Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 16 November 2013

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).

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.

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cary Coglianese may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * "Moving Forward with Regulatory Lookback"] ''Yale Journal on Regulation'' (June 8, 2013)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating Impact Factors on Journal pages

Hello - I recently tried to update some impact factors (from 2011 to 2012) but these changes were deleted - I'm new to this and would like to know how I can get these updated? Thanks KellyHorwoodBMJ (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

After some further thinking on this - I realised that these changes may have been reverted as I also added some text changes that may have been considered a conflict of interest. In this case am I able to go back in and just edit Impact Factors? Thanks KellyHorwoodBMJ (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• That's exactly what happened, you added some very promotional text, which you really shouldn't do. Just updating IFs is no problem, though. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

American Atheist Magazine

Why are you more concerned with removing informative content from WP than building up its body of knowledge? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• . The stuff that I removed was not informative content. When WP:MWG says that information on contributors and board should not be included, but that exceptions can be made, that really means that there has to be some exceptional reason to include that info. This occurs, for example, if an editor or editorial board member has done something or written something that was noted, that is, has generated non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If this is not the case, then just listing some rather unknown people (whose names generally can be easily retrieved from the magazine's own website), or name-dropping some notable people who just happen to have contributed to the magazine, just is not encyclopedic content. --Randykitty (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nova

Hi Randykitty. I can understand that you disagree vehemently with my edit, but undoing it with a "vandalism" summary is completely uncalled for. I'll explain the reasoning behind my edit in the talk page shortly but I would really appreciate it if you could take back your hasty accusation. Regards. Gaba 01:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a new section over at that article about my edits. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Gaba 02:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have responded there. And, sorry, but your edit did constitute vandalism. --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Randykitty but I just can't let this go so easily. An accusation of vandalism is a strong one. I'm a long time editor and I've explained all my edits in the talk page, one by one. If you believe you are right in accusing me of committing vandalism, then I propose we request comment at AN/I because that means one of us is greatly misinterpreting WP:VANDAL. Regards. Gaba 10:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: 1) The edit deserved to be reverted. 2) The word "vandal" should be reserved for people who are actually trying to disrupt the encyclopedia; using it more freely than that verges on personal attack. 3) Gaba was clearly operating in good faith, and in any case should have been assumed to be doing so. 4) It is plausible that Randykitty honestly thought Gaba was a vandal, and we should assume good faith there also; however, now that it is clear that Gaba was not, Randykitty owes Gaba an apology. 5) Even though an apology would be good etiquette, this episode should not lead to any procedural action (e.g., AN/I) in any case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonlet, thanks for commenting. Just to be clear, my proposal to open a section at AN/I was never intended as a threat to request procedural action. I just thought that if we can not come to an agreement about whether I incurred on vandalism or not we requested comments there, nothing else. I see vandalism accusations as a serious one but precisely because I WP:AGF I'm sure Randykitty and I can come to an amicable agreement on this episode. Regards. Gaba 18:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sorry you are upset. However, when I see a badly-sourced POV-edit, changing an article with a controversial edit history (varying from turning it into an attack page to trying to change it into a fan page) basically into a hatchet job, I'm afraid that I have the apparently bad habit of calling such an edit vandalism. If you want people to AGF, I would advice some prior discussion on an article's talk page to avoid this kind of situations. --Randykitty (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So can I understand that you take back your accusation of vandalism? You'll notice this is important to me because such accusations are pretty serious, especially when directed at a long time editor. Regards. Gaba 01:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, I'm sorry to have to insist on this but as I've told you above, it is an important issue to me. You can call my edit a "badly-sourced POV-edit", that's fine. But I need to hear from you that you either take back your vandalism accusation or that you stand by it. I'm not trying to create unnecessary drama, I just want to set the record straight on this matter so we can both move on with our edits leaving this incident in the past. Hope you'll understand. Regards. Gaba 11:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that calling a "badly-sourced POV-edit" vandalism is wide off the mark. I understand that you didn't see it as such and were therefore unhappy about this edit being called "vandalism" and I am sorry that you feel that way. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You do understand that up to this point I have been nothing but extremely polite to you inspite of you accusing me of vandalism, right? It is not my fault that that article has been vandalized before many times, it wasn't me who did it and it shouldn't be me who gets abused for it. I've asked you to please take your accusation of vandalism back many times by now and you have refused each time. You can disagree 10000% with my edit, that's fine. But after being reverted I immediately took the issue to the talk page, presented my sources and reasons and discussed the edit thoroughly being perfectly WP:CIVIL with other editors just as it is expected. There is no possible way you could seriously believe I am a WP:VANDAL after that, yet you insist in standing by your accusation.

I have no desire in the least to end this issue in anything other than the most amicable way possible but you are making it very difficult for me to accomplish that. So I'll ask you one final time to please take back your accusation of vandalism so we can step back from this matter in a friendly way and get back to editing WP. Regards. Gaba 23:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurasisches Magazin (deletion)

Dear Randykitty, I am very angry about the deletion of this article. I was my intention to present a very interesting journal which is one of the few in Germany and worldwide about the rare known region of Eurasia, e.g. Russia, Central Asia, Caucasus etc. The deletion was overnight and so "speedy" that I had no chance to expand or improve my article. This is in my sense a very bad behavior among Wiki authors, it's in fact a kind of "vandalism". Please tell me what to do to renew the article. Looking forward for help and thanks in advance --Stonepillar (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, well this is a week ago and I have been travelling and doing a lot of other stuff since, so I have to admit that I can't really remember this particular case (and not being an admin, I cannot see the deleted article either). What I gather from the logs is that I tagged it for WP:CSD#A7 (see there for the applicable criteria) and that it wa checked by an admin (User:Hiberniantears), who apparently agreed with this assessment and deleted the article. Speedy deletion is actually very common, not considered "bad behavior", and even less "vandalism". If you think that you can create an article that would meet our inclusion criteria (verifiable by citations to reliable sources), you can ask Hiberniantears (or any other admin) to "userfy" the article to your userspace, where you can work on it until it is ready to be moved to the mainspace. --Randykitty (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mexican Law Review

The Mexican Law Review meets notability requirements IMO. As for your argument that Mexican universities do not list the journal in OCLC, this is to be expected: Mexicans do not speak English. In addition, I am not sure OCLC has widespread adoption in Mexico in the first place. The MLR is published by UNAM, which itself should make it notable. Again, I stress that Stanford Law, Berkley Law, Chicago Law, New York Law, Boston Law, etc. etc. (pretty much every law library of note) consider it notable, and that should be enough. Int21h (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• What makes you think these libraries think this journal is notable? It's an OA journal. All they have to do is link to it from their websites, which doesn't cost them a dime. For OA journals, WorldCat holdings really don't say much. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, they are print journals. You do not just "link to from their website", that's just not physically possible, nor is that what the world wide web does. OCLC 300631837, is for the printed version of the journal; OCLC 57487127 is for the online version.

I assume by OA you mean an open access journal.. But so what? What does that imply? That printed journals, that are peer reviewed, published by a major national university, with articles from Stanford Law LL.M. grads and that university's professors and the like, and print subscriptions at many major law school libraries in every major English speaking country, is somehow not notable anymore because they are also available online? Int21h (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying any of these things. You are arguing that the journal is notable because many libraries list it. If you care to go to the journal homepage, you will see that all articles can be downloaded for free online (= OA, indeed: "open access"). This means that libraries can include it in their catalogs without any cost to them, explaining the library holdings. This is not a value judgment in the least, we're not here to judge the value or worthiness of any entry. We're here to evaluate the sources. All I am saying therefore is that the library holdings in WorldCat can be explained by the simple fact that this journal is available online for free and that they therefore do not imply notability. If the journal were only available in print (or online behind a paywall), those holdings would imply that those libraries would have made the decision to pay for a subscription, which is a very different matter (especially with the restrained library budgets we have nowadays. Even then, the US has many more law schools than the 90 odd that currently list it in WorldCat). That WorldCat has different entries for the print and online versions is true. Unfortunately, WorldCat is also very unreliable in these things. In addition, if you click the two links you gave above to the print and library versions, you will see that for each one there are exactly 93 US libraries listed. The explanation is the remark just underneath "enter your location": Displaying libraries 1-6 out of 93 for all 6 editions. The 93 entries are for 6 (??) different editions of this journal (apparently more than just print/online) combined. In short: I sincerely doubt that these WorldCat listings indicate notability (or are even very reliable). --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)