User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 6

JAMA & Archives

Hello Guillaume2303, thank you for your comment, I see what you mean. I ran into the "Archives Journals" as a possible topic when writing the stub on AMA style, but you seem to be correct in suggesting I have acted too hastily. Most references to Archives Journals with this meaning are at the AMA. Perhaps more importantly, they do not mentioned Archives alone, but almost exclusively with JAMA, as in "JAMA and Archives Journals".

Perhaps it would make senes to rename the article to "JAMA and Archives Journals". This seems to be an accepted collective term for the ten journals. They are all published by AMA, share the website, archives and other means of access such as RSS, have common policies on publishing, media releases, and public relations, and pool their editorial resources in producing the AMA Manual of Style. --Miranche (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I followed my own recommendation and moved the page. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions, thank you! – Miranche ^T C 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Saw the "list" version of the article, agreed. – Miranche ^T C 20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed

As you've generously proposed to help on my talk page :-), I'm asking for your advice. I've run into situation when certain IP user (Special:Contributions/71.66.239.45) is IMHO consistently trying to add certain URLs into Wikipedia in violation of WP:EL#ADV. What would be a right thing to do in this case? Ipsign (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Report to WP:WPSPAM? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would've said one of the WP:ANI noticeboards, but this looks more appropriate. Thanks, Tijfo098, this one is new for me too! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, will try to do it the way you've suggested. Ipsign (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, you've put the warning on his talk page yourself, thanks Ipsign (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical Sciences

Guillaume2303- Regarding one of the error, this journal is a breakthrough in its type, it is Ideal Academic Journal: absolutely very well-known editors, fast, and Free for every body (libraries, readers and even Authors), so this a combination of all advantages of journals, that’s why such a great editors as well as National Funding of Netherlands are supporting that. IFTOM and ASME are negotiating to support the initiative. The articles will be published in a few weeks; from Harvard, NASA, General Motors, Montreal University, Delft University of Technology, Yale University and so many well known research institutes. So please kindly propose a solution. It is quite difficult to improve the page in order to remove the errors. Please advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by N tolou (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see there is not so much question as errors, as that the journal is too new to be encyclopedic. It hasn't even started publishing yet and many such endeavors fail after a few years. At this point, despite the prestigious board and regardless of where the current batch of authors come from, it's not possible to predict what will happen and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. To get an idea what is needed before a journal becomes notable (in the Wikipedia sense, this is not a quality judgment), please see WP:Notability (academic journals) (but note that many editors here find that essay too lenient and go with WP:GNG instead). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another advice needed

Sorry for bothering you again, but I've run into a recent change on Flashsort page which has lots of <p>s and  s for formatting purposes. Is it ok for me to remove this formatting stuff (as non-compliant with some guideline - unfortunately I don't know which one) or it is just one of valid ways of doing it (and therefore I should respect original author of the changes)? Ipsign (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Was indeed not according to WP:MOS, I went ahead and did it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though can you tell which point of WP:MOS it violated (so I can fix such things myself in the future)? Ipsign (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a bit short on time right now (leaving in a couple of hours for San Diego (quite a trip from Bordeaux)... The indentation that was used to start each paragraph certainly was not according to MOS. Also, wiki-markup is preferred over html markup, so I used one of the automated gadgets (see under your preferences) to clean that up. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (and sorry for taking too much of your time). Ipsign (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry, no problem. And you can't take more than what I give... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

On WP:NOTADIRECTORY

Could you please make more precise the reason for your rejecting my last revision of Acta Philosophica Fennica? You refer to WP:NOTADIRECTORY. There’s the following precept there:

Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

My revision seems to follow this rule and may perhaps be regarded as “wikification” if I’m not mistaken. I didn’t mention all the members of the editorial board deliberately. I restricted the list to existing Wikipedia articles that are closely related to the topic. That facilitates a reader’s searching for information in the Wikipedia. The Finnish article furnishes the readers with a similar list. Russian Wikipedia welcomes lists of such a kind, too (e.g., see: Voprosy filosofii). Why did my revision violate the Wikipedia rules? Thanks in advance for an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solus ipse Inc. (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have much time as I am at a scientific meeting. There's a quite long discussion on editorial board members on the talk pages (probably archived) of the WPJournals project, perhaps you can look that up. In brief, generally: who is on a board does not mean much. At most in a negative way: if only unknown people of a limited geographical areas are on a board, then that probably means the jhournal is not very notable. The other way around does not mean much. Board members generally do not much (or even nothing) and even obscure journals often manage to get some good people on thier boards (all scientists are interested in beefing up their CVs...). Other wikis may follow other rules, or perhaps they never thought about this yet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot. Most helpful.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature Communications

HI. I had to rewrite this article, because it was word for word copy and pasted from the web site. Besides rewriting, I added an infobox, references, abstracting and indexing, and some external links. The blurb about the Chief Editor says that she "launched" the journal in July 2009 [1]. However, the first issue did not come out until April 2010 [2]. Is this common for journals to have different dates for launch and publishing? I noted this in the first paragraph of the article. However, you may know a better way of dealing with it. The history in the infobox is 2010 at this time, since it was the first year of publication. Please take a look and see what you think. My changes are noted in the edit history BTW. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have fixed these. Thanks! jsfouche ☽☾ talk 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Psychological approaches to health, illness and health policy" vs "healthcare journal"

Hello Guillaume2303, thank you for your enormous work WP journal articles. However, I have misgivings about your recent change to the lead sentence of the article Journal of Health Psychology. There are many health-related fields besides healthcare - for example, health promotion and illness prevention, which are major concern of fields such as public health, and often health policy. "Care" very commonly connotes reaction after illness has occurred, when one must take care of an ill patient. Consistent with this interpretation, the page healthcare journal only mentions the professions of "doctors" and "nurses" by name, and says nothing about concern for prevention.

Therefore, it seemed a shift in meaning when you changed the opening sentence of Journal of Health Psychology from "is an interdisciplinary, international journal that deals with psychological approaches to health, illness and health policy" to "is a peer-reviewed healthcare journal that covers all aspects of health psychology". That is, by making "healthcare" central to the characterization of the journal's mission, you seemed to be doing more than a "cleanup" (your change-log description), but also a shift in meaning. (And this change did not seem appropriate)

What do you think? I am inclined to shift the language back towards the original, but perhaps you are aware of additional considerations. (note: I am putting this on the talk page of both you and the journal) Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry about the slow response, but I was quite busy in "real life". It was not my intention to change the meaning of that phrase. I guess the problem is caused mainly by the fact that the term "medical journal" was recently replaced with "healthcare journal", because another user was concerned that "medical" did not cover nursing. Personally, I feel that health prevention/promotion are part of healthcare, so I don't really see that the meaning of the opening phrase has changed. The original did not really tell the reader what the Journal of Health Psychology is (namely a peer-reviewed journal). "International" is trivial (almost all scientific journals are international), interdisciplinary is not very informative/appropriate here either (unless one takes disciplines very narrowly). We could change "healthcare journal" to "medical journal" (but the link would remain piped to healthcare journal. Any other ideas? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I've gone ahead and tweaked the page in a way intended to restore an equal balance to promotion and prevention. Regards Health Researcher (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the Psychology template is neccessary for this particular article, because this is a journal article. It seems to be more of a distraction and a cumbersome fit. I don't know if the MOS says anything about this. Also, I would not be concerned about restoring any content that appears to be promotional. We tend to edit out promotional wording, because this is an encyclopedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through some of the website and I wonder where the following statement is sourced from "It draws on interdisciplinary contributors from social and cross-cultural psychology, clinical psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine, public health, epidemiology, health communication, and related fields." I don't see where these fields are delineated. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved

I moved your question from WT:EL to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• That is indeed a better place, thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about code

In this notice User_talk:Neuron1970#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Sultan_Tarlac.C4.B1

you placed a colon before the article name [[:Sultan Tarlacı]]. I understand the point when it is a category, but I've not noticed that before in an article name. What does it do?--SPhilbrickT 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quite frankly: no clue... I use "friendly" (I think... one of those gadgets you can add under "my preferences") to propose articles for speedy and that automatically puts this notice on the article author's talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--SPhilbrickT 18:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

H-index

Hello, I put some additional information regarding the successive H-index in Talk:H-index. If you have a moment, please have a look and perhaps you can change your mind about revert. Thanks, Michał Kosmulski (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Journal

I am curious, then, what objectively differentiates the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter and Journal of Insectivorous Plant Society (which apparently qualify as academic journals) from a periodical such as Das Taublatt? I would of course like these publications to be correctly classified, but at the same time I don't want to create a conceptual distinction where one does not exist. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right and I should have realized this earlier. Those are "magazines" in this sense, too. There are cases that are more ambiguous than this, for instance some international policy journals that publish mostly commissioned articles written mostly by academics. These carnivorous plant periodicals are (to my eyes at least) rather clearly magazines, not academic journals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of academic awards?

Do we have a guideline for that? Since awards are usually given to someone somewhat notable, it's usually verifiable that they've been awarded to a bunch o people. I'm not sure if that's enough to make the award notable. See for instance John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies. It's the only award of William V. Chambers for instance, and that bio looked pretty spammy (I removed some stuff.) Tijfo098 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know, there is not a special guideline for this, so WP:GNG applies. I think that makes sense: if an award is important enough, newspapers (or at least some specialized academic journals) will report on it being awarded to someone, providing the coverage that will make it meet WP:GNG's notability criteria. My bet is that if such coverage is missing for an award, then it is too obscure to be notable (or confer notability upon the awardee). Sorry, at this point I am too busy in real life to look at the articles you cited, but I hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Determining notability for recently created articles

Some journal or magazine articles were recently added to WikiProject Carnivorous plants. It is possible that these do not fit the notability criteria for Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG or whatever notability criteria is used for magazines. What is your opinion? I guess they could be tagged as such, until something shakes out that determines notability. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Trifid (journal) - 5 December 2010
• Stenopetala - 4 December 2010
• The Carnivorous Plant Society Journal - 4 December 2010
• Dionée - 4 December 2010
• Carniflora Australis - 4 December 2010
• Das Taublatt - 4 December 2010

Especially, at the moment, "Das Taublatt". The website is in German, and I can't seem to download a translation. In addition, a google search doesn't turn up anything. What databases list this journal? Are the articles contained within cited enough by others to be considered notable? Is this even peer reviewed?

Regarding "Stenopetala" even less information is avaible for this publication. Both Google and Google scholar are sparse. What criteria for notability is applied here?

The other above publications may also need to be looked at. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that "Stenopetala", "Das Taublatt", "Carniflora Australis", "Dionée", "The Carnivorous Plant Society Journal", and "Trifid" are not indexed on PubMed either. Yet there appears to be 135 other, perhaps, more notable publications that include science pertaining to carnivorous plants on PubMed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may butt in.. Yes, a PubMed journal search for "carnivorous plant" turns up 135 results, but you'll notice that it says "The following term was not found in Journals: carnivorous". So, from what I understand, the 135 figure is the number of indexed journals that include the word "plant" as part of their names; none of them concern carnivorous plants specifically. See here for a translation of the Das Taublatt page. This periodical has been published since 1984 and is closely tied to the history of the GFP (one of the largest carnivorous plant societies in the world). It regularly features articles by experts in the field (such as Andreas Wistuba, Joachim Nerz, Volker Heinrich, Thomas Gronemeyer, and Stewart McPherson) and has published formal description of 3 widely recognised species, as well as establishing a number of cultivar names. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Steve, PubMed is not the place to look for this kind of journals (or botany journals in general, as they are not medical - not even in a very broad sense). Biological Abstracts would be a better source, or the Science Citation Index, but I don't think you'll find any of these publications in any academic database, with the exception of the new species description (which you'll find in, for instance, the Index Kewensis). The reason for the exception is that the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature defines "publication" in a very lenient way. In order for a new species description to be valid, you could just type it on a sheet of paper, photocopy it 20 times, and send it to 10 botanical libraries and 10 colleagues (I think the only requirement is, is that it is "printed" - nowadays including other means of reproduction). Many plant fanciers are very keen on descriptions of new species and in my experience are among the most notorious "splitters" meaning they tend to describe each little variant as a new species, which in later revisions then are relegated to the synonymy of other species (I'm not saying that is the case with these carnivorous plants, just describing what I perceive as the general situation). I got enormous amount of flak from plant fanciers when I published my revision of Anubias, because I reduced several "species" to varieties or simple synonyms of others. This overemphasis on new taxa is probably also the reason on the resistance against removing those species lists from these articles. Anyway... Fact is that the publications you mention are not academic journals, but magazines published by and for plant fanciers. They also publish descriptions of new taxa, which is going some way to establishing notability (although just the simple fact of publishing taxa wouldn't make them notable in my eyes). They are not peer reviewed in the usual sense, as far as I can see. In my experience, this kind of publications may have an article just read by the editor and perhaps (if they have them) an editorial board member. I don't know whether that is the case here, but as there is nothing on the websites of these publications (and I can read both German and French), I suspect that it is. I don't think they meet WP:NJournals. Perhaps they meet the notability criteria for magazines (there's a link on the WP Magazines page, I think), but I don't know that guideline too well to say. Yesterday I edited these articles, changing "journal" to magazine and replacing the journal infobox with the more appropriate magazine infobox. I also changed the categories to reflect this, these publications don't belong in the category "botany journals", which is for a quite different kind of publication. However, mgiganteus1 reverted all that and after my explanation only changed "journal" to "periodical". I find that strange (periodical is the generic name for everything from newsletters through newspapers to academic journals), I don't see what's wrong with "magazine". But I see from the comment above that mgiganteus1 is reading this discussion, so perhaps this exchange will convince him/her to undo the revert. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• PS: to avoid misunderstandings, the above is not intended to say that plant fanciers cannot make valuable contributions to systematic botany. The late Harry van Bruggen was an example of someone who made contributions of a quality surpassing that of many professional botanists. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• In any case, Wikipedia has its own acceptable standards. WikiProject Magazines does briefly discuss notablity for magazines here. And this is derived from Wikipedia:Notability (media) and the section entitled Newspapers, magazines and journals

Pertaining to PubMed, this database does list 135 journals which publish scientific work related to plants [3]. In addition, as Mgiganteus1 noticed, I missed the fact that the PubMed search will ignore the word "carnivorous". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! Never knew so many botany-related journals were in the PubMed journals database (for non-medical journals I don't even check that one if I need CODEN/OCLC etc). Good to know. I note, however, that most of these journals are not covered for MEDLINE, and coverage in PubMed alone does not establish notability (many barely or non-notable OA journals are deposited in PubMed Central by their publishers and therefore included in PubMed (but not MEDLINE). Thanks also for digging out those notability guidelines. I agree that these publications don't seem to make the cut, they don't fulfill any of the criteria. The most likely one to be met is #4 and "Carnivorous Plant Newsletter" seems to be the most notable one of the bunch. I ran it through the Science Citation index and all articles ever published by that magazine have been cited by just 103 articles. That would be a decent score for a single article, for academic journals you'd expect this number in one or two months rather than their whole lifetime. Having said this, I personally won't take these to AfD, I see not much harm in letting them linger around. I do think, however, that they should be correctly labeled and categorized as magazines, not academic journals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am not trying to use PubMed for notability criteria of the listed journals. My intention was to use it as search tool for listed journals pertaining to a subject, along with bibliographic information. Then go from there to try to determine notability. With bibliographic information it is a lot easier to find out more information (i suppose). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't take it like that, I was just digressing :-). I'm writing this from a hospital room (not me, but a very close relative) and am not always thinking clearly at this point, I'm afraid. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, sorry I do not know how to send a message! You did great work improving my improvements that Rutherford journal article!!! I joined to try and fix up silly things on so many articles! I discovered also an article called "Abaza family' that needs help badly. i discovered this through my membership of one of the Rutherford scholars music pages (Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza). Maybe you can put your attention on these articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyrussell34 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad

As you were abused by LarkinToad earlier this year, along with myself and many others, I just wanted to advise you that despite his temporary editing block he has not improved on his return. He has now been blocked 'indefinitely' by Nancy, see her Talk page. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't realize he was back as LarkinToad2010. I had noticed some of the IP edits with his usual friendly comments on others. Thanks for letting me know. It's too bad he seems to be unable to rein in the unpleasant parts of his personality, because in all fairness, he did have some worthwhile contributions. Several nice bios and the Larkin 25 article wouldn't have been without him. Of course, without him, they might have been written faster and with much less hassle for everyone involved... His negative side unfortunately being much stronger than his positive one, it's good for the project that he's gone now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

Hello, Guillaume2303.

I recently received yout message: "I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason."

This is what happened. My contribution was reverted. I am a little bit disappointed because everything had a proper citation. I didn't invent anything, nor I expressed any personal opinion. How may I contribute to the page again without the risk of seeing my work deleted again?

Thanks a lot,

D.defelice (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, it was me who reverted most (but not all) that you had added. The stuff I deleted was worded very promotionally and there were no independent sources for that. You cannot use the journal's own website to source a comment like "one of the pre-eminent British journals", for example. The fact that the journal has a "worldwide circulation" is trivial for an academic journal, in the Internet Age, this is the norm. You removed a comment about the journal's ranking, which is info that we often include with journal articles. (I guess the ranking was too low for you taste, right? :-) Unless you know WP real well, it is difficult to remain "neutral" (see WP:NPOV) when writing about a subject you are connected with yourself. I speak from experience, as I am a journal editor myself and created an article about "my" journal (Genes, Brain and Behavior). However, I only did that after I had become very familiar with WP's policies and guidelines and then after creating the article, asked another editor to check if for neutrality. Have a look at it. Although it really has become a "leading" journal in its field, the article doesn't say so because there is no independent source available that says this. Anyway, if you want to add info to the article, you're free to do that if it is in a neutral tone. I have it watchlisted, so I'll check and will try to help if I can. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comment. Will try to be as neutral as possible next time. D.defelice (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of journals

Hi, maybe your right. I thought I'd add the nation-caveat when organizing the MIT Press journals just to make obvious the origin for the reader. Do you think it is justified or should I remove it from all the articles? I mean, if you do state the nationality, you give context to the location of the publishing, the people involved etc. On the other hand, perhaps academic journals shouldn't be categorized in this fashion because of the issues you mention, and it would be sufficient with the stated location of the pub. house in the template. Then "American" could be substituted for "peer-reviewed" in the cases where this applies. I should also mention that I used the "1993 to present" formatting instead of "1993-present". But I'd be happy to fix these things if you think the other ways are more accurate. The important thing is to get it all organized. Shoplifter (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "American" to "peer-reviewed" in the articles. If you could look over the list at MIT Press I'd appreciate it; I think it's starting to look decent now. :) Shoplifter (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I thought it was for all academic journals. Could you have a look at [4] and see if it's properly organized otherwise? Thanks. Shoplifter (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry, not a big deal and easy to correct with HotCat. I'll have a look at MIT Press in a bit.At the moment I'm close to them: I'm waiting for my flight to Paris at Logan airport :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've just removed everything from cat:Academic journals that shouldn't be there (I think). HotCat rules! I'm itching to organize the entire academic journal-category. I've got a good resource for ISO abbreviations. I wonder though: are all academic journals peer-reviewed, as follows from the academic journal article? Knowing that would make it easier to start off. I'm sure there's exceptions. Oh well, now it's bed time :-) Have a nice flight! Shoplifter (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• You should join WPJournals, we can use serious editors like you. I have links to some journal sources on my user page (JournalSeek, among others). As for the peer-review, a while ago, somebody added a "peer-reviewed" field to the journal infobox. I wanted to take it out, but a majority of editors wanted to keep it in. The compromise was only to use it if the answer would be "no". A far as I know, that hasn't happened yet. I could imagine it for some literary journals, which often are borderline cases between academic journals and magazines anyway. I've been working mostly on academic journals for about a year now and have added infoboxes, cleaned up promotional stuff, etc. from a good number of them, but articles get created faster than I sometimes can check, let alone going through the backlog of articles that were created often by people with a COI (editors, board members, etc). We have some good active people working on these articles (Steve Quinn, LeadSongDog, Headbomb, and others), but never enough, it seems. At least we have managed to empty the "unassessed" category, the academic journals cat, and most of the other top categories. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear you have an active group involved in this. I e-mailed MIT Press to find out if all their academic journals are peer-reviewed, and sure enough, they are. This is probably how it is for the overwhelming amount of cases. I think you were right in not wanting to have a "peer-reviewed" field for the template; I didn't even know of it until I came across this journal: Human Rights Quarterly. Well, I looked it up, and according to this list HRQ is a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, the ISO abbrev. is incorrect - with the help of KFP in #wikipedia-en-help I found an excellent resource for ISO abbrev. here. I will join WPJournals and take it from there. If you want to discuss strategy, please hit me up in #wikipedia-en or -help at irc.freenode.net. Shoplifter (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for hooking me up with autoreviewer-rights, I appreciate it. I'm doing JHU Press journals at the moment; fortunately there's plenty of templates in place but extensive cleanup is required still. I had an idea that we should establish a #wp-journals channel at freenode, if there's sufficient interest. Shoplifter (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb just showed me how AWB works at irc. He's up for the #wp-journals idea. I will get a friend to set it up and then announce it on the project page. Shoplifter (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting page on the net

I came across this page while researching ISO Abbreviations for journals (actually one in particular). This appears to be a very helpful page, and I thought you might like it. Pages like this could be useful for the whole project, really.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another one. Notice the box that is to the very left, in particular. I guess I am doing very well, at the moment, with "discovering" these research tools. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, bibliographic information may be little more in depth, for a journal, when I access the Lamar Soutter Library through World Cat. However, depending on the journal, this may not always be possible to do via World Cat. Caio. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Steve, those are handy pages. I've added them to my list of useful links on my user page. When I was still at UMass, I used to be a member of the Library Committee, charged with overseeing the Lamar Soutter Library :-) (An easy job: they have very good and hard-working people there, so the committee did not need to do anything most of the time:-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't realize that you had such a connection to this area, and I am taken aback. I will be sending you another email soon. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meyer (political scientist)‎

Dear Guillaume2303, I noticed your comment on this page: re: it doesn't seem to be a peer-reviewed academic journal Do you think we need to change the wording of (or notes on) WP:Prof #8 as it reads: editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area which is seem to me true here - Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte is well established and in his area. But WP:prof has no mention of peer-reviewed or academic. (Frankfurter Hefte looked a bit like an acadmic journal) Also do you think there is a clear cut distinction between peer-reviewed and academic and journal such as this. Global Policy for example would seem similar. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

• Hi Msrasnw, I have looked again at Global Policy (had been a while since I saw that one... :-). GP has some features that distinguish it from NGFH: it publishes "research articles", has an editorial board, at least part of the articles published are peer-reviewed, and lists instructions for contributors. These are all hallmarks of an academic journal that NGFH misses. Although it certainly seems to be a respectable publication, I would therefore not call it an "academic journal". The word "journal" is rather ambiguous (it may mean something as parochial as a personal diary), so at WPJournals we adopted the use of "academic journal" as opposed to "magazine". I guess that was done after WP:PROF was finalized and I think you are absolutely right that #8 should be amended to read "academic journal", to avoid any ambiguity. The old "Frankfurter Hefte" does indeed have the (Spartan) looks of an academic journal, but it appears that when they changed it to NGFH, they also changed the scope:editorial policy. Also, despite the looks, the Wikiarticle on Kogon also mentioned that he wrote "essays" for it and that the circulation was 75,000, which would be an absolute record for an academic journal. In all, I think this never was an academic journal, but a political magazine. So being editor of this publication falls outside of the realm of WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Modernism/Modernity

I stupidly made the decision to manually move the content to the correct article name (Modernism/modernity). It would be good if an admin could make the proper move as to reflect the actual name of the journal (which is, Modernism/modernity, and not the other way around as was the cause of the previous move). Do you think you could get it straightened out? I'd much appreciate it. :-) Shoplifter (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! In addition, I see that I unwittingly undid your redirect, I only see that now... My edit comment "not necessary" was for the diff between my edit and this one of you, not the redirect! The person to go to to straighten this out is DGG. He's a very helpful admin and a specialist on academic journals on top of that (he's a former university librarian). Sorry about the misunderstanding! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up my journals mess

Thanks for your work tidying up and tagging my mess with the journal articles! I'm new to the infobox, and I've been a bit half-hearted in places with the details. I just like to get rid of the red links :)Keepstherainoff (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, you're welcome! And thanks for creating these (overdue) articles :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up my journals mess 2

I can just repeat whats said above. Thank you very much. The article looks definitely much better. I just have a question: How can I edit in the reflists of other articles in order to link some of the papers to addiction biology? Best wishes DrPhosphorus (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome, too, thanks for your kind words both of you! As for references, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, which should help you get on your way. To easily generate references using only the PubMed ID, see Diberri's template generator. I have also some other useful tools listed on my userpage. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Indigenous Studies

Hello. I commented on the article's Talk page about the proposed deletion after expanding the article itself; and I removed the proposed deletion tag. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy (early) Birthday :) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why researching and expansion should be done before PRODing. 731 google book hits clearly demonstrates notability. Faulty Towers only made a few episodes, does that make non notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have no time right now to go into this in more detail, but for an academic journal, this number of citations to articles that appeared in the journal are far from being notable. There are many sources discussing Faulty Towers, do any of those Gbook hits discuss the journal? Do they even discuss one of its articles (as opposed to merely citing one of them)? Believe me, I do not prod an article lightly and I don't really appreciate being accused of the opposite. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of edits is completely irrelevant. Whether you have 10 edits or 1,000,000 edits you should not have overlooked 731 google book hits. Its your clear error of misjudgement as Rosie's expansion work has now clearly illustrated. Journal of Indigenous Studies was and always will be notable. Even professional academics and scholars make some errors of judgement. You can't possibly profess to have a knowledge of every single journal or publications ever published. You would have been happy to delete the article before it even had a chance to be improved. So however much you claim otherwise wikipedia as a resource would have been worse off without the article. I'm sure you often make perhaps even a majority of good calls with article prodding like so many do and I certainly trust you generally as an editor, especially given your highly respectable profession. But as has been demonstrated on many occasions, article prodders do not always get it right. I've demonstrated this myself many times to people who've prodded my own work/AFD'd them and expanded them with an abundance of sources which they claimed didn't exist. I do generally assume good faith, but deletion prods generally are not the best course of action if you want people to be sweet in return.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Virtually any journal (Int J Blah Blah) will have published many articles that are later cited, both in other journal articles and in books. The point is that these are just citations of those articles, not substantive writings on the topic of Int J Blah Blah. Such citations may establish that Int J Blah Blah has a substantial impact, but not that it meets the wp:GNG. Unfortunately, sifting through the 731 gbook hits to find the few that are not simply citations is a nontrivial effort. Perhaps we need a well-crafted query to search for just those few needles in the haystack? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• @Blofeld: as LeadSongDog shows, it's your "clear error of misjudgement" not checking those Gbooks hits and overlooking that they are rather trivial. I never said I had knowledge of every journal and did not say that I never make mistakes. However, your first posting higher up, basically accusing me of frivolously PRODding worthy articles without doing my homework was uncalled for. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am noticing that the google book hits for Journal of Indigenous Studies have variations on this title as if it were a phrase. The hits are not discriminating and include:

Australian Journal of Indigenous Education

Australian Aboriginal Studies

replication studies using the same research procedures

Journal of Aboriginal Development

Protecting Indigenous Knowledge

The Australian Journal of anthropology,

...loss of their indigenous language...

Journal of blah blah Studies (fill in the blah blah)

Journal of Indigenous philosophy

Indigenous nations studies journal

issues within indigenous studies

...and so on

---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, you really find it difficult to acknowledge your mistakes don't you Guillaume2303. Any researcher worth his value in gold would see that the sources currently used to write the article exist and have produced a satisfactory start class article. I'm sure certain publications have many more "non trivial" google book hits than this does but the article does assert that its worth having an article on which you completely rejected. Rosie whooped your ass mate, just accept it and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don't be silly, this adolescent talk doesn't become you. The comments from Steve Quinn and LeadSongDog here and on the article's talk page show that the case is by far not as clear cut as you seem to think. I just got home from a transatlantic flight, but I'll see in the coming days whether the references left are enough to save it or whether I should take this to AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, I think your comments toward Guillaume2303 are unnecessary, and ungracious, to say the least. The tone of your last response appears to lack respect for a hard working editor who is a valued contributor to Wikipedia and WP Academic Journals. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have now gone through all references given in this article and have decided to take it to AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Research

I guess at least you do actually research articles. Which is more than I can say for a lot of people who'll blindly tag anything for lack of notability or deletion.. You have done a lot of good work in improving articles on journals so I count you as one of the good eggs, even if I disagree with the current AFD. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Strategy

I've just finished up my third publishing house with the Penn State Press. I think it's time for some operational planning - would you join me in the channel? :-) Shoplifter (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, only see this now. Had a late dinner yesterday and then went to bed, sorry... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Art journals

Your edits today are NOT how we do things here! Please do not take it upon yourself to redirect well-populated categories without discussion at WP:CFD. In fact the art category should be kept and come under the new arts one you have set up. But you should not rush into things in this way. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! With your professional level of English you will no doubt be aware that Arts and Art mean different things in English and WP. But as I have reverted your redirect this is not needed now. You should move the dance etc stuff from art to arts; I notice you added most of these in the first place. Some should probably be in both cats. You should always err on the side of caution in changing category structures, as you may not be aware of the implications of changes. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Arts is broader than art and encompasses the latter. As the category is not hugely populated, I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep "art journals" as a subcat of "arts journals". See also the discussion on User talk:4meter4. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that is exactly what Cfd is there for. But generally sweeping things up into arts messes up other trees. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see how the categorization of these journals could mess up other trees, but as you seem to know more about categorizing art/arts than I do, I'll direct my efforts elsewhere. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once you go to arts you can't really use more precise and useful parents for art, music, literature etc, just arts parents, which generally are a ragbag no one much looks at. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

see just above. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find this all very confusing. For instance, Art says that "film" is part of it, but The arts excludes it and says that "art" only applies to the "visual arts", but Visual arts again explicitly includes film. There may be other examples, this is just one of them. I have been looking at journals in the category "Art journals" and several are not academic journals (so I categorized them as "Art magazines") and others are pretty broad, so would seem to fall into the "Arts journal" category. I start feeling more and more that it would just be bad to have only one all-encompassing cat, "Arts journals" (after all, "art" is part of "arts", isn't it?) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is messy, especially for film, but for example music is clearly not visual art, & neither the music nor art people will thank you for rolling their categories together. Personally I think film and art should be taken seperately, but there will be film people who disagree. As I said above, some journals may belong in more than one category. Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not rolling their categories together, I'm only talking about academic journals here. Suppose there would be only one such journal on music, then it would not much sense to give it a separate category all of itself, now would it? I appreciate there are different forms of art, but as far a I can see "arts" encompasses all, from dance to film to literature to music to painting, sculpting, and architecture. I don't see the harm in categorizing all journals that have something to do with any art into one category, splitting out only those where there is a sizable number. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Because then you have to include them individually in other parent categories related to music or art or literature, which removes much of the point of having a category scheme. You are only thinking about the part of the tree you are interested in yourself. For the purposes of WP:OCAT a "sizeable" number is typically 4-5. And to repeat where I came in, any emptying of categories & significant reorganizations must go to CFD. If you followed & joined in debates there you would get a better understanding of these issues. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't see where there is a requirement to go to CFD for reorganization of categories of arts journals, when the reorganization scheme makes sense. What Guillaume2303 is attempting to do here is logical and within guidelines. Johnbod's arguments do not fit with conventional definitions and descriptions. Categorizing all journals that have something to do with any art into one category, splitting out only those where there is a sizable number is a good idea. I don't see the problem with this.

The article entitled "The arts" has an inaccurate introductory statement with "[The arts] is a broader term than "art," which as a description of a field usually means only the visual arts". The article on Wikipedia "Art" appears to be correct - describing what is art : "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings.

If a journal category is underpopulated then it might be better suited to be placed into the larger parent category "Arts journals" or "Art journal". Really, I can't see much difference between ART and THE ARTS, and ARTS. These are about creative endeavors, which create music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. To me, it appears there is little need to have seperate Wikipedia articles on ART and THE ARTS, because if there is any distinction, it is a very fine distinction. Furthermore, apparently, it causes confusion when creating categories. In any case, I reccommend letting WikiProject Academics members catalog or categorize the ART or ARTS jourals. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable! I can see you are very new to giving any thought to this area at all. Maybe one day I'll think about physics or biology for 5 seconds and give you the benefit of my views on how those articles ought to be re-arranged! I can only repeat, yet again, that reorganizations involving the emptying of existing categories do need to go to CFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Is that the only issue you have with my response? I think you are over-complicating things. Also, I don't think you understood what Guillaume2303 was proposing or attempting to do. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxonian Globalist

Hi, regarding the Oxonian Globalist article - if you look at other chapters' Wikipedia pages, they all duplicate information about Global21 as it is central to these magazines that they are part of this network, and also removes some of the notability concerns. So if you could please leave it in, that would be much appreciated. Tagtraeumer (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, the fact that those other articles also do this does not mean that it is correct (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). That repeated info should be removed there, too. It doesn't belong in the articles on the magazines, apart from mentioning their membership in the network and linking to the article on it. And being member of a network does not establish notability at all. Please read WP:GNG. And concerning your repeated revert, please see WP:3RR. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, point I was trying to make is that it is central to these magazines that they are part of this network; and merely mentioning its name does little to show its significance to the individual magazines. Anyway, thanks. Tagtraeumer (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's why you can make a wikilink to the article on the network. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on the BV/Sgaran situation

Hey Guillaume2303. I've put together some thoughts on the matter that hopefully can get BV on board with how the WP community functions. If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate if you could take a look at them here. Thanks again for your patience with me on this matter.--Gnowor^T_C 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Gnowor, it's late here and I have an early start tomorrow. In the evening I'll have a plane flight (if the weather permits) and Wednesday I'll be in meetings all day. I'll fly back early Thursday morning, but then will still have a lot of things to finish before Christmas (although I actually am planning to work on Christmas, too). You get the picture... :-) I've read your proposal rapidly and it looks like you have a good grasp of what has been going on. I'm certainly willing to help anybody, including BV, building a good article, as long as it adheres to policy and is done in good faith. By the way, as far as I know, I never had any dealings with BV (or any of the people mentioned in his edits) off wiki (except for one or two emails from Sgaran early on), so the history is all on WP. Now off to bed (but first: I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this). Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words, Guillaume2303. I've made an edit to the Paola S. Timiras article based on further discussion with BV that you can read here. I believe it accomplishes the purported goal of making sure Timiras' work is credited correctly. Again, I believe that your use of ATIS is a reference to the general type of system that AIMS falls into. I've just added the name of the system in addition to the link to ATIS. I've also referenced one of BV's sources for the AIMS name. Reference is just there for verifiability, and I don't believe it unnecessarily plugs any other individual. Hope this is a suitable resolution. Regardless, further comments are always welcome. Thank you again for your time. Happy Holidays!--Gnowor^T_C 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. - KrakatoaKatie 08:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Left this over at my talk page as well, but Merry Christmas to you too!

Additionally, I never thanked you for working with me on the compromise on Paola S. Timiras by titling the link AIMS with redirect to ATIS. Given that I've now been educated to just how much history was there, I can only imagine how difficult that was for you. I appreciate your reasoning and willingness to compromise throughout. Hope you're having a great day!--Gnowor^T_C 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A tale of two emails

I sent you two emails :>). BTW, here is me catching a tan in Hawaii, last Christmas. I don't know what it was, but people thought I looked different after being there. Merry Christmas! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've responded by email. Wish I were next to that seal right now :-) (Or, rather, in the water, snorkeling!) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Material removal

I have begun removing the inappropriate material from talk pages. This will include inappropriate content placed there by BV and the anonymous IP. I don't think the WP:SOCK Sarjan is involved, but I will check. Here is the first corrected talk page [5]. Apparently, it will take a few minutes for each correction, because I have to be accurate when dealing with User:talk pages. I think that is why no one took care of this already. During the ANI discussion pertaining to this matter, and after reviewing talk page guidelines I noticed that there are definite grounds for removal. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for taking care of this. Being personally involved, I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to do. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I got the last one [6]. BV has apparently removed a couple also, but missed this last one (WP:AGF). As far as I can tell, neither the anonymous IP, nor Sgaran were used to post the attack message. If you come across any more, let me know, and I will remove it. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• It got restored on User talk:Colonel Warden, by someone who interpreted BV's edit as vandalism. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK I removed only BV's attack diatribe, and left the responses. The responses appeared to be part of the issue, and these appear innocuous anyway. If they weren't I would remove them too. I used the same appropriate rationale as the others to remove the personal attack content. [7]. ----- Steve Quinn 16:50, 26 December 2010

WikiProject Sociology membership

I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New journals category

Category:Optical Society of America journals‎. I placed it in a number of categories, but I am sure this doesn't belong in some or most of them. Care to take a look? Feel free to decide which categories this belongs in. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done. I removed the "optics journals" cat, because that is what we do for other publisher's too (the individual journals will all be in this cat anyway, so it would be a bit double). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I suggest you read up on "non-refereed" journals. They do exist and are often academic journals. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This page discusses the distinction: [8]. Of course, non-refereed journals still have approval by an editorial board, but I believe that is different from "peer review". Perhaps we are defining "peer review" differently? Peter G Werner (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• The page that you linked to (which doesn't seem all that authorative to me anyway) mentions as explicit example Educational Technology. If you go to their website here (found through this list, you'll see that they themselves don't present this as a scholarly journal, but a magazine, which is what I would call it, too. I repeat that I don't know of any publication that is generally accepted as an academic journal and is not peer-reviewed. To change the article, I think the burden of the proof is upon you... As for "mixed" journals, those exist: Science and Nature are examples, but they too separate the "academic journal" from the "magazine" parts of their publications clearly. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Anubias heterophylla

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anubias afzelii

Hello! Your submission of Anubias afzelii at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Anubias afzelii

The penultimate day of the year. Thank you from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

JPS

I didn't think you were around, but I was about to tell you about this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I saw your edit on my watchlist, I had actually slightly edited this stub myself, but didn't notice the copyvio at the time, good find! It's very new and hardly seems notable, so I don't really feel inclined to put in the effort to correct/expand. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I replied on my talk page. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Physical Review A

Good shout! All fixed up nicely now, methinks.  狐 FOX  19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michaek K. Morgan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Michaek K. Morgan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Userafw (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, Guillaume2303! I just wanted to ask you some questions but I was afraid I would take too much of your time. Now if you have edited Análisis filosófico the subject turns out to be of interest to you, isn’t it? I was afraid the article would be nominated for deletion. Do you consider its topic notable? May I insert internal links to Análisis filosófico in other WP articles?

If you answer “yes,” then can you help me with “capitals and lower case”? Which of the variants is relevant: “Análisis filosófico” or “Análisis Filosófico”?

(I had known nothing about the journal until I visited Dr. Bettcher’s website and learned that she had published an interesting paper there. She writes “Análisis Filosófico” at her website. But an author of Eduardo Rabossi has written “Análisis filosófico.” I’ve used his spelling to create the article. I know English article names must use capital letters, Russian ones mustn’t. But the journal’s name is Spanish. How to write it in English WP?) --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it's not really uin the center of my interest... :-) Caps: on the journal website, they write "Análisis Filosófico", so I would move the article tot hat title. I'm not sure this is notable, but for non-English journals, we're often a bit more lenient here. I won't prod it or take it to AfD, but that doesn't guarantee somebody else wouldn't do that either. In any case, as long as the article exists, it's no problem to link appropriate other articles to it. (but mind the word "appropriate" here :-) Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you for your answer. I’m following your advice ("F" instead of "f").

And my HEARTIEST thanks for your proofreading Análisis filosófico! That’s the chief matter. I don’t know in advance whether my English is good enough. Many thanks, indeed.

--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Communication

Hello, Guillaume2303. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ASDcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ASDcover.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pula

You pointed out that citing the Pula website was not correct procedure. Sorry -- I should have thought of this. Actually I am not directly involved with Pula itself, but it's too complicated to explain and I see the point. I teach at the University where Pula is published.

I realize that sources are required. I am not quite clear on what sources justified the statement that publication ceased in 2003. Was it the combination of the end of the electronic resource and the inactivity of the website that led to this assumption?

What I would have liked to do is to contact you about the issue, but I did not know how to do that. (I still don't, except by this -- is there a better way?) Perhaps it may be helpful to say something about the experience of being an academic in Africa. Western universities show little respect for African publications, even when Africans publish about Africa. When I happened, by chance, to come on the article about Pula and find the statement that it had ceased in 2003, when I knew this was false, it seemed, no doubt unfairly, yet another such dismissal of the work of my colleagues.

How does one avoid the "original research" rule when one happens to know something first-hand? Aardwolf (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, posting on a talk page is generally the easiest way to contact another editor. The "2003 statement" was indeed unsourced, too. The problem with many African journals is that it is very difficult to establish notability for them. Pula is actually a very good example: see the difficulty we have establishing whether or not it still exists (at thi point, all we know is that they still published an issue in 2008, silence since then). It's not a dismissal of the work of your colleagues, but we cannot write articles in WP based on what we "know", an encyclopedia needs sources... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for advice. I have been reading the page on "notability" and thinking about how one can establish this for a journal. African journals do not usually appear in western databases like JSTOR -- this was in fact the motivation behind the MSU e-journals project. Similarly African-published books are not in western bookshops. The increasing emphasis in academia on showing "results" has made African scholars less willing than before to publish locally if a western journal or publisher is available. (Hence catch-22.) While it is recognized that "major journals" are to be found in the west, where the resources are, the perception, even if inaccurate, that African publications have to receive an imprimatur from some western source even to be recognized touches sensitivities which I am sure you will understand. I can hear people saying "Why should we have to prove that an African journal about Africa is as good as a western one? Shouldn't they be asking for our approval?" But we have to live in the world in which we find ourselves. So I have two questions. Firstly, I am thinking of creating a page for another Botswana journal. I have no editorial etc. connections but have publsihed it it. Is this OK or should it be done by someone else? Secondly, what do you suggest as evidence of "notability"? Aardwolf (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Conflict of Interest

As I understand how things go the best course of action is to declare the conflict of interest, although (apparently) this is not a requirement. An important caveat is that the author is to ensure that the article is written without bias. In other words, write from a neutral point of view. Here is the behavioral guideline pertaining to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also, keep in mind where to declare the conflict of interest - "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested"

Notability

For creating articles about academic journals, the project is usually guided by WP:NJournals. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

We are always looking for more help with the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push in which we are making sure Wikipedia has an article on every cutaneous condition. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to help with the Bolognia push? I can e-mail you the login information if you like? Regardless, thanks again for your help with the journal categorization. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking. However, dermatology is not really my field and I would not really be able to contribute much, I fear. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughview Integrated Primary

Just to let you know that schools are specifically excluded from the A7 criterion which states "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools) (my emphasis). In this case I converted to a spam speedy as I think it would require a complete re-write. Please make sure you are aware of the full criteria not just the summaries used in Twinkle. Dpmuk (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Southamerican Scientific Journals

Dear Guillaume2303. I think your recomendation to delete is an act of injustice with the southamerican continent, because in the wikipedia academic journal portal there are several list of "european journals of.."... Canadian journals of..." American journals of."... Scientist of our continent have the right to be informed that we have scientific journals in several areas of the knowledge. It is ridiculous that we should to publish in europeans/americans journals. We are just feeding the north hemisphere ego.

Xideral (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Xideral, I am sorry that you think I am being unjust. However, I would propose any European or American list for deletion for exactly the same reason as I gave for the South-American list. As far as I can see, however, there are none (see Category:List-Class Academic Journal articles). If you know of any such lists, please let me know and I'll propose those for deletion, too. As for your remark that "Scientist of our continent have the right to be informed that we have scientific journals in several areas of the knowledge", you're absolutely right, of course. You are free to create articles on the different journals, provided of course that they meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I accept the deletion. Sorry for wasting your time. Regards Xideral (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• There might also be the issue of WP:SYN (synthesis). According to policy, reliable sources are needed that say "List of Southamerican Scientific Journals" and then, it would list only these journals. Otherwise it is most likely synthesized from an original idea that is not in the mainstream sources. Also the word "Southamerican" appears to be incorrect. It should probably be "South American" ( more WP:SYN ? ). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Impact Factor and the AJS

Hello. I think it is useful to the general reader to know that the American Journal of Sociology is one of the two most important journals in the discipline, and it seems like talking about impact factors was a fairly neutral way to do so. I'm interested in how we can figure out how to appropriately let readers know about the journal's status. Please respond on the articles talk page Talk:American Journal of Sociology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.252.188 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arno Tausch (2nd nomination) since you are one of the contributors to the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thank you for your report on User:W.W.Williamson at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In case you don't look back there before the entry is removed, I am copying my comment here:

Warned user. Probably you are right, but in view of the limited amount of warning and the low level of all but one of the edits, I have decided to give the user one more chance. I will be perfectly willing to block for even one more vandalism edit, no matter how low level.

I have also removed the edit to Common Chimpanzee from the editing history. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's of any interest to you, two other administrators disagreed with me about giving "one more chance", and the user was blocked without waiting for more edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

JORS

Thanks for the help with the Journal of the Operational Research Society article. I managed to upload the cover following your EJP example - very useful.--Logicalgregory (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Young Scientist Journal

The changes you made to the CYSJ page were incorrect and were undone. If you wish to make further changes please either see www.cysjournal.ca or contact the communications department of the journal at [email protected], thanks. Mountjudo (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• It would help if you could specify which changes were incorrect and why. Apart from that, edits on WP cannot be done based on information obtained from a communications department, but only based on reliable sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cell (journal)

Dear Dr. Guillaume2303 i think we should add author of the book genes in fron of Benjamin lewin because we know but the 10th grade student or UG student dont know who the benjamin lewin. thanks. (cell journal) kaushlendra tripathi.

• I don't think so. The article is about the journal, not about Levin (or Marcus, for that matter). This info belongs in bios on those people, not in the journal article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor/Editor-in-Chief/Dalton Transactions

Re: (cur | prev) 18:00, 26 January 2011 Guillaume2303 (talk | contribs) (3,526 bytes) (restore IF and indexing info, the main editor is called "editor in chief", remove other person per WP:NOTADIRECTORY (journal articles only list EIC), remove academic title)

Thank you for tidying and correcting my edits, much appreciated! Is the term 'Editor-in-Chief' one that Wikipedia insists is used for journal editors? In the case where there is no 'Editor-in-Chief' but there is an 'Editor', should 'Editor-in-Chief' be used?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.40.112 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• If you look at editor-in-chief, that's the usual expression for the editor who is in charge. Some journals call this "managing editor" or something else. If you really feel that it is important, you can pipe the link: [[Editor-in-chief|editor]]. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

..for helping with my recent edits! They are much tidier now. 3JSHMerryPippin (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Away from the trees you get a view of the forest

I thouught you might be interested in this [9]. This is on the Science (journal) web site, but I am not sure if you have an account with this journal. The PDF might be better than the web site counterpart (the left column, for instance). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting indeed, hadn't seen that yet (I'm behind on my reading, in principle, I look at Science weekly...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Journal

Hi I thought given your experience, you can help with regards to this article: [10] See here [11] --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll have a look when I have a moment. Meanwhile, you can find some tips for journal articles here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look. Since you understand Dutch, can you help me also with this one Persica (journal)

see here: [12]. Thanks again. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• OK, done! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List of law journals

That's fine, but then can I rely on you to put back in the redlinks, while keeping your other changes? The reason that it's good to have them there is that the page is more likely to be created for those journals than if we don't have a redlink listed, and also if a page is created anyway, the journal does not need to be reinserted into the list. Wikidea 10:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like to put redlinks of possibly non-notable journals back into a list (and note that some of them were not even redlinked, indicating that whomever inserted those did not think it likely that an article would ever be created). As a compromise, how about putting all redlinks and "blacklinks" (the non-linked ones, this time properly redlinked) on the talk page as a "list to create", which would make it easy to re-insert them when they turn blue. I've seen this done at other journal list (but don't ask me which one, I really can't remember...:-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on 'Shakuntala Singh' not an orphan

I think you may decide to remove the 'orphan' tag to the article on Shakuntala Singh. Philosophypsychiatry (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on Phenomics

Hi I was wondering why you removed the Phenomic Center Europe from that article => www.phenofab.com YOu labled this as SPAM but I can see no differencin the Australien Phenomic center and the European Phenomic Center???? I would apriciate if you could put this back again

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.146.131 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have gone through all external links again and removed double links, irrelevant ones, and commercial links of unknown notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove phenofab and not the austalian phenomic center? Both are companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.53.241 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the Australian outfit is a research organisation, not a company. If phenofab is notable enough to merit an article, it could be included under "see also" in the phenomics article. As it is, too many people seem to want to include a link to their companies in this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• You may know that the plant accelerator is offering proffesionel service for plant phenomics ( see http://www.plantaccelerator.org.au/services/pricing/ ) it is run as a company so there is NO differents beteween the Phenofab and the plant accelerator !

I would apriciate if you could leave the helpfull link as Phenofab also offers great public workshops as you can see here http://www.phenofab.com/index.php?id=14&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4&cHash=9081f4dc9645c61fa8377d7df46122f9 with highly ranked researchers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.17.166 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure

Hi Guillaume2303, I noticed your name (and a redirect) on the Phenomics talk page. I have removed two (i.m.o. inappropriate) external links, but things seem to go back and forth between anon 84.63.17.166 (talk · contribs) and myself. As I don't know much about the subject, perhaps I'm wrong after all, so would you mind having a look? Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you, I have removed these links several times already myself, too. The IP resolves to the company behind the links. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I hadn't noticed that you were already on top of this—see section above. Cheers... en nogmaals dank :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Curious

Pertaining to citation rates, I am curious to see how Google Scholar compares to Web of Science. I agree that Google Scholar is most likely blunt when trying to use if for information related to Science (journal) and Nature (journal). However, I am curious to see if Google Scholar might perform well with other journals, and related articles. I don't have access to Web of Science. Would you be interested in comparing citation rates? We could test this with some articles that I have in mind. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Associate editors

Hi, Guillaume2303! I'd like your opinion about adding an "Associate Editor" field to the journal infobox. I'd like to suggest that there be some type of clarification as to what is meant by Editor; e.g., editor-in-chief, executive editor, managing editor, etc…. IvyLaw (talk)

• Hi, the "editor" field in the infobox is for the head honcho. Most journals call that "editor-in-chief", others give other titles "managing editor" or just "editor", for example. Whatever they call it, I link it to editor-in-chief, because that is what describes what the chief editor does. We routinely remove other names from journal articles (associate editors, managing editors -if that is not the top position-, editorial board members, etc), as per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. So I would not support such an addition to the infobox. It makes sense, too. Most journals are not a democracy: it's the EIC who calls the shots. She or he may consult the others about important policy matters, but in the end takes the decisions alone. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • From your reply, it seems that Wikipedia's goal is to link to the final arbiter of decisions. But in situations where ultimate authority equally rests amongst three individuals, for example a "panel," should the goal of Wikipedia be to reflect that fact? Or should the true state of the world be truncated for the sake of WP:NOTADIRECTORY? IvyLaw (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Of course not. Some journals have multiple editors in chief, in that case we list them all in the "editor" field, separated by commas. However, in those cases they all have the same title. If there is a distinction in titles, we list the head person. How they actually make decisions is often an internal process that is difficult to ascertain. In any case, if they have different editor titles, that clearly indicates that one is more important than the others. Note that being an associate editor does not fulfill WP:PROF, whereas being an EIC does. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Farrokh

Hi, there is a thread at the WP:BLPN about this redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)