Mkburton

Welcome!

Hello, Mkburton! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Petrb (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Mkburton. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Business Process Management Journal and your other journal articles

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Business Process Management Journal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ronz (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested the same for the other journal articles you've started, all published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Measuring Business Excellence , Benchmarking: An International Journal, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

advice

Please do not continue entering the sort of journal articles you have been doing!. As reviewing administrator, and one of the admins who frequently works on journal articles, I have removed the speedy tags, as the journal articles are not promotional , but bare and descriptive. However, they are also not satisfactory,and unless they are considerably expanded to show notability , they will surely soon be deleted.

Our standard of notability for a journal is that it be regularly published, come from a recognized academic publisher, be of significant importance in its field, and that it be included in major selective indexes. For a journal in science or social science, the only sure way of meeting that test is for the journal to be in Journal Citation Reports or anywhere in the ISI citation indexes, and it helps to be in Scopus, but Scopus is re considered less selective. Include other major indexes also. See Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) for the rules. It's marked as a n essay, but its the usual practice. Do not include minor ones. No not include content aggregators like Ebsco or OCLC.

Based on what is generally accepted here, an article about a journal should also contain:

1. Full titles, any earlier titles, and the corresponding dates. Make cross references from any variant titles.
2. Standard abbreviations used--make redirects from them.
3. publishing & sponsoring body, as well as earlier publishers & sponsors
4. availability on line
5. no. of articles published a year
6. ISSNs for both print and online versions
7. Online availability of current and earlier issues
8. Open access availability, if relevant.
9. Circulation (sourced somewhere--default place to get it is Ulrichs)
10. coverage in major standard indexes, inclding particularly Scopus and Web of Science (Science Citation Index)
11. latest year's impact factor if available, and rank in the JCR subject field(s). Include the year so it can be updated.
12. any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.
13. a list of the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science.
14. External links to the journal's main web site, and , if relevant, the main website of the sponsoring body.
15. The name and affiliation of the editor in chief, and all previous editor-in chief, with dates. ; since being the editor of a major journal is considered notable, an article can also be written about them. But we do not include other staff, or the editorial board.

It should not contain

1. General information listing all the fields covered, unless it is not obvious from the title
2. The statement of purpose because, like most material from a journal's web site, it is aimed at reader or contributors to the journal, not an general reader seeking information about it.
3. Statements of praise for the journal -- see WP:PEACOCK
4. A list of those on the editorial board
5. names of the staff, except editors in chief; subordinate or section editors should not usually be listed.
6. Information about subscription prices
7. Information about how to submit articles
8. Links to the publisher's general website, or to subpages within the journal's site. Only a link to the main journal site is permitted.
9. and, most important, it must contain no text from the web page description of the journal. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be rewritten. Even if you are prepared to donate copyright according to WP:DCM, it is likely to be unsuitably promotional.

Please read our FAQ about organisations, and articles like this, and for more specific information our Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. As it specifies there, the best way to start is by using the infobox journal template; but also convert the information there to prose.

I suggest you do as much of this as is possible very quickly, preferably in the next day or so, and expect to have to defend the journal's notability in an WP:AFD Debate.

advice, pt 2

Do not make links from the journals of a single publisher to the "see also" sections of articles, or use such links as general references. Doing this is promotional Linkspam, and the links will be removed--they are already being removed, every one of them. The proper use for a journal article is to add a reference to it when it references a specific point in an article, and is the best English-language source for the purpose. This has to be done on a selective basis, and adding links only from journals of a particular published is evidence of promotionalism. If you have any sort of conflict of interest (being employed or hired by the publisher, for example) the only way you can add such references is to propose them on the article talk page, and let others decide whether to use them,

warning

The only reason I do not immediately block you as a promotional-only editor is that I want to give you a chance to fill in the material on the journal articles. If instead you add any more such articles or any more links, or restore links already removed, you will certainly be blocked, and unless I or someone else knowledgable decides to add the necessary material to the articles, hey will surely be deleted. I am going to do a quick check soon in Web of Science and Scopus. If I find the journals there I may try to help them; if I do not, I will myself list them for deletion.

There's a formal warning for situations like this. To make the situation absolutely clear, I'm adding it. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mkburton, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mkburton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

The article International Journal of Lean Six Sigma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

please improve the quality of your articles

At least some of what was suggested above is necessary. and please note that being indexed by Dialog is meaningless--dialog runs various databases. Being included on Proquest is equally meanings as an indicator of quality. We need some other indication that the journal has some degree of significance beyond that it is Scopus--I and others, such as Randykitty are getting very dubious about relying on it only, and the addition of such extremely borderline journals is very likely to cause us to revisit our policy. At the least, instead of the way I usually look at these articles, figuring out how to justify keeping them, I and others are very likely to switch to figuring out how to best justify removingthem.

I warned you about entering borderline material from a single publisher--it is too much like promotional editing, and unless you improve the quality of your articles, effective with the very next one you add, I am going to block you to give you time to consider -- and that includes considering if whether what you are doing is helping or harming the reputation of the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello DGG . Thank you for your comments and help. I haven't attempted to make any changes or additions to any pages since February (when I was warned and asked to stop). Any changes/additions since then have been made by someone else.

I never intended to break any Wikipedia policy guidelines. I noticed that other academic journals (e.g. Advances in Developing Human Resources) have Wikipedia pages, and therefore I assumed that it was OK for journals to have a page. If any of my articles/edits are against Wikipedia policy, then I apologise and am happy for you to remove them from the site.

None of this was intended as 'promotional editing'. I was simply attempting to index some academic journals on Wikipedia in the same manner that other journals are listed.

You can block my account if you wish, but I feel this would be undeserved as I have not made any attempts to edit or add material since I was warned about doing so at the end of February. Many thanks.