Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:46, 5 January 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am traveling and may not always be available until I get back home on January 15.

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

Misplaced Pages is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

Sunil Kumar Verma Wiki page

Hello Randykitty, just wanted you to get noticed re creation of Sunil Kumar Verma Page, Earlier this year after thorough discussion you deleted that page. I can post whole discussion if you want to have a look, its in my profile pages. However, regardless of anything the article is recreated. The subject is not famous to be published on wikipedia, would you please address this issue. I personally think that its not a good idea to start discussion on same topic again, by giving same reason and raising same points. Merry X mas:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I remember this case and just spent half an hour going through the (tortured) history. The article has been re-written, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion as a re-creation of a deleted article. As it already has been at AfD once, you cannot PROD it either, but if you think that the modifications are not sufficient to get it over the bar for notability, you can take it to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks for sparing your time Randykitty:), the author presented the topic smartly though he still not is a big-gun to be published on Misplaced Pages as living legend (any person of assistant professors level of any university of North America would claim to be published on Misplaced Pages after it since they all have better or comparable CVs, You are also from research background and you can feel the content I am talking about). Anyways if the author is fulfilling all the requirement and somehow justify to be on wikipedia I would not nominate him. Thanks once again and have a happy new year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

I think this article meets C-Class criteria. Rather than make the change myself, I thought I'd seek your input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good, so I've bumped it up to B. With a little bit of effort, this could become a GA, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, if you care to make some notes as to what is needed to get it to GA on the talk page of the article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The GA criteria are here. They're pretty general, though. When I got Genes, Brain and Behavior up to GA, I simply modeled the article on the only other GA article that we had at the time, The Accounting Review. Have a look at the GA reviews on their talk pages, that might help. I'm currently rather busy, so I may not be able to offer much more help... --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR

I noticed you added an example for citing JSTOR on your user page. I generally just use the |jstor= parameter. If you are using the via parameter and the link to credit JSTOR due to an account through the WP library using the via and subscription parameters makes sense. I strongly advocate using the subscription parameter anytime the url parameter is used and the link does not lead to free full text. With journal articles I think the doi and jstor parameters provide links that most users understand are not free. I think any time a title is linked it should be to free content, or the subscription parameter should be used. Just my 2 cents. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I applied for a JSTOR account from the library (just yesterday, so don't know yet whether I'll get one). Links to free content are indeed very handy (for readers and editors alike), but sometimes some source is only available by subscription. The subscription parameter is indeed good to use, although I must admit that I often don't think of it (and having access to a lot of stuff myself, I often don't realize that something is behind a paywall...) --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I was suggesting using the |jstor= parameter rather than the |url=, |via= and |subscription= parameters.

Do you know anyone can get 3 articles at a time free from JSTOR? If you do sign up make sure to use a different email than the one you will use when the WP Lib gets you one. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll need to try that out in my sandbox to see the difference... I copied this from what the library recommends. I know about the three free articles, but can't remember which email I used to sign up... --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fitternity.com

I wan't advertising the company, I have recently come across it and while doing research realized that they do not have a Misplaced Pages page. I thus decided to create one. Kindly, if possible do let me know my errors so as to not repeat them while creating a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipra1112 (talk • contribs)

• Hi, the way you wrote the article, it read like an advert for the company. Articles on WP need to be written in a neutral way and anything you say (such as "the only company doing so and so") needs too be supported by references to independent reliable sources. Creating new articles on WP is very difficult, especially on companies. Being new here, I would recommend that you start with improving some existing articles and look good how other articles on similar subjects are written (especially if these are rated "good article"), before trying to re-create an article on Fitternity.com. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Socrates Journal

Hey Randy, I think that you'll probably have to take Socrates Journal to AfD. It's kind of at the halfsies way of being promotional and it also looks like it's been re-created at least once, so odds are that even if is it deleted it'd just be re-created again. I'm also concerned that there's some obvious socking going on with the various editors, so I may open up an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• AfD would just make it easier to delete in the future, since I don't offhand see where it passes GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Nah, won't bother opening an SPI- I'll just block them since they did a revenge nomination on another page. It's such an obvious sock that I'd probably just get trouted for doing it for one account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Double nah, I've deleted it as G11 and A7, then salted it. Odds are that they'll re-create it again a third time somewhere else but that's future Randykitty and Tokyogirl79's problem. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the deletion/salting. I'm afraid you're right about the AfD, these people are tenacious. But as long as the articles they create remain as promotional as they have been up till now, G11 is just as fast as G4 :-) The journal is so clearly non-notable, that I don't really want to waste the community's (and mine!) time on an AfD if not really necessary... --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Changetrl

Hey Randy you previously deleted a page Numeer nabi i found few links for notability since ur on holiday so i add them please take a look Changetrl (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year

• THanks for the wishes, I also wish you a happy and healthy new year. As for the Numeer Nabi article, I see that someone has already tagged it for speedy deletion. I'll leave it up to a different admin to evaluate the merits of that tag. In general, creating articles is one of the most difficult thing on WP. Please make sure that any articles you create show, using independent reliable sources that the subject is notable. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Filippo Menczer

Don't get it why you say that {{talk header}} is not necessary. Just because there is no heated discussion doesn't mean that there wont be any. I for one use all the time in advance. Because really, who knows if a vandal will come? And by doing this revert, you are treating me as one! --Mishae (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Mishae, I'm not treating you as a vandal and I'm sorry if you perceived it as such. Reverting is not just for vandals... As for the template, just clock on it in your comment above and then read the doc, especially where it says: "This template should only be placed where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template." --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I already did it to a ton of them and no one really bothered by it. So, I am shocked that you founded to be useless of an edit. :( Like, how do we know if the article will get heated in a near future? For me, every academic, politician, sports person, etc is a subject to OR edits. That's the main reason why I put this template, we need to protect BLPs, right?--Mishae (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• There simply is no need for this, it's a waste of time. No need to go around removing them either (which is probably why nobody remarked about this before: nobody goes around searching for these things). Better save your valuable edit time for more important things. Like battling OR and BLP issues if they really occur (and the vast majority of bios luckily remain free of that). --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus, it says in that template thing: "However, this is not an absolute rule, and editors should use common sense when deciding its placement." Which means that if I feel that a potential article might become a controversy in a near future I should try to warn potential new comers that way, besides why not you take a look at the Filippo Menczer article right now, instead of reverting stuff that is as you said are not vandalic. I suspect that the last 2 refs there are not necessary since they don't talk about him.--Mishae (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to mention, I don't go and insert this template to every talkpage, I just do it manually by inserting this and WikiProjects as well. And if nobody goes around searching for these things, why did you?--Mishae (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not so prickly... I didn't go "searching". That article was on my watchlist and I check all edits to articles on that list routinely. Just trying to save you some time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, thanks but no thanks. Since I put this template only on the articles that I create, and I don't put it on animals and plants since non of those will complain. However, when it comes to BLP in my opinion it is worth to put out. Plus, it reminds me how to be civil as well. Not that I usually not, but when there is a heated discussion, I can loose my cool without that template. I'm wondering if its O.K. to put the template after this edit?: --Mishae (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of unique county names

Hi. Could you please post the content of the deleted article into my sandbox or something of the like. I didn't get a chance to copy the info and I didn't expect it to be deleted so suddenly. Thanks. Shabidoo | Talk 17:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have userfied it at User:Shabidoo/List of unique U.S. county names. Please don't move it back into article space without having it checked by an admin (not necessarily me), nor leave it more than, say, 2 months in your personal space. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: There is a reason why it was deleted. It was OR, not an encyclopedic entry. Its debatable what is unique. And even if its not OR, its the same thing as creating a list of McDonald's meals and add it to a McDonald's article. Nobody will read the list either way, since lists are not always encyclopedic or helpful (at least the list that you created). Take a look at Category:Lists of airports to see what a list should look like, to meet the notability guideline.--Mishae (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this is not the first deletion debate on this article, but I'm having trouble finding the previous debate. Could you point me in the right direction? YBG (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Where do you see that there has been a previous AfD? --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My mistake. I saw that |] was included in , and I misunderstood the meaning of 'relisted'. YBG (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(the following is unrelated to the thread immediately above) YBG (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kitty. Mishae this isn't the place to debate whether the article should be deleted or not. The discussion is over. --Shabidoo | Talk 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: Sorry, but I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't debating, I assumed that you are new and tried to explain.--Mishae (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK I see. No...I understand why the article was deleted...there was consensus, I just didn't expect it to be deleted so suddenly and I didn't copy the info in time before it was deleted. --Shabidoo | Talk 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

S. Jay Olshansky

I moved all the material that has no date associated with it out of the biography section and into one paragraph, below the lede, and referenced it to his website (the biographical profile in his book has the same text). I spent an hour looking for a profile of him published anywhere, and still have not found one. I am sure he is worth an article, he is mentioned in numerous current articles in Google News, but there is no real biographical profile of him anywhere that I can find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's a recurring problem with academics, where we can find sources about their work, but rarely about themselves. I'll have a look and see what I can find. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of arguing with each other over what citations style to use, why don't we concentrate on the content of the article. Removing the quote parameter leaves the impression that there is an awesome biography of him in the citation when in fact there is just a sentence describing his title at the school. If you do not like the quote parameter, argue for the removal globally at the talk page of the template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sneha Thakker

Just wanted to draw your attention to this article because I just saw Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sneha Krunal Thakker. The same article is created on GU wiki and we are also debating whether to keep or delete.--Vyom25 (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It was a blatant copy of the previous article, so I have speedily deleted it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Martin (boxer)

Randy, could you please give this article another look. Ryan Martin has a plethora of encyclopedic information with articles from reliable sources for over 10 years. The page was deleted because people said he didn't meet NBOX which was very controversial due to his age groups (we can't make people older than they were). Being that this was being disputed for so long, others believed, including myself he met WP:GNG. Can we please bring the page back and specifically address WP:GNG, if it's absolutely been determined he doesn't meet NBOX? C.dunkin (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Request to all: please don't repeat the whole AfD discussion here... I am going to stick to the close. Anybody disagreeing is welcome to start a discussion at WP:DRV (but please read closely the instructions on how to do that, just repeating the AfD will not get you anywhere at DRV). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

1. "New Faces: Ryan Martin". ringmagazine.com. Anson Wainwright. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
2. "Ryan Martin Gaining Experience with Yuriorkis Gamboa". boxingtalk.com. Doveed Linder. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
3. boxingscene.com. Sandoval, Luis http://www.boxingscene.com/ryan-martin-working-great-with-sms-promotions--80808. Retrieved 8 August 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Relisted AfD debates