Is HeinOnline a credible bibliographic database for journal evaluation (at AfC review)? -Hatchens (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi, HeinOnline is a legal database and given its purpose, it strives to be as complete as possible. Like DOAJ it won't include predatory journals, so a legal journal not being included would be a sign something's amiss, but being included is not sufficient for NJournals as HeinOnline is not sufficiently selective. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Got it! A case-by-case assessment has to be made. HeinOnline can be used as supportive reason for a journal's acceptance but it shouldn't be considered as "sole reason". We should also check it with DOAJ,WoS and Scopus. -Hatchens (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Behavioral genetics / Behaviorism

Hi Randykitty, good catch. I think I was mistaken in trying to categorize behavioral genetics under behaviorism; from one point of view, they in fact represent the opposite poles of the old "nature vs nurture" debate. To explain, I was thinking of a different dichotomy within psychology--namely, the division between the disciplines that concern themselves with easily observable behaviors and those that concern themselves with cognition and feeling states. Behaviorism and behavioral genetics do line up on the same side of that dichotomy, but your point stands nonetheless.

So, yes, let's leave Behavioral genetics in the Psychology template as its own distinct category unrelated to Behaviorism, but I am going to add Behaviorism back into the Psychology template alongside it as one of the basic schools of psychology--an omission that seems to me glaring. Let me know if you'd like to discuss further, and thanks for the good catch. Hypoplectrus (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Bobherry Talk Edits 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The Journal of Belarusian Studies

Randykitty, perhaps you would take a look at the new article on The Journal of Belarusian Studies? It surely needs some style and POV edits, but I am not convinced of the notability of the journal, and would like to check on that before doing much else. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi, yes I saw it too and watchlisted it, no time for much more right now. A cursory search does not render any indexing in selective databases. Much will depend on the sources given, to see whether this meets GNG, but my first impression is not good. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, I might do a cursory MOS pass over it, but will wait on a likely future AfD discussion before doing much more. Thanks! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

APsaA Member Institutes

Hi Randykitty. I see you took out the table with the member institutes. Perhaps you could explain your rationale. The constituents of the association are important to explaining what the association is and it appears to be a common practice on Wikipedia for pages characterizing associations to include tables of their members. See, for example, California Collegiate Athletic Association, whose page contains a table showing all the member schools and when they joined. Likewise the American Psychological Association lists all its member divisions individually. Not sure I'm understanding why a different standard should apply to the American Psychoanalytic Association. Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming you misunderstood the table because of the term "approved," though a closer look at the table caption and at the article lede would have made it clear that these institutes are the actual members of the association. I will restore the table but drop the term "approved" to avoid future confusion. Happy to discuss further if you wish. Hypoplectrus (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Hypoplectrus, sorry that it took me so long to get around to this. You are comparing apples and pears. APA divisions are very large with thousands of members and almost all (or perhaps even all) are independently notable. Indeed, several have their own articles here. Many divisions are larger than the whole of APsaA itself, whose member institutes are small, local entities. For that reason, listing the divisions in the APA article is justified, but listing APsaA member institutes is not. I hope this make sense to you. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 22:01:08, 11 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Publishingnow

Thank you for reviewing the page I created. I edited it with new content to address your comments. Is there anything else I should do to secure another review and get it published. many thanks. Publishingnow (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Most cited papers in the journal's article

Hi. Do you think it is appropriate to mention the most cited papers published in a journal in that journal's article on Wikipedia (like Phonology (journal))? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's done in several articles that I know of. Within reason, though, say 3-5. If possible based on the Web of Science, otherwise Google Scholar. BTW, that article needs work... --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly verify my article

Kindly verify my article and dont delete it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Wajid_shaikh Itswajidshaikh00 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Most of what you produced is copying other WP pages and creating weird redirects. What remains is promotional and deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Sorry but it can't be helped. I recommend that you get acquainted with how things are done here before you continue with creating articles. Have a look at the links in the "welcome template" on your talk page and go to the Teahouse (also linked on your talk page) if you still have problems after reading them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly unblock my account

Hey randy i dont know why i got deleted but kindly give me a hope and re activate my account Itswajidshaikh00 (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to verify my article hey randy please help

Hey randy this is assistant of wajid shaikh and he is acclaimed poet of india,we are here to create a Wikipedia page regarding to him and giving hime notablity with the help of Wikipedia kindly help me to get verify Itswajidshaikh00 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Help me

Help me to get secure and verify my articles Itswajidshaikh00 (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Si.427 redirect

Your redirect to Plimpton 322 has been changed to Sippar here. Are you in agreement with this? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Joe Roe is wrong about the AFD close (which is redirect to Plimpton 322, which seemed to me the well-argued majority view), but I agree that a case can be made for redirecting to Sippar, too. I have no strong feelings about the change in redirect target. If you disagree, start a discussion on the talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, I started the discussion here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Light: Sciences & Applications

I was rejected by this journal for political reasons. This journal rejects scientific papers for non-scientific reasons in order to follow the request from the Chinese Communist Party. I do not agree with this since this is a scientific journal. I believe this is wrong, not healthy for the scientific community. Therefore, disclose this information on Wiki.

I have no idea why you think this is vandalism. According to what could you remove the true information about this journal?

I sincerely hope that you can put those words back. Otherwise, I will do it myself. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.34.130 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If I post the email from the journal editor as proof, would you think this is sufficient? I have been doing this by sending the email to professors in my field. Most of them replied by saying that this is shocking to them that nowadays this happens in the scientific community. Well, this is the Chinese Communist Party: everything serves for the party, including science.

This "wiki". People have the right to know and CCP cannot rule the scientific community as they want. I can post this email as proof and I hope you will be brave enough to accept this truth and not delete my edit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noccp (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Institute of National Remembrance Review

The journal is indexed in the ERIH+ database. The periodical is published by the significant research institution (Institute of the National Remembrance) – that is enough to consider it notable, has a reliable academic board, publishes the list of the reviewers of each issue, the periodical’s editorial and peer-review policy is also transparent and reliable, the content of the papers in published online, with sufficient access to the references and academic IDs of the authors. The authors of the papers published are academics and analytics of established affiliation. The papers’ metadata are indexed in DOI system. The claims raised are of formal character, being in fact an example of censorship, aiming to block the information concerning the academic journal. W2k2 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It might be better to describe the journal at Institute_of_National_Remembrance#Activities and have a redirect from its title: it seems odd that it is not even mentioned at that page although IPN Bulletin and Remembrance and Justice are described. PamD 16:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Both those titles now redirect to the article where they are described: they should always have redirected there, but people are sometimes slow to think about creating useful redirects. PamD 16:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Block

You have blocked User:Khattab Faleh. Thanks for what you did, he has another account who requested me to see this draft. Even after advice, he ignored and submitted without improvement. If they are sockpuppetry, could you give me the complaint, I means WP:SPI investigation name. Jyoti Roy (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See this also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnx4566789 if possible make a lock on his IP address, so that he won't be able to create an account.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@TTP1233 If you have evidence or comments to add to the SPI, please add it. Nests of UPE socks need to be excised from Wikipedia. The CU check is like to find all linkable ones, but you may know of others FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Acta Botanica Islandica

Hi, I just want to say thanks for your change of heart on this article. I'm sorry if I came over as too protectionist on what is admittedly a minor journal. I think the process has improved the article, which is good. So thank you for your efforts, and I hope you'll forgive me for mine! Elemimele (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning BIOSIS, you said MIAR missed it, but MIAR does list BIOSIS [4]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
You're right, it was Biological Abstracts that MIAR missed. I now remember that I saw Biosis doing my "before" and didn't think that that alone was enough. --Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah AFAIK, MIAR simply doesn't cover BA. HTFA (How's that for acronyms!). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

APsaA

Hi there, Randykitty, I am just now seeing your note about the table of member institutes. Continuing the thread from the archives of your Talk page. You wrote on November 11, 2021: "Hi Hypoplectrus, sorry that it took me so long to get around to this. You are comparing apples and pears. APA divisions are very large with thousands of members and almost all (or perhaps even all) are independently notable. Indeed, several have their own articles here. Many divisions are larger than the whole of APsaA itself, whose member institutes are small, local entities. For that reason, listing the divisions in the APA article is justified, but listing APsaA member institutes is not. I hope this make sense to you."

Thank you for the explanation. I do see your point--and I admire your fastidiousness about this! But I think the matter could be reasonably argued the other way. In fact the average size of an APA division is about 850, not in the thousands, and only the Clinical Neuropsychology division is bigger than APsaA, none of the remaining 55 divisions are. [See this demographic data from APA.] The member institutes are local inasmuch as all academic institutions are local, but their faculty connections and reach are international. A list of the member institutes gives a clearer picture of what the association is. By showing the founding dates and locations, the list helps show the history and current demographic shape of APsaA and the field of psychoanalysis, whose APA division, Division 39, is the fourth largest of the 56 APA divisions. I don't think the APsaA page is improved by suppressing this information. On the contrary, I think most seekers of information about APsaA and psychoanalysis are likely to take an interest in the list and to benefit from access to it. In sum, if there are reasonable arguments for and against the listing of the institutes, shouldn't it be allowed to stand? Let me know what you think. If we can't come to agreement, I am happy to request comment but maybe you will see my point and we don't have to. Cheers, Hypoplectrus (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarivate

Thanks for your edits on ‪Risk Analysis (journal)‬. I believe we were editing it at the same moment. Regarding your reversion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risk_Analysis_(journal)&oldid=prev&diff=1057579147, I was aware that Clarivate Analytics is now called simply Clarivate, but their website http://help.incites.clarivate.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/howtoCiteJCR.html recommends citations in these formats:

2017 Journal Impact Factor, Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2018)
Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2018)
2017 Journal Impact Factor, Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018)

which all use the long name. Of course it is possible that they just haven't updated their websites yet, or--as I assumed--they use "Clarivate Analytics" as an imprint. Are you perhaps aware that this is not the case? --Scwarebang (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:SudShare

Are you sure that needed to be CSD'd? I read it before its deletion, and it definitely didn't seem promotional to me. (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

btw, I found out about the deletion because it was discussed on WP:Discord. I forgot to say as much earlier. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I had another look and I agree with Theroadislong that this is blatantly promotional. Mentioning current pricing is almost always considered promotional. The article was also misleading. I randomly checked one source (the one on iHearth), which was used to source that the company has 54,000 "Sudsters". However, the article says 50,000. More importantly, it clearly says "[a]ccording to the company", so this is not independently verified information, what would be needed for such a claim. In all, I stick to the G11. Take it to DRV if you still disagree. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, okay, I made the mistaken assumption that talking about pricing was non-promotional, based on my reading of the articles for Uber (which mentions the percentage it makes from commissions in the first paragraph) and Instacart (which talks about pricing in depth). Of course, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, etc., and it's totally understandable to see that as a sign of promotional bias. With regards to the misleading sourcing, I think I know what went wrong there. I had previously listed the number as 50,000, but then this article came out, which listed the number at 54,000. I thought it safe to assume that larger number is simply the result of the article coming out later (considering the rapid growth rate of the company discussed in said article), and did a simple search and replace for every instance of the string "50,000" to "54,000". I made a serious mistake there, obviously, but it was not with intent to mislead or give false information. I have been and continue to try to edit this encyclopedia in good faith, and if you'd be willing to undelete Draft:SudShare, I'd be happy to make any changes you feel may be necessary, or would simply improve the article. I don't think my past work is unsalvageable, and would be incredibly grateful to you if you let me continue to work on this.
    EDIT: Just saw you said to take this to DRV—sorry for missing that; assuming you don't reply within the next few hours I'll go ahead and do that as per your request.
    Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:SudShare

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:SudShare. 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. Yitz (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I used the wrong user account to notify you, sorry about that :/ Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:IEEE Systems Council

I am acting on behalf of our client, the IEEE Systems Council. There are many similar organizational units that have articles/pages without issue that are listed on the IEEE’s page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers . For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Sensors_Council and IEEE CEDA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Council_on_Electronic_Design_Automation.

They are a volunteer organization that hire us to help with their organizational needs. The Vice President of Technical Operations, Steve Holt, has requested that we create and update this page on their behalf. Please help me in making the appropriate changes in order to get this approved. We believe the content we are requesting is in line with compliance and with the content that has been approved on many other pages of Technical Councils of the IEEE.

The information from the about section is not copyrighted material is free to use on any website. The organization is informational and educational.

Is this appropriate?

The IEEE Systems Council is one of seven technical councils of the IEEE and integrates IEEE activities regarding aspects of multiple disciplines and specialty areas of systems engineering.[1]

18 of 39 IEEE Societies are member societies of this council. Each society is represented in the Administrative Committee (AdCom) of the council through its appointed representatives.

The IEEE Systems Council’s mission is to promote, encourage, and support the technical, academic and application aspects of systems engineering and systems thinking that address global challenges through via activities and member societies. [2]

There is clear guidance on your userpage, and on WP:PAID about what you can and can't do. This has links to Wikipedia's content policies like WP:RS. The principle problem is that the material is clearly promotional (the evidence for this is it is copied from the organisation's own website) and the fact that you claim it is "educational" is irrelevant. Charitable, educational or commercial activities are all banned on Wikipedia. You need to write a neutral, balanced article drawing on reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article and that demonstrate that this "council" is sufficiently notable in itself to justify an article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "IEEE Systems Council Catalogue". IEEE. IEEE.
  2. ^ "IEEE Systems Council". IEEE Systems Council. IEEE Systems Council.

Draft:Advanced Electromagnetics

Hello! Thank you so much for your feedback about my account and the article I drafted. As you may have noticed I acknowledged the conflict of interest I have with that page. Actually I posted the article on the help forum and a user edited it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#c-S0091-2021-12-05T20%3A39%3A00.000Z-Saidzouhdi-2021-12-04T18%3A45%3A00.000Z

The draft of the article is listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Advanced_Electromagnetics

I would be grateful if you could review it and let me know how to improve it. Thank you. Best regards, Said Zouhdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saidzouhdi (talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done

Just to let you know about an article I just created

The article is William Robert Thompson. I'd appreciate any help you could provide in improving it. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Here's one factoid: the BGA's Thompson Award for best student presentation is named after him. Nice article, didn't know he was born in France. But not from Frecnh parents I guess, given his anglophone name. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

RE: Proposed deletion of Tragovi: Journal for Serbian and Croatian Topics

In relation to proposed deletion of 'my' article thanks for letting me know about your nomination. I see on your talk page that you do not really acknowledge the existence of systematic bias (although it seems there is some attention on Wikipedia with academic, funding, algoritmic and publication bias) I think it can be relevant if publication's position is clearly counterhegemonic (clearly recognizable original anti-war / inclusive / objective and local language mission and commitment). Yet we may simply disagree on this part (: . I think that the Portal of scientific journals of Croatia (major publicly funded/run database of scientific publications in Croatia) and the Central and Eastern European Online Library (probably the major database on the region despite of its rather poor article on Wikipedia) can't just be ignored as non-selective databases. They would in fact be primary databases for anyone looking for scientific publications from Croatia (or my librarians in Glasgow UL were simply uninformed). The fact that the journal is presented at the major archive in Serbia (Archive of Vojvodina) and the National Library of Croatia certainly imply notability plus the journal is quoted in major national media (for example Večernji list). Notability is probably about categories or comparable categories (events with the national library and archive in two different countries, quotation in mainstream media, inclusion in 2 primary databases, independent references). I guess if I am to caricature my argument, the fact that something is not on some inertly recognizable core-centric list of 100/500/1000... universities/journals/scientists certainly doesn't mean that it's not an important scientific source/reference for quite numerous audiences (both academic and general). Wikipedia, as an international Encyclopedia for international audience, can help us overcome such biases by recognizing all relevant sources. The fact is that this journal is certainly much more consequential for its audience and the field it covers than many journals which may formally score relatively high rankings on some lists and I do think it would be shame to delete it. Thank you for your time and hopefully the outcome is not predetermined.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Read again. I never say that systematic bias does not exist, because it undeniably does. For example, given equal levels of notability, men are more likely to have a bio than women. The solution for that, however, is not to lower our notability criteria for women, but to create articles for notable women (like the WikiProject Women in Red does). The same goes for any other subject. As for journals, the most selective databases (such as the Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus) all include a good number of journals in languages other than English. All that is needed for inclusion in those databases is having a measurable impact. If there's no measurable impact journals don't get into those databases and should not have a WP article either. If Tragovi has a measurable impact, that should be easy to document by citing reliable sources (in any language) that discuss the journal in-depth as required by WP:GNG, or by inclusion in selective databases as required by WP:NJournals. Libraries, especially local ones that usually strive for comprehensiveness for local publications, are never selective enough to satisfy NJournals. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Apologies if I misunderstood your position, I am glad there is more agreement that I might have assumed incorrectly. Yes, you are right, but I would argue that at least some of the reliable independent quoted sources already provide unusually detailed information on the journal as such. It would satisfy GNG to the extant that specific NJournals may not be needed (which is possiblity explicitly mentioned on NJournals intro). That is why I find the statement on the absence of in depth independent reliable sources not to be completely correct. Examples are following sources independent of the journal in question: Archives of Vojvodina, Cultural Center of Novi Sad, Journalists'Association of Serbia, Javniservis which all provide significant coverage without need to do independent research. There are also regular news in another publication (Novosti (Croatia), admittedly not fully independent as the publisher is the same. I also identified marginal but important quotes by other independent media (Novi list, Večernji list) or marginal mentions (London School of Economics) all contributing to GNG.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I apologize for bothering you too much with this case, but I wanted to see if you will be free to check the article before December 12? I think it now comfortably fulfills GNG and I will challenge proposed deletion on that basis if nobody else will (the furthest one may go would be merging with redirect, but even that is not the best option). Nevertheless, I think that it would be much better if you yourself can see if your concerns are addressed (since you are experienced in the topic and you made the original proposal citing NJOURNALS and GNG).--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Right now there are 26 references and I will address them by numerical order to make it simple. All sources except 6, 8 and 9 are independent of the source (e.g. not indirectly linked by the same publisher). I think that particularly important sources are 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 (English version of the reference number 5-not sure if exactly the same), 21, 23, 24. Almost all sources provide some information and not only marginal mention (except for example 2, 15). Many of them are important as an reliable/relevant reference source (long existing national media etc.).--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If you are to choose only three, well English version 12 is useful for sure and I don't know, maybe 11 and let's say 7 as relatively comprehensive.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your guidance. However, I found International Society for NeuroVirology is present within Microbiology Societies, so I added it. However, I will follow your guidance. Thank you. Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Australian Journal of Labour Law Comment

Hi there @Randykitty:, thanks for reviewing my draft. I got a notification it was reviewed, but no final outcome. This was redlined in a list of journal articles on Wikipedia, so I thought I would add the second final article. It got declined on first two attempts, I since have expanded it as much as I can. Please can I know if you accepted or declined it? Thanks so much - Such-change47 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Not sure I understand what this is about: as far as I can see I never edited that draft, nor did I send you any notification or edited your talk page. I may have marked the draft as "reviewed", given that other editors are dealing with it, but that's just a detail. I haven't looked into the draft in detail, nor do I intend to. For tips on how to expand an article on an academic journal to produce an acceptable article, see our journal article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I just saw 'reviewed' come up is all. Thanks so much, Such-change47 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the warm welcome! 589q (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Randykitty! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Randykitty!

Happy New Year!

Randykitty,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Sean Bush Page

Hi Randykitty, I noticed you deleted several peer-reviewed articles on Dr. Bush’s page. Medical articles are reviewed by multiple people and still considered a peer review. I did not see guidelines stating that they must be first or last in order of appearance. I’ve worked very hard pulling the articles with all the appropriate DOI numbers and links. I’d like those articles to be restored but did not want to ‘undo’ without chatting with you further. Appreciate the other edits. Nicole 2600:1000:B12A:2224:25CF:9988:87FA:C67B (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Nicole, I understand that it must be disappointing to see one's hard work deleted. However, in articles on academics we usually only place a selection of the 3-5 most important publications, "most important" being determined by an objective criterion (such as # of citations). Being 5 author out of 7 or 8 is pretty trivial, peer-reviewed or not. It means that the contribution of that author was minimal. The important authors of an article are the first and (especially) the last. Bush's listed publications are almost all in "eMedicine Journal", not exactly a high-profile outlet (I'm not even sure that "eMedicine Journal" is the correct name of this and not "Medscape", the website gives no indication how to cite stuff that they publish) and the articles are obviously not your usual research reports and don't even cite a single other article. In fact, I don't see anything suggesting that these articles actually are peer-reviewed. Bush's notability stems from his media work, as an academic he fails WP:ACADEMIC. So if these publications are the best there is, it might be best to do away with the whole section altogether. Hope this explains and helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Randykitty and that makes sense. I can see that you are highly active with editing and as I am someone who works with people from all over the world a small suggestion when deleting a lot of work would be to provide an explanation as you did above. I realize that this might take a bit of time but providing a reason for bulk deletion would go a long way. The process to create a Wikipage is not straightforward and any help is truly appreciated. Thanks again and Happy New Year! Beansalad3 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I noticed your hidden comment "Should be pared down to 3-5 most important ones, selected with an objective criterion; also, these are not references but should be templated like the first item" at Fern Kaley Willits. I wonder if you are setting too high a bar? I was considering nominating this article for DYK and I had started to remove some from the list but then you say it has to be 3-5 (why? thats a pity as I could remove more) and and it should include some objective criteria (it would be great!, but where is this to come from when it has to be objective and result in 3-5 examples).... and I have to lay out the list as you define (other than like 95% of all the other lists). I can see each of these as a great objective but I suspect we will have to wait a long time before someone picks up the task you have defined. Could I suggest that the template you added is (more than) enough? I think these extra requirements are deterring improvement = "the better/perfect" is preventing "the good". However I'm happy to leave the article as it is, but I'm guessing that wasn't your objective. Victuallers (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi, Happy New Year to you, too! Publishing is what academics do. Over the course of a career, this can be hundreds of articles (life sciences) or dozens of books (social sciences and humanities). Only for the most significant of academics (Albert Einstein, for example) do we list all of their publications. For others, we give the most important ones. Objective criteria can be if an article has been the subject of in-depth reporting in the lay press (extremely rare and in that case we could perhaps even have a WP article on it -as for a handful of Einstein's publications) or (more usually) number of citations. The latter can be obtained from the Web of Science (if you work at a university that has a subscription) or from [[[Google Scholar]]. As for presentation, the way it is done in the Willits article at this point, lists all publications twice, once in the list and once in the references, making the article look much better sourced than it actually is. Having said all this (and I'm not sure here if I interpret your comments above correctly), not listing any journal articles at all is perfectly acceptable, too. Concerning your hidden comment "Penn state lists seven of her publications", such lists are usually made by the academic themselves, not some university official, so those are the articles that the author themselves wants to promote. As an aside, I would hesitate to use ResearchsGate as a source, as it is almost completely based on info provided by the academics themselves. Also, some PDFs there are copyvios (they've cleaned up their act a lot in the past few years, but some are still there). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_29&oldid=1067797015"