User talk:Randykitty/Archive 33

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Hi Randykitty, I am writing to ask for your advice regarding "maintenance templates" in the "J. Alberto Aragon-Correa" article. I was his PhD student and started this article to recognize his strong international impact in the field of management (specially in sustainable management).

Could you please provide some details about the specific sections-sentences that you suggest to change in the article? Also, any advise about alternative writing? Even, any potential model in other similar-specific article to consider?

I will be happy to make the necessary changes, and I am just trying to understand better your view in order to remove the maintenance templates. Also happy if you prefer to make the changes by yourself.

Thank you for your advise. Best, Pacocasas997 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Randykitty,

I appreciate your work on the "J. Alberto Aragon-Correa" article. This project aims to describe the international social and academic impact of Professor Aragon-Correa in the field of management, and I am genuinely volunteering my time here. I'm pleased that various collaborators have contributed to enhance my original piece. I noticed that you have included two maintenance templates and I am reaching out for your guidance on resolving the identified issues.

Could you kindly identify the specific paragraphs or sentences requiring attention? Additionally, any specific suggestions for revisions would be highly appreciated. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, your insights are invaluable, and I'm committed to re-writing to meet your standards. Alternatively, of course, I'm open to your direct edits to remove the maintenance templates.

In my view, these specific templates could potentially compromise the credibility of the whole article. Therefore, I would like to develop a prompt resolution.

Thank you very much. Best wishes, Paco Pacocasas997 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, you should have a look at some of our better biographies ("good article", see here) to see what a good bio looks like. For example, constantly talking about "Alberto" is not very encyclopedic. You need to write in a neutral way. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Randykitty!! Your suggestion regarding the implications of using "Alberto" is extremely helpful. I will cross-reference with the exemplary academic biographies for additional inspiration, this resource is also useful. If it is ok with you, I'll make the necessary changes in the next days and return to you for assessment before removing the neutrality template.

  Regarding the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" template, could you kindly identify the specific sentences or paragraphs that may sound as "advertisement"? This guidance will greatly assist me in refining my future edits .

  Appreciate your support. Best regards, Paco Pacocasas997 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Randykitty,

Following up with our previous interaction last week, I have included multiple changes in the last days to reinforce the encyclopedic tone of the "J Alberto Aragon Correa" article. I think that I am now ready to remove the maintenance templates in the next days. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you think that any extra changes are necessary at this stage. In any case, thank you very much for your help and previous orientation. Best, Paco Pacocasas997 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

I have notified you as required by the instructions below

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been created. Given your removal of the list and transformation of a similar article to a redirect, I thought you should be notified. It does have a few more references than what you deleted.Naraht (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. Funny how much is made of universities reporting that their faculty received a "major" award... Ever seen them brag about a "minor" award? Classic WP:MRDA. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Well, it has been created, but despite an impressive list of sources, I don't think it's notable, so once I've time, it'll have to go to AfD I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I put the journal WikiProject page there because the article is the de facto article about Literary Veganism (which won't be notable) and ASEBL Journal (which is borderline, as it was archived in a few places, but I don't know if it ever had an impact factor). But I defer to you entirely if you don't think it belongs in the WikiProject! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't realize that, I'll revert. If you make separate sections for the journals, you can use the infobox journals in those sections. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks, will do. I'm digging for a bit more information about ASEBL Journal; it only seems to be cited in one place on Wikipedia, but perhaps in time it'll attract a few more mentions... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I got the impact factor from https://academic-accelerator. com/Impact-of-Journal/Journal-of-Commercial-Biotechnology. I admit I just took it at face value, it may be a useless site for such thing (in fact as I tried to save this, I see it's on a blacklist and so I added a space). But I was trying to figure out if it's a reasonable journal and it feels like it's not. But it's far too far from my academic area for me to have any personal insight. I just find that these comercial journals tend to be very poor. (I live in a land where most good things are IEEE or ACM publications or at least closely associated with them or some similar group). Again, I think you'll find that I'm very much in favor of having significant journals and conferences have Wikipedia articles. I just didn't see anything in the AfD or a web search for me to believe this is anything other than a profit center for someone. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not a reliable website. I don't know where they get their data, but the IFs they publish are different from those produced by Clarivate (the "official" provider of IFs). Looking at the citations in GScholar, I would expect this journal to get included in one of the Clarivate databases soon, but that's crystal-ball gazing, of course. As for the profit, a lot of articles in WP (and not just those on academic journals) are about subjects that generate profit for somebody, I don't really see a problem in that. More specifically talking about journals: unless and until a journal is included in some major databases, they are most likely to generate losses, not profits. And then when they do get listed, those losses have to be earned back. It's different of course for predatory journals, but their business model is very different. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Hobit: there's a reason the site is blacklisted... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  A) I hadn't realized it was blacklisted until I posted here. So I can buy the IF number is at the least not to be trusted. B) Lots of things here are for profit, but I'm not thrilled with giving a "lower-than-GNG" bar for business ventures--it feels too much like advertising at that point. I mean WP:CORP is stricter than the GNG for a reason. I wish we could find a bar that's reasonable for journals (and in my field, conferences). I do think it should be lower than the GNG (at least for the non-profit ones), but I'm not at all sure how to set it. I've seen WP:NJOURNAL and that gets me to believe that there isn't an easy bright line that folks can agree too. Hobit (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notability on Wikipedia is an artificial construct, divorced from any normal meaning of the word "notability", presenting an epistemic method of discovering whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia entry — an encyclopedia article. If it is possible, this conclusion is projected onto the subject of an article whereby the subject is declared to be "notable", and if it is not possible, the subject is declared "non-notable". It isn't that we write about notable subjects, it's that we write articles, and as long as we succeed in writing a legitimate article such that it complies with the core content policies, or have evidence that an article is WP:NPOSSIBLE because sources exist, or we should err on the side of assuming that they exist in the case that we haven't identified them (the SNGs, which are laxer then GNG [except for WP:NCORP, notably]), we a posteriori declare the subject to be notable.

  Evidence that an academic journal is indexed does not lead to a discovery that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article. This evidence can not lead to a conclusion that an academic journal is notable.

  This is because indexing doesn't have anything to do with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and proponents or NJOURNALS have argued that the okay journals that meet WP:JOURNALCRIT are less likely to be notable then the scandal ridden journals that do not, because coverage is the most likely when there is a scandal or a fraudulent publication is discovered.

  If we agree with that:

  NJOURNALS should be explicit and clear that it recommends against deleting articles about non-notable academic journals that meet certain criteria that are different from notability criteria, and then explain why this would be justified, meaning how Wikipedia's notability construct doesn't work in this area. It should not say that it's an essay about notability. It's an essay about not deleting certain pages, it could, in theory, be underpinned by:

  • Wikipedia:Five pillars: Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. — It is sometimes said that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only an encyclopedia, but the first pillar doesn't say that exactly and what it says could have different implications; encyclopedias aren't exclusively made up of encyclopedia entries—in addition to those they might also have introductions, appendices, glossaries, other types of lists, etc.; therefore, while those mainspace pages about academic journals whose non-deletion NJOURNALS justifies only by being able to include a "who indexes it" overview may be seen as outside of the core of the encyclopedia, which is made up of encyclopedia articles, they could hypothetically be be tolerated as an acceptable side feature of an encyclopedia that complements articles. We have tags for certain, tolerated, types of non-article pages, such as {{surname}}.
    • So it could be an essay about the First pillar
  • Wikipedia:Deletion policy: ... pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia ... Reasons for deletion include ... Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) — NJOURNALS recommends criteria for content that are independent from notability and asserts that these criteria for such content should be the relevant criteria, and that mainspace pages about academic journals that fail to meet the relevant notability guideline, and could perhaps not even be seen as encyclopedia articles, should not be deleted if they meet these parallel criteria.
    • So it could be an essay about the deletion policy.
  • Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Notability is perceived as a rule, but it is a "rule" that should sometimes be ignored entirely.
    • So it could be an essay about IAR.

  It just isn't an essay about notability in the sense of an SNG that never got the guideline stamp. It's an anti-notability essay.

  The path forward is making it clear that NJOURNALS-based arguments for non-deletion are contrary to notability, but are still relevant arguments that lead to a better encyclopedia with its "many features". The essay could do this, it could make this argument, but it doesn't. It falsely presents itself as a notability essay. That's why it's so strongly opposed, and I agree that this problematic and unclear essay should be opposed in this way, until it becomes a good essay that lucidly presents a viewpoint about how Wikipedia could benefit from such pages. —Alalch E. 01:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  "The path forward is making it clear that NJOURNALS-based arguments for non-deletion are contrary to notability"

  That is your opinion. It is not, however, the opinion people who consider WP:NJOURNALS an excellent baseline for journal notability. You will never be able to reconcile the two sides, you just have to accept they exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  It could be an excellent baseline for non-deletion of mainspace pages about journals, but not on grounds on notability. —Alalch E. 11:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Again, in your opinion. Which is far from universal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Notability on Wikipedia is an artificial construct, divorced from any normal meaning of the word "notability", presenting an epistemic method of discovering whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia entry — an encyclopedia article." I agree with the first clause, largely agree with the second and disagree with the third. I think that's how it started, but notability has become our litmus test for what we cover. And it's very much a moving target--the bar for notability has certainly changed over the years, even if most of the guidelines and policies have not. We could easily write an entire article, in much more detail, about all the original Pokémon, than we could on this particular journal. But we don't because of our inclusion guidelines combined with a common-sense approach to applying them. Folks feel that each of those Pokémon don't require an article (because they are entertainment, frivolous only of interest to fan-boys (and girls) or whatever). But we don't have them because we've reach the conclusion, for better or for worse, that they somehow aren't appropriate. Not that we can't write them. Should academic journals (and conferences, which are much more important in my field than journals) have a lower bar than WP:N? Maybe. But I'd personally not set the bar low enough to admit the journal discussed here. Maybe include things which have had an IF of at least 2 for 3 years (ever) or something (or that have non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources). People, including me, feel that we should cover "important" things. And what's important to me can be really different than what's important to you. So we use the media, writ large, to give us a baseline and then skew that a bit (e.g. sports has way more coverage than us mostly geeks think is justified so we choose to discount detailed coverage as "run-of-the-mill"). Sorry, there's my rant. It would be cool to hear what @Uncle G: has to say given I think he was quite active in getting notability to be our bar if I recall correctly. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Everyone has their idea of what's important, and for everyone it's different. If we ran the encyclopaedia that way it would be chaos. There was a lot of discussion about this at the time of Project:fame and importance, including the infamous 'Jimbo's "no"' (q.v.). Essentially, we should try to ignore, as far as possible our own notions of importance, because an encyclopaedia is there in part for the proverbial species of beetle to be looked up in. So the question became what should we use as a discriminator instead of fame and importance. The only reasonably objective measure that succeeded, the one that (for instance) gets us the species of beetles because part of being a species is proper in-depth expert scientific literature being published and accepted, was the one that you're discussing, which I first wrote down as the Primary Notability Criterion; but which I think many people were coming to at the time given how well it immediately caught on once I started putting it into practice.

    The idea was that there were secondary notability criteria as well, in part because a lot of our haphazard and spotty subject-specific guidelines at the time had a lot of "All X are notable" criteria. It is interesting that gradually over the intervening 2 decades those have been eroded, and I see a lot of people nowadays opining that whilst the secondary criteria imply that something might be article-worthy, the fundamental test of whether it is is now whether there are multiple independent people who have checked their facts and documented it in-depth. The whole debate about sportspersons' biographies showed this shift in action. In 2004, the debate would have been what "all X are notable" rule to concoct. Nowadays, it's how well "all X are presumed notable" guides us to what actually is notable using the PNC.

    I cannot say much directly on point about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 13 because I have not read either that or the AFD discussion preceding it. Although I do remember the days when Bulbasaur (AfD discussion) was a featured article. ☺

    In the end, I personally grit my teeth sometimes and try to strictly exclude any personal thoughts that I might have about how significant a particular topic really is, and follow where the world's documentation of subjects leads. Sometimes that leads to some amazing untapped veins where one wishes that more of the blanket notability people were devoting their efforts properly. c.f. User talk:Drmies/Archive 146#up the Creeks without an English professor. 91 books! Or the redlinked hydroelectric power system mentioned in the discussion of Farad, California (AfD discussion) which was expert-documented extensively a century ago. That may make User:Uncle G/Missing encyclopaedic articles yet. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at this user's contributions who is edit warring in multiple pages even after warnings. A block might be necessary, thanks. Timovinga (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I had a look, but this is outside my expertise. Try WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Timovinga (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a closer look at this journal. I'm starting to have grave doubts that it's not utterly bogus.

1. The editor-in-chief is A) at a school of economics B) shares his name with an extremely famous economist who is now dead C) appears not to have a single publication from that school D) isn't listed as teaching at the school claimed.
2. I can find no reference outside of this journal to the one random board person I selected (Kartik Rinke). I mean the name doesn't exist.
3. The charge to publish is more than $1000. Does any legit journal charge that much these days?

Basically, I think it's likely completely bogus. It exists, but it seems quite possible it's just a scam. Without evidence otherwise I think we need to delete this. It's not impossible this is a real journal etc. But we really shouldn't be hosting a page for something where we really lack any independent in-depth coverage that at least gets over the "it isn't a scam" bar. And I'm not seeing it. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• For 1, I find tons of articles by a Yang at the University of Economics in Katowice, e.g. [1], [2], [3].
• For 2, Kartik Rinke seems to be a really strange mistake, from "Kartik Totlani" and "Rinke J. van Tatenhove-Pel" of the University of Delft. Same for "Volkert van" from Delft, who should be "Volkert van Steijn".
• For 3, 1000$ is on the rather low side for APCs, though what is strange, and perhaps explains the relatively low impact, is charging 1200$ for submitting to a subscription journal. Elsevier charges between $200 and $10K per article. (10K is utterly ridiculous, but that's what's out there). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• For Yang, that first link gets me nothing. The second and third aren't even formatted correctly. There are periods in the middle of sentences, sentences that don't start with capital letters, etc. It's possible it's a language thing, but it's pretty clear the paper hasn't been proofread--that type of thing is the same in English and Polish. Further, the Google Scholar page puts him at Katowice, links his home page to a different school (in China) and clearly confuses him with [Xiaokai Yang]. I have doubts that Xiaokai Yang of University of Economics in Katowice exists. And if he does, I have doubts that he's a real scholar--read those articles. I can find no page at University of Economics in Katowice indicating he's a faculty member there. For 2, the "strange mistake" should be unthinkable if things were real--people notice when their names are wrong. Again, maybe this is on the up-and-up. But it isn't something we should be hosting if we can't tell. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• FYI: I've sent it back to AfD.Hobit (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch. 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. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2018 Ital Am cover.png. 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) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes Sdkb The Night Watch East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

I have added some text and references to the Ewald Prize page to address the notability and verifiability issues you raised yesterday. Please take a look and let me know if I can now remove the tags or, if not, what further changes you would recommend. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have responded there. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and in helping me to improve this new article. Since then a number of changes to the references have been made by Headbomb/Citation bot. During this process it seems to me a large number of errors have been made. I compared the revisions of 17:14 and 18:12 on 29 Feb 2024 and found the following significant problems:

• In refs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 19 the author(s) have been deleted
• In ref. 17 the author "Anon." has been replaced by "Coppens, P." who is the subject of the article not its author
• In ref. 3 the journal has been deleted
• In ref. 5 most of the title has been deleted
• In ref. 26 the link to the pdf of the article, provided by the referenced journal, has been replaced by a landing page, provided by another institution, from which you can then get to the pdf
• In refs. 5 and 7 S2CIDs have been added but appear to have no value

I don't want to upset anybody, but I feel the article would be improved if I reverted the changes made by Headbomb/Citation bot. Can you advise me, or do you think I should approach Headbomb directly? GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• If you have concerns with edits made by Headbomb, you should contact him directly, before reverting him. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Miranda,

Hope you're well. I noticed my draft for Codebase Technologies has been declined. Would you be able to provide some guidance so that i can re-draft the article to be more neutral so that we can get it published on Wikipedia. You advise is much appreciated.

Regards, Tom Tom.Romanski (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Tom, looks like you already started a new draft. Make sure it's not promotional so that it won't get deleted as spam again. Apart from that, I have no real suggestions as this is not really my subject. You should try to get help at the Teahouse. You also should have a look at some of the links in the "welcome" template that I just put on your talk page, so that you learn how to make wikilinks and such. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello RandyKitty, I am reaching out because I am a newcomer to editing on wikipedia, and I recently posted a draft of a page that was turned down by you and sent to speedy deletion. I have worked hard to correct the problems that you identified, but it says on my sandbox page that I should reach out to you first before resubmitting. The page in question is about the Dutch academic, author and methane reduction activist, Roland Kupers. Can you please let me know what my next step should be? thank you so much for your help, best, Anne (with the wiki name of acknowledgeshame) AcknowledgeShame (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Anne, I had another look at your deleted draft and there are multiple problems with it. The most important ones are that this does not read like an encyclopedic article, but more like a CV and that it also is too promotional. In addition, most references are by Kupers himself. What is needed to show that a person is notable in the WP sense are third-party sources. A lesser problem is the use of external links in the body of text. It's not necessary to link to the homepages of, for example, the schools/universities that he attended. If they have an article here, you can link to that. In general, creating new articles is very hard, especially bios. I recommend that you look at the links with tips that I just posted on your talk page. also, look at some other scientist bios, especially the better ones (class C, B, or GA). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect International Journal of Transgenderism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § International Journal of Transgenderism until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for improving Virtual Reality journal. Can you please do the same for Automation in Construction journal? Safetystuff (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why don't you try it yourself? You have the example of Virtual Reality and tips can be found in our journal article writing guide. Pre-formaztted references can be found on my user page. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You deleted mention of Anubias gracilis use in aquascaping as 'incorrect'? A.gracilis is grown and sold specifically (and perhaps only) for this purpose. See for example: https://tropica.com/en/plants/plantdetails/Anubiasgracilis(101D)/17819 Ajpierce (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that's not a reliable source. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

A tag has been placed on Category:Academic journals established in 2022 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Randykitty! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Synthese. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Take it to the talk page!!!TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Can you please explain your closing rationale at Nadia Naji as 'no consenus'. I believe my argument was more policy based than those of the other two editors who voted to keep. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I just had another look and stay at "no consensus": there were policy-based arguments for and against deletion. If you feel that my close does not reflect the discussion, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nadia Naji. 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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please could you refund the article on EWAA Hotels as Draft:EWAA Hotels. When the article was called "EWAA Hotel", I did point out on the talk page that a search on Google News for EWAA Hotels produced two articles in a trade magazine. (Trade magazines are sometimes really good sources, and some of them are more objective than articles about businesses in newspapers such as The Guardian.) The editor who created the article is a new account (and possibly even a new editor) and cannot be expected to understand how to go about things. I think that he/she should be encouraged to develop the article in draft and to leave it to other people to decide when the article is ready for mainspace.

It would also help a lot if you could put a setting on EWAA Hotel and EWAA Hotels so that non-admins cannot move the draft there and cannot do a copy-and-paste move there either. This is said with experience of not-very-competent new editors who want to jump the gun and move articles to mainspace after the most minuscule amount of work improving the draft.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)