User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 13

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.

Would you mind clarifying why you removed the entry about Papers in Physics? It is one of the few journals currently offering open peer review and the only one in physics. Surely it is relevant as the other examples given in the text.

Thanks Jorge comment added by Pullin 21:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.103.211 (talk)

• I think the PROD reason was eloquent enough. Being unique is not enough to make something notable in an encyclopedic sense (see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals). If this journal is still around in a few years, gets included in selective and major databases, and/or gets covered in reliable independent sources, the article can be re-created. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume, you're right, I cannot tell you precisely, that the listed publications are his most important ones. Partly I based this selection on the fact, that they represent some of his most important discoveries as the identification of some of the major vitamin D metabolites (25-hydroxy-vitamin d and 1-,25-dihydroxy-vitamin d), partly I based it on the reputation and perception of his publications, just as the "Vitamin D deficiency" published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has been cited more than 3000 times. My suggestion: I'm currently contacting him as he gave his permission/consent to have one of his photos used. I'll simply ask him to tell me what he thinks are his most important publications. The only problem is that this procedure isn't very transparent. But that might be a possible solution. What do you think? Any other ideas? Best regards --Matthias3110 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Running off to the airport right now, so brief: we often list the three highest cited papers. In rare cases up to 5, but certainly not more. Citation rates can be obtained from GScholar or Web of Science. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, that sounds like a great way of objectifying the importance of his publications. As I have already contacted Dr. Holick, I'd also like to respect his personal opinion regarding his most notable publications. Something like the 3 most cited ones + 1-2 he considers as his most notable ones. Does that sound like a compromise? Thanks, --Matthias3110 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More external links on Bambi Magazine have been provided to establish the notability.

• Bambi Magazine on Levefimov 
• Bambi Magazine on Selectism 
• Bambi Magazine on Touch Puppet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09beemali (talk • contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please cite your qualifications with respect to determining what is relevant in fashion. And perhaps reference articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dossier_Journal. Sir Chadly (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume2303 need not cite his 'qualifications', other than an adherence to encyclopedic guidelines. One of those guidelines is that Wikipedia articles are not allowable sources for other Wikipedia articles--in fact, none of the links provided above supply an acceptable source, per WP:RELIABLE. I also think there's reason to believe that Sir Chadly is not editing here as an objective contributor, per WP:COI. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is not a clic mentality forming whereby "senior" members begin defending each other by citing vague rules. It was a fair question, if one is going to claim something is either noteworthy or not, it does help to be familiar with the subject matter. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bambi_Magazine was posted recently, Guillaume2303 immediately takes issue with it, then just as quickly offers it up for deletion. Again, obviously not having a great deal of experience with respect to the subject matter. And I'm sorry to say that Sir Chadly was editing here a long time ago, around the time when some other "senior" members were arguing as to Kate Moss's height (the article was no more than a stub at the time). He kept putting in the correct height only to have more "established" members reverting the proper information. They thought she was 5'9. If this kinda of behaviour didn't take place so often I'm sure Sir Chadly would have carried on editing here for years after. If Wikipedia wants to attract more editors, broaden its scope, it might make sense not to implore a gang-like mentality so often and be a little more tolerant. Sir Chadly (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the IP is correct. Here at WP, we do not ask for each others' qualifications. Besides some more idealogical reasons, there's the practical reason that anyone can edit, under whichever name they chose (or not, like the IP). How am I supposed to check the qualifications of someone named "Sir Chadly"? And if I tell you that I'm a really big shot in the fashion industry, how am you going to check that? Hence, WP's policies do not depend on expertise, but on arguments. And to determine "notability" (which is absolutely not the same thing as "relevant"), one need not any expertise at all. Have a look at WP:GNG: the criteria are very clear for anyone to apply. There are no independent sources covering Bambi in-depth, hence it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. As for the article on Dossier Journal, there are almost 4 million articles on WP and nobody can check them all. If it needs improving, then go ahead and do it. But don't use it as an argument that another article should be kept (we call that argument WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand this, the IP could even be you, yourself. As you note, "anyone" can edit. But in practical terms, would you appreciate me nominating this article for deletion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Journal_of_Pharmacology? Something you clearly created, which, to me, lacks notability and relevancy. I see no reference, nobody has rated it and the only link is to its own website. I think I would be justified in doing so. However, I wouldn't as this is not my area of expertise and I would have no understanding of its importance. Sir Chadly (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I guess it's something I created, even though I don't really recall that. Feel free to nominate it for deletion, although I have to warn you that you might get slapped on the hand, as this journal clearly meets WP:NJournals (as is clear from the stub: it has a sizeable impact factor). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It could be one of several journals covering the same subject matter and irrelevant or it might be something a pharmacologist can rely on and subsequently save someone's life. I just wouldn't. My point was simple, under this criteria, I could find dozens of fashion publications worthy of deletion but this will not advance arts and culture and by association, Wikipedia. Sir Chadly (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that advancing anything (except knowledge) is not one of Wikipedia's goals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Sir Chadly is not operating in very good faith--whether I and Guillaume2303 are the same user can be checked by an administrator. Similarly, an admin may also find reason to check whether there's a connection between WP:SPA accounts commenting at the deletion discussion here [1]. Further, the offer to nominate this [2] for deletion appears to be a tit-for-tat action. If other articles merit legitimate deletion discussion fine, but those have no bearing upon 'Bambi'. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to cite the IP's recent history and what appears to be an uncommon amount of support for Guillaume2303, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.156.68.118. I will not be commenting further as I have no interest in these kinds of politics. Sir Chadly (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. I've requested administrative input here [3]. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• The IP and Guillaume are two entirely different persons, though they are both guilty of being bon vivants. Also, they are usually correct, in my experience. If you're dealing with a clique, it's one of two experienced editors who have forgotten more about Wikipedia than I'll ever learn, and they have plenty left. Willem, wat een klotewedstrijd. (Sorry, it's on my mind.) Drmies (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Inderdaad, klotewedstrijd! Gelukkig dat van Persie nog dat ene balletje erin duwde, anders had het nog erger kunnen worden... Rotmo..en! Ik woon al sedert 1984 in het buitenland en de eerste 6 jaar daarvan met veel plezier in Duitsland, maar als het om voetbal gaat, dan zit er blijkbaar toch iets in onze genen... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hope springs eternal, Guillaume. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely do wish to opt out of this particular converstation, I can see this getting quite tiring, only want to mention it was a minor reference and reason/clarification can be found here [4]. Sir Chadly (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Opting out would, I propose, be in your best interest [5]. There is a world of difference between two editors simultaneously raising valid concerns over an article or series of articles, and several single purpose accounts appearing in the same AFD discussion, employing similar rationales and style [6]. To attempt to blur those distinctions is, to put it kindly, disingenuous. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, this conversation, on this page. I do not appreciate nor do I respond well to internet bullying. Your insinuations are untrue and I assume at this point meant to distract one from the possibility that you, the IP, and Guillaume2303 have been needlessly in collaboration on this and several other pages. All this undermines the greater point, the actual article. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a ton of reference material to get caught up on. Uniquely enough, I have other interests on Wikipedia. Cheers. Sir Chadly (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point. It is already improbable that even one person would disagree with you, two different people must be quite impossible, hence you've uncovered my sock. Impressive reasoning! if you want to file a complaint, let me know if you need help and I'll point you to the place where you can inform the WP admins of my despicable behavior. Anyway, good to hear that you have tons of reference material waiting for you. I look forward to your contributions to other articles than Bambi. Oh, and please give my best regards to ChesterBarn and 09beemali, on the off-chance that you might run into them! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This passes for clever on Wiki? A, you missed the point. B, this is about as humorous as roadkill. C, upon further reflection, nothing has changed here in over ten years, newcomers are clearly not welcomed. Clics, a school yard mentality, online bullying, I think I just lost interest. Goodbye, Guillaume. Sir Chadly (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Humor is an appropriate response to nonsense. There's little sympathy or goodwill for users whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is promotional, who adopt numerous accounts to that end, and who when called on their actions aggressively attack the motives of editors in good standing. 'Schoolyard' is attempting to use the encyclopedia to support an entity you're connected with, with no reliable sources. And one wonders how to square a decade's worth of familiarity with the claim of being a newcomer. Can't be both. I won't pretend to speak for Guillaume2303 or anyone else, but such interest the encyclopedia can live without. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me for my mistaken revision of the art. Idealistic Studies. I’ve only encumbered you with redundant work, albeit it was not my intention. But I’d like to ask a question. I’m surprised to see that names of philosophical trends are written with capital letters throughout the whole article. It seems bizarre in the given context, doesn’t it? To my mind, we are to correct such spelling and substitute small letters for the capital ones. I’m right, yes? As your English is much better than mine, I’m not so bold as to undertake such a revision of the article myself. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• No need to apologize, your edit was not that strange at all. It's just that we only use that field if the response is "Yes" (or a qualified yes, such as delayed or hybrid). Your edits are actually a great help! You do most of the work there and all I do is some little teaks, which does not cost me much time at all. As for Idealistic Studies, I didn't yet have time to go through this article but wil do so shortly. The caps do indeed look weird! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. He who created the article “Idealistic Studies” confused the English language with the German one requiring a cap (=a capital letter?) for each noun. He probably forgot that he was on the English WP while copying such ridiculous spelling from the journal’s website. And yet I’ve noticed other shortcomings of the article:

1. According to the official website, the journal was founded in 1971 [7]. Hence it follows that the article mistakenly points out the year when the publication of the journal began.
2. The article mentions Robert N. Beck as founding editor. The article Robert N. Beck already exists in the en-WP, but this scientist seems to have nothing to do with the journal in point. Hence it follows that the article about it can mislead a reader. To my mind, we are to add some information about the founding editor in order to escape mixing up.
3. The present text of the article is close to copyvio. But I am in a position to suggest its improvement because I have got some printed versions of the journal. Here is the text from them:

Idealistic Studies is a journal for the publication of studies of idealistic themes. Both historical and contemporary statements of idealistic argumentation are welcomed, as are also critical studies of idealism. // Idealistic Studies 1984

What d’you say to substituting this text for that of the article: “Idealistic Studies is a … journal that discusses themes and topics related to philosophical idealism”? Besides, it is worth noting that the scope of the journal includes publishing full-length papers on the history of philosophy of idealistic trend. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted User:130.226.53.xxx and its talk page for you but as you can see in special:contributions/130.226.53.xxx there are two edits credited. If the edit history is to believed they created the September 11 attacks article but more than two months after the event! If you look at the oldest edits to Osama bin Laden you will see several of these strange .xxx accounts. Clearly some funny in the early days of Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ha! Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see this, just thought that it belonged to a bunch of non-existent users, for whom pages were created by User:Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah (like User:Terrorism... The IP page and the IP talk page were both created by him, which is perhaps what put me on the wrong leg). Strange indeed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The user does actually exist - to the extent of one vandalism edit in the past. The page seems to have been hijacked by the user at the other end of the redirect, who may have some sort of agenda. For some reason I can't get into Google Translate to see what that page is about. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Switched to .co.uk instead of .com. Works - the other one takes me to some advertising banner. Looks promotional in a religious way. User is up to level 4 for being disruptive. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume, I hope I'm doing this correctly. I cannot understand why you have decided to delete the Simon Turnbull article. I understand that in the previous version there were no references. I have managed to gain a multitude of citations (not all had been put up. Is it possible that you could advise what your objections are so the errant material could be altered sufficiently? Regards. Ted Mitsuya (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I cannot see the previous deleted version. An admin will review the CSD note and if the article is sufficiently different from the one that was deleted earlier, will simply remove the CSD notice. As far as I can see, the current references hardly satisfy WP:BIO, so you'll need a few good sources that show notability, otherwise the article will go to AfD again. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Simon Turnbull, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: very different to the previously deleted version. suggest you renominate it for deletion via AFD. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your efforts & contributions to Wikipedia... Thank you & well done, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume2303, I am doing my best to change the tone from an advertorial tone to a more policy compliant version. I may need a few more days to do this. Is that ok? Further to the above, is it possible to make an assumption that the above is similar to the older version without seeing it, as appears to have been the case with the initial objection? I thank you for your help, and will do my best this end to correct the issues. Warm regards, Ted Mitsuya (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OrenBochman 08:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Guillaume2303 - I have added on my talk page more detailed information on a controversial CSD issued earlier today which you declined as clearly notable. Rather than waste more people's time I ask that you look at the analysis and let me know what relevant and what might be construed as pointy at AfD. Thanks again for assistance. OrenBochman 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I did not decline anything as "clearly notable". I declined as "credible claim" to notability, which is the bar for CSD, which is quite low. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume, thanks for indulging me so far. I think I understand - "credible claims" is much weaker concession than to consider the subject notable. I believe that I have demonstrated that the most solid-looking article is not WP:N. Since it is WP:BLP I should remove the problematic statements. But to blank the document may get me blocked or banned.

Also I am not trying to challenge your CSD removal - quite the opposite I am trying to get a more neutral POV for a consult (as a Third Opinion) prior to the AfD - not just to avoid appearing WP:Pointy or WP:Disruptive but primarily to benefit from your experience. Since you have already looked at the article a bit and are familiar with the situation I hope you can look again and point out any mistakes. If you find this article distasteful or this task onerous - I will be disappointed but will understand and ask someone else. I fear that if I do not ask you first it could be misconstrued as forum shopping, canvasing or some other unethical behavior. Since I have been personally attacked on the Admin's Notice Board I tread in safety keeping to protocols while I continue what I sincerely believe a necessary action. OrenBochman 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry OrenBochman, instead of wandering here and there looking for support (the sentence "If you find this article distasteful or this task onerous - I will be disappointed but will understand and ask someone else" is fantastic!) why do you not explain your actions and expose your arguments to AN/I, in the related topic? Good night. Cavarrone (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I initially looked ar the CSDs because of the apparently pointy nature of them and denied them because they were against CSD-policy. I have no other interest in editing any of the articles concerned. Please note that my talkpage is not a battleground. Take this to ANI or your own talkpages. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve created a stub within the project you mainly contribute to. Excuse me, could you please help me with choosing the most appropriate title for the stub: The Bekhterev Review of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology? My embarrassment is associated with the following. On the one hand, English grammar rules require using the definite article before the word combinations denoting objects named after somebody, i.g. “the Lenin Library” (i.e. named for Vladimir Lenin), “the Radboud University” etc. Hence it follows that ‘the’ must be a part of the journal’s title, namely: “The Bekhterev Review…” Bearing this in mind and taking into account that remark of yours, I’ve added “the” to the article’s title. On the other hand, I see that the corresponding articles in the en-WP do not contain “the” in their titles: Radboud University Nijmegen, Serbsky Center. So I’m now perplexed and don’t know what the title is to be chosen. Could you give me some tips on that?

In addition, the journal’s genuine title is Russian, I suggesting a translation. In doing this, I merely took the example of those Wikipedians who have created the art. Questions of History, so preferring an English translation of the Russian journal’s title to its English transliteration Voprosy Istorii. Does it meet the English Wikipedia standards or should I rename my stub? Thank you in advance for help. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I could say something about "the", but given that this is a translated title, that is perhaps not pertinent. I'll look into it, but not right now (see other answers on this page.... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't yet had time to look into the translation aspect of this. However, regarding "the": we include it in the title of an article if it is officially part of the title of a journal (or university, or anything else). For this, we take our lead from the cover and/or website, for example ("official" sources directly connected with the subject). Hence, "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition", but "the American Journal of Clinical Oncology". Back to your example, I'm not sure that it is correct for editors to translate a title themselves. I don't really know what to do with a journal that has no "official" English title. Perhaps you could inquire at the helpdesk. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here are a few links to possibly relevant policies: WP:UE, WP:NCRUS, and WP:Romanization of Russian. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll also ask User:DGG, who has a lot of experience in this area. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg a thousand pardons. I hadn’t noticed your new replies before I had a look at your talk page this morning. Judging from your first answer (and :-) in the end of your message), I concluded that you considered my question to be of little interest to you, with the consequence that I thought you wouldn’t return to this issue again. I’m sorry I really didn’t know about the two remarks added by you. Now I’m adducing some facts you are talking about. I’ve just learned that there is not only an "official" English title of the journal, but also its English version published by American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

And yet I merely asked your opinion after I had created an article within your favourite wiki-project. I’m not going to form my own opinion concerning the point in question. I believe you know matters of that kind better than I do. Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I’m sorry I have no opportunity of taking part in further discussion right now. I shall not be able to return to the Internet until the middle of the coming week.

• No need to apologize, I was traveling (to the other side of the Earth: a 12 hour time difference... :-) and did not have much time to edit, so it's not strange you didn't see this earlier. I've asked DGG to look at this, too, he will certainly be able to give a better answer than I can. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is standard practice in this area:

1. If there is no English title, normally we do not translate journal titles. See for example Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences or Angewandte Chemie. However, we never use non-roman article titles, so we would use a transliterated title for the article title, and give the Russian title, and a translation of the Russian title, in the article. followed by a transliteration within the article.

2. But in this case that does not apply, since there is an English edition, We normally use it as the title, with redirects from the transliteration of the russian title, and from the cyrillic title . For journals available in multiple languages, we almost always just write one article for them.

3. Standard practice in libraries (and usual practice here) is to avoid using the "The" unless the journal uses it consistently, and is always known with the article. In this case, I would not use it; but it does need a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Then I’m moving the article’s title according to your remark. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone remove an AfD tag while the discussion is still ongoing, please simply revert the removal and not start a new nomination. Thanks! KTC (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sjeez, I really was going too fast there! I was AfDing the whole bunch and didn't notice that I had already AfDed this one and that some IP vandal had removed the tag. Sorry about that and thanks for cleaning up my mess! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can you help me to eliminate the stub class rating (on the talk page)? Wikizoli (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• As there are no independent sources (only one primary source) and the article is still very short, I'm not sure that it is justified at this point to re-assess it from stub to start. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks very much for your input at Archive (magazine). Regarding the delinking, that was included based on the template documentation. I've now updated the /doc page because I agree with you. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't know that was in the doc. I'm quite sure that it is said somewhere in one of the style guides that common geographical terms should not be linked, unless that would be relevant for some reason. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  I couldn't find that, but I think that WP:OVERLINK justifies not including most instances of such terms in this context. -- Trevj (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that the title field in the Template:Infobox journal defaults to the page name when the title field is removed. I think it is also set up to italisize the article's title (if the title is not too long). In any case, it is not necessary to fill in the title field if it is empty for a given article. However, it is your decision how you choose to edit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Steve, long time no hear! A few years ago I made almost the exact same comment to Headbomb (can't find where, perhaps he remembers) and I recall that he gave me a convincing reason (which I don't recall either... :-) for filling out the title field anyway. Ever since, I have faithfully filled in that field... Titles will get italicized whether the title field is present or not. If a title is too long, you can add a "force" parameter to the infobox which will italicize long titles. Cheers, --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not delete the list of UBC departments, though I certainly did remove the links to their web pages. The only question is whether this should be integrated into the main article. Perhaps it should--we usually do include such a list of departments. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks much better now, but I agree that it would probably be better to integrate it into the main article. As it stands, I don't think this list is very informative. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that whilst you did vote weak keep I am required to argue the point though because the closing admin can only take into account arguments that were made (such as the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources). In case that you feel pressurized to respond or defend the point, I'm not suggesting that you must respond, it is merely that I am only setting out the response to the points raised. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I don't feel obliged to respond. If there was clear proof that this is included in the SCI, that would be different. But in this case, I'm quite close to your position with my weak keep. If the article were problematic (with COI editors trying to insert promotional language, for example), I'd probably be pushed towards delete. At this point, I don't see much harm in letting this stub continue its (rather miserable) existence, until such time that more can be said. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

--Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the article. -Cntras (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure! :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That pesky anonymous IP has been blocked for edit warring. Please see this blurb. --Steve Quinn (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Steve! Still haven't responded t your mail, will do so shortly (I'm on vacation :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You've left an interesting comment on my talk page on how to find broken citations in Web of Science, but I couldn't figure it out (forgive my stupidity :). Here is what I did for a test: took JCR 2011 cites for some test journal (say, ~400 cites). Then searched for articles published by this journal in 2009-2010, and took the 2011 cites using the analysis tool (~350 cites). Then went to the "cited references search", selected the journal, 2009-2010 years, searched for articles in 2011 only, and got ~330 results, all with their title linked. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "unlinked"? Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Which journal was this? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. Something about materials, Science of Advanced Materials, or more likely Science and Technology of Advanced Materials. Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The article redirected to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't know what happened to the section referred to in the history, but it's not there. Anyway, at least for now, I am redirecting to the one article that actually mentions "Barry Soetoro". I never heard this name, but some Obama-hater on a web site I go to said she was not voting for Barry Sotero.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a good redirect target for this one, thanks for letting me know. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

After extensive searching, I have found the justification for my action.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guillaume, is there a reason for excluding citations from the infobox in CA – A Cancer Journal for Clinicians? I was adding verifiabilty Duncan.Hull (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Citations should be avoided in infoboxes and normally should not be necessary, as an infobox is only meant to summarize information that is given (perhaps in more detail) and sourced in the body of the text. It's like a good lead should be: a summary, but no references. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are but I work for AORN. We have membership in several other contries. Also, the "C" in AORN Congress is capitalized per our branding standards. I appreciate your interest in our page but you shouldn't be editing things that you're not aware of. 64.92.218.37 (talk)

• And obviously, I don't know who you are, but it looks like you have a conflict of interest here. I'm sorry to tell you, but your "branding standards" don't carry any weight here. And the AORN website does not mention anything about the society being anything else than USA-centered, so unless you can come up with a source for this, the article will have to state just that. "I know this is true" is not a sufficient reason for changing something in an article. Please read the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message on your talk page. To paraphrase your last sentence: You shouldn't be editing here if you don't know at least some of our standards. BTW, when you post messages on a talk page, they go at the bottom of the page and you need to sign them using 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume,

I edited the AMJ page and if I did anything improper I do apologize. However, I am unclear how my edits were "not useful.". The study HAS been questioned by many who have read it. Have you actually seen the list of journals they use as "data" for their survey on coercive citation journals? After the top few journals on the list the remaining journals have only 1 or 2 claims ( there are no facts....all relies on the memories of those surveyed) of such behavior over the last several years. This survey got much notice due to the sensationalistic headline, but it is highly questionable for a number of reasons. There is little substance behind it IMO. The way the Wikipedia entry is worded it makes it sound like AMJ is some nefarious publication, which it is not. As a matter of full disclosure, I am employeed by AOM's HQ, however if you look into what I've explained I think you'll see what I've described is true. I would like to contribute more substantial , factual information to this entry, but am discouraged by what seems like an unfair entry created by someone else who may have a conflict of interest. Thank you for your time and I hope you'll consider my request.

Sincerely,

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetkin1 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Adam, the thing here is that this study was published in a reliable source and therefore can be used on WP. If you look at the article history, you'll see that I actually toned down the way this study was presented. But there are other editors here who are intent on showing that subscription journals are bad, Elsevier is the devil, and OA will solve all: this study together with some minor stuff) was also used to create a separate article (coercive citation). I agree that the problem is certainly much less than that article stated (I have been in scientific research since 1975 with quite a few publications myself and have never encountered it nor ever heard a colleague mention something like this), but then, that's perhaps because in neuroscience we're all little angels).

However, if you know of good sources criticizing the Wilhite and Fong study, they could be used to put things more into perspective, as I agree that the problem of coercive citation certainly is less pervasive than that study suggests. But we need sources for this (see WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:Verifiability, not truth)... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Guillaume. I will see if I can edit the page and leave this part in (begrudgingly), perhaps under a section called "controversies?" I'll try to find other sources as well. I do think the type of behavior the study describes IS a reality, but not in the field they surveyed. Their study actually shows that 90+% of journals in that field do NOT engage in this type of behavior, but that's not a sexy headline!Aetkin1 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Further discussion is taking place at the deletion discussion for Forum of Mathematics. -----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My article as it stands now has 4 independent sources, yet is still in jeopardy while Michigan Quarterly Review stands without ANY sources and Third Coast (magazine) would most likely never be looked up by the average WP reader; and, as far as that goes, all the scientific journals--though very important to a handful of scientist are primarily the interest of students --David Holmer (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• You are most probably right that many articles on WP are inadequately sourced and the two articles you give could certainly use a closer look. However, you have to realize that WP has almost 4 million articles and many of them will not adhere to guidelines and policies. It is impossible for any single person to patrol all that. That is why the argument that other articles just as bad exist cannot be used to justify the inclusion of similar articles. I have currently about 6000 pages on my watchlist and keeping up with all the changes there, plus patrolling new articles, takes up all the time that I want to invest in WP, so I don't often get around to start looking at older articles to see whether they need perhaps some cleanup or even deletion. In time, other people will come along and probably do this. As for the scientific journals, you are wrong. Most of them are notable (we even have a specialized guideline for them: WP:NJournals). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on many issues. Thanks for your patience while I get use to this new environment. I appreciate your higher standard for articles. As a result, Dunes Review look more professional and like an Encyclopdic article. As for the notability of Dunes Review, I will continue to strive for proving notability. --David Holmer (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP is not your everyday environment and can be quite daunting when you first start here. We got off to a bad start, but I'm glad that we're now communicating. People have differences of opinion all the time here. The trick is then to arrive at some mutual consensus. We'll see where we get with Dunes Review. It really is not a problem to disagree about notability, actually. In such cases, a pretty good solution is a deletion discussion. They can sometimes be quite contentious, but most of the time consensus gets established quite easily. As for notability, I don't agree with Justice007's interpretations posted on the talk page and still have my doubts. Let's see what else you can come up with and then we can still go to AfD if I remain unconvinced (and earlier I said that deletion would be 95% certain -based on the state of the article at that moment- by now I think it will be closer to 50/50). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still trying my best to get use to this. I think we are more alike than not as I, too, like to prove things conclusively. I cannot understand WP:notability. It is extremely poorly written and too vague for me to make a good argument or stand on, perhaps that is why you stick to that one criterion. I would quickly agree with you, also, if there wasn't this vast amount of source content here, which may include that one undisputable reference. I cannot in good conscious vote to delete this article without exhausting all sources. Anyhow, I came here to ask what is up with this ?troll I do not like this editing war it seems to have with you. --David Holmer (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I admit to being stubborn, guilty as charged... :-) We'll see what the community thinks about our respective arguments. As for the troll, that's an old story. It's about a journal called boundary 2. Apparently, the IP has a beef with that journal and its editor and tried to insert denigrating language into the article (see this edit). I reverted this several times, as well as talk page edits when the IP started to put the attacks on the talk page. Some other editors also reverted the IP and in the end, both the article and its talk page (which is rather unusual) were "semi-protected" (meaning that only logged-in editors can edit them) by two different administrators. Because of the protection, it's quiet there for the moment, but the IP has been going to my talkpage and now also the talk page of Dunes Review. We'll see what happens when the protection expires in a few days... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he posts stuff about another article and/or personal attacks it will get edited. I am quite WP:bold with the few concepts that I understand on here. Well, we are even more alike because I can be quite stubborn, too. :-) I wish that I could make a fair argument, but the concept of notability baffles me and I am not willing to take a stand one way or the other until I either understand the concept or exhaust the sources available to satisfy a vote based on the one criterion that we agree on. I think the other editors have very valid points, which would strongly keep the DR article and give me something to strive towards... that being to bring other magazine stubs up to this quality or delete them. As far as our bumping heads, this article IS the best cited and written article on a literary journal. Literary magazines, where content is mostly written with few inclusions are a whole other story, especially since they are the actual recipients of national awards. --David Holmer (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed in the deletion discussion. It seems to be the same people editing DR. I was hoping for some outside input. (unrelated) Have you ever noticed that the signature key is like you are giving the raspberry every time you comment? Just something I've noticed and thought to give you a lil chuckle while waiting the outcome --David Holmer (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not unusual that initially only people who edited the article participate in the discussion, as they will be immediately aware of the AfD. Today or tomorrow, the article will get listed on the page of the magazines WikiProject and over the next few days some more people may drop by. There is indeed something strange going on the last few days with the signature key. I first thought it was my computer, but then I noticed it on both computers that I use and now you, too, remark on it, so it must be a general bug. Just now, it seems to work fine, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the comment on Justice about his deleting my comments. I was unsure if anything could be deleted and was hessitant to do so. Do you think I should go and address this on the deletion discussion page? --David Holmer (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, I think you can leave it as it is: you are still contributing to the debate, so any closing admin will understand that you agreed to Justice's edits, otherwise you'd have said something by now. However, in no way did Joanna attack you. You really have to start seeing the difference between a comment that is intended to explain something and an attack. There is no shame in not knowing everything here (I doubt anyone does) and if people try to explain something, that is almost never meant to be denigrating or condescending. I have to say, continuously wrongfully accusing other people of personal attacks is a personal attack in itself. You have to try to take things less personal, otherwise you won't last long here. Wait until one of the editors comes around that expresses themselves more "direct" than either Joana or myself do... I myself, as you may have noticed, have developed something of an elephan-tskin... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My current understanding about WP:personal attack is that when you are in a dispute, which Joanna and I are in, you do not refer to the person or attributes of that person, only their comments and actions. "you still have time for a real argument" and "I don't think you have understood the concept, yet." ARE degradating to my character. We are NOT friends! Whenever you and I had conflict, you attacked my actions and comments. And, yes, I used 'personal attack' to describe our situation because it was before my current understanding of the concept. It is also the reason that I edited comments from the IP because I could see objectively from your situation there where I errored in our situation. Another way to say this: as heated as our debates have gotten, I have remained in my seat only frustrated. Joanna's comments and the twisting of my words has actually gotten me to get up and punch walls, wishing it were her face. All this anger is because I was degraded. I'm sorry, I just cannot express how hurt I am from her two comments. Intelligent debate and disagreements I can handle. But these comments are both belittling, demeaning, and very, very hurtful. I believe she is a mean spirited person. You mean to tell me that this is nice, here? --David Holmer (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Explaining a concept afterwards or during a comment does not negate the personal attack. That is why I first reverted the IP comment and then later, edited out the personal attack. Can you really not see this? Wow... so how long--how much bambardment will it take for me to get that elephant-skin? This IS crazy! ...but I think I'm addicted. --David Holmer (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mean-spirited or not, I do truly admire her editing work (always have been saying it from day 1--being the compliment that brought on her and my first dispute) and think some of her comments are funny, especially about her being neutral. Maybe, we have gotten off on the wrong foot too. Was it this rocky when you first started on here?--David Holmer (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

David, there are things that I would change if I were the "boss" of WP. I am not. I cannot change them, this is a large community. Neither can you change them. So we basically have only two alternatives: either we want to edit here and than have to adapt to this community, or we don't want to adapt and then direct our efforts in other directions and leave WP. There really is not a third option. I tell you again: Joanna did not attack you. You misunderstood something and she tried to explain that. That's all. And if her comment got you to get up and punch walls wishing it were her face, wow... that's scary, I think. (At least for me, who has never hit anybody in anger in my 57 years of life). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to delete all comments per using your user page as a soundboard before this comment. Also, I was taking my cue from how you were responding to the IP attacks and thought that I was acting appropriately. I will go back and edit my comments on the discussion first. Wow your lucky... I lived on the streets awhile... different almost your integrity is everything --David Holmer (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed my inappropriate comments. I think WP is bringing out the worst from me. And, if my work is truly not worth inclusion then, it is best that I leave. --David Holmer (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was looking at the Notability guideline. If you notice the navigation box to the right there does not seem to be a notability guideline for magazines. Do you know if there is one? If not what do we use? I mean the only other option available seems to be WP:GNG. ---- 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's no "official" guideline, but there is WP:NMEDIA (which has the same "essay" status as NJournals). However, I don't find the criteria given for magazines very useful, as they are rather subjective, so I rarely refer to them. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I just did some copy editing on this article (Astronomy and Astrophysics). However, my wording seems a bit cumbersome. Maybe you could have a look and make improvements where necessary. Also, I took some tedious facts out of the introduction. Please see if you agree with this. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Library of Congress lists the European Southern Observatory as the author. So does the Hollis (Harvard) library (which you are familiar with) via World Cat [8], and can you (keep up with all my parenthesis) ?

So I don't know what to make of it. The "Aims and Scope" page on the web site says that "Astronomy & Astrophysics is a journal established through the amalgamation of various national journals..." Since this is Europe you might know about this more than me. Also, the firt two pages of the history supports the view that this is a collection of combined journals. I was not able to read the whole history. The above mentioned catalog entries might be out of date. Regards. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This might be a job for our resident Super-Librarian DGG!! ( Able to solve tall conundrums in a single bound, more powerful than a deadlocked AfD, and faster than a contentious talk page, etc. etc. (:>) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:-DDDD --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume, I would very much appreciate for you to take a look at Justice's edit of this article and my edit in the history and compare. He doesn't seem to think that you will give me a C-class and wants us to revert to how it was when it was assessed as Stub-class. I would appreciate your 3O to make a decision in this matter so that we can continue past this point. Thanks, --David Holmer (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have added some comments to Talk:UK PubMed Central that address a recently announced change to UKPMC, and included some suggested text. I would really appreciate it if you had some time to take a look. Best regards, Anna Anna M Kinsey (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Have responded there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge is functionally a Keep vote, plus an editorial suggestion that the content be merged into the main article (which I mentioned explicitly in case people are unaware - which seems to crop up from time to time). Note also that problematically, NorthAmerican1000 notes there are at least four such "main articles". - a point that means the merge suggestion needs additional editorial consideration. I don't think there's sufficient discussion on the point of the overall series being notable or not to make any kind of consensus on that, although Calvarrone provides a couple basic links, there's no real evaluation. Possibly it's best to merge into one of the movie articles, possibly not - but either way, the content is kept, the page history must be kept for attribution. The referenced policies are mostly guidelines that suggestion merger is usually a good idea in this case - hardly a strong argument for deletion. WilyD 09:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• And what is your personal opinion about the fact that there are absolutely zero sources? Not even those !voting "keep" argued that sources were present. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comes back to the same problem with multiple potential parent articles. Apart from (perhaps) the nominator, no one was arguing that it should be deleted, only that it shouldn't be a stand-alone list. Which comes back to the same case of licensing requiring the article and it's history be kept during a merger (i.e., a reading of their arguments comes a lot closer to merger than deletion). WilyD 09:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • ??? There were a total of four delete !votes, three of them solidly policy-based. And what is there to merge (regardless of the target), if absolutely no information is sourced (and given that nobody during the AfD managed to come up with sources, apparently unsourceable)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Solidly policy based to argue for a merge, yes, for a delete, no. (If you'll read the guidelines sourced, they mostly suggest that this isn't usually the kind of case where one should have a stand-alone list, but rather, a list within the parent article). The information is all verifiable, presumably, for the movies/comic books/whatever themselves - even though that doesn't go to establishing a case of notability, it's perfectly acceptable sourcing. If you're unhappy that it's a stand alone article, merge it. If you really want the information gone - you don't have a consensus for that (though you could try AfDing the main articles, of course). WilyD 09:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to keep arguing this, but the information is not verifiable, except by original research. And merging the mess somewhere else is difficult, given that you closed the AfD as "Keep" (even though you put a different decision in the oldafd template). I contest that there was sufficient consensus for a "keep" decision. Note that the AfDs for the separate articles that existed on the individual characters have all been closed as "merge". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Read the Original Research policy, and you'll see that your assertion is wrong. My close doesn't affect the possibility of a future merge (especially given that I explicitedly noting merging is perfectly fine, even though it's always perfectly fine - at least, almost always). Closing as merge is sometimes done, although a) it's a bad idea, and b) it's particularly messy in this case, with multiple potential parent articles. WilyD 10:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
            • If at least you had closed a "keep/merge" like you said in the oldafd template, a merge would be directly feasible. Now we have to go through another "proposed merge" discussion. This is not my major interest here on WP, I just tried to clean up a mess that I stumbled upon during new page patrol. I really can't stomach more of this nonsense, so I'm going to remove these things from my watchlist and leave it up to others to clean up the rest of this mess. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Just merge them!. You do not have to, nor is there any reason for you to, go through a proposed merge discussion. I doubt anyone would subsequently object. WilyD 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am a user of Polish Wikipedia. I edit the English Wikipedia by adding interwiki. Thank you for the welcome ;) Yours. Ented (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy - it's in ATLA Religion Database here. Thanks for your work on the article. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Are your comments actually serious about the first source? The source is NOT about A Poet... It is about: 1) The Dunes Review's William Shaw contest. 2) It involves the participation of TWO of the three winners. 3) They participate by ONLY reading their respective poems from the pages of the Dunes Review. 4) The two poems are seperated by an announcement specifically stating that these poems ARE FROM the recent issue of Dunes Review. Therefore, Dunes Review IS the main subject of this broadcast.

I am beginning to understand how cut-throat this Wikipedia environment is. There is nothing about honesty in the WP pages. Still, how can your comments say this source is about a poet... the broadcast says nothing about these poets, who they are, if they won any other award besides the current Dunes Review award , which is clearly the subject of the broadcast. The poets themselves say NOTHING about who they are... NOT even a name or introduction, they ONLY recite from what is actually printed IN the Dunes Review. Do you really expect the other editors to just take your word for it and not check out the broadcast for themselves? --David Holmer (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction - there is a page Wikipedia:Honesty if you spell out wikipedia.--David Holmer (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• David, two things. 1/ Perhaps you should entertain the possibility that two people like you and me can look at the same evidence, but come to different conclusions without this necessarily meaning that one of us is dishonest. That's not cut-throat, that's not lying, that's just a simple difference of opinion. Please stop questioning my good faith at every turn. 2/ I have listened again to the radio piece. As the descriptive text on the web site says, it is about "two of the three winners of this year's William J. Shaw Memorial Prize" reading their award-winning poems. Dunes Review is mentioned in-passing once. So as far as I can see, this is about the poets (or about their poems, if you prefer), but not about the magazine. The piece doesn't give any information about the magazine (except mentioning its name). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume, about 1) that is precisely why I came to you here on your user page to clarify if that was, in fact, your opinion. Putting it another way, if you will please entertain me, an article using this as a source about a poet would be met with my equal opposition because it is still my opinion that this is clearly about the journal. So, there we have it. We both seem to have opposite opinions in this matter, which is what I needed to clarify. The reason I question you at every turn is to get a clearer understanding of: a) what is actually going on in this environment; and b) how to properly understand these WP guidelines. The reason I question you is because: a) your comments and actions are either "hot" or "cold". Putting it another way, you have been entirely supportive in one article and the complete opposite in another. To me, this demonstrates that I seem to be doing something right in one area and wrong in another; b) you seem to have a definite, solid understanding of the guidelines; and c) you are one of the few, who actually engages in communication when there is a disagreement intstead of shutting down. 2) I completely agree in that in mentioning the words "Dunes Review" is mentioned only once in broadcast and once in text (actually twice if you count the cover image); however, each of the poets are mentioned only once in broadcast and once in text, thereby it can also be argued that they are equal and non-exclusive subjects of this source. However, Dunes review is NOT in-passing according to English definitions, and I have as yet to completey see or understand how Wiki defines this concept. The piece doesn't give any information about the poets (except mentioning their name).--David Holmer (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct: the piece is not informative on any subject, as it consists for 95% of the reading of two poems... Which, by the way, have been chosen because they won an award, not because they were published in DR. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just any award, an award given solely by Dunes Review and judged by a judge selected by Dunes Review. Dunes Review plays a much bigger role if you "read between the lines". This is implied and not in-passing, there is a huge difference. Another reason why I am discussing this with you on your user page and not on the deletion page, as it is unclear as to whether our disagreement has any bearing on the subject's notability. I just get easily confused by a lot of double-talk that seems to surface only when someone is in disagreement, which isn't a very healthy environment. --David Holmer (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that we are not supposed to interpret sources. In principle, we could say that one of us (or both), could go out, interview poets about what they think of DR, read the magazine, basically write a master's thesis about it and put all that in WP: We're not allowed to, because WP does not allow original research or synthesis. So when the radio program only mentions DR once, that's an in passing mention, nothing more. The rest is interpretation, and that is out. And there is good reason for that. Suppose it would be mentioned that these two poets both work for some organization XYZ. Following your reasoning, some could now say that this radio program is "about" organization XYZ, which hence is notable. Others could disagree: interpretation leads to things being debatable and not being clear. To show that something is notable, we need reliable secondary sources discussing a subject in-depth, not in-passing. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing with example of MY reasoning, if organization XYZ's sole purpose was to make product XYZ, and the broadcast is about: one poet USING product XYZ, a mentioning of product XYZ, and a second poet USING product XYZ: I would argue that this broadcast is NOT about the organization of XYZ but the product. In this case, the source is about the product, a literary journal, Dunes Review. Now, where is YOUR logic in stating that this source is ABOUT A POET, which you almost retracted in your last comment? And, more importantly, how and where am I wrong in WP:guidelines for this reasoning? --David Holmer (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. All kind of reasonings can be construed that go either way. That is SYNTH or OR. If the piece would talk all the time about XYZ, then it would be clear that it was about XYZ and no dispute is possible. In addition, it would then actually provide useful information about XYZ that we could use to expand the article on XYZ with sourced info. But if XYZ is only mentioned once or twice and then the whole radio show talks about other things, that constitutes an in-passing mention. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So wiki has redefined ALL English terms... because SYNTH would be my manufacturing the sources, which you denied accusing me of early on (about a week ago) and OR would be my interpreting the source in the article, which you are accusing me of now? I have ONLY used that source in the article for a) that it is a literary mahgazine; and b) that DR runs the William J Shaw contest. And, you cry that I am accusing you?? I am just learning and you have done your best at making this the worst experience. I hope you (and the closing administrator) are happy at discouraging me enough to STOP contributing to this site. You cry and accuse that I have questioned your good faith at every turn... I explained this. Now, perhaps you should explain why you discourage me at every turn... You like what I did for Rebecca Lard??? well, that is what I had to offer Wikipedia... You have mocked my me with an arrogant tone from my lack of Wikipedia knowledge to my personal rough struggles in life. Two weeks ago, you stated that Wikipedia could be rewarding... well, I don't see ANY rewards in being mocked, bullied and continually feeling bad. I am tired of YOUR accusations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidholmer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume2303, can you add Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative to AFD to use the proper way to delete an article ? And please restore the article till the discussion is finished. Thanks Mion (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, there's nothing improper about redirecting an article to a good target and an AfD is not needed for that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very familiar with AFD and know redirecting a page when that is opposed by other people is only to evade discussion about it. So, if you think the page shouldn't exist please put it up to AFD so we can discuss it there. I'll restore it for now, as i dont agree with your action of redirecting the page. Cheers Mion (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you about the lack of sourcing I just want to show you this [9]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Steve! As you may imagine, I didn't really feel like doing this... :-) On top of that, I'm currently traveling and only have intermittent Internet access. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He continues to vandalize Wikipedia despite your "last warning". Also he keeps uploading literally dozens of high-resolution non-free pictures, while I keep marking them for speedy deletion, and then he reuploads them. --Niemti (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the edit to Tira (Soulcalibur) can be regarded as vandalism. It seems to be an article on a trivial imaginary person, written completely from an in-universe perspective. Redirecting that to a list of characters seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Also, I reverted your last edits to their talkpage. Editors have quite some leeway about what they can do with their talkpages, including the removal of comments, warnings, etc. See WP:OWNTALK. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it's not "an article on a trivial imaginary person", it's a normal video game article (just not updated in 4 years). And much, much better than what TEDS is making, such as Paul Phoenix (Tekken) he did today (all the tags there are mine, and the only reference is also mine, put earlier in the list, and yes the non-free illustration there is also in high-resolution). And if he removes every warning every time, how can the others know he has been warned multiple times, including at least 1 "last warning"? --Niemti (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And a sample example of a quite typical "minimal use" upload by TEDS - just a while ago: [10] (904 × 1,900 pixels, file size: 1.34 MB). Only today he uploaded 5 more like that, so far.[11] An at the same time, he's putting false tags (with false dates!) on the low-resolution images put by other users, apparently because that's the characters that doesn't like: [12] --Niemti (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm really disappointed you're "not sure" that a vandal is a vandal. --Niemti (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not really interested in this article on a minor game figure. I suggest that you take your concerns to the administrator's noticeboard (I'm not an admin myself). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your alterations in Open Biology, I agree that Editorial Board Members must not be listed to avoid promotional sourding language, but I think Subject and Executive Editors should be listed since they are the responsable for the specific sections, i.e they are the Section's EiCs. Best regards. -- Return of the Jedi —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Many journals have subject editors, associate editors, "editors", etc. Nevertheless, we only list the EIC. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, Thanks. I will follow your advice in future editings and just add the EiC. Best regards. -- Return of the Jedi —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Great! I was a bit rapid in my previous answer (something in Real Life coming up): the reason to only list the EIC is mainly that this is the person who calls the shots, determines editorial policy, and has the ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions and such. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the introduction to H. W. Wilson_Company based on sources after removing the nice thoughts and the WP:OR. I also removed the tags because I think the improvements allow for this. Feel free to copy edit as you see fit. Fortunately the merger was (or is) newsworthy so some independent sources are available. Caio ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's indeed a big improvement! I made a few tweaks and added some wikilinks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. Can you proof the translation of Jörg Hacker?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done! Looks like a machine translation, but a really good one, there was not too much to correct. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I came across this interesting artcile. I don't know if you will be interested but here it is. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's indeed interesting info. If I find some time in coming days, I'll see whether I can integrate it in one of our database articles here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read very much of the article and talk page histories. Some of what I did read should qualify for Wikipedia:Revision deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that WP editors are being held to a higher standard than "outsiders" and apparently are supposed to put up with some measure of abuse. Look at the recent talk page edits: some comments were automatically archived after 6 (six!) months, but restored by another editor who also disabled the archiving. Those comments thelmselves were originally removed, but restored by no less than an admin, who explicitly stated that he thought they had some merit and were addressing a valid point. I heartily agree with the lat comment posted: someone please take it to AfD and get it deleted... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

of course total cites is nothing new. but the correlation with importace is, as is the reporting in kilo-cites which may make content factor a nice shorthand metric. there is very little new under the sun, but this did pass peer review and worthy of mention 4081xsn (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Content factor" is not notable at all, having just been published and not yet cited by anybody else. And peer-review can fail. I'm flabbergasted that this passed in PLoS ONE and may take it up with the editor who approved this there. Please do not re-ad it to the impact factor article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

you are arguing in the alternative: "A) content factor is too old to be notable (eg "is nothing new") and yet B) content factor is too new to be notable (eg "having just been published and not yet cited by anybody else". That is internally inconsistent. That you are flabbergasted is not on point. And I am not sure what it means to "take it up with the editor who approved this". It sounds bullying....

4081xsn (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Total cites" is an old metric. The new name "content factor" has not established any notability. I hope this clarifies. As for taking it up with the editor, I plan on contacting Dr. Gupta to obtain some more information on how on Earth it was possible that this article got unscathed through the peer-review process at PLoS ONE. If you think that constitutes bullying: well, you're free to think whatever you like. I see that you re-reverted at the "impact factor" article, I won't revert again, so let's see what other editors there think of your addition. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

total cites may be old, but correlating it with IF and importance is not. And CF is no more than 'the old total cites' any more than Celsius degrees are "just" Kelvin degrees minus 273.15. Presumably, there are other papers in the world that may not have made it by your criteria, but the multiple reviewers and editors must have not shared that viewpoint. And by the way, "take it up" is not the same as "obtain some more information", in idiomatic English. It has a connotation of dispute. 4081xsn (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your lecture. And if the information that I will hopefully obtain from the editor is not satisfactory, then that would, indeed, result in a dispute. I have been involved with PLoS ONE since it's inception and would not like to see it publish below-par articles. It may not come to that, Dr. Gupta has edited multiple articles for PLoS ONE, so perhaps he had a good reason to accept this one that currently escapes me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding comments at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume! AfD discussion, the red link appearing in the AfD template is almost always corrected (from my experience) by simply purging the page. This clears the page's server cache and updates the link as a functional blue-link. For more information, see Wikipedia:Purge. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I'm not sure that this applies in my case. I have browser page caching disabled under my WP preferences and, in addition, the cache of my browser is set to 0... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oops! Should have read the link you gave first. It's the server's cache that needs to be purged, not my browser's cache... Sorry and thanks again for clarifying this! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first, thanks for the help on the Gottesman article.

You took out Illinois Institute of Technology as Gottesman's alma-mater. Looking around, it seems common to have the undergrad institution in that info-box field? Churn and change (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Our article on alma mater says that it's the institution from which one has graduated, I took my clue from that. It's not an expression much used here in Europe, so perhaps I'm mistaken. If you think that an undergrad institution is also one's alma mater, then just put it back in. BTW, you've done a great job on that article. I had that as a project for a long time, just never got around to it. Are you finished? I'm asking, because the great expansion that you did qualifies the article for did you know and I'd like to propose it for that. If accepted, the article would then get in that section on the front page of WP... Let me know. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I requested somebody to put a photo of his either under CC3.0 or PD, so I could upload it to Wikicommons (I doubt we qualify for the fair-use exemption of copyrighted material for hosting the photo on the English Wikipedia). Will wait for a day for the answer. Churn and change (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the source I contacted wants to release the (implicit) copyright on the photo. Please go ahead and nominate for DYK. Thanks. Churn and change (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A wiki page recently appeared on Dante Cicchetti, a noted scholar in the field of developmental psychopathology. Although the page contains valid and true information, the disclaimers at the top of the page make the material presented sound problematic. Can you provide feedback on how to edit the page to eliminate the cautions listed at the start of the page? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogosch (talk • contribs) 13:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Look at other bios (especially oens that are "featured articles", for example) and the policies linked in the tags. the Cicchetti bio is full of overblown claims, so-called peacock terms, etc. As an example, before you can say that someone has "played a pivotal role" in shaping a field, you need to have independent reliable sources for that (and even if some source said this, praise like this should be used very sparingly. Look at the bio of Albert Einstein and you won't see any wording like that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour Guillaume--can you help me out? You're a science person, so perhaps you have access to Science? I am looking for the text of this article, to stick into Lakshadweep. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I have access. Send me an email and I'll respond with the PDF attached (or any other means you prefer). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren^C 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination item III says, at the end:

You may post (transclude) this same nomination to the article's talkpage, using {{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}},as well as to your own user talkpage to monitor the progress of the DYK nomination.

Churn and change (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't see that and actually have never seen it done either (but I'm not too active in DYK). I monitor the status by watchlisting the template. Anyway, feel free to revert me then. BTW, you mentioned trying to get a photo from Gottesman. Did you ask Irv himself? If not, I can contact him and see whether he has a picture available for upload. Cheers! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I contacted Lisabeth DiLalla, who had hosted a Festschrift for Gottesman and has many pictures on her site. She just got back, asking me to wait a week since she was traveling right now. Trouble with asking Gottesman himself is that it won't be enough for him to just say it's ok to use the photo, or even send one to us. The photo, per copyright law, has to be published (typically posted on a public website), with a statement it is either CC3.0 or PD. Churn and change (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be published. If the person who took the photo uploads it directly into Commons (or even just here, at en:WP), releasing it under a CC license, then that's perfectly OK, too. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. When DiLalla gets back to me, I'll tell her that. I guess the copyrights are held by the photographer, not the subject. So for the specific photos I have in mind, contacting him directly won't help. Thanks. 22:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churn and change (talk • contribs)

In case you had this AFD watchlisted, please note that it's been moved to the correct page name. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Saman Pourisa, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: published author nominated for awards is not "no indication of importance". That should be reserved for my grandma who knits bitchin mittens, or the guy with the funny haircut down the street. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• ?? Where does it say that he's nominated for an award? Having published a book is not a claim for notability, either... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • At the article we have for the book. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Touché, I didn't look at the link... And although according to thr letter' of CSD policy I may have been correct, you clearly got the spirit of it... :-) I'll pay more attention next time. Having said this, looks to me like in the end both articles will be deletion candidates...

Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume2303,

Good morning! I have created the the article of Bhushan Patwardhan and he is notable person, I feel. I do understand that what community thinks is more important and hence I leaving the decision to include or delete it to community. I would like to bring to your notice the links which I was not able to incorporate in the article which I have added at the talk page of the article. I would even request you to help me add these links if you get time and if you find this job important. Have a nice day. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, you don't mind me coming over here. Do you think it is best to merge some or all of the content and create a redirect? I don't have a problem with that if that is what you are reccomending. I thought it was a selective database unto itself. I mean if it is not a selective database I don't think the article is necessary. What do you think? Also, I noticed that the Scopus article needs some going over and copy editing. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it's what was done for Wiley Online Library and Ingentaconnect, for example. SciVerse is selective in the sense that it includes all Elsevier journals and only very few others (of publishers that have an agreement with Elsevier, but that's a minority of its coverage). Scopus can indeed need some polish. In fact, I think that Elsevier nw calls it "SciVerse Scopus" (but you should verify that, I'm not really sure). No time myself, I'm leaving for a trip tomorrow morning. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ok I see what you are saying. Also, I noticed the "Sciverse Scopus" in the "Scopus" article and I did not come across such a title while perusing the platform description, and the PR annoucemnets that I used for sources (these are not the best sources to use -- that's for sure!). However, I will try to find out whether it is called "SciVerse Scopus" or not. And have a good trip. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The publication list is not the same as a table of contents, but I know what you are trying to say. I won't debate this, but wanted to convey that, when I saw these publications, firsthand, at the NYPL, I was struck by contents of each issue — because, as stated in the article, circulation was low, yet contents are rich. Listing the issues, in this case, lets other researchers know which copies are cataloged, leaving open the possibility that other unknown issues might be found. Listing the the pubs does not clutter the article — it is, perhaps, more akin to bibliography for musicologists. People who might be interested in this topic are likely few, so leaving the list up hurts no one. The main editor, MX96, is the sole child (daughter) of Petrides. She, and the author of a book on the topic, wanted the list up for reasons stated. — Eurodog (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• As I see it, tables of contents (for books or magazine issues) are inherently unencyclopedic. In this case, let's invoke WP:IAR. I'll self-revert in a minute. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Eurodog (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 12 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irving Gottesman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Irving Gottesman is the first psychologist to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award of the International Society for Psychiatric Genetics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irving Gottesman. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Good evening (now it's evening in Ukraine):), could you tell me, why do you want to delete this article? It's an article about music band, that exists 10 years at list and has 4 studio albums?! --Stellsman (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• The article does not establish notability. There is no indication that those albums are not self-produced, the wikilinks go to completely unrelated articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)