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. |
Hi, Could you please help me understand why my page - Centre for Teacher Accreditation - was deleted? Request your response at the earliest. Thank you. Remuna Rai ( talk) 11:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I created a page about the bankrupt businessman Brian Meshkin and his various enterprises which have been notable mainly for their investigation for fraud by authorities including the FBI. An anonymous user Special:Contributions/2600:8802:802:5B00:E451:2837:369A:2E1B, possibly with COI, has overwritten it with a large amount of material from Meshkin's bio and website. I would urge you to consider reverting this user's edit rather than deleting the page because of the useless promotional material this person has inserted. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 06:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I had wanted to wait for the SPI to be wrapped up before resuming our discussion but the SPI popped up on my watchlist today. The IP's changes, attempting to kill the SPI show someone who's not new to the game. Cabayi ( talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've SNOW closed your AFD; I don't see how the hobbyists that create this kind of fancruft anyway
will be any different there than at a move discussion. If you object strongly, I won't object to your reverting my closure, but I doubt it will do you any good.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I was editing 2015 North American heat wave while it was deleted and I think I clicked the wrong button. You may have to delete it again. StrayBolt ( talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey I created a page on LabsAdvisor. But it was deleted without any discussion. I wanted to know what was the mistake so I could keep that in mind while creating a page in future. Praveen1807 ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Randykitty, can you please block 2A02:908:191:5FA0:D874:3D3B:77A5:6036 and revdelete all their racist and sexist edits? I'd do it but my phone is elsewhere and I have two-stage authentication. OK, last day of the Tour: Hup Tom! 2600:6C58:607F:F8F1:0:82BC:74DD:AF10 ( talk) 12:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You proposed Geombinatorics for deletion. Please create the deletion discussion page, and add it to the list. Read carefully steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. -- Tudor987 ( talk) 09:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The ranked journal list is no longer available from the ARC website. This is because it was intended solely for the purposes of the ERA 2010 evaluation, and because journals may have changed significantly in the number of years since the rankings were developed." on its website, so it's perhaps not very useful, even though it's still listed in "JournalGuide" ! Pam D 11:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- Coffeeand crumbs 18:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
May I strike the archived copy of the [erroneous comment https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Randykitty&diff=850924460&oldid=850583912 I made] on this page? [I was confused https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JAMA_Network_Open&diff=prev&oldid=850928244].-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 23:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of 2023 EuropeanGames, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: it has been redirected, not deleted. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 14:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Leaving the abuse out of it, since Haris Čizmić survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic, it was ineligible for G11. Since it wasn't linked on the talk page, and predated multiple moves, you'd never have found it... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, if the goal is to make sure those get included in WP:AALERTS, you don't need to tag those. I mean it doesn't hurt, but it seems like a waste of effort here. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, about the recent edits at Journal of Colloid and Interface Science - I interpreted a recent change as vandalism, based on that IP's recent history. That IP changed the impact factor in that infobox twice, once in June and once in July, neither time providing a source.
The impact factor number given in the body of the article does have a citation, and agreed with the original figure in the infobox, so I figured that was the correct figure. My apologies if it wasn't - the citation isn't online, and this is not at all my area, so I can't check it. Anyway, just wanted to give a clearer picture of what was going on. Thanks for your attention to that article. Cheers, Jessicapierce ( talk) 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Sociological Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the AfD for Appian Corporation. I regret to tell you that your comments regarding the review were hurtful. I appreciate that you must get a lot of requests and spend a great deal of time dealing with things that would dilute the quality of WP if left unchecked. I just wanted to remind you though that there are people behind this, with their own lives, feelings, and stresses. To that, including a backhanded comment to go along with your review does little other than to devalue the work that people the created, edited, and reviewed this article.
Assuming that this is the work of an undisclosed paid editor could easily be verified by looking at my account, where I disclose my COI. I also don't hide who I am. You can google my username and see that I am a low level tech writer at the company. It's true that I haven't had many edits, but this is because I'm new at this. I'd like to do more, but having feedback like the kind you gave does not motivate me to continue. Finally, I'm familiar with the policies because I care deeply about trying to get this right. It's kind of a catch 22 that we should understand WP policies to write good articles, but can't know them if we're trying to defend our work.
I'm really sorry if this is coming across as adversarial or purely negative. It's not my intention to do so. Instead, I want to help you understand that the things we say have an impact on other. I hope this helps provide perspective the next time you comment on an article. Please feel free to reach out if you wanted to discuss anything or had any concerns. And again, thank you for the review and the time and effort you've devoted to WP over the years. Jonkatora ( talk) 16:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I created page called Kampan & after you move it from Kampan (Quake) to Kampan (book) it goy deleted. It had full media coverages and it was fully acceptable for wikipedia. Can i re-create it ? TheRedBox ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Your eresed an article without any chance to contest the charges. This is unacceptable!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
hi, regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji. Pazhanji is a small village and the 2 articles being merged would not attract enough editors to share their opinions.
Secondly I feel that there is a strong consensus to Delete/merge and the arguments of the Keep were very weak. Kindly explain your closure and suggest the next best steps. If the AfD can be relisted again (which I think it should be), I believe it will further proceed on the merge consensus. As it was the case with a recent and Similar AfD WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Mary's_Salem_Orthodox_Church,_Manappally So please let me know your thoughts. cheers. (Pinging the nom : User:Shadowowl)-- DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, hoping you will comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn State–Temple football rivalry, either broadly or more narrowly on how the supporting information can be better presented in the future.
I am very surprised the AfD was not closed as keep/no consensus. An ongoing problem with college and NFL football rivalry AfDs is editors subjectively evaluate what they believe to be true, rather than locating (or failing to locate) sufficient RS citations often from 100+ years of history to then determine their opinion per GNG (the teams don't play enough, the series isn't competitive, they aren't in the currently in same conference, etc). The word "rivalry" can often poison the AfD away from GNG. In this case, GNG was not referenced by the nom (ongoing learning curve), editors often don't know how or where to source historical content then agreed it doesn't exist/recentism, and then 7 and later 8 citations (of varying quality) were located. Understood the "not a vote" issues, but the sentiment swung 6-3 Keep after these citations were produced, including 2 who flipped to Keep after the citations were produced and evaluated. Cheers, UW Dawgs ( talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty,
A questions about this:
For the people who can't see deleted content, the relevant text of the request copied from the deleted page:
If so, I think this should be discussed at
Talk:Crakow (shoe) first.
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk)
09:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is to bring your attention to a recently submitted draft for review. The title had been SALTed before. Seems un-conflicting now. Please refer to an archive on your talk page. 122.169.81.131 ( talk) 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I seriously doubt a G11 will succeed. Nor an A7. An AfD might work, but it's a long shot. The problem is with the editor.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
To RandyKitty (the most frequent editor for the journal entries) and in reference to the phrasing on the ESCI Wiki page: When predatory journals are removed from the ESCI list, when should the phrase "it contains many predatory journals" which is present tense become past tense "it had contained predatory journals in the past" Qtian~enwiki ( talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty - I don't like commenting on closed AfD discussions but felt we left things hanging. When I tongue in cheek said it's more that I don't hate it than I like it,[ [1]] I was referring to me not hating it, not you. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Randykitty. The Journal of Fungi which was deleted before is now accepted for inclusion in Scopus. If this is acceptable that we edit it on WiKi using indexing info: https://suggestor.step.scopus.com/progressTracker/index.cfm?trackingID=C905FE77C19C41CF. Previous discusssion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Fungi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 ( talk • contribs)
Thank you Randy. Will wait for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example is article_text
which is now page_title
.page_age
.{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Randykitty (
talk)
10:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Larry Warren (Rendlesham). Since you had some involvement with the Larry Warren (Rendlesham) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If you can, please review Talk: Monarchy of Australia, which requires an appropriate response. Please assume I want the least possible involvement in this. I was asked on my talk page to be involved and before I even had a chance to comment, I could see matters of procedural concern. Given that, I immediately see it's not longer my problem. I look with terrible dismay at what other people have done, said, appealed for help and tried to resolve in the past for over a decade. This is Wikipedia's issue, so I shall leave the matter up to people who are tasked with the responsibility of administering the system. Travelmite ( talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
The Original Barnstar | |
Always unfortunate to see a top medical editor, no longer around. Hope to see you back someday. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC) |
Sorry to bring bad news upon your return, but since you're asking to be re-sysoped after a period of inactivity, I'm warning you that you should probably change your password or use 2FA if possible, since there have been many incidents of compromised accounts lately, three of them being admin accounts. Semi Hypercube ✎ 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Are Fooian literary magazines supposed to categorize literary magazines about the literature of Foo, or literary magazines published in country Foo? Because I note that Category:British literary magazines is a sub-sub-category of Category:British magazines, on which I read "This category is for magazines published in the United Kingdom". But you just added The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats (an academic journal, not really the same thing as a magazine, about British literature) to Category:British literary magazines, even though it was founded in and appears to be published in the US. So something needs to be corrected: either the category hierarchy or your categorization of this article. Which one? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
In regards to your close - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Supply shooting - the raw !vote count is 3 Delete, 5 Keep (including one Delete !voter who changed his mind). WP:RAPID is a notability guideline and contradicts the rationale in the close. National level coverage (e.g. [2]) is continuing as of the close date of the AfD, I respectfully request you reconsider whether Delete is appropriate vs. no consensus or Keep. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I just opened debates on their talk pages. We should build consensus around these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificrigor12 ( talk • contribs)
You closed the discussion but didn't implement the outcome. Thanks for wading into this mess again. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed after the AfD for this article closed, you deleted the talk page, but the main artice is still up. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed the article you closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yone Minagawa (2nd nomination), was not deleted. Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be able to help out in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little because there are several reports waiting, and some of the reported vandals are still at it. CLCStudent ( talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Randykitty ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm nearing the end of my 3-month self-imposed wikibreak. Although I may not return to editing right away, it is time to get unblocked.
Accept reason:
Done - welcome back! Kuru (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)I thought both pages were undergoing a series of improvements and added citations interrupted by the US holiday of Thanksgiving which many of us took part in with long and extended trips to family gatherings. I hope that you will revisit your deletions which I do not think recognize the progress being made and the consensus that was being built, and thus were very premature. Thanks for considering this request. Chip.berlet ( talk) 03:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Randykitty,
I noticed that you deleted Shiva Texyarn Limited even after I've contested and requested not to delete it. Also, nobody has replied to me. Shiva Texyarn is India's largest textile manufacturing company and also is listed on Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. The company has been covered by several mainstream media and India's leading news agencies including The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, India Infoline etc. I would request you to reconsider this and recheck the article. Thanks so much! Best Regards -- 2405:204:229C:A0F7:8548:EBBC:76F9:909E ( talk) 19:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randy, awaiting your response. Your quick reply will be appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:229F:3E5D:0:0:1087:68B0 ( talk) 19:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I will work on it and will follow the article for creation. Process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:388:3525:2FB8:7304:6524:C46 ( talk) 05:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:FVB (mouse strain), a page you moved from FVB Mice. The proposal is to move it to FVB Mouse. Your input is appreciated. Thank you! -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 02:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for closing the AfD discussion for Abneet Bharti. I was just wondering though, would it be okay to WP:SALT the article? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the article is created again and I don't think it should until he at least makes a professional football appearance in a game. Cheers. -- ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty,
Thank you very much for cleaning up the Critical Perspectives on Accounting page that I have been working on. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I appreciate your efforts to help keep the page consistent with the appropriate style.
Two questions for you, in hopes of improving my contributions in the future:
1. I had provided direct links to the faculty profiles of any editors who did not have Wikipedia pages. This was just so readers could find out more about these editors until I can get around to creating appropriate bio pages for them. I infer from your removal of these links that Wikipedia articles should only link to sources that support the actual article content. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, would it be appropriate to put links to these pages in the "External links" section of the article, or is it best just to leave those editors' names without any supporting links?
2. I notice that this page is classified as a "Stub." The page has now been improved quite a bit, I think. At what point should it considered for upgrading beyond Stub status, and how would I go about initiating this?
Thanks for your guidance, BoneClock ( talk) 18:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I don't feel like you closed this properly. For starters, AfD is not a vote and most of the actual arguments were for keep while the only arguments made for merging were based on people with misconceptions on the subject or voting per another person's flawed argument (see Gpc62's comments; as well as WP:PERNOMINATOR). All that aside, the consensus wouldn't have been "merge" based on just numbers alone either: there were 3 keep votes, and one "merge" voter voted "per BabbaQ", who had actually voted keep, making it 4 keeps versus 4 merges (or 4 v. 3 if their vote would be struck out on technicality). Even if you go with the plain vote numbers of 3 keep versus 5 merge, or the strength of the arguments alone, this is more a case of "no consensus" rather than clear consensus towards either direction (again, AfD debates are meant to be decided on the strength of the arguments presented). Opencooper ( talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I have read the article on requests for deletion. I'm wondering why the page Meprolight was deleted under the reason of G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion? Can you state what parts were unambiguous? -- Cadlaxer23 ( talk) 00:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Nemanja Jevrić, Randykitty.
Unfortunately Insertcleverphrasehere has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
If you were not aware of the recent change, PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per recent consensus here Cheers,
To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 00:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Seriously?! After two weeks, one vote to delete (based on what looks like a conscious misreading of the guidelines), & one relisting already? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please be specific about the language you are objecting or make the edit, so we can move forward. I am writing and editing under authorization as a Board Member of American Diplomacy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance and clarification. It is in everyone's interest that the article exists with independent and encyclopedia-based content that maintains accuracy. This verifiable accuracy was the initial concern for my edit. Your latest edits are consistent with this, and so I believe we can agree on your edits as the basis for the proposal for deletion to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that the aforementioned AfDs have been prematurely closed and there clearly is no consensus in either case after 7 days, so the natural tendency would to be to relist them, as in both cases, there was only one other editor other than myself (the nominator) who participated. Thank you. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty, I just want to ask about the appropriate way to handle professional designations in bio pages. On the Marcia Annisette page, when you did a nice tidying-up job (thank you!), you deleted the short section on professional designations. One of the designations was "Fellow, ACCA", which is fairly prestigious in the field of accounting; the other was the more standard "CPA" designation. I'm not sure whether the deletion you did was because the information wasn't properly sourced, or because it is not appropriate to list this level of detail in a bio page. I would like to learn any relevant Wikipedia norms, for the sake of any future bio pages I produce. Any guidance to share? Cheers, BoneClock ( talk) 17:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you please let me know more specifically what material was copyrighted in the additions to the Journal of Social Philosophy page that I made. I am the Editor of the Journal (Carol Gould) and the entry you have for the journal is incorrect. My additions and changes corrected those, including my own affiliation. I also added a long paragraph about the aims and scope of the journal, which I drafted carefully, and which will be helpful to wikipedia readers. I also included some sample titles of our special issues.
If the problem concerned the updated impact factor I added and the rankings (which are entirely correct, as you can see on our Wiley page), could I just leave those as they were and add the other material? Nothing else that I added could be considered copyrighted as far as I can tell.
Thanks for your further help.
-- Diotimadancing ( talk) 15:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Randykitty, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
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. |
Hi, Could you please help me understand why my page - Centre for Teacher Accreditation - was deleted? Request your response at the earliest. Thank you. Remuna Rai ( talk) 11:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I created a page about the bankrupt businessman Brian Meshkin and his various enterprises which have been notable mainly for their investigation for fraud by authorities including the FBI. An anonymous user Special:Contributions/2600:8802:802:5B00:E451:2837:369A:2E1B, possibly with COI, has overwritten it with a large amount of material from Meshkin's bio and website. I would urge you to consider reverting this user's edit rather than deleting the page because of the useless promotional material this person has inserted. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 06:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I had wanted to wait for the SPI to be wrapped up before resuming our discussion but the SPI popped up on my watchlist today. The IP's changes, attempting to kill the SPI show someone who's not new to the game. Cabayi ( talk) 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've SNOW closed your AFD; I don't see how the hobbyists that create this kind of fancruft anyway
will be any different there than at a move discussion. If you object strongly, I won't object to your reverting my closure, but I doubt it will do you any good.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I was editing 2015 North American heat wave while it was deleted and I think I clicked the wrong button. You may have to delete it again. StrayBolt ( talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey I created a page on LabsAdvisor. But it was deleted without any discussion. I wanted to know what was the mistake so I could keep that in mind while creating a page in future. Praveen1807 ( talk) 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Randykitty, can you please block 2A02:908:191:5FA0:D874:3D3B:77A5:6036 and revdelete all their racist and sexist edits? I'd do it but my phone is elsewhere and I have two-stage authentication. OK, last day of the Tour: Hup Tom! 2600:6C58:607F:F8F1:0:82BC:74DD:AF10 ( talk) 12:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You proposed Geombinatorics for deletion. Please create the deletion discussion page, and add it to the list. Read carefully steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. -- Tudor987 ( talk) 09:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The ranked journal list is no longer available from the ARC website. This is because it was intended solely for the purposes of the ERA 2010 evaluation, and because journals may have changed significantly in the number of years since the rankings were developed." on its website, so it's perhaps not very useful, even though it's still listed in "JournalGuide" ! Pam D 11:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- Coffeeand crumbs 18:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
May I strike the archived copy of the [erroneous comment https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Randykitty&diff=850924460&oldid=850583912 I made] on this page? [I was confused https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JAMA_Network_Open&diff=prev&oldid=850928244].-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 23:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of 2023 EuropeanGames, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: it has been redirected, not deleted. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 14:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Leaving the abuse out of it, since Haris Čizmić survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic, it was ineligible for G11. Since it wasn't linked on the talk page, and predated multiple moves, you'd never have found it... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, if the goal is to make sure those get included in WP:AALERTS, you don't need to tag those. I mean it doesn't hurt, but it seems like a waste of effort here. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, about the recent edits at Journal of Colloid and Interface Science - I interpreted a recent change as vandalism, based on that IP's recent history. That IP changed the impact factor in that infobox twice, once in June and once in July, neither time providing a source.
The impact factor number given in the body of the article does have a citation, and agreed with the original figure in the infobox, so I figured that was the correct figure. My apologies if it wasn't - the citation isn't online, and this is not at all my area, so I can't check it. Anyway, just wanted to give a clearer picture of what was going on. Thanks for your attention to that article. Cheers, Jessicapierce ( talk) 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Sociological Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the AfD for Appian Corporation. I regret to tell you that your comments regarding the review were hurtful. I appreciate that you must get a lot of requests and spend a great deal of time dealing with things that would dilute the quality of WP if left unchecked. I just wanted to remind you though that there are people behind this, with their own lives, feelings, and stresses. To that, including a backhanded comment to go along with your review does little other than to devalue the work that people the created, edited, and reviewed this article.
Assuming that this is the work of an undisclosed paid editor could easily be verified by looking at my account, where I disclose my COI. I also don't hide who I am. You can google my username and see that I am a low level tech writer at the company. It's true that I haven't had many edits, but this is because I'm new at this. I'd like to do more, but having feedback like the kind you gave does not motivate me to continue. Finally, I'm familiar with the policies because I care deeply about trying to get this right. It's kind of a catch 22 that we should understand WP policies to write good articles, but can't know them if we're trying to defend our work.
I'm really sorry if this is coming across as adversarial or purely negative. It's not my intention to do so. Instead, I want to help you understand that the things we say have an impact on other. I hope this helps provide perspective the next time you comment on an article. Please feel free to reach out if you wanted to discuss anything or had any concerns. And again, thank you for the review and the time and effort you've devoted to WP over the years. Jonkatora ( talk) 16:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I created page called Kampan & after you move it from Kampan (Quake) to Kampan (book) it goy deleted. It had full media coverages and it was fully acceptable for wikipedia. Can i re-create it ? TheRedBox ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Your eresed an article without any chance to contest the charges. This is unacceptable!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
hi, regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji. Pazhanji is a small village and the 2 articles being merged would not attract enough editors to share their opinions.
Secondly I feel that there is a strong consensus to Delete/merge and the arguments of the Keep were very weak. Kindly explain your closure and suggest the next best steps. If the AfD can be relisted again (which I think it should be), I believe it will further proceed on the merge consensus. As it was the case with a recent and Similar AfD WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Mary's_Salem_Orthodox_Church,_Manappally So please let me know your thoughts. cheers. (Pinging the nom : User:Shadowowl)-- DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, hoping you will comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn State–Temple football rivalry, either broadly or more narrowly on how the supporting information can be better presented in the future.
I am very surprised the AfD was not closed as keep/no consensus. An ongoing problem with college and NFL football rivalry AfDs is editors subjectively evaluate what they believe to be true, rather than locating (or failing to locate) sufficient RS citations often from 100+ years of history to then determine their opinion per GNG (the teams don't play enough, the series isn't competitive, they aren't in the currently in same conference, etc). The word "rivalry" can often poison the AfD away from GNG. In this case, GNG was not referenced by the nom (ongoing learning curve), editors often don't know how or where to source historical content then agreed it doesn't exist/recentism, and then 7 and later 8 citations (of varying quality) were located. Understood the "not a vote" issues, but the sentiment swung 6-3 Keep after these citations were produced, including 2 who flipped to Keep after the citations were produced and evaluated. Cheers, UW Dawgs ( talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty,
A questions about this:
For the people who can't see deleted content, the relevant text of the request copied from the deleted page:
If so, I think this should be discussed at
Talk:Crakow (shoe) first.
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk)
09:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is to bring your attention to a recently submitted draft for review. The title had been SALTed before. Seems un-conflicting now. Please refer to an archive on your talk page. 122.169.81.131 ( talk) 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I seriously doubt a G11 will succeed. Nor an A7. An AfD might work, but it's a long shot. The problem is with the editor.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
To RandyKitty (the most frequent editor for the journal entries) and in reference to the phrasing on the ESCI Wiki page: When predatory journals are removed from the ESCI list, when should the phrase "it contains many predatory journals" which is present tense become past tense "it had contained predatory journals in the past" Qtian~enwiki ( talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty - I don't like commenting on closed AfD discussions but felt we left things hanging. When I tongue in cheek said it's more that I don't hate it than I like it,[ [1]] I was referring to me not hating it, not you. Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Randykitty. The Journal of Fungi which was deleted before is now accepted for inclusion in Scopus. If this is acceptable that we edit it on WiKi using indexing info: https://suggestor.step.scopus.com/progressTracker/index.cfm?trackingID=C905FE77C19C41CF. Previous discusssion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Fungi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 ( talk • contribs)
Thank you Randy. Will wait for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxiong10 ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example is article_text
which is now page_title
.page_age
.{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Randykitty (
talk)
10:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Larry Warren (Rendlesham). Since you had some involvement with the Larry Warren (Rendlesham) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
If you can, please review Talk: Monarchy of Australia, which requires an appropriate response. Please assume I want the least possible involvement in this. I was asked on my talk page to be involved and before I even had a chance to comment, I could see matters of procedural concern. Given that, I immediately see it's not longer my problem. I look with terrible dismay at what other people have done, said, appealed for help and tried to resolve in the past for over a decade. This is Wikipedia's issue, so I shall leave the matter up to people who are tasked with the responsibility of administering the system. Travelmite ( talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
The Original Barnstar | |
Always unfortunate to see a top medical editor, no longer around. Hope to see you back someday. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC) |
Sorry to bring bad news upon your return, but since you're asking to be re-sysoped after a period of inactivity, I'm warning you that you should probably change your password or use 2FA if possible, since there have been many incidents of compromised accounts lately, three of them being admin accounts. Semi Hypercube ✎ 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Are Fooian literary magazines supposed to categorize literary magazines about the literature of Foo, or literary magazines published in country Foo? Because I note that Category:British literary magazines is a sub-sub-category of Category:British magazines, on which I read "This category is for magazines published in the United Kingdom". But you just added The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats (an academic journal, not really the same thing as a magazine, about British literature) to Category:British literary magazines, even though it was founded in and appears to be published in the US. So something needs to be corrected: either the category hierarchy or your categorization of this article. Which one? — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
In regards to your close - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Supply shooting - the raw !vote count is 3 Delete, 5 Keep (including one Delete !voter who changed his mind). WP:RAPID is a notability guideline and contradicts the rationale in the close. National level coverage (e.g. [2]) is continuing as of the close date of the AfD, I respectfully request you reconsider whether Delete is appropriate vs. no consensus or Keep. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I just opened debates on their talk pages. We should build consensus around these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificrigor12 ( talk • contribs)
You closed the discussion but didn't implement the outcome. Thanks for wading into this mess again. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed after the AfD for this article closed, you deleted the talk page, but the main artice is still up. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed the article you closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yone Minagawa (2nd nomination), was not deleted. Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be able to help out in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a little because there are several reports waiting, and some of the reported vandals are still at it. CLCStudent ( talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Randykitty ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm nearing the end of my 3-month self-imposed wikibreak. Although I may not return to editing right away, it is time to get unblocked.
Accept reason:
Done - welcome back! Kuru (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)I thought both pages were undergoing a series of improvements and added citations interrupted by the US holiday of Thanksgiving which many of us took part in with long and extended trips to family gatherings. I hope that you will revisit your deletions which I do not think recognize the progress being made and the consensus that was being built, and thus were very premature. Thanks for considering this request. Chip.berlet ( talk) 03:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Randykitty,
I noticed that you deleted Shiva Texyarn Limited even after I've contested and requested not to delete it. Also, nobody has replied to me. Shiva Texyarn is India's largest textile manufacturing company and also is listed on Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. The company has been covered by several mainstream media and India's leading news agencies including The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, India Infoline etc. I would request you to reconsider this and recheck the article. Thanks so much! Best Regards -- 2405:204:229C:A0F7:8548:EBBC:76F9:909E ( talk) 19:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randy, awaiting your response. Your quick reply will be appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:229F:3E5D:0:0:1087:68B0 ( talk) 19:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I will work on it and will follow the article for creation. Process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:388:3525:2FB8:7304:6524:C46 ( talk) 05:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:FVB (mouse strain), a page you moved from FVB Mice. The proposal is to move it to FVB Mouse. Your input is appreciated. Thank you! -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 02:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for closing the AfD discussion for Abneet Bharti. I was just wondering though, would it be okay to WP:SALT the article? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the article is created again and I don't think it should until he at least makes a professional football appearance in a game. Cheers. -- ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty,
Thank you very much for cleaning up the Critical Perspectives on Accounting page that I have been working on. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I appreciate your efforts to help keep the page consistent with the appropriate style.
Two questions for you, in hopes of improving my contributions in the future:
1. I had provided direct links to the faculty profiles of any editors who did not have Wikipedia pages. This was just so readers could find out more about these editors until I can get around to creating appropriate bio pages for them. I infer from your removal of these links that Wikipedia articles should only link to sources that support the actual article content. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, would it be appropriate to put links to these pages in the "External links" section of the article, or is it best just to leave those editors' names without any supporting links?
2. I notice that this page is classified as a "Stub." The page has now been improved quite a bit, I think. At what point should it considered for upgrading beyond Stub status, and how would I go about initiating this?
Thanks for your guidance, BoneClock ( talk) 18:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I don't feel like you closed this properly. For starters, AfD is not a vote and most of the actual arguments were for keep while the only arguments made for merging were based on people with misconceptions on the subject or voting per another person's flawed argument (see Gpc62's comments; as well as WP:PERNOMINATOR). All that aside, the consensus wouldn't have been "merge" based on just numbers alone either: there were 3 keep votes, and one "merge" voter voted "per BabbaQ", who had actually voted keep, making it 4 keeps versus 4 merges (or 4 v. 3 if their vote would be struck out on technicality). Even if you go with the plain vote numbers of 3 keep versus 5 merge, or the strength of the arguments alone, this is more a case of "no consensus" rather than clear consensus towards either direction (again, AfD debates are meant to be decided on the strength of the arguments presented). Opencooper ( talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I have read the article on requests for deletion. I'm wondering why the page Meprolight was deleted under the reason of G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion? Can you state what parts were unambiguous? -- Cadlaxer23 ( talk) 00:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Nemanja Jevrić, Randykitty.
Unfortunately Insertcleverphrasehere has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
If you were not aware of the recent change, PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per recent consensus here Cheers,
To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 00:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Seriously?! After two weeks, one vote to delete (based on what looks like a conscious misreading of the guidelines), & one relisting already? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please be specific about the language you are objecting or make the edit, so we can move forward. I am writing and editing under authorization as a Board Member of American Diplomacy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance and clarification. It is in everyone's interest that the article exists with independent and encyclopedia-based content that maintains accuracy. This verifiable accuracy was the initial concern for my edit. Your latest edits are consistent with this, and so I believe we can agree on your edits as the basis for the proposal for deletion to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that the aforementioned AfDs have been prematurely closed and there clearly is no consensus in either case after 7 days, so the natural tendency would to be to relist them, as in both cases, there was only one other editor other than myself (the nominator) who participated. Thank you. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty, I just want to ask about the appropriate way to handle professional designations in bio pages. On the Marcia Annisette page, when you did a nice tidying-up job (thank you!), you deleted the short section on professional designations. One of the designations was "Fellow, ACCA", which is fairly prestigious in the field of accounting; the other was the more standard "CPA" designation. I'm not sure whether the deletion you did was because the information wasn't properly sourced, or because it is not appropriate to list this level of detail in a bio page. I would like to learn any relevant Wikipedia norms, for the sake of any future bio pages I produce. Any guidance to share? Cheers, BoneClock ( talk) 17:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you please let me know more specifically what material was copyrighted in the additions to the Journal of Social Philosophy page that I made. I am the Editor of the Journal (Carol Gould) and the entry you have for the journal is incorrect. My additions and changes corrected those, including my own affiliation. I also added a long paragraph about the aims and scope of the journal, which I drafted carefully, and which will be helpful to wikipedia readers. I also included some sample titles of our special issues.
If the problem concerned the updated impact factor I added and the rankings (which are entirely correct, as you can see on our Wiley page), could I just leave those as they were and add the other material? Nothing else that I added could be considered copyrighted as far as I can tell.
Thanks for your further help.
-- Diotimadancing ( talk) 15:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Randykitty, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |