User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 9

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


Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry

RE: Decline of Copyvio - I would have thought that matching large paragraphs was pretty much the definition of copyvio... This is from the report:

Downloaded document from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Topics_in_Medicinal_Chemistry (30678 characters (UTF8), 542 words)
Downloaded document from http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issn&query=1568-0266 (9794 characters (UTF8), 299 words)
Total match candidates found: 298 (before eliminating redundant matches)

Matched phrases: <removed copyrighted text>

298/542 matching seems to me like a clear case of copyright violation. Nikthestoned 11:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Part of this is because both describe the same journal, so some overlap is inevitable. Also, I got interrupted and will edit the article to reduce any remaining copyvio even more. That's easier than re-creating the article from scratch and only takes a few minutes. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, well saved =) Nikthestoned 08:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

Hi Guillaume2303... This is Baskar from India... You have marked my wiki article "Asian_Journal_of_Environment_and_Disaster_Management" for "deletion per WP:PROD" and also removed Category:Academic journals. Also, the indication "It is proposed that ... " is seen in my article and it is seen by public too. This is successful journal in Asian region and please let me know what I need to do for removing the indication from my page. Please help. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubaskar (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Baskar. The category "academic journals" is a so-called "top category" and should remain empty (see the category and read the explanation there). As for the deletion, please read WP:NJournals and WP:GNG to see what the criteria for notability are. Please note that "notability" in the Wikipedia sense is not a quality judgement, but only refers to whether a subject has been verifiably noticed. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Guillaume2303... I have deleted my wiki article "Asian_Journal_of_Environment_and_Disaster_Management" because you have again requested in my article itself. Please help people to contribute wikipedia by giving some time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubaskar (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC).
  • Well, that's exactly what you should do: give the journal some time to become notable and then create an article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dr. Guillaume2303. I would like to ask you a question: how can one judge the journal as notable? AJEDM is more popular than other journals which are already in wikipedia. BTW, all the papers of this journal are indexed at the CrossRef, Google Scholar and also major academic databases. Please clarify. --Aubaskar (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have any sources for the fact that this journal is popular? Which are the other journals in WP that you are referring to? Which are the major databases that the journal is included in? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This journal is included in EBSCOhost. Would it be acceptable? --Aubaskar (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Dr. Guillaume2303, if you have already made up your mind to delete this page, I could have nominated for speedy deletion and this way our lives would be much easier for both of us. Anyway, thank you for your time and patience. --Aubaskar (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Reviews Continued Link from the External Links Section

You may want to delete it for reasons that I don't understand, but why is it being marked a spamlink? It's a functioning website, though new, and the only one of its kind as far as I know. It is meant to address the very issues discussed in the article (and the related articles, from where also you have deleted it). Have you tried and found that it does not work? Have you any other reason to decide that it is spam?

You could have given some other less whack-a-molish reason. For example, you could have said that the link is not 'notable' or 'important enough' or 'old enough', just as you couldn't have said that it is not relevant to the article or that it is commercial advertising (there doesn't seem to be even a 'revenue model').

But from the guidelines, it seems that the notability criterion applies to the articles, not to the content of the articles such as a list:

"The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."

Even so, in this case you could cite the exception part of the above guideline.

Or perhaps I am wrong about what you mean by spam.

Self-promotion condition might be made to apply (even though no names are given on the website), but then, in a way, even this page (and this section) could be seen as self-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklavya (talk • contribs)

  • Reviews Continued is at this point just a new website, with hardly any content at all. There is no way of knowing whether this will work or even still exist a few weeks from today. One thing is certain: they must be interested in driving traffic to their site. Hence my classing of links to this site as "spam". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Biology

Hi Guillaume2303, The journal is open for business and processing articles. So I'd say it's present, not future. Is that ok? Thanks. PointOfPresence (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Guillaume2303, I think any journal started by the Royal Society is notable even in pre-publication stages. I deprodded it. But, to avoid disputes, I'm going to merge it to the Royal Society for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Thar's certainly an acceptable solution to me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Parsifal EU

You updated the talk of Parsifal Project EU with the archive of a so-called discussion which I questioned. Perhaps you have answers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Tagging talk pages of articles that have been prodded or undergone AfD is standard procedure. Probably unsurprisingly, I think Beeblebrox made the correct decision. I see you have merged PARSIFAL into the Framework article. Are you planning to include all hundreds of other projects, too? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not me, planning I mean. I would prefer to keep them separate. - Please let me know why the references (given in the above link) are not considered independent, I don't want to make the same mistake next time. - I would like to understand the "weight" in the discussion of one "delete" based only on "the project petered off", one who didn't read the article, and one who failed seeing sources. - I would not present that discussion. - The FP7 article looks strange now, saying it's lacking sources, with that reflist. - Enjoy your new home! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was talking about the hundreds of projects that never got a wiki-article to start with. At this point, our selection of projects listed in the FP article is rather eclectic: if some project created a page, however notable or non-notable, it is getting listed in the FP article. And if we would include every project ever funded by the FP programmes, the FP article (or any derived lists) would become unwieldy in the extreme and possibly also violate [[WP:NOTADIRECTORY]), as DGG says below. And he's right that we don't differ in principle, only in degree. My won feeling is that unless you have something like the Manhattan Project, a project itself is almost never notable. It's results may be very important (and extremely useful for our articles about the subject matter of the project), but all the different grants/networks/collaborative efforts/etc etc that we academics continuously come up with, don't think so...
The house is great, but no Internet yet... And lots of boxes to unpack... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Take your time, I take mine. I am interested only in one project (never tried to hide that I am related to one of the participants). I am less interested in the past of PARSIFAL Project EU (following the naming convention of the EU, back then, 2009), nor in the past discussion which didn't convince me, but in the future of Parsifal EU (the naming in most later sources). It's ok with me to have the condensed version on FP7, but I think the access to a speech like this - with a sense of humour in the title already: "The Quest for the Holy Grail? – European Financial Integration: Achievements and Hurdles" - should not be deleted from WP, so I brought it back. - If more general coverage of the subject matter - financial critical infrastructure - can be achieved, great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that would be the way to go. "Hiding" the Parsifal info in the FP article is not much use to anyone, I feel. There must be articles around on financial infrastructure and there this material would be well on its place. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've commented on these in various places; let me summarize my position here, for this is one of the few areas where I differ considerably from Guillaume2303.
I think it is clear that a project well-known for producing a sufficiently major amount of notable work is notable, and an academic department similarly . The question is the appropriate standard. At the moment, the standard we use for these is essentially the very exacting standard of "famous", relying on a narrow interpretation of the GNG for what sources are substantially about the institution as such--in generally this is not found, except for a very few departments and projects. By this standard, the program is not notable. In the other direction, it clearly cannot be the GNG using the broadest possible interpretation , because if the publishing of papers to which 2 or more RSs comment significantly is the standard, most academic departments in most universities are notable, as are almost all interdepartmental research programs, and most research grants--at that level, we approach the limit of NOT DIRECTORY And one of the problems with defining a standard is that with a broad standard most things would end up being described several times over. I would go somewhere in the middle, but I admit I do not know how to define the standard. What'm thinking is using something like Beer's law, in the simplest formulation, that the top 20% of anything do 80% of the work. People, colleges, research programs, WP editors, whatever. (Whether it's 20:80 or 15:85 or 25:75 depends on the particular application, but it's almost always close to this.) If that's too inclusive, the same law holds within that 20%, giving the top 4-6%. Just where to draw the line for Wikipedia would be different in different in different fields; this question of level is where I differ from Guillaume2303--I have yet to see the day when he and I do not agree on principles. As for me, in applying the rules I like to use numbers for distinguishing things. Around here, words like "substantial" tend to mean whatever you want them to mean.
But with respect to these articles, whoever joined in writing them erred in making them too PR-like, too jargony, and in many cases too over-expansive. All of these set up a strong presumption against them. We don't like PR talk, it generally induces us to think there's no actual substance, since one can use the same adjectives about anything; we don't like jargon, except our own; and over-expansiveness suggests promotionalism. What you ought to do is to combine them into sections of more comprehensive articles about related programs. Do it now, before the people who want to delete them get around to them, for they surely will.
As for the close, I think opinions are sufficiently divided that there's no point in going to deletion review. But there was one error; the history should not have ben deleted, because it's necessary for the merged content. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

MELUS page

Hi Guillaume2303! Saw that you did some large deletions to the MELUS page saying that some of the information had more to do with the society than the journal. Makes some sense, but the two are really one and the same: a subscription to the journal is being part of the society and being part of the society gets you the journal. How do you suggest I lay out information in a way which is acceptable? For now I just put the society page forwarding to the journal page. Heydevhey (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the journal the only publication of the society? If so, it doesn't much matter. If there are more than one, the easiest thing to do is to combine them under the name of the society. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the only publication of the society, so that's why I was kind of confused about the edits.Heydevhey (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If society and journal are so much intertwined as to be basically inseparable, I think the best solution would be what DGG suggests: create an article about the society and include info on the journal there (you can even put the infobox next to the subchapter on the journal (and the journal article redirected to the society article). If the journal is less notable than the society, the same solution would apply. If, however, both the journal and the society can be separated and both are notable, it might be feasible to write articles on both, and wikilink the one in the other. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 02:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Baltzer Science Publishers

Hi Guillaume2303, Let's try to keep this reasonable. With some good will, I could be able to understand your point of notability. However, BSP is what is: a science publisher. Even though it may have been defunct at some point, it is now a functioning and active publishing house. By insisting on having inaccurate information on Wikipedia, you're likely to give academics that are interested in knowing more about their publisher's background an incorrect impression. In addition, a publisher who's trying to make a living has incorrect info about his company on the web. Why don't you write " was a defunct" company and have my info on the entry too. By the way: the argument that one should discuss first, applies to everybody. Regards, KR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperroszbach (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • See David Eppstein's response to you on his talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

speedy delete

I just placed that old prod tag on the talk page. It wasn't there before. What was there was a note that this page had been previously deleted by User:Fastly. I think it was speedy deleted on July 18. So, in this case it can be speedy deleted again, because it is a restored page with no improvement. I suggest checking the deletion log, or checking with Fastly. I would check the log, but right now I have to go. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Steve, journals can't be CSDed (under A7 or something like that, although G11 or G12 sometimes applies). It was previously deleted via PROD, which you can see from Fastly's deletion summary here. So we can't CSD it on the grounds of re-creation of AfDed material (I did that with another journal yesterday, Journal of Hearing Science). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • OK. Sorry about all fuss. I got confused about the facts. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop

As I said, the edit is technically correct. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Harvard Law Review. If you continue to behave the way you did, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks.--Rudolph Ripley (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The above is an example of possible contentious editing by User:Rudolph Ripley that has spilled over from the Harvard Law Review article. Over at that article it appears that User:Rudolph Ripley has engaged in edit warring. On this talk page, it appears that Rudolph Ripley is attacking User:Guillaume2303, who seems to regualrly edit the Harvard Law Review article.
This type editing behavior on the article, and on this talk page is unacceptable for Wikipedia and causes a disruption. Please see #3 and #4 of WP:Disruptive user. Please note the WP:AGF guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Scielo

Wim, I think you were quite right to remove the other minor OA publishers from the list on the OA page, but I think SCIELO should be restored. It is a major OA publisher in Brazil, and in fact pre-dated the other three! It also stands out as one of the Gold OA publisher that does not levy author publication charges. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 12:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I was hesitating when I also deleted SciELO and your post confirms that I should have listened to my internal hunch... I'll restore it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability not established?

Hello, referring to your notability notice: could you please indicate which one of the references do not live up to being independent? Especially the fact that the project got rewarded in 2009 and invited to public presentation at a regional technology conference is a heavy argument for notability. It's not a Nobel-prize-winning project, but one of the many EU-funded projects that are also referenced in Wikipedia. I also don't understand why you then reverted the article version to the least referenced version. Thanks for you explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.123.10 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • What article are you talking about? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I now see what you mean. Well, you tell me: which references here are actually about the project and not either published by project members of references to an EU website or even its own website? I don't see any. As for the other EU projects, several dozen have been deleted over the past two months and I am slowly working through the list to see which ones meet the notability criteria (preciously few) and which ones do not, so the fact that other articles exist is not a good argument here. As for the last reversion that I did, that edit only added even more "references" to the project's own website, as well as adding some external links to YouTube and such, which are not reliable sources. I am sorely tempted to take this article, too, to AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Berghahn Journals

Hello, referring to Asia_Pacific_World, thanks for the editing, but I would like to understand why you still call for a deletion and why is no good to keep the editorial board on the page.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berghahnpaolo (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Subjects can have an article on WP if they are notable (a concept with a particular meaning here, which has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "worthy", or anything like that). The relevant guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NJournals and Asia_Pacific_World does not fulfill those criteria. Lists of editorial boards are routinely deleted, because they go against WP:NOTADIRECTORY and because editorial board members seldomly do more for a journal than lending their names and reputations. Board members can be mentioned if there are independent sources that say something about this (for example, in some cases of Elsevier journals where editorial board members left in protest against too-high subscription rates to subsequently establish an open access journal in the same field). I have tagged the articles that you have created for the Wikiproject Academic journals (see their talk pages) and the banner contains a link to the guide for writing journal articles, with many good tips on how to write a neutral article that is unlikely to be challenged and deleted. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help and sorry for the extra-work you need to do! I am very bad in designing the pages, but my main concern was that they weren't deleted!P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berghahnpaolo (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology Open (journal)

Could you please take another look at it, and give your comment on my fuller explanation DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

h-index

Thanks for your edit on h-index. I seem to have acquired a stalker who follows me around reverting my edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

Please, do not delete the changes I did on h-index regarding the online Scholar H-Index Batch Calculator. It is proven and it is quite used by the Italian Academics as you can see it on the website. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoursneck (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been correcting Xxanthippe's reverts. I still don't understand how this free batch tool is spam. Bhny (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Tools like this go thirteen in a dozen. Unless there is a good reason to include it (for instance, if it were notable enough for its own article - or at least have some sources), I see inclusion of this link mainly as a tool to drive traffic to this website. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks Bhny (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The link I added to h-index is not spam. It links to a very good software I designed for calculating the h-index and other parameters online. It sends the results by email in a cvs format. For more info please see this link. Also I'm not advertising my personal website, Via-academy is an organisation of Italian Scientists working abroad, it has around 400 members, which includes professors and researchers working for Universities around the world, but mainly in UK. This software has been tested by the Via-academy's members and it has been using by many Italian Academics in Italy. The results of this software are under rewiew by the ANVUR, the National Agency for the Evaluation of Italian Universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca boscolo (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • There is a clear consensus there that this link should not be included at this point. Please stop edit warring or you will get blocked. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Guillaume2303, I've been reading the comments and now it seems, its only you who thinks this is a spam. Could you tell me why and what do I need to provide to show, it is a notable source?--Luca boscolo (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd edits

Hi Guillaume2303, and thanks for your AIV report. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suspicious_edits. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

a==One of the world's most cited scientific journals== I thought you might be interested in this [1]. The journal was first published in August 2011 and is already "...one of the world's most cited scientific journals" . It has so far only published two sections of Volume 1 [2]. Maybe this shows how easy this claim is to make by a journal's website.

Of course PNAS, Nature, and Science make this claim as well, but this description seems to apply to them. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • That's funny! Thanks for brightening-up my morning :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of notability for deleted FINNOV page

Dear Guillaume2303, We gathered further publications that feature the FINNOV project which we believe are further evidence to the project's notability and included them together with the old ones. We are committed to our project and further references will be published in the following months.

Publications

EC website

Other websites

FINNOV press releases

We also have an extensive list of journals that feature FINNOV, would they be of use? Regards Mustang80 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I have no time right now to go through all of this, but judging from the links you give, most of these (probably even all) are not independent sources. Only independent sources can establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your time, apart for FINNOV press releases, we believe that all the other articles mentioned are indeed independent, since they are chosen and published by the various editors independently. Since you don't have time now, would it be possible for another editor to look into this matter, in order to have a second opinion as well?

Regards

Mustang80 (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think that you understand the concept of independent here. The very first link that I just looked at (the one you start your previous post with) is authored by Mariana Mazzucato. According to her WP bio, she's the coordinator of FINNOV. That is not independent. Of course, articles are published by people that are involved in a research project. That is what researchers do, so it is nothing out of the ordinary. With independent reliable sources, Wikipedia means that other people, not involved with a subject (in this case FINNOV), have written extensively about it in reliable sources (which excludes almost all blogs, for example). And "about" does not include in-passing mentions of a subject (so some article mentioning something like "Mariana Mazzucato, coordinator of FINNOV, stated that..." would not really do much to show notability of FINNOV). Hope this clarifies. Apart from that, you're welcome to ask other editors' opinions. In fact, FINNOV was deleted via the PROD procedure, so you can simply ask the deleting admin to re-instate the article. However, should the article be reinstated with the addition of substantial independent sources, then I would most certainly take it to articles for deletion, a more substantial community-discussion, after which re-creation in the future would become very difficult. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This may be a systematic blind-spot for WP. As FINNOV is a broad collaboration of subject experts, the vast majority of material mentioning it will be written either by or on behalf of the collaborators. A few items, such as this will be governance documents from the EC, which is the funding body. Any secondary independent writings about FINNOV are almost certain to be lost in the crowd. It may take some considerable patience to find such writings. Even then, they don't guarantee the topic notability under the wp:GNG. Perhaps if Mustang80 could indicate what it is that is about the collaboration which is likely to be of interest to third party writers, it might help finding their writings.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's more something of a weak spot for research projects in general. I have some general notes on these issues here. FINNOV is a modest project (3 years with a 1.5 million Euros budget) and, frankly, there are thirteen projects like that in a dozen. I know (many) researchers that have more funding like that to keep their lab running and this is a consortium of labs... Research projects are rarely notable, but their results (the above-mentioned articles produced by project participants) can be valuable to source articles on the subjects investigated by these projects. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Berghahn Journals

Please check the updated journals home pages: e.g. Nature And Culture has Scopus in its index. 'Theoria' has a 15 yrs long history. Thanks.Paoloxford (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I saw what you wrote now and I read it. Now, I don't know if you know anything about digimon, but every digimon in the original series has it's own page, exept for Agumon.

(Gabumon, Biyomon, Tentomon, etc...) So I created one (that was pretty good if I say so myself) and redirected every of his evolutions to that page. I did everything correctly. It took about two hours to make it just like the other ones. (don't worry, I saved the code) But I don't get why they want to delete just Agumon. Since I am very new to editing articles and all, could you PLEASE help me. If you could help me make them not delete the Agumon page, I'd be so glad. I love Digimon so I wanted to make a page for Agumon as well. (Just look at "Gabumon" and you'll see what I mean) Also, I'm not mad it got deleted, I'd just be mad if I did all that work for nothing and it ends up being deleted. Cause I really think he needs his own page.

Thanks for reading :)

- Isak 

Digigi123 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi, I understand your disappointment. However, Agumon does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and therefore the article was redirected to the list of characters. The fact that many of those have articles does not mean that Agumon needs to have one, too (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but, rather, that those articles should be redirected to the list, too. Please do not restore the Agumon article again. Restoring material deleted after an AfD discussion is considered vandalism and may get you blocked from editing... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhawn Joseph

I think that the article on Rhawn Joseph may fail on notability grounds to be worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. I placed a proposed deletion template there, but would like to get your feedback on the matter.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I see that it already got deproded (and I posted a note on the talk page of the editor who did that: although anybody can deprod, calling a PROD "vandalism" is out of line). I'm not sure Joseph would miss WP:PROF. He has published several articles in good journals and even some serious books with serious academic publishers. I tried to look into his citation record to see whether his publications have made much impact, but that turned out rather difficult, as there are many "R. Joseph"'s. Take it to AfD if you like and people will certainly look into his notability or lack thereof. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    • As an anonymous editor, I'm not able to take it to AfD. I reverted the PROD template because I thought it was out-of-process, but feel free to remove it again if you would. Could you create the AfD page for me so that I could add my rationale? Thanks for your help! 71.184.187.223 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There are several admins that may want to do this for you. It's very easy, though, to set up an account so you can do this yourself (and it is even more anonymous than a -traceable- IP). BTW, I don't think you should have restored the PROD. Even though the edit rationale was wrong, it was deproded... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry about messing up on the procedure.
  • I prefer to edit with an IP rather than a username because there are no terms of use for the Wikipedia site and the Wikipedia governance structure has no commitment to not tracking a person's use across IPs in a really nefarious Big Brother sort of way. There are many documented instances where people with higher access levels at this website have published all the IPs associated with various "user accounts" and, in fact, there is a password-protected wiki where superusers routinely log the IPs associated with usernames and store them indefinitely. In fact WP:CHECKUSER policy expressly allows if not encourages this kind of awful behavior. The latest edit summary on Rhawn Joseph is pretty much par-for-the-course behavior on Wikipedia where people treat correlation between user names and IPs as a game and relish the chance to "expose" these connections. (I am not, by the way, the owner of the account that the single-purpose account thinks I am.) No thank you. I would rather have my IPs shown than be collected in a convenient database where CheckUsers will go on fishing expeditions whenever they feel like it.
  • In any case, it takes four days after you create an account to be empowered to create new pages, so I'll just ask an administrator since I'd like to get the week-long review process done sooner rather than later.
  • Thanks for your help and advice.
  • 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Rhawn Joseph for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhawn Joseph is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

  • You didn't create it, but based on your editing, I thought you may be interested in the AfD. Monty845 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology-kerfuffle cleanup

Seems we just caught the whole bunch of them Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44. I'm going to comb their edits over the next few days, but any help would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Sjeez, what a mess, that's a whole flock of socks... I looked at their contribution histories. Most have few edits and then mostly to talk pages, so that's rather harmless. However, a few have lots of edits to pages like Aryan race or articles on several pseudoscience subjects/creationism/etc. Some of those look legit to me, but I'm not very knowledgeable on that stuff, so I may very well be wrong. So I'm afraid I can't be of much help here... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. But since you deal with journals and neurology, I'm sure you'll have something of worth to contribute to some of these. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of journal of laryngology and voice

Had started a page on Journal of Laryngology and Voice an year back. Got deleted an year back following a debate about the journal being just launched and new. The journal has since then has had two issues, obtained the ISSN number, got indexed in some databases etc.

Did remake the the page but got a speedy delete

Pl suggest what to do

Rakeshdatta (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, the journal still is not notable, so any re-creation will be deleted per the previous AfD. If you keep re-creating it, you risk that the article would be salted, making it even harder to re-create an article if ever the journal would become notable. In addition, you should not just copy text from the journal's website, because that is a copyright violation (and generally makes for text that is too promotional in tone anyway). To see what a journal needs to become notable, please see WP:NJournals. That it did not meet those criteria was the reason that it was originally deleted, not that it was relatively new. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To Rakeshdatta A slight clarification, if the article is indeed recreated (with updated content) then it should be taken to a formal deletion discussion rather than being speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. However, if you copy-paste things from the journal's website, then it will be speedily deleted for copyright infringement. See our writing guide for academic journals as well as our notability guidelines for them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To Guillaume2303 The journal is indexed in "Caspur, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Genamics JournalSeek, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, Indian Science Abstracts, MANTIS, OpenJGate, PrimoCentral, ProQuest, SCOLOAR, SIIC databases, Summon by Serial Solutions, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory". Removing the trivial/non-topical databases (Google Scholar, etc...) seems to leave several selective ones, no? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I noticed this journal lists "CASPUR" as an indexing service. It appears to have been part of the Web of Science back in 2009 [3]. I wonder if it still part of the Web of Science. This [4] appears to be the official web site of this database. Any opinions on this indexing service? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is description of the Health & Wellness Resource Center. Another description is here, and its homepage here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Things are not as simple as that. First of all, I don't think any of the databases listed is both major and selective. Second, this publisher (Medknow) lists all these databases for all their journals, but I have found that this is not always correct. So before accepting that this journal is in, say, Ulrich's, I'd like to see some evidence of that (difficult in this case, admittedly, because it's behind a paywall and I have no access). It's also easy to list "EBSCO Databases": which ones? Any evidence this is real? Usually I accept what publishers put on their websites as reputable publishers (apart from the very rare error) will not list things that are false, but here I am more skeptical. I'm not an admin, so I cannot compare the current article with the previous version, but from the little I recall, this is hardly different (apart from the fact that it now has actually been published). If G4 cannot applied if an article is recreated with some small modifications, we might as well abandon AfD... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The content of the repost was identical with the content of this website (section About the Journal and Abstracting and Indexing information). There was an infobox and ISSN. No additional sources. The previous version (from August 2010) was far shorter and specifically mentioned that the Journal of Laryngology and Voice is a forthcoming journal. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Anaswara

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Anaswara to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Context has been added since you tagged it, but it's a student movie not yet in production. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, the way it is now, CSD is not appropriate any more. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi. I can't understand what this is about [5] ? I doubt this has anything to do with WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Sjeez, something got garbled there... Thanks for letting me know, I'll see if I can fix it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Political party funding

Hi Guillaume2303,

thank you for the improvement and your many other suggestions, which I will have to adapt to still. I wasn't aware that indeed there happen to be "unpolitical" parties. However, we still have a problem: Is there a disambiguation page listing the various sorts of "party"? Basically I had in mind to create a REDIRECT for non-Americans who may look for "party finance" and do not know that their subject is called "campaign finance" in the U.S. and that other articles have even funnier names (you may want to go thru the "see also" in the article),

All the best, Khnassmacher (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry,

I clicked the wrong user page. Political party funding was not your object. Best,Khnassmacher (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Project articles

Bonjour. Remember a while back we were discussing what kind of articles for research projects were reasonable. I just worked on one rescued from the "feedback" list: iPlant Collaborative. You might have seen it being developed. If not, do you think it is an example along the lines of what we should aim for? I tried to keep things sourced, in plain English, expand acronyms and wikilink on first use etc. yes, that is its official name, albeit not really correct English IMO. W Nowicki (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, my first impression is good. Looks like it is very well sourced. It also looks like it is a very different beast from the EU projects, which are collaborations of opportunity to carry out some short term (5 years max) research. This looks like the creation of an important part of the research infrastructure and, in addition, ongoing, not ephemeral. I'll look in some more detail later. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Answering your question on my talk page: I guess I view it more of a sliding scale across a broad spectrum of notability. EGEE was perhaps notable for a time (some editors thought it was), but deserves a mention somewhere on wikipedia. I certainly would not cut-n-paste the whole article, but add two or three sentences based on sources. I find it easier to find the sources when I know what to look for. So give me a day or two and then you can propose delete or whatever. W Nowicki (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent a couple days developing a merged article (even decorate with logos under fair use, although they might not be stricly trademarked anyway for the defunct groups). Also renamed to the nom-de-jour European Grid Infrastructure. The idea is to present a narrative of the dozen or so projects that all seemed to do similar stuff based on each other's work. Just not clear where to stop. I will be indisposed most of Wednesday October 5 but back online as soon as I can. W Nowicki (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 2leep article

Hi Guillaume2303,

I don't think You are objective. Please read for example this post about 2leep: 2leep clones to see how many clones of this site is on the web. I thought 2leep should be added to wikipedia, because it started/created new kind of site - site which allows their users to advertise for free. Even in my country (Poland) there is 2leep clone. Don't You agree with me, that 2leep started something new ? It's almost like with the Digg.com, which also have many followers and it is described on wikipedia sites.

Kind regards, ZaglobaR — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaglobaR (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Article Responsive Open Learning Environments

Hi Guillaume2303, you have recently speedy deleted the Responsive Open Learning Environments article and I am wondering about the reasons. I was sticking to all the wiki policies that I am aware of, therefore any clarification would be appreciated. kind regards,Thomasova ZSI (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, I did not delete it, I proposed it for deletion. That was reviewed by an "admin" and that is the user who did the actual deletion, after apparently agreeing with my assessment. As the article is deleted, I cannot see it any more (I'm not an admin myself), but it was deleted as being promotional and a violation of copyright. I guess that you copied text from a website (copyright violation) and that this text (as is often the case on homepages of products/companies/groups, etc - even non-profits) was rather promotional in tone and not neutral. I have put a "welcome" template on your talk page and recommend that you read the most important wikipolicies, which will help you to navigate Wikipedia without any problems. Hope this helps, happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi, thank you for your reply, that clarifies something. I did not to copy the text from the website but adjusted it a bit and collected from different sources, obviously this was not enough? Re: neutral tone I understand that this is something to improve in the future. Do you think this article has a chance to be reusified? Thank you for the feedback. Also thank you for placing the welcome box at my talk page. best wishes Thomasova ZSI (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, copying and slightly modifying is indeed not enough to avoid copyvio. And taking it from different sources does not really make any difference either (it only makes it more difficult to detect...) Ideally, you should write a text yourself and substantiate any claims with references to independent reliable sources. Whether ROLE is eligible for an article, I cannot say. I don't remember all that much and after seeing the promotional language/copyvio just tagged it for CSD. it would be best if you would go to WP:Articles for creation and put in a request there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski

What is going on with User:Wtshymanski removing all those project banners from redirect talk pages? Now I don't trust this person's edits, and yet he / she is editing a large number of articles. This person has been the subject of ANI more than once. Here is the latest [6]. This person appears to be a difficult editor. Also, thanks for catching this person's inexplicaple edits on these redirect talk pages. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • No idea why this was done. I just reverted those that I saw. I can imagine that some people feel that it is not useful to tag redeirects and hence not putting in the effort to add those tags to any redirects that they might create, but why someone would put in the effort to go around deleting such tags is beyond me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Business presentation tips

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Business presentation tips to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. I don't think this was a test page, it was intended as an article, though it fails WP:NOTHOWTO. I suspect that this is one of the students from the Wikipedia:India Education Program, who do not seem to have been properly briefed at all. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I realized that it was not really a CSD, but it seemed to me to be such a glaring non-appropriate article, that I actually thought for a moment to propose CSD as vandalism... Well, if nobody de-PRODs it, it should be solved soon. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

TERENA

The book is the one referenced carefully in the RARE article which you didn't merge properly into the TERENA article (which is why I reverted the merge). With regards to that merge I think its common curtesy that when you are merging two articles together that you make sure the unique content (and references) from the article you are merging from are copied across to the new article - and something you should do in any case for any page on the project - especially when your edit was reverted which is perfectly reasonable per WP:BRD.

With regards to the notability of TERENA, beyond the source in the RARE article I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that the academic network connecting the different universities in Europe is notable enough for a wikipedia article given the average secondary school is notable enough. I would have thought something like this from RIPE and the fact that they organise major conferences like this which I found from a trivial Google would also pretty clearly establish notability. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Every university is involved in dozens of such networks, so I do think that notability is not automatically inherited from the participants. I agree with your lament about secondary schools, though, but that is not a reason to relax standards all over WP. And then just one source is not really sufficient. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That's not really true. All of the universities (and some other educational institutions) in Britain connect to the internet via JANET. All of the networks like JANET in Europe are connected together using GEANT which is run operationally by DANTE - who were the operational unit spun out of TERENA and they manage the support/non-operational side of the organisation. So its not as if there are dozens of such networks - there are two. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in Music

Listing of publications

Although notable, Women in Music is an esoteric long bygone publication with an appeal for a specific group of scholars (musicologists, women’s study scholars, historians, and the like). The list of extant pubs itself is important — not too dissimilar from the discography or filmography — for several reasons, mainly because perhaps fewer than three people on the planet know how many publications exist. Full-sets (never mind complete lists) in research libraries (e.g., NYPL for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center) are rare. Some issues might be extinct. Yet, as the article states, many historic publications (in the 1940s) cited articles from Women in Music. The publication list, in this instance, is not indiscriminate information.

Bloch’s quotation

The featured quote app is perhaps borderline encyclopedic, but it was created to encapsulate or highlight a thought germane to the article. In this case, the quote establishes (with an inline cite) a critical degree of notability by an independent third party who carries the water of a notable peer. Bloch is a scholarly female musicologist. The quote (one could argue) is therefore, not necessarily clutter.

The edits and cleanup, including those discussed above, by you and Headbomb are much appreciated. The purpose of this talk, however, is to urge you and Headbomb to give some latitude for articles about the fine arts, humanities, women’s studies, and basic history when applying wikipedia litmus tests for clutter, indiscriminate information, and gratuitous quotes. I am a team player, happy to have met you, and will stand down if the judgements by you and Headbomb remain unchanged. The article, with or without the above items, is still interesting and much improved. Eurodog 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, although I see your point, personally I really think this is the kind of thing that WP is not and which is rather unencyclopedic. Where did you get these tables of contents? If that is a website, we could easily put in a link to that. I'm more ambivalent about the quote. If Headbomb thinks it can stay given your argumentation, I won't object either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no website for the list. It was culled from the Estate of Frédérique Petrides. A few issues, I recall, have been posted online by academic research institutions. I found a few issues at the NYPL, too. Another reason for posting the list is that the publication dates, when eying them, are irregular (not always monthly). I discovered Women in Music (and started the article) while in the throes of editing a bio on an American female musician (composer). Frédérique Petrides' daughter, who I since contacted, has become a major contributor to the article. She is a scholar in theatre and fine arts. Eurodog 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

PROF

I urge you to reconsider about criterion 5. Have you any examples of someone kept by it who would not be notable--it shortcuts discussions opened by people who understand little about the academic world that will inevitably be kept anyway. it's good to keep aa much possible out of AfD. See the group of nominations by Aprock for examples. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • You're right, I was thinking too much about the principles of all this and lost sight of the practical. I have made a comment at the talk page over there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

I've taken note of a series of bold edits and redirects you've made. It seems you bring a set of fresh eyes to the notability issues in the project. I suspect, on further investigation, you might bring similarly fresh eyes to the reliable sourcing issues in this suite of articles and lists. Might you be willing to join the project?
In fairness, I must warn you to peruse this page and its attendant evidence and talk pages. This area can get fairly contentious. I try not to invite people to play Frisbee in a minefield without at least warning them about the mines.David in DC (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi David, thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure I'd like to spend much time on these oldest of the oldest. I know the articles are contentious: some time ago (a year? more? can't really remember) I took one of these articles to AfD. This was before the ArbCom intervention and several people were all over me. The edits today were because I was doing some new page patrolling and redirected a new article to the List of Italian supercentenarians. The article creator was not very happy about that and apparently thought that "she likes to eat" was encyclopedic content of high value. In the course of the discussion I decided to check the linked articles in that list and redirected all that were blatantly non-notable, leaving a few where there were some other claims (although those actually look non-notable to me, too). In the greater scheme of things, I have to admit that this is not my main interest, though. Nevertheless, I have these redirects watchlisted and will take them to AfD if the redirects get reverted. Anyway, glad to see that common sense has taken over that project, which was way too much a place for hobbyists before. Keep up the good work... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Understood. If you'd like to see where things are at in the project today, there's an article in the most a recent Signpost, here. I wish the lede, and your kind comment, were the last word on the matter, but I'm afraid tone of ST in his responses better reflects the project's zeigeist than BNL's common sense approach. I can be kind of a hothead, so I'll let you decide for yourself where my responses fall along the common sense continuum marked at one end by BNL and at the other by project members even wackier than ST. David in DC (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, I've just nominated the first one for AfD (Venere Pizzinato). I see that you maintain a list of XfDs on the project's talkpage. You can have that done automatically by AAlertbot (works for all pages that are tagged for a certain project). If you're interested to have that set up for the oldest people project, you should contact User:Headbomb, who runs this bot. I think it's fairly easy to set up and very handy. As for the project, I've decided not to join, but like the Blade, I'll watchlist the project page and but in now and then... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources in PyPy article

Care explaining why you tagged PyPy as containing unreliable sources? Such random additions of tags without a single word of comment don't really raise quality anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijal (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The tag certainly was not placed randomly and I thought that the tag itself and the links it contained was pretty much self-explanatory. If you check that link bout reliable sources, you'll see that blogs are not generally considered to be acceptable sources on WP. The PyPy article seems to rely for a very large part only on those and on some that do not seem to be independent either. Hope this explains the tag and that either you put it back or (ideally) address the problem. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Blog posts that are referenced inside this article are precisely announcements from the project itself that this or that works or that this or that funding got released. In such projects blog is the main public way to announce things. How is this not an acceptable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijal (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As explained in WP:RS in a much better way than I could do, blogs are not considered reliable sources. Emails from an email-archive even less (that one really should be removed). If, in addition, it's the project's blog, that also means that it is not independent. Given your response, I'm starting to worry that this whole project may not meet our notability guidelines. In addition, the line about accepting donations through its blog could be construed as soliciting money and is too promotional. In any case, what is urgently needed are third party reliable sources, so that notability of this project can be established. If such cannot be found, we'll have to propose this article for deletion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok. So where do I start? Regarding reliable sources -- the official project blog is in certain circles (Open Source notably) considered to be as close to the source as it gets, it's not like someone will publish an academic paper on the fact that they're able to run this or that program under their interpreter. It's indeed original research and not a third party source, but you do indeed cite original research when it comes to stating achievements, don't you? Especially when it comes to "project abandoned X", it's definitely better to cite the original project blog rather than third party reporting this. Regarding notability - go and check how many downloads are there, how many published scientific papers and check it out yourself, feel free to propose this article for deletion as far as I'm concerned. I can't however help you it seems, you seem to blindly follow some guidelines without applying any dose of common sense. Did you actually read the article or are you just blindly applying that blogs are not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijal (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • One other core policy herer is WP:AGF. I don't blindly tag pages (although being human, I do sometimes make mistakes). I considered proposing this for deletion, but then decided that there might be more and tagged it in the hope that somebody knowing more on the subject would come along and be able to improve the article. As for sourcing, many computer magazines/journals will publish articles about (versions of) a programming language. If that was done for PyPy, that would be a good start. Also, if one of the people of the project published an article on PyPy that subsequently was cited heavily by other people, that could be an indication of notability. Numbers of downloads and such shows that something is popular or useful, but those are unfortunately not characteristics that have any bearing on "notability" in the WP sense. Please read WP:RS and WP:GNG. All articles have to comply with those core policies. If you are unhappy with that, take the discussion there, I have not made those rules. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but you're applying them without thinking. I'm not sure when I was last reading a paper magazine about computers. Anyway, please, please propose this for a deletion. Would be a great example of dumb wikipedia policies and even dumber people applying them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijal (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about paper? And despite notices from SineBot, you still are unable to properly sign your posts. Seems like it's not me who's not thinking here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not signing. Getting of personal issues -- seriously I think PyPy is pretty notable, but it's also notable for me since I work on it. You have to check it yourself (yes, it does have quite a bit of coverage, from slashdot, hackernews, lwn and so on, but as I said, I can't make a call). Regarding original vs non-original sources. Articles can contain information that is either an objective fact (like the date of particular release or a decision about certain project direction) or is judgmental, like A is better than B. Deliberately not citing any sort of wikipedia policy, 3rd party source for a judgmental fact is indeed a must, but seems like the official project blog is a fairly reliable source of finding information about say release dates. I can't find any judgmental information on PyPy's blog that's referenced from this article. In fact, the article does not contain much judgmental information at all. Obviously, feel free to blindly say a blog is not a reliable source of information, but please consult what the information is about in the first place. Do you have any particular concerns I can potentially answer? countryhacker (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If you work on it, you may have a COI. Some editors here take that very seriously, so beware. Personally, I don't care too much about COI, as long as an editor tries to stay neutral. Being involved means that you may know of sources that would be difficult to find for others. As to these sources: primary sources are absolutely OK to document uncontroversial stuff. However, they (obviously) cannot be used to establish notability, for that you need independent sources. Whether the blog of a project is considered reliable I don't know, although I personally would be inclined to take it as such. If it is difficult to find good sources to justify a stand-alone article, a good solution could be a merge to another article (like Python). Neither article is overly long, so this is certainly an option.
  • I didn't say the official project blog is a source of information about reliability. There are mentions on number of users in wikipedia notability guidelines, however due to COI, I'm not going to debate whether PyPy is or is not a notable subject, I do care about up to date information about uncontroversial stuff only in that article (like release dates and numbers). countryhacker (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't say you said that, just added it for your information. I don't recall ever having seen anywhere that numbers of users could be used to establish notability. For the moment, it does not seem that notability has been established without doubt. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously, do some research and judge for yourself. All I claim so far is that for the facts that are in the article, relevant sources are good, precisely because the facts presented are objective. This is all true provided there is a place for such facts, most notably, the article itself is notable. I tried looking for some serious guidelines but they don't seem to apply to Open Source projects in any meaningful way. countryhacker (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the absence of specialized guidelines, WP:GNG applies. In discussions, we can use analogies with WP:PROF. There is no reason why there should not be reliable sources on Open Source projects, so I don't see any need to make an exception for those. After this discussion, I think that the "unreliable sources" tag was incorrect and I've put "notability" and "primary sources" tags on the article, hopefully stimulating some editors to provide reliable independent sources establishing notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello Guillaume2303 and Fijal. Please see Talk:PyPy#Mentions of PyPy in the computer science literature. These mentions are enough to show that regular computer scientists use PyPy and publish their results. This ought to be enough to assure notability, though the article content is arranged at present to favor the pronouncements made in PyPy's own blog. A better standard of importance would start from those aspects of PyPy which have obviously made an impact on the external world. By looking mostly at the project's own blog we are tending to fill the article with PyPy's self-assessment. What it thinks it is doing rather than what others believe it has done. The statements of computer scientists in their papers should at least give a different viewpoint. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Vigoleis Thelen

I think you made one of your very rare errors here--there's a long sourced article on this apparently very important author with 8 monographs written about him in the deWP. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I missed the interwiki link, it was (is) so short that I guess I did not expect them... Thanks for catching this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Vejvančický's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Luisa Via Roma

Hi Guillaume2303, The page has been changed exacly how it was recommended from Jimfbleak, so could you please explain what in your opinion seemed advertising or ambigious? ThanksSimoneDaniele (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

  • The article has been deleted, so I can't see it any more. In any case, I only proposed deletion and apparently an admin agreed that it was too promotional in tone. I recommend that you first create the article in your user space and then ask that admin to check it before moving it back into article space. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Guillaume2303, that was ecaxtly what I did, I put it for 2 months under my User space and asked you and Jimfbleakto check it but I never received any response therefore please let me know what I shall do? Thanks SimoneDaniele (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
  • I'm sorry, but I don't recall getting a message from you about this, otherwise I'd certainly would have looked. You can ask the deleting admin to "userfy" the article and then work on it so that it is non-promotional and complies with the notability requirements for companies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NANOCOAT deletion

Dear Guillaume2303 So what shall I do to have a simple information on what my NANOCOAT project is, so that anyone looking in Wikipedia can have basic elements on the project and also the website adress and the partners names ? thanks as I do not really understand your COI reasons..??!! Pascal90.80.83.60 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Dear Pascal, on the article's talk page, you state that you are the project's coordinator. That constitutes a conflict of interest. At this point, I'm afraid that I don' t see any way how this project could be mentioned on WP. WP is an encyclopedia and subjects covered need to be encyclopedic, notable, and verifiable. A new project like yours is highly unlikely to satisfy those core policies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Biology

Hi again. The journal is launched now and has published its first articles. See http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/ Can you undelete what we had done so we can update it all rather than having to create it from scratch? Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Next time, please post on my talk page. Fortunately I have my archives watchlisted, otherwise I wouldn't even have seen this... As for OB, having published a few articles does not make a journal notable. Has it been included in any selective major databases? Are there perhaps independent reliable sources about it now? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The BMC blog is just a brief mention (together with several other journals) and the Plant Science piece is a verbatim copy of a Royal Society press release. Personally, I still think notability has not been shown (see WP:NJournals for that), but per DGG's comment on the article's talk page I have undone the revert. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • PS: the previous comment about it not being published yet (and it still hasn't published any article) was meant to indicate that it would be basically impossible to already have established sufficient "notability" (in the WP sense, see link above). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks and point taken. I am sure we shall be able to establish the required notability in the months to come (our first article is ready but under embargo until midnight tonight :) Thanks again. - PointOfPresence (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Intellectum

Dear Mr Guillaume2303,

As a quite inexperienced wikipedia contributor I have made some more changes on Intellectum, but I do not know whether these changes are on the right track and, hence, would like to ask once again for your kind assistance. Thank you in advance! Agnostosgnostos 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnostosgnostos (talk • contribs) --Agnostosgnostos 19:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FP EU

The TOC for Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development was on the right side to avoid a lot of white space, expecting more of the "hundreds of projects", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I find that the sites i have cited are extremely reliable "in the field of professional esports". That is why, i would like to ask whether reliable sources in one field which are reproduced by other sites too is counted as a "reliable source for wikipedia". This is as professional esports have no notable newspaper article or magazines, the information is spread on websites.

I have brought the discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_gaming_media_partners Thank you. Redefining history (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • That's the right place to go with this kind of questions. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Punishment and evolutionary biology, plus neuroimaging

There's a sort of dispute at Talk:punishment on this. I'm posting here because I saw you have commented on that talk page before (in the archives), and the subject seems eminently in your field of expertise, but it's quite far from mine. The dispute is not really stated on the talk page; you'd have to look through JimWae's edit summaries to see what he seems to be complaining about; I'm not quite sure myself what bothered him. I admit I used a sub-optimal source for science (a textbook on corrections), but it was a serendipitous find and it seemed interesting. I'm sure you could easily find some more authoritative sources and perhaps clarify anything that I may have fumbled. Thanks, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

About Phokela

Hi Guillaume2303! "Phokela" might just perhaps be notable as a Family name, but if my family name was "Phokela", I wouldn't be holding my breath until the article was re-started with reliable refs. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, one never knows. But at this point, it's just a redirect to a deleted article, so it's best to get rid of it until (and if) someone starts an article on the family name. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep^2. Fine by be.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Homepage" link in your user page

Points to http://www.cnic.u-bordeaux1.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=29[dead link]. Not accessible.  :) Salvidrim (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oops, yes, we changed our site... And although I haven't finished the new site completely yet, I'll put in the new address as it is already live (I think)... Thanks for letting me know! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

German Law Journal

Hello Guillaume2303!

Thank you for your help with my edits on the German Law Journal page. I wanted to expand the disappointingly short article to make it more in line with other scholarly law journals. I'll work on an edition that will be more comprehensive, without the shortfalls of the last edits.

P.S. You deleted the editorial board section under the premise that 'wikipedia is not a directory' - what about a 'significant articles' section, which is present in a number of other law review pages, e.g. Harvard LR and Yale LJ? If I add a significant articles section, will this be against the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleon Bronaparte (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A7

Where in WP:CSD does it mention "group of people"? 85.211.13.188 (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • At its bottom: "for clubs, societies, groups, and organizations". A family/tribe is a group and can even be considered an organization. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • that's why i chose A7 but it was disputed so i changed to prod... however, if there is consensus ill rollback the prod and change it back to a csd. Petiatil »Talk 13:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Not necessary, the author blanked the page, so it's now a G7. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at 85.211.13.188's talk page.
Message added 13:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Petiatil »Talk 13:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "Occupy" protest locations

  • Your reversion of the close of this discussion seems improper because you were a participant in that discussion. Your arguments for deletion were poor being WP:UNENCYC and a suggestion to summarise the content elsewhere - a merger, not a deletion. Warden (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Colonel Warden and have said so at AN/I. Please do not do this again. --John (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Warden's closure was improper. If an admin had decided to close this, I would have accepted it. But AfDs like this should not be closed by a non-admin and even less so when it is being done before the normal period allotted for an AfD has passed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Without getting into the propriety of CW's close, you should not have undone it as you had commented at the AfD. Let someone else do this the nest time, please. --John (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I appreciate that. --John (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Administrative Law Review

Exactly what WP:MOS and/or other guidelines were the edits not in compliance with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMoore999 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • A whole laundry list of things not according to WP:MOS and other policies: improper capitalization, inclusion of a laundry list of people (see WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:JWG), unnecessary introduction of an acronym (making the text more difficult to read), introduction of unsourced promotional language ("Recognized in the legal community as holding title to the highest circulation rate of any student-edited journal"), use of weasel words ("Recognized in the legal community" - who are that?), puffery ("each issue is a nexus")... This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your pet journal... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on CEDS

Hi Guillaume2303. Why did I mention e-IR in the CEDS page? because so far I know no other. If you censor the primer of this reference you are merely denying Wikipedia its fundamental snowballing effect and the collective intelligence to occur in its editing. Namely, one will bring another reference, and some editor just like you will say :"why do you just mention this?". In a nutshell: small editing is not tantamount to partiality. It has taken me a long time to find, read and quote the three (seriously long) e-IR references I have added here. It has taken you a little (taxpayer paid by the way) time to just dismiss them with the back of your hand. Do you realize this attitude is not only unfair but impedes the whole wikipedia magic of collective bit-by-bit editing? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fallon Community Health Plan

This is a HIP or HMO, which I'm sure would be controversial if deleted speedily. I removed your csd-tag. Please take it to WP:AfD if you disagree with me. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't really disagree, just looked a tad too promotional to me. But if you think it can stand for the moment, that's fine with me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll work on it later. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dehaene-Changeux model

Hi Guillaume2303, my favorite neurobuddy and wikipedia inhibiting interneuron. Allow me to be glutamatergic here and to spillover your dendritic spine. I'd like to open an article about the Dehaene-Changeux model, which is a multi-agent system of integrate-and-fire neurons started in the 1980s with more than ten PNAS or PLoS publications on them and could very well cross the article on the "neural correlates of consciousness" or "Baars" etc. It gave significant advance regarding the neural correlates of attentional blindness and tachypsychia. You with me pal? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, sounds like a very good plan. However, I feel I have a COI here and don't think I can contribute much (except sending you pay-walled PDFs of scientific articles, if you wouldn't have access to those). (Also, for me WP is a distraction, so I tend not too edit much in areas connected to my work sphere). But there are some very active and helpful editors at the Neuroscience Wikiproject (Tryptofish and Looie496, for example) that could certainly assist you with this endeavor. Good luck! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. No clue what "NEO" is... And unusual to take something to AfD within hours of creation. My advice would be to have this moved to your userspace, that will give you time to work on it and then have an admin take a look and move it into article space when ready. I think that what set Dennis Brown off is that all references that you used for the moment (bar one) are from Dehaene and Changeux themselves. That gives the impression that what you are doing is original research and/or synthesis. You can counter that criticism/concern if you could find articles by other researchers discussing these things. As both these people are heavily cited, that might be doable. Still, working in userspace until something is ripe is often the best strategy. (I do that too, see User:Guillaume2303/Sandbox2 - waiting until I have sufficiently evidence of notability). Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • it does, thanks for the hint. I guess the brain works just like that, neurons oppose each other, but they make a whole that is greater than themselves. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Pan Asia Symphony Orchestra

I sliced this down to a manageable size, stubifying it. I'm still not sure it's notable as a group, but it probably should not be speed-deleted. You may want to take this one to WP:AfD for more opinions. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks reasonable now, good job! Didn't think it was salvageable, that's why I tagged it for G11, but you proved me wrong :-) I don't really know much about what makes an orchestra notable (only got to this one at new page patrol), so I'll leave it for someone else to take to AfD if necessary. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Russion spam

Re your comment: I think they were an attempt to advertise a weight loss program. Diabetes! Cellulitis! Some spammers really suck at their jobs. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • You can say that again! Sjeez :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you Guillaume2303 for your welcome. I really appreciate it. I have an account at the Israeli Wikipedia and working those days on my first English entry. I will be happy to get your comments on it. By the way, Tzahy is one of the most respectful editor in the Israeli Wikipedia with hundreds of entries. RF123 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly goes to accepted"

I think you mean "Clearly goes against accepted". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oops.... Need more coffee I think :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take another look

You recently voted in an AfD discussion for the Tom Segalstad article. Since your vote, I have significantly changed the article. Can you please take another look and reword or change your vote, if necessary? Thank you. SilverserenC 04:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dutch matters

Hey Guillaume2303, you old deletionist, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haleh Ghoreishi? I think she's notable (based on a quick Google search with produced hits from VPRO, Trouw, etc), but I have no skill in mentioning academic impact. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your opinion, with or without impact factors and such. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Although it hurt my deletionist soul, I've !voted "keep"... That's the second time this year, I must be mellowing... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Haha, that's just old age, Guillaume2303. You get to a point in your life where you have everything--a pied a terre in Bloemendaal, a house with a pool in the Bordeaux suburbs, a garage full of rococo furniture--and you realize etc. etc. Well, I appreciate you showing up there, and your keep I appreciate even more. Your check is in the mail, of course, made out to the usual Swiss account, "Guillaume2303's SM". All the best! Drmies (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guillaume2303/Archive_9&oldid=1143035058"