Wikipedia

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 32

< User talk:Randykitty
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Ezra Cricket in topic Administrators' newsletter – November 2023
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Megan Euker

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Randykitty,

I noticed you deleted this article after a recent AfD. I was hoping you would be able to temporarily restore it to my userspace, as there is an aspect of its creation that I want to look into?

I will speedy it once done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Done BilledMammal, let me know when you've finished and I'll delete it again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. BilledMammal (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Adebola Adebileje

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Randykitty, please I disclosed COI but noticed the deletion of the page with the above subject matter. I have read and understand the G11 criteria for which it was deleted. Kindly help me restore it so I can get a copy for it to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia articles. Thank you as I anticipate your favourable response. I am grateful. PFA (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not done Sorry, but I agree with Bbb23's remark on your talk page. Even the earliest version of the article is basically a breathlessly fawning CV. I recommend that you read some good biographies here to get a feel for how we do things, then edit other articles, and once you're comfortable with editing WP give it another try. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. PFA (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated requests for unnecessary changes and impolite accusations for a registered, global public health organization to be doing something for financial gains: Draft:Akhil Maheshwari

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Randykitty: PLEASE NOTE that I, on behalf of the Global Newborn Society and our local Rotary Club, would request you to make all your suggested changes once for all so this page looks to you as you desire and then we can all move on. In our meetings, we have begun to wonder if this page is actually as important as it is being made out to be. Please remove the citations ASAP. It makes the whole thing look so controversial, more than it deserves to be. Are we not wasting valuable time on this page, which could actually be spent on reducing newborn deaths?

By the way, are you a professional Wikipedia editor who charges money to edit pages? It is insulting to the Global Newborn Society (GNS), which is a registered pro bono 501c3 organization, to be accused of "paying money to advertize". At the GNS, we are all physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are taking time out of our schedules in an attempt to change something in this world. If you have time, go to https://www.globalnewbornsociety.org/ and sign up. Please stop wasting everyone's time. I know that these words are not so polite, but you are evoking these.Clinton1000 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated requests for unnecessary changes and impolite accusations for a registered, global public health organization to be doing something for financial gains: Draft:Akhil Maheshwari

I see your suggestion to us to read WP:COI. You say that we should refrain from editing it, and that you arebin no way obliged to write this article or to edit it. If only minor changes were needed, you would already have done thtat, but this needed a thorough rewrite and that you have better things to do.

Dear Randykitty, let's resolve this once for all. Have you designed the WP:COI? Are you willing to post your last year income sources? We seriously feel that this continuous editing from you has financial conflicts of interest. You are spoiling Wikipedia, which is a huge asset for the society, to a position where it loses its reputation.

We gently request you to post your sources of income. All saintly individuals would have no difficulties in doing so.Clinton1000 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I see that I have been "banned" from posting any further comments. This is just getting too ridiculous. The Wikipedia editors need to intervene here. Here is a person who needs to disclose the absence of any conflicts of interest. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It was me that added your user name as a conflicted editor, the Wikipedia software automatically added the banned user part, I do not know why. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your careful observation. Please intervene here. How is a registered 501c3 organization conflicted for interests? We just do not get this. Clinton1000 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Being a "registered 501c3 organization" is irrelevant, you are part of the organisation so you are deemed to have a conflict of interest and should use the [WP:ER|request edits]] system on the article's talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
If a global organization is working in 122 countries, has a journal that is published free of any charge, has no membership fee, is negotiating with various governments and commercial organizations, where is the conflict of interest? Clinton1000 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
If we get a person who knows nothing about the organization and/or medical care to comment, that would be considered informed and with no possibility of a conflict of interest? Clinton1000 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Clinton1000, please stop using all that bolding. Exceptionally, I will answer your accusations of bad faith and your other questions, given that you are new here. Please read WP:AGF. Any further accusations against me will be reported and may get you WP:BLOCKED from editing.
1/ There are no "professional Wikipedia editors" and I don't charge money for my work here.
2/ COI can be present without any pecuniary motives. Please read WP:COI closely.
3/ Look at the history of WP:COI. I never edited that guideline.
4/ There's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll post my income sources, not last year, not any year.
5/ Where you get the idea that I have financial interests here absolutely baffles me.
6/ If you really think that I am "spoiling Wikipedia", you can file at complaint at WP:ANI. Before you do so, be sure to read WP:BOOMERANG.
7/ I am most certainly not a "saintly individual".
Finally, discussing ways to improve the article (Akhil Maheshwari) belongs on its talk page, not here. And I can do without your accusations, so any further edits you make here will be immediately reverted without any further response. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of financial impropriety: Draft:Akhil Maheshwari

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments2 people in discussion

There is a box showing "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (March 2023)". Please stop these unsubstantiated accusations."Clinton1000 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

A number of my posts on this page have been speedily deleted. As I understand, not all of it is so democractic.Clinton1000 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Now the whole section on the Global Newborn Society has been removed. Great!Clinton1000 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It was totally unsourced and promotional, so yes it is "great" that it has been removed, it is an improvment. Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The whole section on the Global Newborn Society has been removed. I am not talking about one word! Clinton1000 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
How do you define "unsourced"? If there is a website, a trademark, a journal, and ISSN, recognition from the US government, does that help? Clinton1000 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No it doesn't help at all, those are primary sources, Wikipedia has very little interest in them, sources need to be independent. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
you are not talking promotional here. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
If the website has a few million readers every year, which one needs which one? If the idea is social good, both Wikipedia and the organization need both. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
independent sources: trademark, ISSN, recognition from the US government Clinton1000 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
recognition from Rotary Clinton1000 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I will leave here. Thanks for your guidance. Clinton1000 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry Randykitty I'll stop responding here, user has a severe case of Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of a page

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Seven Wonders of Karnataka hello you deleted a page without responding to clarification give by author of page and myself on talk page, please let us know it is advertising page as it is intiative by Tourism department (government of Karnataka) ~aanzx ✉ © 12:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Bilge Yılmaz

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Bilge Yılmaz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The draft is unsuitable for inclusion, but I think we should leave some room for improvement in the draft space. (I would have no doubt deleted this in the article space.) I hope this is okay with you. Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Seven Wonders of Karnataka

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Seven Wonders of Karnataka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~aanzx ✉ © 06:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, How did you become an admin? You are bullying Burmese editors with your admin power. Your behavior is shameful and unworthy of an admin. Burmese editors are rarer than gold, and your actions are demotivating us on Wikipedia. We all are leading or experienced editors from the Myanmar Project of English Wikipedia, and we do not need you to teach us abcd. 49.237.39.56 (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  • I became an admin like anybody else, through an RFA. I did not use my "admin powers" at the recent AfD (I guess that's where you're upset about). If you're unhappy with my performance, you can report me here, but beware the boomerang. Finally, nobody owns any articles here, not me, not you, and not the Myanmar Project. The rules are the same for everybody. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"You will only know your own inner sins." not me. Thanks 49.237.17.92 (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Bcs you have born without 🧠. Please don't reply here any more. 49.237.9.9 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rugby League European Championship B

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am questioning your decision to delete the article 2023 Rugby League European Championship B.

Firstly, it was 3 for, 3 against, so no consensus was reached.

Second, the reasons for deletion was 1. Significant coverage, which is defined as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", which I would argue the sources had and no one argued to why it wasn't, instead just stating it. and 2. Other stuff exists, which is listed as an argument to avoid in the link given so I don't see how that can be used as an argument for the other side.

Third, the editor who proposed the deletion refused to accept a move to draft space or even discuss it. Such refusal to discuss is why I had previously reverted the draft back to main space.

Either way, I would appreciate the article being restored, if only to draft space, so it can continue to be worked on as more sources for competitions like this generally become available closer to the start of said competition.

Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Done: Draft:2023 Rugby League European Championship B. Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Anyway, I've draftified the article, but please do not move it to main article space before significant independent reliable sources have been found. --Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moving deleted page to draft

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, today you deleted article after AfD. Could you move it to draft, so its content is not lost and better sources can be put? Haifisch7734 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Done See Draft:2023 German Darts Grand Prix. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this is pointless work, someone decided to battle against darts articles, it does not matter what people working on it provide or what they say, they just delete it even though many voted for Keep. They wanted sources like SkySports, SportingLife...they were provided...they found something else to pick. It is sad, that there is no discussion, no reactions, it is just deleted. DarthBob (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm surprised that 2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season was closed as redirect at WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season given it's a bog-standard article that's always created at this time of year. I really don't see a consensus here. Also, there's a huge backstory on many recent inappropriate WP:FOOTY AFDs by User:Onel5969 - please see WT:WikiProject Football#Question on 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group stage articles and User_talk:Onel5969#Footy season articles. In light of this, can you relist this AFD? I certainly missed the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Affilia Journal Cover Image

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I am trying to update Affilia's journal cover image so it is up-to-date. I've tried to do this by uploading the current cover but saw you reverted the changes. I'm doing my best to understand wiki editing guidelines but struggling. Would you be willing to explain to me how to update the cover appropriately? JeanStiles (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Never mind, I had a look at the article, the publisher's website, and the cover. Everything seems to be in order and I don't see any need for an update. What am I missing? --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi! The image on the Wikipedia page has the old journal name ("Women in Social Work"). The cover has been updated to reflect the new journal name ("Feminist Inquiry in Social Work"). Here is a link to the current cover from Sage Publications' site. JeanStiles (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Prithviraj Productions

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Prithviraj Productions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsworth Circle

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen your name pop up in the history of a few pages I've written about academic journals. If you have ten minutes, the above article could do with some love... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Done Hi Josh, I see that back in 2017 I slammed several tags on this article, but since then it has apparently been included in some pretty selective databases, meeting NJournals. Took me a bit more than ten minutes, though :-) --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Cleanup Barnstar
For Randykitty, for keeping up standards on articles about academic journals. This is a topic we should strive to cover well, but which we often cover badly! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


File:2022 cover Wordsworth Circle.png listed for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2022 cover Wordsworth Circle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you restore my page

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My page was deleted Gangstamadeit (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  •   Not done for obvious reasons.

Stop deleting what you don't understand!

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please abstain from deleting pages that others consider needed and important.

I am trying to add those sources that can be named independent, secondary, reliable etc. And you initiate deleting the page in the middle of this process. This is really shameful, sorry to say.

Before doing this, you need to explain what you see as advertising. Is telling about a person who contributed to the public health of many countries a piece of advertising? Tatianandreeva (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  • It's simple: stop writing gushing articles and they won't be deleted. And for the moment your draft has not been deleted yet, we'll have to see whether the handling admin agrees with me. Only if they do will the draft be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'd also argue she shouldn't be writing about her husband. Your CSD/@UtherSRG's decline are gone due to rev del. I couldn't see how to leave them while removing the text unfortunately. Obv no issue with those edits. Star Mississippi 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for William Street Bird

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Street Bird. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please de-escalate

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Aquabluetesla (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

William Street Bird AfD

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there. I wonder if you could expand one the close of the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Street Bird and perhaps reconsider? Your close summary is very brief for an AfD that consumed a lot of time and seems to have been allowed to run on beyond a week for some reason. In the over-run period it accrued an additional 3 keep votes, but none of them providing any new arguments or sources. Those three additional keep votes may appear to balance the voting, but AfD is not a vote, and there were strong and unanswered policy reasons as to why the few sources provided did not meet WP:NCORP. The one line close statement really does not do those justice. And if it was heading for no consensus at this point, why not relist for another week? Are you able to re-open? I know no one wants their decisions taken to deletion review, and I certainly don't want to go there either, but I do feel this case needs something better than a keep by default.

Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I came here to make the same argument, and also to note that I only yesterday noticed the AfD hadn't been delsorted into the most relevant categories (business, companies), which is probably why there hadn't been much engagement from editors familiar with NCORP. The keep !votes ignored/didn't understand the fact that the venue, as a business, is under NCORP guidelines, which very explicitly reject local sources from contributing to GNG. As such, those !votes should have been dismissed. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

  Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

  Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on a talk page about Frontiers in Psychology

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hope you're well. There's a controversy brewing on the Talk:Frontiers in Psychology page, with one editor pushing to include controversy in the header. You suggested a discussion on the talk page a fair while back. One editor has been reverting all edits counter to their view. A third opinion was sought, which agreed with the initial discussion to remove the controversy in the header, and this editor still does not agree claiming the request for 3rd opinion was biased.

Could you please weigh in? 71.94.157.77 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ISO 4 for Gazette

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Please explain your reasoning for the claim that ISO 4 for Gazette is Gaz. even though "fre" is indicated.
I was under the impression that, in LTWA, the language notations are there to specify the languages for which the abbreviation in question is applicable. This is consistent with the fact that LTWA has many entries such as this:

boulevard blvd. eng, fre
tramway tramw. eng, fre

I read this as: boulevard is to be abbreviated as blvd. in both English and in French, and tramway is to be abbreviated as tramw, in both languages. Note that while boulevard came to English from French, the French tramway is a term borrowed from English (Terme emprunté de l’anglais).
Now consider gazette and abrasive. Both of them are words in both English and French. However, the LTWA entry for gazette is

gazette gaz. fre

while the entry for abrasive is

abrasive abras. eng

I read these two entries as saying that only in French should gazette be abbreviated by gaz., while only in English should abrasive be abbreviated by abras. Otherwise, why do boulevard and tramway have both eng and fre notations?
But you seem to disagree with all this.

From your point of view, then, what are the language notations (eng, fre) for, if not to specify for which languages the abbreviation is applicable? Reuqr (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"I read these two entries as saying that only in French should gazette be abbreviated by gaz"
It doesn't say that. It says that the root of the word Gazette (as determined by the LTWA) is French so if you encounter similar words, if they have the same root, they should be abbreviated similarly. Contrast with the word Real, which should not be abbreviated if it's the English word Real, as in Journal of Real Numbers, but should be abbreviated as R. if it's the Spanish Real, as in Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales
You can you this nifty tool to get ISO 4 abbreviations. It'll be right 99% of the time, but it will give you an incorrect Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. for the above publications because it didn't figure out all the roots correctly. (The correct abbreviation would be Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusions about Real; after all, they are consistent with my own view, namely, that the language notations specify the languages to which the abbreviation applies. (What matters is the language in which the journal name is written, not the language in which the journal articles are written.) However, I don't see how the following thing you said about the language notation could be correct:
It says that the root of the word Gazette (as determined by the LTWA) is French so if you encounter similar words, if they have the same root, they should be abbreviated similarly.
The reasons for my scepticism are as follows:
1. Many LTWA entries are explicitly stems (e.g. adjoin- adjoin. eng). If LTWA was all about roots (as you said, "if you encounter similar words, if they have the same root, they should be abbreviated similarly"), then why have such stem entries?
2. Many entries have the sole notation mul (e.g. accumulation accumul. mul). Surely, this cannot be about the root?
3. Speaking of accumulation, there is the following separate entry: accumulative accumul. eng. This even though accumulation and accumulative surely share the same root?
4. Many words have multiple language notations (e.g. boulevard and tramway have both eng and fre). Again, how can this be about roots, then? Reuqr (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to email the LTWA to figure out how they figure out roots or why they list different entries the way they do (e.g. when to list mul, when to list individual languages). But the rules apply regardless of language, so long as the root applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"But the rules apply regardless of language, so long as the root applies."
Yes, I understand that this is your claim, but I don't understand why you are sticking by it, given the problems 1-4.
Meanwhile, here is some more evidence for my point of view.
(In what follows, the boldface emphases are mine.)
From the LTWA website:
LTWA includes more than 56,000 words and their abbreviations in 65 languages. … The ISSN Network creates the abbreviations in the List of Title Word Abbreviations. The ISSN National Centres abbreviate the words in their country’s languages.
Note that there is no hint of cross-language universality here. On the contrary, is sounds like everything is language-specific.
Here are more details from ISSN Manual:
7.2 Rules for word abbreviations
Abbreviations which are permitted in abbreviated key titles are listed in the List of title word abbreviation. Titles of serials and other continuing resources available on the ISSN website.
When a word is not in the list, and a new abbreviation is required, the ISSN National Centre communicates by e-mail, the following information to the International Centre:
ISSN, word, proposed abbreviation, language code
When a new abbreviation has been approved by the International Centre it is published in the List of title word abbreviations.
Again, it sounds as if everything is super language-specific, with National Centres providing abbreviations to the International Centre only for the languages of the specific country. There is no hint of any attempt to create trans-language rules of the type you seem to be suggesting. Reuqr (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Randykitty, it seems Headbomb is done with this conversation. I presume you have read our exchange. Your thoughts? --Reuqr (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Consider e.g. Journal of Atmospheric Science. Prior to 1972 (when ISO 4 came about), J Atmospheric Sci was fairly widespread. After, J Atmos Sci became the vastly dominant form, and J Atmospheric Sci effectively unused.
This is not a coincidence, despite the LTWA having no (english) entry for Atmosphere, but plenty of entries for Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Russian, German, and French versions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Physics Essays for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Physics Essays 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/Physics Essays until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ca talk to me! 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Novem Linguae
 

  Bureaucrat changes

  MBisanz

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Physics Essays. Same warning I gave User:Headbomb, your WP:PROFRINGE approach is in violation of Discretionary Sanctions over pseudoscience. Keep it up, and I will drag you both to WP:AE and asked for you to be topic banned from WP:FRINGE-related articles (especially journals). jps (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Physics Essays for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Physics Essays 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/Physics Essays (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ca talk to me! 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Entropy (journal): Revision

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion

　Which description does ”more than something about review” specifically refer to?

curprev 14:15, 6 July 2023‎ Randykitty talk contribs‎ 5,865 bytes +495‎ you removed more than something about review papers undo curprev 14:00, 6 July 2023‎ 60.67.55.144 talk‎ 5,370 bytes −76‎ Since papers of the type called review paper are generally accepted, it cannot be said that the description affects the authenticity of the paper. Therefore, the description has been deleted. undo curprev 13:37, 6 July 2023‎ 60.67.55.144 talk‎ 5,446 bytes −422‎ Since the link of 「Kloor, Keith. "When Media Uncritically Cover Pseudoscience". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 17 January 2014.」 is broken, the corresponding description has been deleted. undo Tag: references removed 　 60.67.55.144 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Your edit broke grammar and you also removed a reference. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
    Can you explain in more detail?
    ”you also removed a reference”
    Which reference are you referring to ? [4] or [5] ?
    The reason for deleting the [4] is a valid reason.
    13:37, 6 July 2023「The paper does not contain any primary research results.[4]」Link is broken.
    I don't think it's a problem to remove the link[5] written in the deleted document. Is there any point in leaving only the link?
    14:00, 6 July 2023‎ 「It was criticized as pseudo-science by the science magazine Discover [5] Since.....
    ”Your edit broke grammar”
    I don't think the grammar is broken. Since "and" is Coordinating conjunctions（and,but...）,so both「It was criticized as pseudo-science by the science magazine Discover[5] and Jeffrey Beall, founder of Beall's List of predatory open-access publishers, said "Will MDPI publish anything for money?".」and「Jeffrey Beall, founder of Beall's List of predatory open-access publishers, said "Will MDPI publish anything for money?".」are grammatically correct.　Moreover, both sentences make sense. 60.67.55.144 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    Have you solved your question? If there are no problems, I will undo your correction.
    The deadline is July 16. 60.67.55.144 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I have no clue what you are talking about. Your edit was incorrect, so my correction (better to call it a "restauration" should not be undone. And where you get the idea that you can impose deadlines I cannot fathom. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    (talk page watcher) The paper removed as a dead link was easy to find in the Internet Archive, so I have added the link to its archived version. It's never a good idea to delete a reference as "dead" without looking for a copy in the most obvious place. PamD 18:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
To the IP editor: The grammar was broken. You left a sentence beginning "founder of Beall's List". You may have intended it to start with "Jeffrey Beall, ", but that isn't what you achieved. PamD 18:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand.
To Randykitty
"I have no clue what you are talking about. Your edit was incorrect, "
→If you don't understand, please explain what you don't understand in detail.
Is the correction below grammatically broken?
「The paper does not contain any primary research results.[4] It was criticized as pseudo-science by the science magazine Discover[5] and Jeffrey Beall, founder of Beall's List of predatory open-access publishers, said "Will MDPI publish anything for money?".」
→「Jeffrey Beall, founder of Beall's List of predatory open-access publishers, said "Will MDPI publish anything for money?".」 60.67.55.144 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ethics & the Environment

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi; me again. I recently created a stub about an academic journal, and it got moved to the draft space. I'm pretty confident the journal is notable, but I'm having a bit of trouble negotiating the databases -- the typical Clarivate experience for me is three logins just so I can see an error page -- and I'm not quite sure what counts. The publisher keeps a list of the databases in which the journal is indexed/abstracted here, which seems to be mostly accurate. Anyway, I wondered if you might have a few minutes to drop by the draft and see if you think things are looking as they should? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've now seen this. I've heard of some of those databases, but not others. But I confess I might not have a good sense of which are important from Wikipedia's perspective! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Firefangledfeathers
 

  Interface administrator changes

  Novem Linguae

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Phenomics

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Please refer to the paper: "Phenomics research on coronary heart disease based on human phenotype ontology" and "Aging phenomics enabled by quantitative imaging analysis"
Also refer to:
" phenomics-based studies on aging " in the artical: "Phenomic Studies on Diseases: Potential and Challenges" 69.42.6.103 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
and to this paper:

Oncotarget. 2015 Jul 10; 6(19): 16794–16795. Published online 2015 Jun 22. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4566 PMCID: PMC4627258 PMID: 26164083 

 "Aging phenomics enabled by quantitative imaging analysis".

Weiyang Chen and Jing-Dong J. Han — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.6.103 (talk • contribs)

This comment is in reference to adding the following text to the Phenomics link:
It is also important to remember that an organisms phenotype changes with time. Phenomics is very relevant for the study of aging, since an organisms phenotype changes as it ages; a good example is the difference between an 8 year old and an 80 year old human, their phenotypes are quite different.
The father of Phenomics is in the field of aging research and it was in that context that the field of Phenomics was established. Therefore it is important to state the importants of Phenomics with respect to aging research. The above references from peer reviewed journals are also refer to Phenomics and aging. 69.42.6.103 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This comment is in reference to adding the following text to the Phenomics link:

It is also important to remember that an organisms phenotype changes with time. Phenomics is very relevant for the study of aging, since an organisms phenotype changes as it ages; a good example is the difference between an 8 year old and an 80 year old human, their phenotypes are quite different.

The father of Phenomics is in the field of aging research and it was in that context that the field of Phenomics was established. Therefore it is important to state the importants of Phenomics with respect to aging research. The above references from peer reviewed journals are also refer to Phenomics and aging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.6.103 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't see why I should add that stuff to the article. It's not well sourced and borders (or even crosses that border) on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Your mentioning of the "father of phenomics" did provide me with some amusement, I must confess. And whether he's the father or not, that he worked in aging is absolutely irrelevant. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    The articles are peer reviewed papers, what better sources do you require? 69.42.6.103 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    The paper "Phenomic Studies on Diseases: Potential and Challenges" published in the journal "Phenomics" states thee following:
    "aging studies have established a strong basis for phenomics-based studies on aging"
    Please refer to the following link at the NIH:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9867904/
    Please let me know why this is not a good source? 69.42.6.103 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    There are over 20 references to aging in the paper "Phenomic Studies on Diseases: Potential and Challenges", including the following statement: "aging studies have established a strong basis for phenomics-based studies on aging". 69.42.6.103 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    BTW, I have seen more articles with regards to Phenomics and aging, please let me know it you would like me to add them to this TALK session, for you to look at. thanks. 69.42.6.103 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    Hello,
    I found the following: "Phenomics is an emerging transdiscipline, defined as the changes seen in an organism resulting in variations in the phenotype during the life span of the organism."
    In the following:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/phenomics
    Please refer to the following section titled "Systems Biology Application in Toxicology" where the above sentence appears. Please let me know if the the statment below can be restored:
    It is also important to remember that an organisms phenotype changes with time. Phenomics is very relevant for the study of aging, since an organisms phenotype changes as it ages; a good example is the difference between an 8 year old and an 80 year old human, their phenotypes are quite different.
    Thanks 69.42.6.103 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

  Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Academic journals established in 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on Category:Academic journals established in 2022 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Randykitty,
Just a notice to let you know that this category has been tagged. It then sits for 7 days in case there was an inadvertent emptying of the category. In the case of CSD C1, "speedy deletion" is not really "speedy". Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Randykitty As someone who creates categories when they are needed, in existing hierarchies, even if they currently only have one member, you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Merge for now and the answer to my question at User_talk:Marcocapelle#A_question which clarifies that some editors want a rule which will prevent a category from being created unless it has 5 (or "n" for some value) member articles from the start. PamD 07:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi PamD. Given how many journals are published, I don't doubt that Category:Academic journals established in 2022 will eventually have more than 5 entries. It's just too soon right now, because journals rarely get notable this soon after establishment. But I think that these year-based cats are a good example where you would still want to have a cat for year xyz, even if it has only one entry. Anyway, thanks for bringing this discussion to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Exit!

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Randykitty, do you have any metrics at hand for this journal's notability? I'm thinking of taking it to AfD. PS I had a great couple of days in Tarn-et-Garonne. I can't wait to retire and move there. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Sorry, nothing... I can't even find an ISSN, although the individual issues seem to have an ISBN. Not in any index either, as far as I can see. Taking that refbombed piece to AfD will be quite an effort, I fear. TeG is gorgeous, but no travel for me this summer. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

On Education - Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I have gone through the criteria for submission of the article. In my opinion the article satisfies C1b, C2b, and C3b,c. Benjamin Wessel (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.worldcat.org/search?fq=x0:jrnl&q=n2:2571-7855 (ISSN Link) Benjamin Wessel (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

" So unless there's an RS that says this is a scientific journal,"

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That whole sentence doesn't read like you intend, I think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Radhika Muthukumar

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

117.243.150.209 has asked for a deletion review of Radhika Muthukumar. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 10:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tariq Farooq

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kyda sh has asked for a deletion review of Tariq Farooq. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

  Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

why the edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

kuprov is an academic journal editor, please explain category deletion. that the category is for EICs is demonstrably incorrect, see for example

Blaire_Van_Valkenburgh

Debra_L._Shapiro

Suzanne_Rivard

I have reverted your edit for now.

81.106.247.41 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Please go to the category page and read the description. That there are some persons that don't belong in this cat is a reason for cleanup, not to add more pages that don't belong here. I'm going to remove that category again (and will check the bios that you list above). Please don't re-add that category to this particular bio. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    fine, accepted 81.106.247.41 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

evidence

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I appreciate the thoroughness! This may be a somewhat unconventional evidence, but if you zoom into the photograph of the award ceremony published by IISER (the blue leaflet), it does say what the man got his award for

https://twitter.com/nmrs23_iiserbpr/status/1629198118117060612/photo/2

I am guessing you have specific standards for this, but that's pretty convincing at the human level. Sciency Smith (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

speedy deletion appeal

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Randy, this is unreasonable - a good faith article with peer-reviewed academic sources, describing research by an individual: if course it would cite individual's papers and related web sites web sites. Article was ranked C in two categories!

A banhammer is not a way to deal with a minor referencing query that the author did his best to address. Petitioning to reinstate the article. Sciency Smith (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Calling me vindictive basically ends this discussion. I tried to help you and warned that the article needed independent sources and was written in a promotional manner. You insisted on keeping promotional language that was not supported by your sources. Meanwhile, you should disclose on your user page that you are paid by the University of Southampton for your edits here. At the same time, please disclose what other accounts you use to edit here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    Well - we tried. A number of articles will not get written. This is a loss situation for Wikipedia that you would do well to reflect on. Sciency Smith (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Bring back List of Essential Mix episodes

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The reason for deletion is utterly stupid, this was a a very useful page for people and for music history. Anyhooooo (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  • I assume you're referring to my closure of this discussion. Please don't change closed discussions, it's disruptive and most likely nobody will ever notice, so it's rather useless, too. If you have better sources than those listed in the AfD or if you feel that my closure did not assess consensus correctly, you can take this to deletion review. --Randykitty (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2023 cover Al-arabiyya.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2023 cover Al-arabiyya.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wolters Kluwer Undo

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What would be a more reliable source to add the software licensing controversy back in? 95.12.119.84 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

FPSAC

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I notice that International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics has been PRODed. This is a pretty prestigious conference in my area (or perhaps in an area adjacent to mine). It's proceedings appear in notable journals (recently often Séminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire). Getting a talk accepted is highly prestigious, and even getting a poster accepted is nontrivial. Disclosing that I was on the scientific committee for the conference one year. I think this is probably a notable topic, but before I deprod, I thought I would run it by you. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm afraid that I don't know too much about this type of conferences. Far as I know, the conference article will need to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. If it does, add the necessary sources to the article and dePROD it. If not, let the PROD run its course, otherwise it'll end up at AfD and that would be a waste of time. --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    Randykitty, thanks for taking a look. Conferences like this (or like Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, or others) are comparable in many ways to journals, which is why I thought I'd run it by you. I will likely deprod eventually and try to make a case under WP:NJOURNALS at a likely AfD, but will think about it first, and perhaps run it by a Wikiproject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are indeed a lot like journals, but unlike journals, they are rarely (never?) included in databases like Scopus or the Science Citation Index Expanded, making it difficult to make a case under NJournals. And look at, among others, the talk page of NJournals: it is currently widely under attack by editors who feel that we should abolish it and go by GNG exclusively. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Randykitty:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1300 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ATLA

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed you prodded The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology - did you not realise it was in ATLA? Or have you changed your opinion of it? Ten years ago you did a keep !vote on the basis of ATLA. (Has it really been that long?) StAnselm (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, there have recently been huge discussions about WP:NJournals (see its talk page, but there are also discussions won the talk pages of some journals and recent AfDs, such as this one and others). So, yes, things are evolving, for better or for worse. There's a whole group of editors out there who argue that journals should only get a stand-alone article if they meet WP:GNG. If that becomes generally accepted, we could do away with >95% of our journal articles... I'm not going to fight about this, but you should realize that an article like this one is unlikely to survive an AfD in the current climate. And as an aside, I have become a bit more critical of ATLA, as it doesn't seem to be as selective as, say, MEDLINE for medical journals. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the heads up. It seemed like a strange discussion to have about an essay - but then, I have seen very different views on Wikipedia as to what "essay" means. StAnselm (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  0xDeadbeef
  Tamzin
  Dennis Brown

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery
 

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  Happy First Edit Day, Randykitty, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_32&oldid=1186920895"