User talk:Randykitty/Archive 20

AFD closed as delete, then recreated as a redirect

Hey, I was looking back over my AFD !votes over the past year or so (some new accounts keep accusing me of making POINTy !votes that are counter-policy, so I wanted to tally up the number of times consensus has agreed with me). I noticed that I had some good points here in favour of merging, but the discussion was closed as "delete" anyway. That's cool, but two and half months later User:BullRangifer recreated the page as a redirect, so your choosing to close that way rather than as "redirect" or "merge" became moot.

But if the redirect exists, is it possible to restore the page history from before you deleted the page, so the content can be merged in case any non-admin wants to? I was very specifically afraid that a "merge" close would lead to the page being redirected with the merge never happening, and now by complete accident of fate exactly that situation has come about, and only admins can see the pre-deletion page history.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I had a look again and still think that "delete" was the correct close. I looked at the deleted article and there really is nothing of interest that isn't already in the article on her late husband. So I don't think that changing the "delete" close to a "merge and redirect" close is justified. That somebody later created a redirect anyway is beyond this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's cool. Obviously I don't remember what the page looked like during the AFD, so I might actually agree with you for all I know. Thanks for the prompt reply, anyway! :) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

International federation of standards users

Dear Randy I uploaded a page at the 10/7, which was deleted on the 12/7 due to to Unambiguous copyright infringement: copied from http://www.ifan.org/About-ifan.html). The page name was "International federation of standards users". I checked the website and they approved that their content is not protected. thay also removed the Copyrights notice. after all, its an organization for users and it is very importent for tham that their knowledge would be spread out. is it possible to undo the deletion and upload the page again? 10X! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiD123 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• The short answer is: no, I will not undo the deletion. There are several reasons for this. 1/ Copyright: they may have removed the copyright statement, but unless a website explicitly states that something is released under, for example, a Creative Commons license, we assume that it is copyrighted. 2/ Even if the copyright issue would be solved, copying their "about" text is not OK. As can be expected from text that an organization publishes about itself, it is not neutral and encyclopedic in tone. If the article were re-created as it was, it would again be speedily deleted, this time as spam. 3/ The article as it was, does not establish that this organization meets our inclusion criteria (see WP:GNG and WP:NORG).

I'm afraid that for the moment, this organization will have to look for other means to spread word about them (see also WP:ISNOT). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Randy Thank you very much for your answer. The idea came from another Standards Organization - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Standards_Professionals. We did exactly what they do and still, they were approved and IFAN wernt (their whole website was copied, not just the ABOUT...) What can I do in order to see IFAN name in Wikipedia? please let me know and I'll do it. If I'll write the whole article again, without copying the text and in encyclopedic tone, would it help? thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiD123 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing that article to my attention, that was another piece of spam/copyvio. WP has over 5 million articles and it sometimes takes a while before someone gets around to having a look at it and check it for problems. And we're all volunteers, so sometimes things go through that shouldn't just because somebody didn't see the copyvio, for example. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use. Anyway, copyvio/promotionalism are not the only things you need to take care of. Even a neutral article that is no copyvio will only survive if you have multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and discuss it in depth (so in-passing mentions don't count). --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what Randykitty just said. What really matters is that you first establish how this organization is notable. Given IFAN is a rather old and established organization, I suspect that IFAN is indeed notable. What an article should contain would be a) Which organizations are part of IFAN exactly b) Does IFAN / IFAN regulations have a particular legal status? c) What actual impact does IFAN have in the world. This last part needs to be substantiated by independant sources. I suggest using Internet Engineering Task Force as a model, and creating a draft article at User:NiD123/International Federation of Standards Users first so you can work on things without worrying about immediate deletion (assuming you avoid copyright violations). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hot Octopuss

Good morning Randykitty. You deleted the Hot Octopuss page I created before I even had a chance to discuss in talk the issues. Onel5969 said the page was too promotional, so I went back and edited it for neutrality and indicated this on my talk page as well as his/hers. Then you sent me a message that the photo (which was a free-use logo) was used incorrectly. I didn't even have a chance to answer you about that before you deleted the page. I would really rather do further edits on the page than have it deleted. Can you reinstate it? EllenZoe (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Hi, I agreed with Onel5969 that this was promotional, which is why I deleted it. I will restore it and move it to your userspace, but you should remove anything that is not completely neutral immediately, otherwise somebody will be bound to tag it again as spam. Don't worry about the logo. I tagged it for delayed deletion, meaning that it will remain for 7 days. If by then it is not used in an article, it will be deleted, otherwise the tag will simply be removed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Drake Foundation

This came up during my cleanup of the stuff around OMICS' new acquisition and the associated socks, I'm not familiar with this area and the major account on this didn't come up at the SPI (I didn't see the link then so I didn't ask for a check) but there may be something that I'm missing, would you care to take a look and/or see if an SPI is needed? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think the connection to OMICS is rather distant in this case (the founder of the foundation sold some of his journals to them), so I don't see a direct need for an SPI here. But good to keep an eye open. Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see much notability either, so I've taken it to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Prague Papers on the History of International Relations

Just so you know, I've submitted a request to MIAR to include this journal in their Database. It's the first time I come accross a journal that isn't included in MIAR.

Possibly one of the issues for this one is that for 1997–2010 it was published as a series of books. The journal seems to be indexed in CEJSH, ERIHPLUS, and by EBSCO Host. Not sure if those make it notable, but I thought I'd mention it. It also appears 8000 times in google, 3000 times in Googlebooks. Not sure where I stand on this exactly, but I might de-PROD and take it to AFD so there's a full debate on this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Victorian Naturalist

Hi,

I edited the Victorian Naturalist page and removed a link to Scopus indexing because it was closed dates. According to Ulrich's this journal is availble in Fulltext from the below sources and indexed in many others - it seems odd to highlight the Scopus indexing. I am new to this so am not sure what I should do about this. Thanks for reviewing!

   CEDROM SNI
       Europresse.com, 02/01/2015-
   Cengage Learning
       Cengage:Jisc Collections:Academic OneFile:2016-2019, 02/01/2013-
   EBSCOhost
       Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate, 02/01/2012-
       Environment Complete, 12/01/2010-
   Gale
       Academic OneFile, 02/01/2013-
       Gardening, Landscape & Horticulture Collection, 02/01/2013-
       InfoTrac Custom, 02/01/2013-
   Informit
       Informit Humanities & Social Sciences Collection, 02/01/2006-
   Universitätsbibliothek Regensburg
       Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals, 1892-1921

PS

Also freely online https://archive.org/details/victoriannatura00victgoog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarebear38 (talk • contribs)

• Hi, the important issue here is to show that this journal actually meets our inclusion criteria: either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. It most certainly doesn't meet the latter, so we need to use NJournals. None of the indexes that you list above are even close to be selective in the sense of NJournals. Scopus is. So it is the indexing in Scopus that makes this journal meet NJournals (albeit barely). That Scopus has delisted the journal is irrelevant, as notability is not temporary. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

German Association for Synthetic Biology

Hi, my name is Luis Carreira and Im from Germany. My page German Association for Synthetic Biology was deleted and I do not see why. I am one of the founders of this non-profit organization (registered in Germany) that seeks to gather scientists and other professionals around this scientific topic. We would like to have wikipedia page here so that everypne with an intereste in the subject could find us more easily. Is it possible to undelete the page? Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasb2017 (talk • contribs)

• Hi, your text was copied from the homepage of the organization. This results in two problems: first, it constitutes a violation of copyright, which WP takes very seriously. Repeatedly adding copyrighted material to WP will get you blocked from editing. Your society could donate their web content to WP (by going through the OTRS system), but that would leave the second problem: such text is almost invariably too promotional. So the way to go would be to create a new article from scratch using your own words. As I see it, however, this is a fairly new organization and it is doubtful that it would meet our inclusion criteria for organizations. Finally, your username may not meet our criteria, either. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Achraf Baznani

Dear Randykitty, Thank you for reading, please restore Achraf Baznani's page, I will edit it. The artist is well known, I have many informations to add to his wikipedia page. Thank you! 41.141.14.126 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why are you asking me? I didn't delete that page (or Achraf baznani), nor did I protect it. Normally, you would contact JohnCD, the admin who protected the article from recreation, but he passed away. The way to go then is through [[WP:DRV] and convince the people there that this merits to be undeleted/unprotected. Given the extensive disruption in the past, including repeated recreations under different names and using sockpuppets, I fear your job won't be easy. --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User category

Re-adding a category after the category has been deleted with a very strong consensus is really unhelpful. Could you please reconsider? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have a redlinked cat on this page, too, so I don't really see the problem. I deleted that cat according to the CfD close. --Randykitty (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Women and disability" "Healthcare" "Geofocus on the Nordic countries" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Begin preparing for November's big event: Women World Contest
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan_Desbiens recent page deletion

Hi, it came to my attention that you have deleted Jonathan_Desbiens (Jodeb) page for notability issues. Here are some references I know of that may weight in. I think his work is notable and that the page should be restored.

Extended content

Awards and Nominations Skrillex and Wiwek - Killa ft. Elliphant (Still In The Cage) Berlin Music Video Awards 2016; Won for "Best Editor" Juno awards 2017; Nomination for "Video of the year" Zedd - Clarity MTV Video Music Awards 2013; Nomination for "Artist to Watch" Deftones - You've Seen the Butcher Antville Music Video Awards 2010; Nomination for "Best performance video" The New cities - Dead End, Countdown Much music awards 2009; Nomination for "Post-Production of the Year" Imagine Dragons - I bet my life Camerimage 2015; Nomination for "Best Music Video" , Interviews The Videostatic Interview: Jodeb (by Steven Gottlieb on June 26, 2013) Video Chats: Jodeb on "Reload" by Sebastian Ingrosso, Tommy Trash & John Martin (by Doug Klinger on June 18, 2013) Director Interview: Jonathan Desbiens (by Fantastic Music Videos) Jodeb: Double Exposure (by Pola Beronilla on July 24, 2015) Jodeb Talks Point Point - Life in Grey (by Luke Bather on February 10, 2016) La passion de l'image, pour Jonathan Desbiens (French) (by Marie-Josée Montminy on September 18, 2010) Point Point and Director Jodeb discuss perilous short film for “Life in Grey” (Nest HQ, 2016) In the News Jodeb Joins Prettybird (31 October 2016) Prettybird swoops for Jodeb (1 November 2016) Un autre réalisateur québécois fait sa marque (French) (by Sandra Godin, February 19, 2017) References

--DanielFarad (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• You should have brought this up during the AfD... I don't feel comfortable undoing the AfD decision. Please take this to WP:DRV if you want to pursue this. --Randykitty (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I am not an experienced user but I thought the procedure was to ask you first as stated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion. In your opinion, should the references provided above resolve the notability issue? --DanielFarad (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Don't worry, you followed the correct procedure. I have strictly no opinion about any of the sources you listed? All I did at the AfD was to gauge the consensus when closing it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• The consensus you're talking about was 2 votes against 1. Could you please temp undelete it so I can add proper references? There's no reasons to be stiff about this...--DanielFarad (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please take it to DRV, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

David Riemens

Hi there, just curious why you think the five media outlet citations for David Riemens, a missing person from Watertown, Tennessee aren't adequate. One is a national television program on the Discovery Channel network. Are there some guidelines for this that I somehow overlooked? There are other pages about missing people on Wikipedia with fewer references which are not marked for deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhybrid (talk • contribs)

• Please see WP:ONEVENT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thanks. BTW, the article is currently not marked for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jonathan Desbiens

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jonathan Desbiens. 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. DanielFarad (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page titled Manoj Nair

Dear Randy,

Greetings.

I am sure you would have researched thoroughly before deciding to delete the page titled Manoj Nair.

The individual has floated one of the most innovative global companies that allow rental payments to be captured via credit cards without the subject having to pay any hitherto high charges imposed by VISA/MASTERCARD globally. Regardless of which part of the world you live in, you CANNOT make your rental payments via Credit Cards to your landlords and in the unlikely case that your landlord owns a POS or you go via estate agents or managing agents, you will end up paying 2% credit card processing costs. The innovative global model termed RentPay read with the recent demonetization in India has got the company right in the midst of an innovation tsunami as a global fin-tech pioneer. The person in question has attained massive media coverage (both national and international)

I am sure you understand the business repercussions on various large global corporations, from such a globally disruptive venture that he leads. In case you still wish to hang on to our considered thoughts to keep the profile deleted, I would have little more to offer. We respect your opinion.

Please drop a note to me if you intend to reach me (d.lazzar@redgirraffe.com). I lead all matters relating to branding and reputation management within RG.

Kindest regards,

Dana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.111.168 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Dear Dana: the article was deleted after a deletion discussion and the community reached a consensus that it should be deleted. If you have evidence that was not available during the previous discussion, you can go to WP:DRV and ask for a relisting. Please note that if you are being paid for your contributions here, you need to disclose this (see WP:PAID). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you,

I must confess that there remains no consideration received either in cash or in kind to put the page up. In fact, I am not sure who was the author who had put up the page. That said, the individual's achievements to be termed non-notable is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, I am happy to let the administrators correct their mistake themselves. As a policy within the organization, we cannot aggressively pursue any kind of marketing of its leaders or the enterprise itself. I am sure you and other authors would have applied your minds. I am happy to let the process evolve on its own. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.111.168 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• You said that you "lead all matters relating to branding and reputation management within RG". Unless you tell me that you work without a salary (which I won't believe ;-), I assume you get paid for that... And I find it weird that your organization has a policy not too market to much... --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Randy,

I neither take a salary nor have any direct or indirect remunerative relationship with the actor/venture here. I indeed handle the reputation management of the venture but on a pro-bono basis. I shall, however, admit that as fellow alumni of Harvard Business School, I have known Manoj and his fellow Co-founders, who are sitting professors of Harvard Business School, quite well. The point worrying you shouldn't be whether I have ulterior intentions. please remain assured, I do not. The point you may introspect instead is, had you applied your mind enough before taking the subject off? If you had and you are unambiguously sure about it, then this thread must go cold from here. I have nothing more to offer, Randy. I am absolutely confident that the subject's page would be revived automatically, in due course of time. He is disrupting way too many global business verticals, way too faster for his profile to remain under whims of a few administrators (apologies for such undiplomatic note, but your lack of depth of research shows up prominently). For all that its worth, I shall urge you to do some research on the subjects before you "decide to act in best interest of WP". Thank you for your time, Randy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.111.168 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Regeradless of whether or not you are paid, you obviously have a COI, which makes it difficult for you to be neutral in this matter. In any case, you don't understand how things work here. Yes, I deleted the article but I have absolutely no opinion about it. What I did was evaluate the community's consensus reached after a deletion discussion. I am not going to revert that community decision, but if you think it was wrong or that it didn't consider all the evidence, then you should go to deletion review, as you have been advised several times (and not only by me). There's nothing "aggressive" about that, it's normal procedure in case of a disagreement. The discussion here is closed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Agriculture

Dear Randy,

You've left a note "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources." Before deleting Open Agriculture article, please take a view here: https://doaj.org/toc/2391-9531 Open Agriculture is indexed in DOAJ,as well as Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=%22open+agriculture%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and JournalTOCs http://www.journaltocs.ac.uk/index.php?action=search&subAction=hits&journalID=36431&userQueryID=10514&high=1&ps=30&page=1&items=0&journal_filter=&journalby=i

I hope that you will check these sources, since they should be official and reliable ones, and consider to leave Open Agriculture article on Wikipedia.

Best wishes, Floraljay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floraljay (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please have a look at WP:NJournals. Neither DOAJ nor GScholar nor JournalTOCs are selective in the sense of NJournals. DOAJ strives to include all bona fide OA journals, GScholar strives to include everything (including fake journals), JournalTOCs strives to be comprehensive. In consequence, being included in those databases is nothing special (especially GScholar really is trivial). This journal was only started last year, so we don't even know yet whether it's going to survive or disappear after a brief existence. Give it time to become notable and we can have an article that meets NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Checking a deleted article

Hi! I saw that you deleted Haji Muhammad Safoori quite a while ago via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Muhammad Safoori. May I please ask you to check whether the deleted article is about the same subject as Haji Muhammad Qadiri, to whom Haji Muhammad Safoori Qadiri currently redirects? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The articles are basically identical and have the same single reference. Both articles were created on the same day, the only main difference I can see is that in the deleted version, the reference is given as a bare URL, but in the still existing version has an Urdu title. As this is technically not a repost of an article that was deleted at AfD, G4 is not applicable, I think. But given that both articles are basically identical, I'll go out on a limb and will delete it per the AfD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, saves us another AfD :) --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

More OMICS

I blocked one named account and an IP sock. See the history of Dove Medical Press and Allied Academies. I don't know the extent of the OMICS mess, so if there's anything more than the few that I've protected that need attention or a look into (new socks won't hit the articles on my watchlist until they get autoconfirmed) I hope you or one of your tpwatchers who keeps track of this mess will let me know. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Checking Deleted Page: The Marketer (Building)

Hi! I saw that you deleted a recent page The Marketer (Building). The page was originally added with filler copy that was promotional but was quickly changed to meet Wikipedia standards. Can you please confirm was remaining details caused the page to be deleted so that I can correct them? or if this page was deleted after meeting the standards, can you please re-activate the page?Arachlow (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Arachlow

• It was obvious spam. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Randy, the page was updated to not be "spam". The company believes this to be a relevant landmark as it makes use of a previously historic building and it is now a foundational piece of architecture in the community. Please reconsider the deletion and let me know if i need to make further changes to the page in order to have it be qualified. I belive that if you follow the sources and see the impact the company and building will have on the community that you will not find the page to be spam. Arachlow (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Arachlow

• "...four floors of forward thinking nestled in the historic Over-the-Rhine neighborhood of downtown..." It can hardly be spammier. Discussion here closed. You can try WP:REFUND (although they don't like G11-deleted articles), if any of the admins there is willing to undelete, that's fine with me, but I'm not going to do that. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Randy, I appreciate that feedback. If I fix that sentence and change to the article to be more academic, would you reconsider? I am still relatively new to adding proper content, but I want to make sure I am adding valuable and valid content to Wikipedia. I really appreciate the feedback and I am eager to correct any wrongs that you see on the page. Arachlow (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Arachlow

Your deletion: BullionVault

Hi - could you help me understand your speedy deletion of this page? To this newbie, POV seems neutral, sources include accredited media, and from what I know of the company, it's larger than most businesses listed as "notable" here. (Looks like it's been removed from that page only because Wikipedia's URL is now dead.) Bloomberg June 2017 called it "the largest online platform for physical gold trading." Deleted page is linked from multiple other Wikipedia articles (eg, vaulted gold, Rothschild family, silver as an investment). Company's own site is cited as authoritative source on multiple other Wikipedia pages (eg, Gold, Gold fixing, Futures contract). Thanks for your time Savage1993 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

David C. Lane

What do you make of this? Feel free to peruse the history--a short while ago the article was much fatter. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Randykitty. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hello, Randykitty. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Posted on February 27, 2016

Exposed: "Randykitty" is a Jeffrey Beall

"I have many reasons to believe why Randykitty is Jeffrey Beall. The user mainly edits open access journals, monitors his own entry, and cites Beall's blog"

Read more

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Dear troll, Please read WP:DTR. "Expose" as much as you like. That scholarlyoa.net website is actually so dumb, that it's funny and I had a big laugh when they posted that silly accusation. Repeating stupid accusations like this will get you blocked sooner rather than later. And if the above is all the "evidence" that you have that I am "a Jeffrey Beall", then you're either an idiot or just yet another OMICS stooge trying to erase Beall's criticism of your masters. You very clearly have an agenda and I do not doubt that you're here with a huge COI yourself. Do not ever post on my talk page again, I will remove any post of yours and will not communicate with you ever again. PS: feel free to report this at WP:ANI as a personal attack and see what the boomerang does. --Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sea lioning

I came across this term during today's brouhaha. I felt you'd enjoy having a term for it. It's based on this comic strip. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Randykitty. I am retired but I keep receiving messages from the bot "MediaWiki message delivery". It is very annoying to have to keep removing them... Is there any possible solution to this? Thank you. MathKeduor7 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I have just discovered Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery. :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

e-Century Publishing Corporation

Hi, Randy,

Can you clarify a bit about your removal of Impact-Factor data in this edit.Whilst unsourced is a good reason, aren't they mentionable? Also, as a curiosity why does 2014 throws up an NA in case of any of the journals.Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 16:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, we never include journal IFs in articles on publishers, but only in the articles on the journals themselves. Why scijournal.org has no values for 2014 I don't know, but I have noticed incorrect IFs on that site before and I wouldn't use it as a source. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

We had a couple of spammers whitewashing the status of e-century, which is a predatory open access publisher. That may well explain the lack of metrics and absence form some indexes - some of these sites will remove a journal once they have discovered its predatory. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Got the point.Thanks:) And, @JzG:, as far as I checked, you do not seem to have OTRS access but if I'm mistaken, please see the dealings at 2017112810011768.Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 06:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, no OTRS these days. Are they demanding that we fix the fact that the world thinks they are a crappy junk publisher? Guy (Help!) 06:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Confidentiality agreement demands that I do not utter much! Anyway, no qualms:) Cheers ! Winged Blades ^Godric 06:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Pssst

user:JzG/Predatory, in case you are interested. See also Filter 891. Feel free to identify any additional DOI roots you know to be crap. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

as directed by Ritchie, the previous editor i removed the name of the owner. For every fact i've included the reference link, i am neutral to what i've written about Della. I would like to know what triggered the deletion of page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swati28tripathi (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I guess this is about the deletion of your sandbox. As Ritchie explained already to you, the contents were promotional and WP is not for promoting people, ideas, or entities. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bangladesh Pharmacological Society

In future, it is better not to add numerous similar tags to the same article. Better practice is to pick the best 2 or three tags, rather than to drop a ton of them on the article (even if all apply). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Current Pediatric Research for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Current Pediatric Research is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Pediatric Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I puzzled long and hard over this, as you created it, calling it "notable". I have tried three tiomes to find any sources about it other than Beall's list (incidentally, see user:Denverjeffrey), but failed. It's not listed in ISI, DOAJ, JCR or PubMed. I can only assume that there is a similarly titled journal with a different ISSN, and that's the one you meant? Guy (Help!) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, this is the one I meant. It's indexed in Scopus and up till now, the consensus in the Academic Journals project has been that Scopus is enough to show notability. I'm not sure I agree with that any more, but when I created the article I decided to adhere to consensus and added Beall's listing for balance. I added a better ref for Scopus and removed the "it is not in" stuff, which, indeed, is unsourced. I don't intend to participate in the AfD. As you may have noticed, I am trying to disengage from WP. It's taking too much of my time and has become too irritating (just see the preceding message on this talk page and the silly removals of -admittedly silly- categories from my userpage for purely bureaucratic reasons). You do good work, although I'm afraid that at some point you're going to burn out, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• PS: I just notice that on Scopus the publisher is given as "Scientific Publishers of India". The ISSN matches that on the homepage at Allied. Perhaps this is a hijack? --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarita Raghuvanshi - request for your guidance

Dear Sir,

The Wikipedia page of Sarita Raghuvanshi was deleted by you on Dec. 30, 2017 under section "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I went through your user page and it was mentioned that you are 'semi-retired'. Hence, I posted the query at 'Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion'. There, I have been guided to talk to you. It will be great if you can spare some time and look into this query.

The page of Sarita Raghuvanshi was up from several months, and it was not an advertising/promotion material. It is saddening to learn that it appeared in such a way. All the content on her page is verifiable by media links, and the same can be confirmed by you. There was no intention to use Wikipedia in a wrong way.

This message is to request you to restore the page as a draft so it can be edited to conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. Also, it will be a great favor if you can guide for updating the content so it doesn't go against the Wikipedia policies.

Hoping for your support, co-operation and guidance.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand.bhate1 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I am sorry but the article was way too promotional. In addition, it does not really indicate why this person would meet our inclusion criteria. As it was promotional, I am not going to restore it, not even as a draft.As an aside, can you tell me why you are interested in this article? You only edited a number of articles on Dec 21, 2015 and now, 2 years later, suddenly are interested in Sarita Raghuvanshi. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Category for discussion

See: WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_15#Category:Wikipedians_who_edit_exclusively_with_PC. You are one of two users with this category. – S. Rich (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

PROD on J Energy Chall Mech

Hi, I'm just letting you know that I objected to the PROD on the grounds that, although you're correct in saying it does not meet criterion 1, it does meet criterion 2 of WP:NJournals.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 20:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this doesn't even come close to meeting any of the criteria of NJournals, least of all #2. Articles from notable journals will be cited at a minimum hundreds of times, so a handful of citations is really not enough. I'll take it to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Demographic Research (journal)

Hi there! I was referred to you by TonyBallioni and was curious if there's an SNG for this I don't know about. It's definitely a dark area of my knowledge, which I'm told you know much about. Thanks in advance! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll want WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ringgold logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ringgold logo.gif. 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) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Upsilon Phi Sigma

Since you were the deleting administrator on Upsilon Phi Sigma, I thought I'd drop you a note that I'm working with an new editor who appears to be a brother of Upsilon Phi Sigma in creating a new article for it in his sandbox. Don't think it has G11 or G12 issues and I've found at least two newspaper articles from the Philippines to deal with the notability issue. Naraht (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. This being over 3 years ago, I hope you'll understand that I don't recall anything about this... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • NP :)Naraht (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • But if you want to take a look at the sandbox and let me know what you think...Naraht (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Socking

Hi RandyKitty, the author of Brejesh Garg seems to be using multiple accounts so can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saroj Naagar. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Integrative Neuroscience

Dear RandyKitty, I have noticed that you have recently edited Journal of Integrative Neuroscience. I have doubts about the journal's publisher and have posted a short discussion in Talk:Journal of Integrative Neuroscience. Please could you have a look at it? Maybe you will be able to determine what is the correct publisher of this journal.

151.229.166.203 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) John

Close this?

I saw your close on something else. Could you close the Never Again MSD AfD? It's hard to look at, and it seems to be snow keep. Thanks. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Checking with you

I noticed this, and want to check whether things are OK with you. (If you would prefer not to respond, that's fine.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Don't worry my friend, I'm fine. That was a reaction to this and this, so it has nothing to do with my job situation... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Aha! I'm glad to see that! All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Plain Talk (magazine)

I'm sorry: if you knew a better solution, why just undo my relatively "correct" fix for something better: why not simply do what you advised me to do? I don't know about the "move" function – so I'm going to undo your undoing and keep Plain Talk (magazine) until such time as someone fixes it "better" than I did, rather than taking up everyone's time by simply undoing something reasonably good. (Also, I did not "sign" that time because the signature button did not appear at that moment.) Aboudaqn (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please listen carefully: &/ I have no clue what you mean with that first sentence. 2/ The move function should be a tab that you see at the top of the page (in the same tab row that you see the "edit" button). The exact layout depends on what "skin" you have defined in your preferences. 3/ Please do not start a move war. The article is fine where it has been all these years (you risk being blocked: see here). If you must, See here on how to handle a controversial move (and since I object, this obviously is controversial). 4/ To type 4 tildes, all you need is your keyboard, you don't need a signature button if for some reason that doesn't appear. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • • Well, at least I learned something in our discussion, so thank you for that. However, the "move" function did not work for reasons I do not understand. Can you please help resolve? Aboudaqn (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • At this point it won't work for you, because there is now content at both "Plain Talk" and "Plain Talk (magazine)", so to make a page move, you need to be able to delete one of the two (which is somethings only admins can do). In cases like that, you can put a speedy deletion tag on the page that is holding up the page move (see WP:CSD#G6), after which the move can be effectuated. Note however, that this is only applicable if a move is uncontroversial. Once somebody has objected to the bold move and reverted it (as I did), you should take this to the talk page and obtain consensus for your proposed move. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of GA reassessment: Behavioral Genetics

Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Maximo (MRO)

I observe the Maximo (MRO) has been deleted and has some issues. Please restore page Maximo (MRO) and history for attributions. I believe there is some possibility to slowly redevelop a suitable article addressing some of the issues under the name IBM Maximo Asset Management. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but no. The article was deleted after a community discussion and unlike a PROD, a deletion after an AfD cannot be undone simple upon request. If you feel that the closure of the deletion debate was incorrect, you can go to WP:DRV. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies ... I did not put my intention well. I wished the page restored to a local subpage of my own, not into main article space. I can obviously retrieve the page from google cache and bring round to a fresh article but this loses attributions and myself and Wikipedia might be subject to issues if I re-used content. I am currently not going to use WP:DRVPURPOSE (3) and to use WP:DRVPURPOSE (1) I would need to say the keep request put the situation well and indicates and article recreation in some form would be likely. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion does not apply as page was contraversially deleted. I am considering using the page name Maximo Asset Management (software) to avoid 'IBM' advertising. ThankyouDjm-leighpark (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

On review I am beginning an draft article at Draft:Maximo (software) so can bypass need for article retrevial. I'll be open about the history of the predessor article and it can develop in time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you cannot do this. The article was deleted after a community decision and if you want to restore it, even in draft space, you need to go through DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Apparently the following needs pointing out: BRD is not a policy, it does not bind anyone. What it does do is express an ideal mode of behavior, and it is abundantly clear that my edits (with a reasoned edit summary, in a context in which only one of two editors had given an argument for their position) are more in keeping with its ideals than Headbomb's. Discussion via edit summary is widespread and conventional, and ignoring that is ridiculous. Warning only me in this setting is shitty admin behavior. --JBL (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• At the latest when your revert got reverted again, a seasoned editor like you should know not to continue, even if you skillfully skirted around violating 3RR. You want to change the article, which has had this list for a long time, so the onus is on you to start giving coherent policy-based arguments on why you think it should not be maintained. And if I'm engaging in shitty admin behavior, I'm sure you know the way to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your lack of responsiveness is frustrating. My behavior was sub-optimal but it was less sub-optimal than Headbomb's. (Maybe you haven't looked closely enough at what actually happened to work that out yet -- there *was* a policy-based explanation already in the initial edit summaries, but Headbomb's response was completely non-substantive.) Yet you warned only me. This is shitty behavior. I do not have any interest in having you (a generally quality, good-faith editor) officially sanctioned or whatever at some ridiculous drama board over having engaged in some shitty behavior. However, I would appreciate an acknowledgement in some form of the one-sidedness of your actions. For example, I would have been completely mollified by a similar telling-off of Headbomb, though it's probably a bit late for that now. The internet is full of jerks; you are usually not one; and it's a disappointment to have you act like one now. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Joel's back at it, removing the list against consensus. A block and a revert is in order.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

On the keep side there was you and User:XOR'easter. On the delete side there was myself, User:Jytdog, User:Joel B. Lewis, User:Serial_Number_54129 and User:Drmies. A 5-to-2 sentiment to delete (with long-established constructive editors on both sides) is open to interpretation, but to say that JBL "removed the list against consensus" is not at all accurate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That's completely correct. At this point, sentiment is indeed leaning towards deleting the list. But as different options are still being explored/discussed, it is a tad to soon to decide for a "consensus to delete", too. --Randykitty (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The strength of the arguments also has to be considered, especially since many didn't even address the arguments for keeping the list, beyond saying WP:CRUFT, nor was the discussion anywhere near over. Splitting to a standalone list, for example, is one such new possibility. And because this discussion would affect several other articles (BMC journal series which redirects to BioMed Central for instance, like Frontiers in ... journal series redirects to Frontiers Media), this would possible require a larger RFC.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ugh--a standalone list? Don't we have enough trash already? There's a link to the website. The website lists their journals. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• RandyKitty I think it is trashy that you blocked JBL and not Headbomb; the journals group is not a walled garden and your actions here show the worst of wiki-politics. Please avoid that in the future. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• It was JBL who re-started the edit war. I'm sorry if you disagree with my actions. Now if everybody will please keep the discussion on the article talk page, that'd be swell. --Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Jytdog I'm just passing through and haven't looked at who is where, but please, let's have a little faith and not sling mud immediately at the admins, esp. not with the "politics" stamp on it. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I hear you both. At the same time, it looks bad to me. Hence my note here. I don't intend to pursue this incident further. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Special Flight deleted

Hello, You deleted the article for the film "Special Flight" that I've just done. Could you explain me why? I provide references to reliable published sources. Could you explain me how to do in the right way? Thank you! --Fernand Melgar (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I didn't delete it, but tagged it for deletion as being unambiguously promotional (spam). Apparently, the reviewing admin (Jimfbleak) agreed and in addition found that there was significant copyvio. You obviously have a COI with this article and I strongly suggest that you leave it up to someone else to write an article about this documentary. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

deleted the modification for the article "Fernand Melgar"

Hello, You deleted the modification for the article "Fernand Melgar" that I've just done. Could you explain me why? I provide references to reliable published sources. Could you explain me how to do in the right way? Thank you! --Fernand Melgar (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernand Melgar (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) you shouldn't be adding to articles about yourself. Since you have a WP:COI, make suggestions on the article talk page, with references, don't edit directly, especially when it's bucketfuls of self-serving spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have nothing to add to that, Jim says it all. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Astronomy and Astrophysics

Hi, you undid my remark that this journal requires authors to be associated to astronomical reasearch institutes. I reinserted the remark since this is noteworthy and it was unmistakeably stated to me by the editor-in-chief, Thierry Forveille. Talnat (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry, but we can't take your word for it. No knock against you personally but it's one of Wikipedia's core policies. If you can cite this to the journal's masthead or get the editor to post it on the journal's web page then we can take it into account. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)