User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Studies in Intelligence

I have been meaning to have a look at this myself, in order to help to determine what it is. Unfortunately, I have been busy with another matter. Apologies. Hopefully, I can take a look sometime today. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Volume 30 Number 1

Take a look at this [1], and this [2]. It is correct that this is one journal, with 2 formernames. See here: [3] --> here: [4], and here: Continues: Moon and the planets 0165-0807 (DLC) 80645018 (OCoLC)3981286. I am guessing I might find a separate listing for each former journal at the Library of Congress, but I haven't tried that yet. Chemical Abstracts Service-CASSI seems to be sufficient for the moment. I may have to add these as references in the article, because I wrote about this in the introduction section of the article. This is certainly interesting. I was wondering if you think a separate section for this information would be best? Also I have to fix the link for the reference CAS-CASSI (I wonder if this is what caused the confusion?) ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I think it would be best to put this in a "History" section. See for instance Journal of the National Cancer Institute and Fungal Biology (journal). The link was not a cause for confusion (there wasn't much confusion, I guess), I just thought it strange to say that a journal started with vol. 30. When journals change names, they get a new OCLC, probably also another LCCN, and often (always?) a new ISSN. Sometimes they even re-start numbering volumes. But if one journal is a clear successor to another, I prefer to treat them in one article. Journal articles are often brief enough as it is and putting this information together makes for more substantial articles (that often are also more interesting to read). The old names should be created as redirects, of course. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

CAB Direct (database)

I have deleted this, per your G6 request, but I couldn't find the actual article you meant to move there. Anyway, the way is clear now. I also deleted CAB Direct database which was left as a redirect to nothing - maybe I should have left that, if you are going to put something back as its target; but you can re-create it if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent review

I restored the article, but if you object tell me; and I'll userfy it. But I'd rather keep it out in the open until Peer review is fixed up, and the info in Independent review is merged into it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Carcinogenesis

I'm still actively working on this -- to avoid edit conflict, could you work on something else for a while, please? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, note while Carcinogenesis falls within the "oncology" category of SCI, it actually publishes entirely in vitro/preclinical cancer research rather than oncology, and is not a medical journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I only noticed you'd been editing it after I'd spent around 40 minutes perusing the online journal pdfs making periodic edits to an open edit window, but luckily the software sorted out the edit conflict cleanly for us! When I leave an edit summary of "intend further work" I usually mean I plan to work on it immediately (I tend to save whenever I have to leave my computer as we have frequent power cuts here).
As to the editorial office, it was in Oxford when it was with IRL and the journal still says it's published from Oxford; however looking more carefully there are no address details in recent instructions to authors, and putting the editorial assistant's name into Google, she's apparently a contractor for a UK company who works online! I've removed the country from the info box and reworded the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Journal of Infection, if you've checked the IF against the official report, could you add a direct reference, please? I can't access the reports. (I don't think we should use that wording where we're dependent on taking the publisher's word for the IF.) Espresso Addict (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • It's difficult to add a direct reference, because JCR is a subscription-only database (so a direct link to their entry for a certain journal will work for me, and then only within a particular session, but not for anybody else). All that could be added as a "reference" is "Journal Citation Reports, 2010" (2010, because IFs are always published in the next year). I usually am too lazy to do that as it does not seem to add much to "According to the JCR, its 2009 IF is"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(In-)appropriate edit to journal page?

Hello, Guillaume2303. I write due to your interest in WP pages on academic journals.
There has been an edit to Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment; the editor added a comment that appeared in an editorial about an article that appeared in the journal.[5][6] I am not aware of pages about journals including specific articles that appear in them. (Moreover, editorials are, of course, not RS's.) Because I am the editor of the journal, I prefer not to edit the page myself. If you get a chance, would you review that page and do (or not do) whatever you think appropriate? Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see DGG has already taken care of this. I've watchlisted the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And thank you also for your other additions to that page.— James Cantor (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research

I am creating an article for this journal. You might be familiar with it in your line of work. In any case, the homepage on Wiley Blackwell is here [7]. According to Worldcat [8] and Library of Congres the journal was established in 1994, and also has a German name [9] , [10]. However a quick search on Google revealed this -- [11]. It appears that the journal switched publishers in 1994, but the journal may actually go all the way back to 1963, according to this last external link at the National Library of Australia. What do you think? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the journal lists five editors on the Wiley Blackwell home page, but only one Editor in Chief. So I am intending to mention only the Editor in Chief in the infobox and prose portion of this article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Library of Congress listing for the German name version established in 1963, [12] which was in existence until 1994. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakuntala Singh

I saw the following tag on the article 'Shakuntala Singh' in Wikipedia above attributed to you:

'This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It resembles a fan site. Tagged since August 2010. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since August 2010. It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since August 2010. It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2010. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2010. It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since August 2010.'

While I appreciate your interest in improving the article, may I clarify:

1. I have tried to make the article as neutral and brief as possible.

2. All matter put in is suitably attributed by proper references which can be checked through links put up [rather painstakingly]. If any links not needed, or to be added, kindly guide. If all links read, it would give a clear idea what the subject of the article has done to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Kindly find time to run through them.

3. Articles published before 2000 in different journals are not archived on the respective journal websites. Have therefore taken them as referenced on the subjects [Shakuntala Singh] website.

4. Have tried to copyedit to the best of my ability. If any further needed, you may kindly help.

5. Wikified as much as I could, but you could kindly help further.

6. This was an article which was tagged as an orphan and as one having few references. I have sat down for hours/days to remedy it. Thought it would be welcomed. Rather surprised to find these tags. Request you consider removing them after carefully rereading the article. Else you may use your editorial discretion and remove/rearrange what you find contentious. Really don't know what further can I do.

7. I am no fan, but reading the achievements of a woman, and that too from a developing country, I would not hesitate to applaud her efforts.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously, the tags are a comment on the article, not it's subject. The article is badly written and contains unencyclopedic and unnecessary content. Just one example is the mention that "She is also on the Scientists Panel at Index Copernicus". This is a database where one can enter oneself, with as far as I know no curating at all. This is absolutely trivial. There is much more like this in the article. In short, the whole article seems to be written to tell us what a wonderful person this is ("fansite") instead of informing us matter of factly what is important and interesting to know about this person. The references are a mess, etc, etc. I have no time to work on this (it would take many hours to clean this up), so the next best thing is putting those tags and hoping someone will come along who can remedy these problems. Perhaps you? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


  • Since I wrote the revision, I take responsibility for it being badly written etc. Now for some clarifications and guidance, if you can spare some time:

1. I included Index Copernicus Scientists panel because it gives a whole list [and links] to papers published in her name. That, I thought, was not trivial at all for anyone wanting to know the person in more detail. You could consider revising your opinion there.

2. Could you please guide what referencing system you recommend [with an example] so it could be suitable modified? I purposely used what I did so it redirects to links where the reader could know further about the person, and also verify the sources for himself. My understanding is a biography in Wikipedia is not supposed to be a scholarly article, but rather a reader friendly overwiew of a person who has made some significant contribution, which can be further browsed with links to suitable external sources. Correct me if I am wrong. But can modify referencing to a certain style, if you so suggest.

3. I am sure I would not want to be associated with a 'fan-site' type writeup, so will try and clean up any unnecessary adulatory sentences. There is only one sentence which appears such to me: ' These influences have helped forge the qualities she is known for - integrity in administation, special care towards her students, collaboration in research, and dedication to the welfare of the institution she heads.' But, according to me, this sums her up as a person because of the influences upon her by people of that type she has been associated with, and her own abilities to adhere to such qualities. One sentence in a biography which sums up a person humanises him/her, and should add to the joy of reading about him/her. Hope you agree. But kindly guide with an example what you consider fan-site type writeup, so I could remedy it.

4. Can try and remedy this writeup, but need that little guidance. Kindly do find the time for it. Thanks for your prompt response. And your continued interest.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  • You should start with having a look at some of the links that are in the "welcome" template that I put on your user talk page. Especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV are relevant. You should also have a look at WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO. Finally, take a look at some other biographies of scientists on WP, such as Albert Einstein and Francis Crick as examples of very famous people, or Dorret Boomsma, John L. Jinks, or Seymour Benzer as examples of somewhat less famous scientists (the latter three articles are not perfect, but have no obvious faults). Writing an encyclopedic biography is not easy and Wikipedia has some stringent rules and guidelines for it. Familiarizing yourself with those will save you a lot of time. Hope this helps. As I said before, I don't have time to work on this directly myself, but feel free to pose any questions here. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the guidance. Will study it and get back in case of difficulty. I agree writing a biography needs to tread a fine balance. May just get me going with some other biographies which merit inclusion. Let me do justice to this one first. Will keep you posted when it's done.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Look at the writeup now. You may decide to remove tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophypsychiatry (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, It's getting better, you're learning WP! :-) There are still some issues. The English is here and there non-standard. I realize that Indian English has some uses that are different and that is generally not a problem, but sometimes it makes it difficult to understand for non-native speakers (like me), what is being meant. One example is "She is also a recognised Ph.D. Guide", but there are a few more. Perhaps you can go through it again and try to clarify such statements. Another point is that you still use words like "renowned" (not necessarily for her). It is more encyclopedic to leave out such "peacock" words. Also, statements have to be sourced. You write that she had philosophical discussions with some people: is this important for the reader to know? How do you know? Personal knowledge like "I saw it" or "she told me" are not allowed on WP, you need secondary independent sources for that. Also, praise like the last sentence of "Influences" is very unusual in WP bios. Generally, showing people's accomplishments will speak for itself, but if you really want to include such a statement, you'll have (again...) to produce a reliable independent source for it. The section on her publications can still be improved, too. In general it is better not to describe the publications, but to describe the research that a person has done and then use their publications as a reference for that. You can then at the end include a section in which you list the 3-5 most important articles. To help you format references, you can perhaps use these handy tools: http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/ and http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php. Hope this helps! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Acta Biomaterialia

  • First, Sorry about "(see coden)". It is an old edit, and I removed it. I meant see CASSI biliographic page (I need to supply the reference for this).
Second, regarding the medical journal category: biomaterials have applications in the medical profession, and Acta Biomaterialia concerns biomaterials. In addition bioceramics are part of the biomaterials sciences.
For example, here is a reference and part of quote: "Ceramics used for the repair and reconstruction of diseased or damaged parts of the musculo-skeletal system, termed bioceramics, may be bioinert (alumina, zirconia), resorbable (tricalcium phosphate), bioactive (hydroxyapatite, bioactive glasses, and glass-ceramics), or porous for tissue ingrowth (hydroxyapatite-coated metals, alumina). Applications include replacements for hips, knees, teeth, tendons, and ligaments and repair for periodontal disease, maxillofacial reconstruction, augmentation and stabilization of the jaw bone, spinal fusion, and bone fillers after tumor surgery. Carbon coatings are thromboresistant and are used for prosthetic heart valves."--- Hench, Larry L. (1991). "Bioceramics: From Concept to Clinic". Journal of the American Ceramic Society. 74: 1487. doi:10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb07132.x.
I am still looking into biomaterials. Here is a google book link, so you can briefly look at this subject, and perhaps see what I mean: [13]. Here is another one [14]. There is also an article on Wikipedia, but for now I prefer the books. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve, no problem about the coden :-) Re the medialc journal thing: is this something general to all biomaterials journals? In that case, it is better to add the med journal cat to the biomaterials journals cat and not to the individual articles. (Ideally, the med journals/sci journals/acad journals cats should not contain any articles at all, just subcats, but we're far removed from that...) Note however that even if something may have a medical application, we don't necessarily class it as a medical journal. All Neuroscience journals publish articles on Alzheimer and such, but because they are not clinically oriented, we don't categorize them as medical journals (of course, neurological journals is a different matter). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The original problem is that there is no (Category:Biomaterials journals). In any case, (Category:Biotechnology journals) will cover this, and I can always start a new category if there are enough Biomaterials journals. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, I thought there was, but I was a bit groggy (couldn't sleep...) and didn't check. As you say, it'll be easy to create if needed. In similar cases, I do use the top categories (academic, scientific, medical, humanities), figuring that sooner or later someone will get to emptying them and recategorizing nto appropriate cats. There is a Category:Materials science journals, though. Would it perhaps be appropriate to categorize that one as "medical"? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Emptying the top categories sounds like a good future project (for me), as much as I am able. Categorizing materials science journals under medical journals does seem appropriate these days. I mean with the advances in ceramics that I just pointed out above, and the advances in biotechnology and biomaterials, personally I don't see a problem, and it is good thinking on your part. Yes, this is a good idea. Feel free to do the honors. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm happy to see that you are back! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I just can't quit... I'm spending too much time here and try to reduce, but I'm the either/or type of guy... My strategy is now to concentrate on one task and let the rest be, but that isn't so simple either... :-) Haven't heard about the SFN initiative for a while, is it still alive? Will something be organized in San Diego? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything in San Diego about WP, although I'll be there. There are a few good new editors in neuroscience, although not as many as I would have hoped for. In another area that I think might interest you, WP:ATHLETE has been replaced by something with higher standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That's good news, the soft criteria that they had there have been a thorn in my side for a long time. They are still easy, compared to WP:PROF, for example (we don't deem someone notable if he has "had at least one publication in a peer-reviewed journal" :-). But it's an improvement. I'm baffled, though, that they could get such a complicated many-faceted guideline accepted, while we (=us science types) couldn't agree on WP:Notability (academic journals)... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I helped get it through, and the complexity was actually what made enough sports fans go along with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, kudos! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Journal categories

I now understand why I should not insert Category:Science journal in the entries for the Journal of Health and Social Behavior and the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. The category is too broad. Incidentally, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior is also a social science journal.

But I know the journal Organizational Research Methods well enough. I have published there. It really should be listed under Category:Scientific research methods journals. It is much more than a business and management journal although I would not object to leaving that category in place. Let me know what you think.Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I actually agree and don't really know what happened there... Should go to bed, have done way too much categorizing today... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are doing a cleanup of journal categories. Be careful not to be too narrow. Optics, for example, is both a scientific discipline (a subfield of physics) and an engineering discipline. Its journals are properly categorized both as physics journals and as engineering journals.--Srleffler (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing that out. I'm indeed cleaning up all those cats, creating new ones where necessary, etc. Science being as vast as it is, and I myself being limited as I am :-), I'm bound to make mistakes here, so help is appreciated. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

CS papers + bibliographies of CS

I see that you're trying to clean up Category:Computer science papers, etc. However, I think it's legitimate to have bibliographies in that category; there's no equivalent level in bibliographies, and this helps find things. I know that you must disagree because of this; could you please explain? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to explain. "Computer science papers" is for articles about certain papers. A bibliographic database is quite another thing. A computer science journal is filled with CS papers, too, and still we don't put journals in the CS papers category. Perhaps you should create a "computer science bibliographic databases" category? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a process to go through to create a category and sort it properly? Or do you just create it? Two new ones are needed:
Each of these should be have a see also (IMO) to several related and to what's listed at Category:Computer_science_journals#See also (the 'see also' should probably be managed in one place and shown on the 5-6 relevant categories). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you can just create them. To stay in line with existing titles (and WP:MOS), I suggest "Computer science bibliographic databases" and "Computer science bibliographies" (note only a cap at the start of the title). Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Move

Undoing a move is no more complicated than doing it in the first place, so I must say I am confused as to the requirement that I do it myself. What happened to being bold?

However, I must note I do not feel strongly compelled by a style guideline that is clearly not very well followed: its own example is at a title without "the"! Plus it took me all of a few minutes to find several more examples (J. Gerontol., J. Exper. Med., J. Clin. Invest., Ann. Pharmacother.). Feel free to revert the move, but I don't feel sorry in thinking it was not inappropriate. Circéus (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can move a page over a redirect as long as that redirect has no history (in which case you do need a n sdmin to delete the offending page.) Circéus (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional Political Economy edits

Hello, Dr. C.

I feel honored by your Edits of Constitutional Political Economy with which I mostly agree (esp. liked italics in title). Also appreciated your careful thumbnail Edit summaries. May I respond to some points & ask questions (to which you could interpolate italicized comments if you like).

1. The Edit that removed Category:Political science is contrary to the "Description" link Constitutional Political Economy#External links at http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/political+science/journal/10602. So, why was it removed? (Easy enough to fix of course.)
2. Given your remarkable range of Edits for journals, what would you think of inserting a quotation of the Description link to look something like this:
The Editors describe CPE as follows:
[It] offers a forum for research in the broad area of constitutional analysis, which lies at the intersection of several approaches in modern economics, sharing a common interest in the systematic integration of the institutional dimension - the study of political, legal and moral institutions - into economic analysis. Grounded in economics, [it] is explicitly interdisciplinary. It encourages exchange and dialogue extending across a range of social sciences, including law, philosophy, political science and sociology. The journal publishes theoretical and empirical research, as well as contributions to constitutional policy issues.[fn. link].
3. An Edit with the comment "??" removed "(press +)" after the Constitutional Political Economy#Innaugural article pp. 60-67 link for the linked article. The intent of "(press +)" was to nudge others with poor vision (like mine) to not give up but to enlarge by clicking on the + button at 60-67. On reflection, your removing it may have been warranted at least because it wrapped to the next line (not a pretty dangler). Would you object to reinsertion of say "(+)" if it avoided the wrap problem?

Thank you for your consideration. I'll look for your comments, if any, here. If you have a jillion other things to do first, that's fine too. Similarly, if you'd like to Edit CPE first. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, some ansers:

  • ad 1/ It's not necessary to categorize the journal in every possible category. It was not pu into the Category:Philosophy journals, for instance, although the link you give does mention that area. I just thought that "Political science journals" was a bit too much, feel free to put it back if I was mistaken.
  • ad 2/ That statement would be way too subjective and promotional. Just a succinct description of what they publish (instead of what may be their intentions) should suffice.
  • ad 3/ Well, the "??" indicated that I had no clue what this meant and I expect it will be the same for others. I actually thought that this had been inadvertently copied from the journal's website. I would think that people with poor vision know how to handle this (and probably already have a larger type as their default). In any case, it's not clear and it is the first time I've seen it on WP.
  • On the article talk page is a link to a guide for writing journal articles. Have a look at that, it may give you ideas on how to expand the article. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I rushed my most recent CPE Edit a bit on discovering outright errors.
A little follow-up.
  • On ad 1/ Agreed on the possibility of overdoing it.
  • On ad 2/ Point nicely made. I'll try to bear that in mind.
  • On ad 3/ There was all-too-much reason for your puzzlement. Whatever the general merits of trying to make links more accessible to more readers with bounded rationality by cutting down information costs, frustration, and time (more direct than negotiating menus to Zoom if that possibility occurs to the reader), there is no '+ button for the link in question. End of discussion. Sorry about that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

journal

Hi, the article on Confluence could use some work, but I don't think notability is an issue. It's registered in the LOC as noted, and also there's been an internal link here at WP for some time [15]. But I could always use some help on how best to expand it, because I hate to see another stub out there...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • WP links really have zero impact on notability... WHat is LOC (just woke up, so perhaps I'm still a bit slow)... I don't see how this meets WP:GNG (or even the much more lenient essay WP:Notability (academic journals)). Have a look also at the guide to writing journal articles (linked in the banner on the article's talk page) to get an idea of what is needed here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • PS: if with LOC you mean the Library of Congress, that is rather trivial: the Library catalogs everything and tries to be as inclusive as possible, so this does not mean anything for notability, either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I left a comment on the talk page regarding the peer review question. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The tag asks help to expand. I added Master of Arts in Liberal Studies. Confluence has been there as a link for awhile. So I thought it would follow MALS could be a link on the Confluence page. It was deleted. Not sure why...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The MALS link was probably removed by mistake. Sorry about that. The article needed to be rewritten to agree with available sources. Please go ahead and restore the link, it is related to this article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see what happened. It was part of the text that was rewritten. I placed the MALS link in the "See also" section, because I don't think it belongs in the text. What is your opinion? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree about the MALS link. Also, I agree that the journal probably is not notable. In any case, if it stays it should be moved to either "Confluence (journal)" or "Confluence (magazine)". There's a similar case (and a similar discussion) at Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nanotoxicology (journal)

I added reference (source) for the Editor in Chief. Please see reference.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

cambridge

I am going to try to have a serious discussion with that editor; I had not noticed him before. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

World Cat

Dear Guillaume2303,I hope it is OK to bother you and ask this. When looking for things for this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Lewens‎ - I tried the World Cat thing for his book Organisms and artifacts and at work a (Uni account) I get a US holding of 724 whilst at home I only get 643 - would you have any idea what was going on and have you confirmed either figure? Also are the references being behind barriers a problem? Anyway best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

  • Of course you can post here, that's what talk pages are for! I, too, have similar experiences with WorldCat. I think it has to do with your IP. WorldCat seems to detect your IP and then searches the nearest libraries. So using different computers may give different results. However, I got similar results as (I think) your second search. Whatever is correct, that's a huge amount either way. What worries me more is that I recently searched for a journal, got a number of hits, but when I then clicked on one of the library links, that library's catalog did not contain the journal in question at all... Seems like WorldCat is not infallible. That the references are behind a pay barrier is inconvenient, because then it is difficult to check them (haven't tried yet whether I have access from the lab here), but it does not preclude them from being cited. After all, paper sources that are not online are acceptable sources, too. And in the present case, their titles were clear enough to show what they were about. Best wishes, --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Journal

Hi, now that Journal points to a disambiguation page, could you help fix the links that need to be pointed to an article instead of the disambig? Since your change, Journal (disambiguation) is now the single most-linked disambiguation page, which has to be fixed manually. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, we request help with the cleanup. One very useful tool is navigation popups (with the popupFixDabs flag set to true). Cheers! --JaGatalk 23:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Confluence : the journal of graduate liberal studies. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Confluence : the journal of graduate liberal studies.. Since you had some involvement with the Confluence : the journal of graduate liberal studies. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Muhandes (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Larkin 25. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article.
Might I remind both of you of WP:NPA - This includes not describing other editors efforts as "vandalism".Andy Dingley (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Guillaume2303. My second was aimed primarily at LarkinToad2010 as I was very aware the accusations he made against DGG. I am unaware of similar behavior on your part so no, the second was not aimed at you. But, that said, Andy's advice is sound if it applies.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Although many editors don't agree with my approach to incivility, I find it works for me and recommend it to others. Always take the high-ground and be civil with everyone regardless of how they are behaving. My father would always tell me: "I don't care what you say about me, just be sure and spell my name right." My experiences on WP have shown me that you'll never run afoul of anyone if you are always civil in discourse, dispite the mud being thrown your way. As frustrating as it might be to be improperly accused of some misbehavoir or genetic flaw in intelligence, it is far better to ignore it, pursue the meat of the discussion in a civil manner and in the simplest terms, Set a good example. When you do that, others will eventually come to your defense and that's what you want to happen. You'll never need to ask for it, as your perennial behavior will be of a style that most of us want every editor and admin to aspire to. Happy editing.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Amen to that. And it's what I try to do (after all, I edit under my own name and don't want to get a reputation as some querulous guy). But some people just wear your patience down completely and in this case, I faltered once (in that edit summary saying "vandalism") and got hammered on my head by Andy... Oh well, on to other endeavors... Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad2010

Hi Guillaume2303! Whilst following up on some other matters I noted your problems with LarkinToad2010 and the resulting discussion on Andrew Dingley's Talkpage. Along with other editors I have had occasion to try and help this editor (who has been on Wiki longer than his 'current' username indicates), including editing and advice on the Larkin 25 article. Accordingly I have supplied Andrew with some information about this editor, at the end of the discussion on his talkpage, that you may be unaware of. Personally I feel a few weeks 'enforced vacation' on this 'Disruptive' editor is overdue, if only to warn him his continued incivility to other editors is not going to be tolerated. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the "enforced vacation" for a few weeks. I knew that he was an experienced editor. I saw the Sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010 yesterday sometime. There is also some kind of history of disruptive editing just under this username. I also thought of their violation of the 3RR rule, but I noticed the editors who are willing to take action are not yet organized. I was waiting of DGG to return to the article, and begin calling them on the 3RR rule, and WP:OWN among other things. Apparently there are now at least three of us, and DGG may get onboard with us. This user also referred to me as a vandal. I later removed some of the sections referring to DGG and I in this manner as off topic and WP:NPA. I still didn't get them all. This user is calling other editors vandals throughout the thread, among other uncalled for comments. In conclusion - are the three of us willing to go to ANI to deal with thiis matter? I know I am. There is no need to make excuses for this person's disruptive behavior.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, I don't have much patience with people who start yelling "vandal" or "troll" at me and I have gone out of my way to try to talk some sense into this person for long enough now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A previous 'Ban request' made direct to an experienced and uninvolved admin Tide Rolls from another admin Keith D was not of much use, see:- Requesting a ban and the subsequent message posted on LarkinToads talkpage by 'TideRolls was removed, unanswered, from the talkpage a few days later by 'LarkinToad2010' Here. That gave me the impression he has no interest in what other editors concerns are. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think I'm missing something: that ban request was for an IP (not on the list of LarkinToad's socks) and as far as I can see unrelated to TideRolls message on LT's talk. That LT has no desire for constructive dialog is abundantly evident, of course. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes - go back to 11th August or so and a different section head. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops sorry my error that link should have been:- #Uninvolved admin. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences

Hello Guillaume2303,

I noticed that you recently tagged the Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences article with {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}. Are there more specific recommendations that you can make on changes that will, in your opinion, improve the quality of the article?

« D. Trebbien (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, normally I would address this kind of problems myself (if it is something I am able to do, which is the case here), but I am too busy with real life work and with re-categorizing all articles in the top journal categories (Academic journals, Medical journals, etc) and disambiguating all links to journal... I noticed that the article you mentioned does not comply with WP:MOS (already in the lead by wikilinking part of the bolded journal name, but there is more: all the bolded subsections don't seem to comply with MOS, either). An infobox would be nice, too. And since this is continued seamlessly by Doklady Akademii Nauk, I wonder whether this should not be renamed to that title with the other title mentioned as a former name for the same journal. Hope this helps! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Silly question, but...

I presume you want User talk:Guillaume2303/Autobio deleted as well? (I've already deleted User:Guillaume2303/Autobio). TFOWR 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, yes, please, I completely forgot about that. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Censeur

Dear Guillaume2303,

I am not sure of your recent recatergorisation of Le Censeur to french magazine. Is that where people would look for it and is the French Journal category only for academic journals? It just looks to me a bit anachronistic with the other magazines in the french magazine category. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

  • Given its age, it would probably look anachronistic everywhere... :-) I think that by now, the journals by language and journals by frequency categories are the only ones that have not yet been renamed to "academic journals". The article on journal, which was kind of a disambiguation page already, has been made an explicit dab now. So, yes, we use "journal" only in the sense of academic journals, everything else is magazine/newspaper, etc. I think there are many examples of old periodicals like Le Censeur (in many languages), that are categorized as "magazine", alongside computer magazines and other modern stuff. The nature of a category by language is that many different things will be thrown together, just because they happen to be published in the same language. So I don't see this as much of a problem. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume2303, Hi - again. I have had a look at the journal itself now and it looks very very very like an academic journal (albeit an old one). I think it might be better off with academic journals than with L'Officiel, Purple (magazine) and Vogue (magazine). Have you had a look at it - it is far more like an academic journal than all those political magazines -pamphlets etc ? I think this link might work for a volume of Le Censeur http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RQAGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Le%20Censeur%22&source=gbs_book_other_versions#v=onepage&q&f=false

And for Le Censeur européen http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c4c3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Le+Censeur+europ%C3%A9en&hl=en&ei=--WLTPj5MIrLOI2R2a8K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Le%20Censeur%20europ%C3%A9en&f=false

I think Auguste Comte published his first work in it! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

  • Well, such old works are difficult to class. The issue you link to above has a "letter to the king" and essays on the nobility, slavery, and the life of Wenworth, Count of Strafford. It doesn't really look academical to me, but like I said, with these old publications the distinction is not always clear. I have just added the category "French political magazines", as this seems most appropriate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User Welcome

I noticed you have placed a Welcome message on 86.163.229.253. Please note the users specific edits! I have just tagged him as a suspect sockpuppet of LarkinToad2010 along with another suspect sockpuppet 86.164.157.197 and 86.166.65.234 that I believe he has just used to revert changes to his Philip Larkin and Larkin 25 based edits on Kingston upon Hull and University of Hull articles. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the contributions of those IPs, and it appears you are probably correct. So what is the next step?
  • I'm not sure anything can (or should) be done about this. Many editors forget from time to time to log in and then edit as an IP. This is not regarded as sockpuppetry. Only if the IPs would be used as seemingly independent editors supporting, for instance, LarkinToad2010 in deletion or merge discussions or to avoid 3RR violations, would this be considered sockpuppetry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought of the same thing - about forgetting to log in. So, yes, that may be the case. However, it may be to avoid 3RR violations. At the same time, there has to be really good reasons to pursue this. In any case, the way this person edits with their Username we may not have to be concerned with sockpuppetry to take action in the future (if necessary). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I was just reading through LarkinToad2010's talk page. There was more stuff that could have been mentioned at the ANI. However, what we provided turns out to be sufficient. I notice that you, DGG, Cameron Scott, and probably others, have been experiencing this person's uncivil behavior, and problematic editing, for quite awhile. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, perhaps we've been too patient. But I don't like going through ANI and such. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability?

You put me in the "notable wikipedians" category. I don't mind being notable, but how did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm going to delete it unless you can provide a reasonable explanation. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • No, I didn't, I took you out of that category... I assumed that it was part of the links on your page and inserted a colon, which displays it but doesn't categorize you. I found it by looking in the category Notable Wikipedians, which should contain articles, not userpages. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but what does it mean? Is there an entry for me somewhere that I don't know about? Or, did it get inserted because I was awarded barnstars, or for some other reason? What's the point of having it there (with the colon and without)? Thanks, and sorry to bother you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That I frankly don't know. You'd have to go through your edit history to find out how it got there, or use wikiblame (I think that's its name). It was on your page in the exact same position as it is now, so it added you to this category. The category is not for editors who have gotten barnstars or something like that, but who meet WP:GNG(or one of its subguides) and have an article on them. The article's talk page then get a template {{notabvle wikipedian|username}} and that automatically ads that page to this category. I wasn't sure why it was on your page, but didn't want to do a big edit because I think that's impolite, so I just inserted the colon. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. I don't really want to go through my history so I'll just delete it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakuntala Singh

Have a look now and see whether you want to remove tags.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I have done some cleanup to make the article more encyclopedic. I suggest that you re-work the publications section. It is better, in fact, to shorten this and rename it "Research". Then you should describer her research with the publications as references for that, rather than describing each separate publication. This tool may be helpful for formatting references. Once all that has been done, the tags can go...
  • Think have done what you advised. Request not to remove matter, as lot of effort has gone to summarise main writings of the subject. References Wikified too. You may decide to remove tags now. The experience was tiring but good. Thanks.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I appreciate all the work you have done and realize that it has taken a lot of time. Unfortunately, I still think that it is not good enough yet. All you did in your last edits was just change the wording slightly, so that now it seems you don't describe individual articles but the work. That is not what is needed. If you doubt my judgement, ask some other experienced editor (such as User:DGG) for his/her opinion, but I am pretty certain that they'll agree with my assessment. The research section needs to be cut down considerably and become more informative and more condensed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I get what you say. Will work over it. Should be rather easy; this was difficult. But working over it from what we have won't be difficult, though my personal opinion is this is more comprehensive and gives a real flavour of what the person is all about - as far as what she has written goes. But if the scope of a wikipedia biography is less detailed, so be it.

I trust your judgement, no need to ask anyone else, unless you want it that way.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Have a look now. I think it's done.

Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Good job! I've removed all templates (save one, I'll check on that later). I have also added some wikilinks and would appreciate if you could check whether I have indeed linked to the correct persons. Been a pleasure working with you! Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words. Thanks also for taking the trouble to introduce links. Most correct except one which I have corrected. It's D.P. Chattopdhyaya, not Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya [even many Indian philosophers mistake one for the other!].

I share the pleasure working with you. Appreciate the mentoring. Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  • See if you still want to keep the one tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophypsychiatry (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't mind much about that tag, but if I remove it now, somebody else (or even a bot) would put it back, because not a single article currently links to this one (that's what "orphan article" means...). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

James Cantor article

I replied on my talk page with a brief update. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Because you were involved in at least one of these disputes you might (or might not) be interested in commenting at this ANI thread Stevertigo's Pattern of Problematic Editing ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nursing Standard

Hi Guillaume2303, I just wanted to drop you a note that I declined the speedy deletion tag you added to Nursing Standard. There is some promotional text there, which mostly seems to have been added by an involved/COI editor a couple of years ago, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. It is a major professional journal for nurses in the UK, so I think it's reasonable to have an article on it; I'll have a look to try and tone down some of the language, and perhaps even find a source or two, if I'm lucky :) --Kateshortforbob talk 10:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree we need an article on it, I just thought it might be easier to start from scratch... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Dowden Health Media for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Dowden Health Media, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dowden Health Media until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MrCleanOut (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Connected Contributor vs. Notable Wikipedian

I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin

why is there no reference to the statue in the article except in the lede? read the lasp post on te discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.76.224 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

West Branch (journal)

Thanks for the note.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article review

I reviewed the article and found no peacock wording. I also left a note on the article talk page. By the way, did you get my email? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hi... the article James M. Cantor which you created has been nominated to appear on the main page in the DYK section. There is an active discussion at T:TDYK#James M. Cantor about the hook to use for the article, and your input would be very welcome. Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulletin of Marine Science

I am the assistant to the editor at the Bulletin of Marine Science. You keep changing our wikipage to read incorrectly.

"It is published by the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149-1031 U.S.A."

I know it also mentions Allen Press, but all they do is print for us. We do all the publishing at the Univeristy of Miami's Rosenstiel school.

I will fix our webpage so it is not confusing about who the publisher is.

Please stop making our wikipage incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shidelerg (talk • contribs) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think there are three things here that you need to understand. 1/ This is not your wikipage. Please read WP:OWN. 2/ If you are personally involved with a subject, it is often not a good idea to edit the article on it. Please see WP:COI. 3/ Articles in Wikipedia should be sourced, see WP:RS. I see no reason not to believe what you are saying. However, the website of this journal says: "The Bulletin of Marine Science (print ISSN 0007-4977, online ISSN 1553-6955) is published four times per year in one volume for the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science of the University of Miami by AllenPress, Inc., 810 East 10th Street, Lawrence, Kansas 66044-0368 U.S.A.", so this is what the article should say. If you're really connected with the journal, have them change their website, let me know about it, and I will make the requested change as necessary. For the moment, however, I will revert the article back to reflect what the journal's own website says. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, good sir. We have updated our webpage to clean up any misunderstanding. If anything, this whole conundrum fixed that! Turns out it was a postal requirement from many years back that had never been updated (our journals are shipped from the printing location).

Anyway, thanks for helping clean up the page, by the way. We noticed that it had been sitting blank for 2 yrs (someone created it in 2008 with no content), so we wanted to at least get some content up there. I'll let you do the honors of fixing the content to read correctly.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shidelerg (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You might like this

You might like this; http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1 Abductive (reasoning) 07:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • That's hilarious, thanks for bringing it to my attention. And I'm afraid that many scientific articles are written in a similar way, too. Mmm, perhaps even some WP articles... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bling

The Recent changes Barnstar
For your constancy in tidying up newly-created journal articles, you are hereby awarded the Recent Changes barnstar. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Journal of African American Males in Education

Guillaume2303 - the date was taken off because it was a suggested protocol. Your advise on steps for inclusion of this journal are appreciated. Jlukewood (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I am referring to: "Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist" Jlukewood (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Guillaume2303 - learning this site. Should I take article down and ask someone else to author? If so, how do I remove? Any suggestions on authors? Also, what does please only use PROD on this site mean? Jlukewood (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Jlukewood: as far as I can see, this journal does not yet satisfy the "notability" requirements of Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG to see what is needed. Note that "notability" in the WP sense is by no means a quality judgement, it just means that the journal has not (yet) made an impact. Very few journals become notable within their first 3-4 years. The best way of action would be to have the article deleted and re-create it when the time is ripe. You can have it deleted either by letting the PROD run its course or by blanking the page and replacing the text with {{db-author}} (which will have the article deleted within a few hours). Asking somebody else to author the article will not help. The real problem with this article is notability, not WP:COI. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Insekten-Börse

I have referenced this article as far as possible.The issues you looked at (BHL?) are the trade magazine not the journal A very large number of taxa were described in Insekten-Börse and will link to this page. It is important that this work remains on wiki as the journal though very much quoted is hardly covered elsewhere. Can you remove the deleton tag please or discuss the issue further. All the best Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't understand: there is no deletion tag on the article currently, only a notability tag. I have no time now to see whether notability has been established sufficiently by the references you have added, but will get back to this in a few days from now, I hope. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. Take a look here for Insekten-Börse references[16] and elsewhere on Funet when you can when you can .The confusion lies in the fact that many taxonomists Hans Fruhstorfer and Ottto Staudinger especially were also dealers. Notorious might be a better word than notable and it's certainly hard to find.Notafly (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • According to the Library of Congress this publication was merged with another to form Entomologische Zeitschrift mit Insektenbörse (ISSN: 0013-8843). I believe it is common practice at WikiProject Academic Journals to use the most current title, and place something such as this article in the history. I will have to do another article move for this, or actually just merge this contents into a new article. Anyway, by usiing the most current title it is possible to access much more information about the journal, in its contemporary form. At least it will be a decent article. I also left this comment on the talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Guillaume2303 - I invite you to read the talk page, Talk:Insektenbörse. Maybe you could give an opinion of some sort or other. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I already did yesterday, or did I miss something? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • OK somehow I didn't see your opinion (selective reading?). However, you may have missed something. I wrote that there seems to be less information available about the contemporary title than this title. Hence, we have quite a quandry. With no material, there can be no article. Just food for thought, at this stage. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Mmm, I didn't miss that, just don't really know what to say... :-) It's very unusual that we have more sources for an old journal like IB, but not much for a currently existing one... Perhaps Notafly can come up with something... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I know. It is really surprising. It occurs to me that maybe both the current and historical versions are in print form only. Hence, not much at all the Web. Yet what I found listed at a library via World Cat focused on the historical name, not on the current name, which I had queried. The other thing I found was a 1909 or 1910 German-language journal which supposedly contains Insekten-Börse as a suplement (1909 or 1910). It is on a web site that produces copies of books that are now in the public domain (can't think of the name). Still this is not much to go on. I reccomend that Notafly search libraries for the physical print versions. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James M. Cantor

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Minds and Machines

Would you mind creating an article for this journal? [17]. Or is its impact factor too low for inclusion in Wikipedia? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia bio of the journal's founder, James Henry Fetzer, appears to be a giant mess. For the record, I'm not affiliated with him or the journal in any way. It just so happens that the journal usually has good book reviews, one of which I've added to an article here, and used another paper as source for the main computer science article. Fetzer does seem to have most peculiar views about a number of things. That reminds me of the joke "What's the difference between a terrorist and a full professor?" Tijfo098 (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a good one to me - impact factor - 0.783, and it is indexed in several pretty choice databases. Also Springer presents the info so that it is quite accessible. This POV statement was brought to you by. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • When I have a moment, I'll look into M&M (unless Steve beats me to it :-). I don't think I'll jump into the Fetzer article, though: I'm not very current with conspiracy theories (nor do I have much patience with them), so I'm not the right person for that. BTW, what is the difference? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "You can negotiate with a terrorist." :-/ Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry, I am not interested in the Fetzer article either, and I don't read, write about, or edit conspiracy theories. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's probably much better to spend one's time with the biographies of more scientifically productive (and less controversial) academics, like Stephen C. Stearns. Also, Transgenic Research seems worth including. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Minds and Machines has been scheduled for DYK on WP's main page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin Delete

Could use some help on Arthur Rubin delete request. Euro-Voice (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that the above canvassing single purpose attack account is been confirmed as a sockpuppet of another single purpose attack account. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks + Q

Hi, thanks for your cleanup of the new article I threw together re J. Harold Ellens. Quick Q, mostly out of curiosity: I noticed you deleted the psychology and theology templates (collapsable versions, displaying at bottom of page). Were there particular guidelines that suggested the article would be better without them? (i.e., what was your reasoning?) I ask mostly out of curiosity for the next time I put up a bio for someone... Thanks Health Researcher (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  • There are no guidelines that I know of (doesn't mean there are none, as there are many that I don't know...) but I removed those templates because I have never seen them used in biographies (or their equivalents, botany for botanists, etc.; an exception are perhaps very notable figures, who were founders of their fields, for instance - but I did not check that either). If you want to be certain whether that is because there is a guideline against it or whether it was just something idiosyncratic that I did, then you could try the helpdesk. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That may well be the case. This exchange has made me more sensitive to this issue, and going forward I will be more alert to how this is handled, though I don't think I'll put in the energy at the moment to get more definitive answers. Thanks again, and have a nice week! Health Researcher (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Q re journal notability

Hello again. You seem to know quite a bit about academic journals, so let me ask you a question: At the present time, would the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality be considered notable enough for its own WP page? Its website is HERE. As you can see, it is published by the American Psychological Association (actually a particular APA Division; and it is hosted on the APA website). So it has strong institutional backing. But perhaps because it is new (Vol 1 was 2009), it is only listed as indexed in the APA's own PsycInfo. I suspect its indexing and influence will grow over time, given its backing. But at present, do you think the journal is sufficiently notable for its own WP page? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, well, I think it is borderline. Personally, I would not yet think it notable, but I am reasonably certain that an article on this journal would survive AfD: in the past, completely new journals from the American Chemical Association that had not even published a single issue, for example, have been kept because it was argued that any journal published by this reputable publisher was notable. The same probably goes for APA. In addition, even though PsycInfo is APA published, it is independent and a somewhat discriminative database that does not accept just any journal. So in all, an article should be doable and I agree that given its ancestry, the journal will very likely become more notable very soon. (Even though that argument goes against WP:CRYSTAL... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Minds and Machines

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a doubt about nobility or RS

Use www.books.google.ccom and www.google.scholar.com and type in the name of the journal and Encyclopaedia. The one you put a tag for is published by Columbia Universitity. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The tone of the article in Encyclopedia Iranica is hardly encyclopedic and really makes me doubt its accuracy. Yes, it is published by people from Columbia University, but apparently they don't edit it very thoroughly if they let articles like the one cited stand. Apart from that, there is not a single reference, so the article still needs more references and notability still needs to be established. I'll put the tags back, please don't remove them unless you address the underlying problem. As for the categories at Jalal Matini: "Iranian literary scholars" is a subcategory of "Iranian academics" (the category "Iranian Scholars" does not exist) and it is therefore not necessary (and even incorrect) to add both. Hope this explains. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Iranica is a WP:RS source and notability is established by the article itself. WP:RS is established as it is from a university source written by a very published author (Abbas Milani). [18] who is well cited. The board of editors in Iransehansi including many Western scholars and universitiy Professors in the West. I do not need to add additional sources to satisfy your curiosity as your statement " I doubt Iranica.." is itself invalid. As for the author it is Abbas Milani [[19]]. We strictly follow WP:RS in wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have taken this to the reliable sources noticeboard here. Depending on the outcome of that discussion, I may take Iranshenazi to AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25

Could you please take a moment to comment on the changes to the Larkin 25 page on the articles talk page. The Eskimo (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Materials Today

Materials Today is a magazine. Those "journal" categories are incorrect. Those will probably have to be undone. See this link [20], and see this link [21]. Also if you have a problem it would be wiser to discuss it. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Steve, looks like I managed to be obnoxious to you twice in a day! I apologize for that, I really didn't intend to irritate you. I put some comments in the edit summary, but apparently that didn't explain my edits enough, my bad. It is true that the Materials Today website systematically refers to the thing as a "magazine". It is indeed kind of a hybrid thing, but I took my cue from similar hybrid journals like Nature and Science. The latter, in fact, often talks about "Science Magazine", too (their domain name even is "sciencemag.org"), yet everybody regards it as a scientific journal. (Here they refer to the publication as "journal" and then as "magazine" in the next phrase, note that the navigation bar reads "Science Magazine"). Some publications are very clearly a magazine (The Scientist, for example), What was the clincher for me is the fact that Materials Today has a huge impact factor (The Scientist has one, too, but it is only about 0.3). And in contrast to The Scientist, Materials Today does publish peer-reviewed articles next to magazine-like sections (like Science does). I hope this explains my edits, but if it doesn't convince you, I'm happy to leave things as they are now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. I see what you are saying. Apparently this type of thing is new to me. I guess I will have to review your comments, and ultimately change it back to its "journal" status. I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps, I acted in haste on this one. When compared to a publication like "The Scientist" or even "National Geographic", there is a clear difference. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven Rose

Since I'm the only editor there in recent times besides Rose himself, perhaps you could review my changes and make any corrections if you deem necessary. Thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm personally acquainted with Steve and don't think I would be an objective editor (and also a bit short on time right now). Perhaps you should try User:DGG? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks, I asked DDG. You could give me your honest opinion though, by email if you don't want to make it public. Wikipedia articles often suffer errors of omission, so someone who knows about a topic can help that way, even if involved. For example, can you spot what is wrong here? See the current version for some answers. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That older version did indeed look rather POV. Looks like you did a very good job on that one. Psychiatry is a contested subject, there are quite a lot of POV editors around that take every opportunity to try to make it look bad... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lamb

By the way, Do you think Michael Lamb qualifies for an article here? I can't find a resume of him, so a sketchy stub would be all I can muster, but he is Head of Department, and wrote a fair number of books. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  • A department head at Cambridge is unlikely not to be notable. The trick with most academics, as you note, is to find sources. Unlike sportsmen and actors, academics are rarely the subject of newspaper reports or interviews... But his departmental page could be a good starting point and is acceptable as a source for non-controversial material. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

INRA

See the bottom of my talk page; if you want to work on it still, please go ahead. If you don't have time, I'll look at expanding it later. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Maybe you could comment on Talk:Adoption#RfC? It's about the reliability (or lack thereof) of some sociology and/or evolutionary psychology papers. Looking at your article page here, you don't appear involved with that topic. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PsycCRITIQUES

PsycCRITIQUES is a former journal turned into a database of sorts (really just an on-line-only publication). I'm not sure how to make an infobox for something like that. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

H-index of 91 and no Wikipedia page?

Kenneth Kendler: http://isbra2010paris.org/dwl/cv_Kendler.pdf http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/30/12/480-b Tijfo098 (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow, I knew he was way up there, but this is even more than I thought! Definitely a very notable psychiatrist. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Guillaume2303. I was confused by your revert here, but rather than simply revert you ... since I know you are a careful editor, I thought I would inquire as to your thinking. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, perhaps I was too fast on that one. I was reverting a couple of spam edits by User:Kellwoodpr (apparently the PR department of Kellwood...), but perhaps this one could remain. Feel free to revert me, I haven't even watchlisted that page as it is not in my normal sphere of interest. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. No worries. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Acta Philosophica Fennica

Many thanks for your editing Acta Philosophica Fennica. While I was burrowing into English textbooks in order to say the same in my own words, you saved the article from deletion. And helped me with my English.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  • My pleasure! And thanks for creating those journal articles! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

Hi there, thank you for your help in improving the IJSMS wiki page. I would like to ask however why the image has been deleted? I work at International Marketing Reports in Bristol with the owner, Simon Rines. He owns all intellectual property rights to the publication. I am aware of the fact that Wikipedia is open to anyone but to have work edited substantially without prior consultation was somewhat surprising. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GR60 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Unless an image is published under a Creative Commons license, you cannot just upload it and say that you release it in the public domain, even if you own the copyright. After all, anybody could say they are you and have the right to do this... If you upload this image on the enWP itself, with a {{non-free magazine cover}} template allowing "fair use", there should be no problem. However, some non-US jurisdictions (France, for example), do not allow fair use and in consequence, cover files cannot be uploaded on Commons. Having said all this, if you are working for the publisher of this journal, you should be very careful when editing this article or (even better) completely refrain from doing so. Please see Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I looked at my links and the information I had and I have dicide to remove my edit of Chuck Liddell. I did this because I now feel that the info I have can not be properly verified at this time. Would you mind making sure I corrected my edit properly? Thanks please respond on my page.TucsonDavid (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

Hello again Guillaume2303. Just a quick note on my edit from yesterday. Sorry to pick up on something so petty but correcting the sentence 'Since 2004 it has been published by International Marketing Reports' just makes more sense in English. If you could revert back to that it would be much appreciated. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.51.131 (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll make that change, but it's not a revert, as the original text read "Since 2004 it has published by International Marketing Reports"... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Berkeley Studies

Thank you very much for your amending the article Berkeley Studies. But there’s a problem similar to that of Acta Philosophica Fennica. I merely wrote out this text from the web site last night. My English being much worse than yours, I was inventing my own English text the whole morning. Now I’m about to insert the new text instead of the previous one, with your improvements being retained. Would you mind my doing that?--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Of course not, go ahead. I'll have a look after you're done. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your editing! And I didn’t expect such an appraisal of my English. I’ve already copied your amendments into MS Word and learned them by heart. I always do that when somebody corrects my Broken English. As for your remark “shorten slightly”, I’ll soon expand the article.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PUR

Hi Guillaume2303, your edits about the journal's status as "moribund" are unsourced. The lack of their updating of the past issues section their website is not evidence of their status any more than the continued presence of their website is evidence that it is still active. The website is up, the links from the honors college are still up, it is still listed as an active organization, the staff list is only one year old (2009-2010). As you correctly observed, it publishes infrequently, sometimes with a year or more between issues dependent on whether they have sufficient submissions to publish, so contacting them to determine the status of the journal is not "self-contradictory".

Regarding the replaced references, particularly Peterson's, there is no requirement that the sourcing of information needs to be independent. That is a criteria for establishing notability, not having well-sourced information throughout the article, and this information can, and often does, come from an organization that is the topic of the article as long as it is not POV. There is no reason to remove it in this instance. The other reference from The Pittsburgh Press article is a independent source for the information that journal was "the only juried undergraduate academic journal in the country" in 1984, and it was inappropriate for it to be removed.

You may be correct that it has ceased operation, or per their typically rolling publication schedule, they may be in between cycles. When I verify the status, I will revert your edits as appropriate if it is in fact the case that it has ceased operation, and I will let you know the status here. I am currently traveling, so it may not be for a few days. I ask for your patience in this regard. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I have now re-read that newspaper article and I stand corrected: it does indeed mention PUR in the way you say. Given the way they describe it ("juried"), I don't have much confidence that it is accurate and even if it is, it doesn't establish notability. Nevertheless, it's an appropriate reference and I was wrong to remove it. The Peterson reference doesn't have much added value, there is already another (also non-independent) reference. I'll be curious to hear what they say. 13 volumes in 29 years is not a good track record... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is accurate, not that it establishes notability in and of itself. In any case, here is the reply I received from the PUR per my inquiry:

from [email protected]

Hello Michael,

Yes, the PUR is still in operation. We hope to have the website updated soon.

Grace Lindsay
Editor-in-Chief

CrazyPaco (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Borderline notability case per WP:ACADEMIC

I've nominated Kevin J. Sullivan article for deletion, and it looks as a borderline case. As (if I remember correctly) you were commenting on notability in academic-related cases, I'd certainly appreciate your input on AfD discussion for Kevin J. Sullivan (regardless if it will be to keep or to delete :-) ). Ipsign (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification. Indeed, I used to be quite active at academic-related AfD, but life has become much more agreeable now that I have abandoned that... (at least mostly :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem, I've managed to find somebody familiar with h-index to comment on it :-) Ipsign (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there are two KJ Sullivans: one in computer science and one in medicine. That results in an omnibus h-index. Is there a way to separate them? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid all one can do is manually removing the articles that are from somebody else... I looked at that Quadsearch link (quite handy, although based on GS, which I don't like/trust much) and to me it seems that the medicine man is not cited as much as the computer guy. Removing all medical articles gives an h of 23. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

'eckling

applause. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Hello mister, I just wanted to thank you for contributing to wikipedia! If only all the scientists were like you! a french wikipedian! Viking59 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Merci! My pleasure :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with the Healthcare journals issue! I like a good consensus!! jsfouche ☽☾ talk 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Orphaned non-free image File:JIVRcover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JIVRcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guillaume2303/Archive_5&oldid=1143035045"