User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 8

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


A7 exception

Hi. Just for future reference: If you look at the criteria for Wikipedia:CSD#A7 you'll see that articles about schools are exempted. I don't personally agree with this exception but I believe the intent is to encourage students to participate on Wikipedia by writing about their schools. Therefore I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Ben Milam Elementary. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Italic title

I see from the edit history that you were having some trouble getting Building Services Engineering Research and Technology to display with an italic title. I guess you missed the significant sentence in the {{Italic title}} documentation. (I missed it the first few times I looked for it, too.) For future reference, that sentence is:

If an infobox is used that has an italic-title autofunction, then the {{Italic title}} template must be positioned after the infobox.

An alternative (which you'll see I chose to go with on the Building Services Engineering Research and Technology page) is to use the italic-title options built into the infobox itself, instead of having a separate template.

Hope this helps. —Paul A (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks a bunch! Once you think about it, kind of logical that the last statement used is the one that has the last effect. Also didn't know that you could use the "force" parameter in the infobox. Helpful to know. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

removed csd tag from International Water Centre

I do think the article asserted notability (the product of two notable institutions devoted towards water research). It could probably mention faculty and specific projects but I thought it better not to delete it. Cheers. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor student

It looks like UB1Talence was blocked after creating some articles about his professors, including yourself. That is pretty weird, because Ge Wang did the same and he wasn't blocked. Wouldn't it be better if those articles were tagged with COI and have someone else work on them? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, UB1Talence was blocked because the username looked like it represented an organisation (Université Bordeaux I), not because of the articles (s)he created. UB1Talence didn't use a real name, so we cannot know if there was a COI. Ge Wang is a real name and if this is indeed the editors name, there was a (mild) COI. I've gone over the Cook article and removed anything that could be construed as peacock/overly positive/POV/etc. and have consequently removed the COI tag. I did not remove the notability tag, because there are hardly any references at all. As this is not really my field, I don't even know where to begin looking for such sources, so that will have to wait for the efforts of somebody else. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Spiralation: ICTA Innovation Grants

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I deleted Spiralation: ICTA Innovation Grants, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious & Theological Abstracts

Hello Guillaume2303,

In the process of creating pages for several religion-related journals, I've noticed that there does not seem to be a Wikiipedia page for the bibliographic database "Religious & Theological Abstracts". This database (which probably used to be a journal or maybe still is) seems to be a free-standing company, with a website HERE: http://rtabstracts.org/. It seems to be that there should be some sort of coverage in WP of this database (ie a WP page). A quick check suggests that it is widely mentioned on the internet, i.e., more than 10,000 hits in Google (for the simple phrase in quotes), including about 600 hits in Google books. QUESTION: How would you recommend that such a page be written? (or would you consider creating such a page yourself to get the ball rolling???). -- Health Researcher (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, it looks like an article on that database is justified. It would be great if you could document that this database is selective, because then we could use inclusion in it as an argument to establish notability for those journals. I have currently not much time to work on this myself. Perhaps you can find some assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Databases (although I have the impression that this particular project is not very active at the moment). Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure precisely how that database is selective, although surely it must be selective somehow. Searches on their own website and in Google Book don't show any obvious criteria. But there are many hits in various online sources, and I've found a Handbook of research that mentions it as a "popular" database and describes some of its characteristics, so I'll go ahead and create a page. Maybe others can expand it over time. --Presearch (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC) (previously named User:Health Researcher)

HOSC

Was removing one of the see also link here accidental or intentional? Cheers, —Ruud 13:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Accidental! I'm afradi this sometimes happens when I mark lines with my mouse. Sorry about that! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Open access journal categories

On reflection, I was more tinkering than enacting a plan. Feel free to revert if I'm screwing things up. Fences&Windows 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

An AfD invitation

Hey Guillaume2303, are you perhaps interested in looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis González-Mestres? I'm somewhat on the fence but haven't laid out a case one way or another. I thought I'd ask you to weigh in since, while it's not exactly your field (I think), you may have some thoughts about notability for a European (French/Spanish) scientist and you have a knowledge of and interest in academics. Thanks, and thanks also for your very friendly words at AfD, Drmies (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • It's indeed not my field directly (I'm a neurotic scientist neuroscientist), but I have access to some relevant resources here. Unfortunately, I had to come down on the delete side. Congrats on your successful RfA, there are not that many who get 99% unanimous support with >200 "ayes"! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

African Invertebrates

Hi Guillaume2303, could you please revert your last deletion on this page. The removed link points to a page, where some articles are in Open Access, which is unavailable elsewhere. Thank you, Coffinfly (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, hadn't seen the online access. Just thought this was yet another one of those social media science sites that keep popping up. I have restored the link. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps

Hi. You have been valuable with regards to notability of journals as this is your field. How about taking a look at Internet Review of Science Fiction. I nominated it and don't think it meets notability but could be wrong, perhaps you have access to resources I do not. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I had been waiting a bit to see what arguments would be brought forward. I just had another look and I don't really find this is up to our normal standards. It apparently was a nice publication (and I might have enjoyed reading it myself), but it appears to have gone almost unnoticed, and being noticed is basically the definition of notability... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your comments and assessment. Looks like we were overruled, though I can't say on very compelling points.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, that's what sometimes happens. The admin apparently was not very impressed by my arguments, because it was closed as "keep", not even "no consensus". Of course, nothing prevents you from taking it to AfD again in a few months. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks, though, for the input. I just think there are so many fans of these people, that their fervor takes over the argument, turning the AfD into a voting contest. There are just too many people with articles here who have been nominated for awards, never won them, and somehow that confers notability.See [1]for example. I am doing my best to turn this into an encyclopedia one grey hair at a time! Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

House?

Congratulations Guillaume2303. We're trying to sell ours--do you need a pied-a-terre in Alabama? I might look you up next year; we have friends who own a little house on the Lot. I miss France. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • No, don't think we need something in Alabama right now... :-) Although a pied-a-terre somewhere around Boston would be helpful now that my mother-in-law is getting infirm. We bought a lovely place in Pompignac (to my Dutch ears that name sounds quite cute). As a Dutchman yourself you can probably understand my excitement that there is a real, healthy palm tree in the garden! If you get in the neighborhood, drop me a note and we'll meet up for a glass of wine (or, if you are like me more inclined to a real martini -not vermouth, I mean- I make a quite mean one and they are difficult to find in France :-). For the moment, help me hope the US$ rises nicely in the next few weeks, it'll help the conversion when I transfer my savings (finally) from the US to France (I have a few more weeks until I have to make the final payment...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • NO NO! I need the Euro up: I'm moving money the other way around, and for the first time in a decade the exchange rate is leaning my way. Pompignac is indeed a cute name. Remember Toon Hermans, "Vraag eens even aan Joop l'Hibou, wat ik met m'n Pompi-dou"? It's that sound. Anyway, that's two and a half hours away--they're in Touzac. That's nothing! A palm tree is great, of course--but living in Alabama, I don't find them that special anymore. Say, in France we can still drive intoxicated, non? OK, I'll move my cash first and then make the dollar go up, and then you move yours. BTW--Boston...are you going in July? All the best, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Wish I could. Should have been in the Rockies this week for a fun meeting (IBNS), but had to cancel. Also canceled trips to Helsinki and Brussels. No time... As for exchange rates: when I moved to the US in late 2000, I got $0.80 for each one of my Euros. When I moved back in 2005, I thought that a rate of $1.20 per Euro was too high and decided to wait. So now I'm forced to make the exchange and get at best $1.40 to buy a Euro... Got to stop talking about this otherwise I'll start to cry... :-( --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Blyttia

Thanks very much for the helpful edits you made to this article. Cheers, Eisfbnore talk 18:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Psychosis journal

Thanks for the helping edits. (I have problem saving/previewing pages. The page often times out.) Nopedia (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not totally satisfied with the removal of promotional language. I understand and agree that there should not be promotional language. Thanks for the pointers. However the information that you removed is quite accurate and should be there in my opinion. Could you perhaps specify an alternative way to write this information there? (And I would be glad if you discussed with me before removing. Is not that the standard on Wikipedia?) Nopedia (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your VC I suppose you must be very occupied ;-)

Would something like this in your opinion be ok to add back:

"The main scope of the journal is research focused on the psychological treatments of psychosis (e.g. cognitive-behavior therapy, psychodynamic therapy, family therapy etc.) and the psycho-social causes of psychosis (e.g. poverty, drug abuse, child abuse and neglect, distressed families, urban living, discrimination, rape, war combat etc.)." Nopedia (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "Correct" does not always mean that it should be in an article. But what you propose above is perfectly acceptable and I have re-added it to the article. I'm not sure I know what "VC" is, but probably I just need more coffee... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


VC? ;-) -- I do not drink coffee so it will not help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopedia (talk • contribs) 14:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with some Wikipedia-related research?

Hi Guillaume2303. My name is Sanjay, and I'm a 1st-year PhD student working on a project aimed at improving the quality of scientific articles on Wikipedia by providing easier access to relevant published refereed articles. I found you on the list of Wikipedians with access to Web of Science and I noticed that you edited a variety of pages pertaining to Neuroscience and Biology. If you are interested in lending your expertise and advice to this research effort, I have posted a set of questions on my talk page - I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to answer any or all of them. The answers will help inform the design of a tool which I believe will benefit the Wikipedia community. Thanks! Sanjaykairam (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1#Category:Science writing. Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Jonathan ettricks

Hello. I'm just letting you know that I have deleted this page as WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked) and not WP:CSD#A3 (no content) as you had tagged it. When tagging a new article for deletion, please remember to check the page history for previous edits, or maintenance tags that have been removed, and the creator's contribution history and talk page for possible warning and/or sockpuppetry and other articles they may have created or disturbed. For more details, please see WP:NPP and WP:CSD, and if you need help with anything, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, and you're right, I was lazy. I noticed the blanking when I checked the user's contributions and didn't put in the effort to change the CSD tag... Sorry about that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing broken! I should have looked at your user page before leaving the message, I'm so used to dealing with new New Page Patrollers - désolé :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Shoutmon and other Digimon Xros Wars Characters

Along with Bagramon, DarkKnightmon, and Greymon. They are key characters in the series storyline much like Agumon was in Digimon Adventure, Veemon in Digimon 02, and so on. If the articles need improvement, alright. But don't just outright ask them to be deleted.Fractyl (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Some of these articles have been around for months and are still unsourced. Please make yourself familiar with the notability guideline and any appropriate subordinate guides. AfD takes a week, so you have still some time to find reliable sources to support the articles. Without that, I have no doubt that the articles will be deleted. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Using the main character Digimon profiles from previous seasons, the reliable sources you asked for have been added.Fractyl (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Neovandalism

Hi, Guillaume2303. I need help and support from you and others. The new page neovandalism is tagged for speedy deletion under G3. It is not a hoax or vandalism, nor should it be categorized as G3. It is a serious and relevant topic. Kindly help allow several weeks of civil discussion. ----To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

Tendentious article should not be permitted in Wikipedia! The JoC example.

The description regarding "Journal of Cosmology" has been quite tendentious. And certainly, this kind of article should not be permitted in Wikipedia. The current description is more informative and presents a neutral position, discussing both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoomerRev (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Your edits don't seem to be uncontroversial to me. I strongly suggest that you discuss these changes on the article's talk page first. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


///////////////////////////////////


I would like to ask you help regarding one of the Headbomb`s writting. He clearly doesn`t understand one of our five pillars: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". His description of Journal of Cosmology has been quite tendencious, like a personal attack to the journal, using not adequate language, which indicate lack of etiquette and good faith. I rewrote the article (improved by your contribution), pointing out the same facts, but with a neutral position, like an encyclopedic article shall be. But he insists in changing the article according to his personal view. Other authors has been contrary to his personal attacks, but he doesn`t listen to. What is possible to do in this critical case ?

DYK for Jacqueline Crawley

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies...

...For blocking you. I wanted to block Gafrong (talk · contribs), but I accidentally blocked you instead. I'm sorry and wish to apologise. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  • My virginal block record! Gone!!! :-) Don't worry, only those who never do something don't make mistakes (hope I didn't get not mixed up with no double neither triple negatives here, didn't I... :) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think you didn't get mixed up with no triple negatives... See you around, please do keep up your terrific work! Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Peduli Anak

Hi, Guillaume2303. Can you tell me where User:Pedulianak requested deletion of this article? I can't find the request in her/his edit history and the editor doesn't appear to have blanked the page. I was going to tag the article A7 and G11, but I thought it better to wait for clarification on your issue first. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oops, from my CD log I see that I tagged it G7, which obviously was a mistake. It should indeed have been A7 or G11 (under which it has now been deleted). Sorry about that! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Peduli Anak

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I deleted Peduli Anak, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ale_Jrbtalk 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Net-A-Porter

Hello there. Sorry, I only saw your message about Net-A-Porter recently. I do think Net-A-Porter deserves a Wikipedia page. It's probably the top e-commerce site for fashion in the world, is linked with almost all the top fashion designers, and has been widely covered in all sorts of media. It's possible that the article itself wasn't as well sourced as it could have been, but I think it's legitimately a big enough operation -- both in terms of business and its cultural influence -- to have a mention. (I would NOT say this of 99% of fashion selling sites out there). Please note that I have nothing to do with Net-A-Porter. It was not meant as some sort of "advertorial" as I have no connection to the company, nor would I profit from any publicity. I'm just a big fan of fashion in general, and I know how prominent it is. If I were to write a better-sourced article at a later time, how would I get that page re-installed? Pumpkin888 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, that article was not deleted because of notability problems, but because it was promotional and basically written as an advertisement. There is no problem with re-creating the article with a neutrally-written one, as long as it is indeed neutral and not promotional and contains references to independent reliable sources that establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Luisa Via Roma

Thanks for that, the CSD removal would have been picked up my a filter, but I don't know who follows that (I don't). Deleted again, I'll watch it for a while and if it's recreated again I'll salt it on the three strikes basis. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advices Guillaume2303. I will rewrite the article and before publishing I will create it as "individual user's work in progress page". SimoneDaniele (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2011

Psychological Reports/Perceptual and Motor Skills

Hi! I'd like to expand these two entries. Why are the additions deleted?--Jeff Schmerker (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Jeff Schmerker

  • I deleted your additions for three reasons. First, part of what you added was copied verbatim from the journal website, which is a copyright violation. Second, these are well-established international journals. If they would publish only articles coming from the US, that would perhaps be worthy of note. That they publish papers from "places as far as Belgium" is not worth of note. Third, the number of articles published really is trivial. Again, if they would only publish one or two articles per year, that might be noteworthy, but not this. Have a look at some B- or C-class journal articles or the writing guide for journal articles to see examples on how to expand these articles (which would indeed be welcome). Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input. In looking to expand the site, what additional information do you think could be added?Jeff Schmerker (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC) (Nevermind--I missed the link.)
  • Well, the most obvious additions are an infobox (with a cover image if possible) and abstracting and indexing information (this will show the notability of the journals). If you have access to the Web of Science, you could also add the three most-cited articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Optical Society

I see what you mean. Obviously notable, not a copyright violation as far as I can see, but definitely spammy. I'd be inclined to notify the main contributor (I suspect that the redlinked editors are socks anyway). It could be speedied as spam, but considering the amount of work, even I'm reluctant to do that. What about a prod to start the process and alert the editors to the problems? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry

I added in the information about the Associate Editors and the Editorial Board because other journals include that information, for example on the ASBMB page, they list this information. Contrary to what Wikipedia thinks, this is exactly the type of information people are interested in. 9531ster (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Optical Society of America

Hi Guillaume2303, by-the-way you did a nice cleanup of Optical Society! Related I saw that you "replaced" the redirect of Talk:Optical Society of America to Talk:Optical Society by a WPJournals template. I guess the goal was to "add" the template? -- SchreyP (messages) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

American Journal of Psychotherapy

Hi, I'd like to expand the page for the American Journal of Psychotherapy and have added the most recent contents as well as brief sentence about the Journal. Why delete this information? This type of information is of interest to the readers. It is also the type of information shared. Lastly, as a representative of the publisher, I do have the authority to offer this information, so that copyright should not be a concern. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tynaghm (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Diary of an Angel

Dear Guillaume2303, I received a message from you regarding my page... they say that there is no evident of the diary existence but they are plenty of sites in Google referring to it and numerous images of the artists involved... how do I proceed to prove its existence? Thanks Halkios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkios (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) .

  • Well, showing that it exists is going to be the least of your problems. The most important thing is that you show that this subject is notable (in the WP sense). For this, you need independent reliable sources. MySpace pages are not going to help much. I didn't find anything on Google, but perhaps you know of good sources. Add those to the article and, if sufficient, I'll remove the PROD tag. Please also read WP:MOS and WP:POV, which may help you in editing this (and other) articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This Diary is unique by nature, traveling among countries, and still for another year, the only proof is taking pictures of it and the written testimonies, in Facebook and Myspace or other websites, by the writers, but I see no other mean to improve it, would you advice any other way, the 90 so far artists who are the actual authors of this book, so not only one, how can they prove its notability, since its traveling now for 3 years? event that still undergoes, meaning it is already news... should I contact, newspapers in this case? I don't see my case listed, how does an event that last 4 years cannot be proved by 90 members if so who can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkios (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia only accepts content that is verifiable) in independent reliable sources. That means that a blog that I write cannot be used as a source, which seems rather obvious, I could write absolute nonsense on my blog (such as: "The moon has been shown to be made of green cheese"), but that doesn't make it true. If the only sources you have are MySpace and blogs, you should blank the page and request deletion. Otherwise, somebody will take it to AfD and it will be much more difficult to re-create after an AfD has come to a "delete" decision. If your art project is such a major event, surely newspapers have taken an interest and reported about it. Those would be excellent sources. If, however, only the 90 people involved have taken note of the project, then I'm afraid that this is not going to pass and will be deleted. Hope this helps. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I will be deleting the page. One more request, would it be better if I await its publication when the journey is over? but how this would allow me to prove that it really passed by all those countries? Merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkios (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, as I said above, you'll need independent sources that confirm the diary has passed through those countries. Unfortunately, it's not enough that you yourself say that, it has to be verifiable. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arex

While I agree that the original NAC close will ill advised (I use to do a lot of NACs and I wouldn't have touched this one) I would ask that in the future that you don't revert any closes for AFDs you have !voted in. The best thing to do in cases like this is to ask an administrator to review the close.

BTW I almost closed it but decided to relist it instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, you're right, sorry about that, and I'll contact you or another admin next time (let's hope that won't be necessary...). I guess I just got a bit too irritated with all those ill-advised NACs. If I had been a little more patient, I wouldn't have needed to revert anyway, as Salvio giuliano was reverting the whole lot of them. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Volume !

Hi the refs are about the state of popular music studies in France, justifying the existence of Volume… Thanks Zamuse (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I understand that. However, as far as I see, this violates WP:SYNTH and does not belong in this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Je vous comprends très bien aussi, mais comme l'argument justifie l'existence d'une revue sur les musiques populaires en France (raison pour laquelle les créateurs de l'association qui publie la revue l'ont créée), ça semble correct, non ? Zamuse (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No, unless the source says something like "because of the situation in France a journal was needed and that should be Volume!", you cannot conclude from the fact that the source says something about the situation in France that this means the journal was needed, even if this seems obvious to you. In WP you need independent reliable sources to support such kind of statements. I'll put a "welcome" template on your talk page with some links to useful guidelines and policies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • But if that is what the journal's founders thought back then? Can't I combine what they say (we believed a specific scholarly space for popular music studies was necessary) and what other scholars said (that that space didn't exist)? According to WP, this is too far-fetched? Thanks for your patience. Zamuse (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
J'avais bien compris cet argument. Il s'agit d'autre chose ici : la revue fut créée pour répondre à un manque. Or ce manque existait, comme le soutiennent certains universitaires. Ce n'est pas un argument tiers qui découle de A + B. Tout simplement A (pas de revue de recherche sur les musiques populaires au moment de la création de Volume !, attesté par des spécialistes) qui conditionne B (le désir de répondre à ce manque en créant Volume !). La chaîne logique n'est pas la même. L'objectif de la revue : répondre à un besoin par ailleurs attesté par des chercheurs. Il n'y a que deux chaînons logiques, pas trois. L'ajout de propos d'universitaires ne dit rien de Volume ! en soi, certes, mais pour que nous puissions dire que tels étaient nos objectifs, il faut "sourcer", comme on nous le demande systématiquement sur WP. Donc je ne vois guère ce que je peux faire, entre l'injonction de "sourcer" et votre position, qui me semble un peu abusive. Cordialement Zamuse (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Marketing Science page relocated to Marketing Science (journal)

Guillaume2303, it seems that while I was editing Marketing science, you simultaneously changed it to Marketing science (journal), so I ran into an locking issue.

I don't know how to get around the redirection. Could you either please create a separate Marketing science page, or take the content that I wrote at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_Science_(journal)&oldid=436511177 and use that for the new page? Thanks. Daviding (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out, and removed the redirection at Marketing science with the content that I wrote. Daviding (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Volume !

Excusez-moi, mais pourquoi avoir retiré le comité de lecture de l'article Volume, d'un coup, sans mot dire ? Cordialement, Vvolume (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I did provide a justification: WP:NOTADIRECTORY. If you check other articles on academic journals, you'll see that we don't give listings for editorial boards, nor for associate editors and such, for that matter. We only list the editor-in-chief. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think I made all of the quotes up? Do you want me to send you the pdfs? You probably have access to Cairn.info via your laboratory, if you want to check - you can actually see a portion of the sentences quoted here: http://www.cairn.info/resultats_recherche.php?searchTerm=%22%C3%A0+la+revue+Volume%22 and here: http://www.cairn.info/resultats_recherche.php?searchTerm=%22%2C+la+revue++interdisciplinaire+Copyright+Volume+!%22. Cordially, Zamuse (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice edit

I ran across this edit and I wanted to thank you for it. Nice work. Jesanj (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

AJO-DO

Yesterday when writing an article for a magazine I found to my surprise that one of the leading journals in our field was not even mentioned in wikipedia. So in some minutes I created that entry, BUT the reason I was looking for the journal in the web actually was that I searched the year it changed it´s name. I didn´t find it. But thanks to you within 24 hours I now have it! And thanks for making that entry looking wikipedia-like ;-)

DJWeb (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • My pleasure, thanks for your kind words! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Geophysical Research Abstracts

Hello. I don't know what this publication is, but I doubt it is a scientific journal. I changed the description to fit the information provided on its website. It appears to be a local or localized publication that only covers the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union General Assemblies (see references). Therefore, I doubt this publication merits inclusion.

I notice that you appropriately tagged it for notability. I am tempted to just go ahead and propose it for detetion with a PROD tag - unless you wish to do the honor. Or should we wait a little while before proposing for deletion?

I left a note in the edit summary when I changed the description, and I left a blurb on the talk page.--Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I agree completely with you. It's something like the "Abstracts of the Society for Neuroscience", which is a journal publishing one annual issue with the abstracts of the SFN annual meeting. Many societies have something like that and often they even have an ISSN. In the unlikely case that something like that would be notable, I think it would be within WPJournals, but this one clearly seems not notable to me. Go ahead and prod it, I may add a prod2 if I have time (I'm at a Brussels meeting reviewing grants). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
OK its done. Also, I hope you are enjoying Brussels. I didn't know that you also review grants. Well, thanks for contributing in that area too. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Most researchers review grants. We all apply for money, somebody has to review those applications, so as with reviewing for journals, its difficult to say no to such requests. Won't be seeing much of Brussels though, I spent all my time in the committee meeting and will leave for a family visit to the Netherlands immediately afterwards. Thanks for the PROD, I'll prod2 it (if I can use that as a verb... :-). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits

I could find no direct or significant independent coverage of Volume! The French journal... so I added a PROD tag. Also, I left a note on the talk page - this might not actually be an academic journal. See my note and let me know what you think. Where is the peer review process for this journal? I don't see it. Peer review could be loosely defined I suppose. Maybe other rock and roll artists comment on the articles, and that's peer review. OK maybe that's a little skeptical. Anyway, I left other comments on the talk page. If the COI continues maybe we can take to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

I also copy edited Baltzer Science Publishers, with a note on the talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Steve, thanks for having a look at these articles, I was getting a bit irritated and that is not a good way to interact with these newbies. Whether or not Volume is an academic journal is a difficult question. It's too far from my field, I often have the same problem with literary journals. Some of those only publish poetry and stories (not analyses and such), so what constitutes peer-review there? And still they may be published by the literature dept. of some university and seem to be regarded as an academic journal by that particular community. Volume looks more serious than most music magazine and the editors have university affiliations. However, whether (according to the definitions we use at WP) a magazine or an academic journal, the point remains that there are no sources. So regardless of whether WP:NJournals applies, this seems to fail WP:GNG. I won't add a prod2 at this point, the editors there already seem to think I'm on some kind of vendetta against their baby. But if they remove the prod and you take it to AfD, I'll certainly chime in there.
BTW, thanks also for the cleaning up of Cell (journal), which indeed had become quite atrociously promotional in tone. It's an important journal and it may be possible for the people who want to talk about "landmarks", "influence" and the like to find sources that support this. Until then, that stuff has to go. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Going through the sources on "Volume!" is a headache, because I have to have them mechanically translated. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Steve, I read French, so if there is something that looks like more than an in-passing mention, let me know and I can have a look and tell you what it is about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your help with articles on academic journals. Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

IP User Warned

Hey there, I have now warned the IP user for vandalism with possible edit warring after evaluation of Cell (journal). Though not an administrator yet, I will continue to observe the article. CHAK 001 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it also. Sorry I didn't get back to this page sooner. You know how busy we editors can get. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what Guillaume2303 claims, I think the current version of Cell (journal) reflects the facts about the journal. Almost all the sentences provides corresponding sources. For his claim that some sources are not independent (i.e. the reference is from Elsevier webpages), however, I do NOT think it is the only problem in Cell (journal). if you simply read other wiki pages for other scientific journals. Almost ALL wiki pages for other scientific journals provides sources from that journal's original website too. For instance, in Nature (journal), it says Nauture 'is the world's most cited interdisciplinary science journal' and the reference source is from a webpage at Nature.com. Therefore, it is NOT an independent resource either. Later in 'Publishing in Nature' section, it says 'Having an article published in Nature is very prestigious, and the articles are often highly cited, which can lead to promotions, grant funding, and attention from the mainstream media.' This is according to whom??? But people simply seem fine with this sentence.
Same thing happens to Science (journal), the first sentence on Science (journal) wiki page, it claims that Science 'is one of the world's most cited scientific journals', the source (or reference) here is at AAAS site which is exactly the Science magazine's website.
And many many other journal wikipages have the SAME problem and I don't bother listing them.
Why Guillaume2303 only keeps reverting the sentences in Cell (journal)? Especially when this is a commonly seen problem in many other journal wiki pages!
Riboswitch (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The examples you cite above may well also be against policy and should be cleaned up. However, WP has 3 million+ articles and the argument that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is therefore not very effective and does not change anything about the inappropriate material you are adding to this article. In addition, some of the stuff you are adding to the article is plain wrong. Cell is not the leading journal in the life sciences. Researchers working in, for example, ecology will never even look at it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That is only your personal view. You can do a survey among all the scientists in all fields of life sciences and see what percentage of the people hold the same opinion as yours. I am actually a physicist, but I do think Cell is the leading journal in the life sciences. I also think PRL (Physical Review Letters) is the leading journal in Physics, even though some physicists do not think so (for example, some biophysicists never read PRL). The problem that I brought up is a commonly seen problem among almost all wiki pages for a scientific journal. It is not just the two examples that I listed above, there are dramatically more examples there. You can simply read ANY scientific journal wiki page, and see if there are sources that are not independent. I give you one more example: on Physical Review Letters wiki page, it says, "Physical Review Letters (PRL) is considered to be a prestigious journal in the field of physics" and the source is from APS website (PRL's publisher). Riboswitch (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The thing with WP, though, is that what is written in articles should be verifiable in independent reliable sources, exactly because articles should not reflect mine or your opinions. I have edited a couple of thousand articles on academic journals here and I don't think the problem with promotional language is as pervasive as you seem to think. In any case, whether or not the articles on Science and Nature or whatever other journal are promotional or not is not a justification to include such publisher-derived promotional language in Cell (journal). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Content that is common knowledge does not need to be challenged. The prestige and citation rates of Nature and Science, publishing original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields, seems to be common knowledge. Please see WP:VERIFY. In practice not everything needs to be atributed. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged is to be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. These claims pertaining to "Science" and "Nature" apparently have not been challenged. Same with PRL in the field of Physics.
In any case I am placing a maintenance tag for the Publishing in Nature section. I think citations are needed here from independent sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree if the 'independent source' policy can be applied to ALL the wiki pages for scientific journals. The problem is, few sources can be found for one to claim a journal is prestigious or a leading journal or most read in xxx field. This is not a scientific question which one would have had a straight 'yes or no' answer. It is about people's opinions (which are certainly not necessarily the same as yours or mine) and therefore hard to reach an absolute agreement. I guess that is why almost all such similar claims on a scientific journal wikipage end up referring its own publisher's website.Riboswitch (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Truthfully, such claims should be supported by independent sources. Personally I did not know that these were sourced on their own web sites. When the wording is promotional then it really should be reporeted by reputable, independent, third party sources. However, apparently there is agreement among editors that these claims are acceptable or else they would have been removed (I guess). I do have a problem with the "Publishing in Nature" section, which I hope can be resolved with text in tact. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Steve and I have made a start with looking over and cleaning up the articles on Science and Nature. Publishers' websites can be used without any problem to source uncontroversial information (publication frequency, year of establishment, nae of the editor, and such). Information on the impact factor and relative ranking within a field can be sourced to the Journal Citation Reports. Apart from that, it is absolutely not true that there are no sources for high-profile journals such as Nature, Science, and Cell. The Scientist, Science Watch, and other publications have published about things like prestige and ranking. Other journals will sometimes publish editorials about these things and that can be used, too. I do remember Nature editorials about impact factors, and while that is no independent source for Nature, it is for Science and Cell if these would be mentioned. The Nature and Science articles definitely have to be toned down/better sourced. Again, making the Cell article look like those ones is not a helpful approach. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully it did not seem that I was saying that there are no third party sources for high-profile journals such as Nature, Science, and Cell. I am sure there are. I was talking about the fact that extraordinary claims, beyond non-controversial information, appear to be only sourced by the respective web sites - at this time. I was wondering how this is so, and figured that there must some sort of agreement between editors that this was acceptable. I also pointed out that in practice these claims should be sourced by third party sources, and that isn't what has been happening. Anyway, I was going to go back over these promotional claims to find other sources (as you appear to be doing now). It will take some work to source the extraordinary claims to third party sources. Hopefully this provides clarification.
Right now the journal article for "Cell" contains too much promotional wording and weasel words (or it did eariler when it was protected).
Also, you have described the process of sourcing uncontroversial information for academic journals very well. This is a useful description. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar, 2011, vol. 2
Thank you! --Edcolins (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Some questions

Nevermind. I really can't make a case for notability for Volume!. It just hasn't recieved appropriate recognition. I guess the next step is taking it to AfD. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks!!

I've just saw your improvements in Infection (journal) magazine. They were great!! I was about to do it, but you took advantage!! Also, I saw you are a "real" guy, with your real ID in wiki. That's remarkable too. I am too. Anyway, thanks for your nice editing!! Greetings from Edinburgh. Milikguay (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You're welcome, glad to be of help. As for the ID, I don't like doing things anonymously and stand to my actions. If something I do should not have my real name associated with it, then it probably should not be done anyway... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica

I'm confused. What independent source did you provide? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Digital Humanities Quarterly

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Digital Humanities Quarterly, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I hope the secondary sources added in recent edits have established the journal's notability. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! ARK (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice, I had watchlisted the article, so I had seen this in any case. I don't think this meets either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. There is a list of references that at first sight is rather impressive, but all these "references" are about other subjects and only mention this journal in passing (or are the journal website itself). There are no substantial independent reliable sources and the journal apparently is not included in any selective major database. Having said this, the text is pretty neutral and I won't proceed with an AfD. Should another editor take it to AfD, though, I will most certainly !vote delete. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! ARK (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request translations please

I am looking at more stuff pertaining to Volume! I am unable to translate PDF documents. I was wondering if you could pleae tell me if any of the following have useable information related to Volume! (There may be more, later):

At the moment I am getting tired, so that will be all for now. Thanks Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Steve, sorry for not being very communicative recently, I just bought a house and we're doing some work there and preparing the move. I'll get back to you soon, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The first one ("appel") is a call for papers for a 1 day meeting (by coincidence held in the town where I currently live, Pessac). The scientific organizing committee is national, but short meetings like this are organized all the time and don't really contribute to notability.
The second one ("lettre") apparently is a list of publications and other activities of a center for the study of black Africa at one of the universities here. As far as I can see, the word "volume" does not even occur in the whole document and even if it did, it would just mean that one of these people had published something there.
The third document ("communique") is simply a press release from Volume's publishers and the organizers of the aforementioned meeting (which in the end seems to have been a two-day event). Nothing special here, either.
None of this, IMHO, constitutes even the slightest evidence of notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much and congratualations on the house. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Biofabrication

Guillaume2303, I think I understand why Biofabrication was deleted and am going to put up a version that is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd appreciate if you could check it out once posted. I also posted information to the page Biomedical Materials and would appreciate if you could check to make sure it doesn't fall into the same trap that Biofabrication did. Thanks! Journals88 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • That article consisted mostly of text directly copied from its website. Even if such were allowable, it's not a good idea, because publishers are not neutral (which is their good right, of course :-). I've done some tweaking for Biomedical Materials (and moved the page, too). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted blanking of Naked Science

Dear Cruisio, please let us discuss. I don't think that your reason for blanking my effort is valid. I explained on the discussion page of Naked Science that according to your logic you should go and blank The_Universe_(TV_series) too! My effort was not to put directory = list of episodes copied somewhere from the web, I used the wikitable format that has been created for TV series. What I did not put is the code for "short summary| that can be seen in the table The_Universe_(TV_series), etc. Let us discuss details at the Naked Science talk page.Danko Georgiev (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Adaptive Services Grid

Are you positive this is an organization?--v/r - TP 01:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What's up with all of these projects that you've nominated db-corp? I think these should be PROD or AfD.--v/r - TP 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They all present themselves as a project/consortium, which to me seems to be an "organization" (for the ASG, see under "Project History"). Most of them I PRODded (or if that had been done before, took them to AfD), only the most obvious ones I proposed for CSD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
fwiw, I just declined a few, and I agree with the people above. This particular one seems to have refs. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I have PRODded them and won't CSD any others, if you think they don't fall under "organization". The "references" in the ASG article (under "External links") are dead links, no way to see what they were about. Part of the article is a copyvio of this, but I'm not sure that is enough for G12, so I'll just leave the PROD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Prosimos Article

Dear Guillaume2303, I am writing you to object for the deletion of Prosimos article. Being as you are deeply involved in research projects you will know for sure that there are hundreds of them everyyear, some very big and important, others not so much. Prosimos project may rank in this latest category, being a small project, but it does not mean that the results it has delivered are quite relevant and important for subsequent work. Since Wikipedia spirit is to aglutinate relevant (and useful) knowledge, we would like to propose the article to remain undeleted. There are lot of cases then a researcher is looking for information about a project and it can not find any information about it, since its webpage is gone time ago and there are no traces of it in any other databases. This has happened to us several times when preparing work to carry out based on previous research projects, and not being able to find any information about them. Also as it can be deduced from Prosimos article this is a preparatory action, so its impact can not be assessed right now, but in years to come after several more actions and outputs. Since we only see benefits for the article to remain in Wikipedia that is the reason that we are objecting. We wish that all research projects had such a complete and (we have tried to through external review too) impartial articles. It would be very helpful for research community. Best Regards, Roberto.RGimenez (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi again Guillaume2303, maybe I did not explained myself well-enough, which I will try now.

Respect to notability our vision is that public funded research projects should be welcomed in Wikipedia, due to three main reasons, its public interest, its high quality research nature (proven by the fact to have been granted funds through a competitive procress) and the final one which also addresses the point of WP:NOTCRYSTAL is that researchers welcome having a database of existing/previous research projects.

So yes, maybe PROSIMOS article is not as relevant as GSM one, but it is still very important for research community in Public Protection and Disaster Relief (PPDR) communications. In fact current FP7 Security Research Programme includes a topic (5.2.1) which is directly related to PROSIMOS article, which is the use of LTE networks (public mobile networks) for PPDR communications. I will include this information in the current version of the article.

Regarding the issue of WP:NOTCRYSTAL We have to object that current/previous public research projects are often consulted in order to advance over current state of the art, and so this criteria does not fully fit into PROSIMOS justification to be kept. Best Regards, Roberto.RGimenez (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Old English Newsletter

Thanks for your help with improving this. Moonraker (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  • My pleasure, and thank you for creatng this nice new addition! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD worth attention

There is a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. To avoid charges of canvassing, I will avoid stating my opinion here, DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Guillaume2303, my wonderful adoptee Wikmont left a slightly confusing message at the bottom of your talk page, but the explanation on his talk page here might clarify. I feel like a nosy helicopter parent, but uh, perhaps that might help you two communicate? (Wikmont speaks fluent French, and has been fantastic at translating French scholarly material for English Wikipedia). If you could promptly delete this message after reading (so Wikmont doesn't know I interceded), much appreciated. Happy editing, Sloggerbum (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management

I removed the prod tag you placed on Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management because it was previously kept after an AfD discussion. This is not an endorsement for keeping the article. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Oops, that's a stupid mistake... Sorry about that! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nova Publishers

you have no right to blank wikipedia pages (against wikipedia policy) and diminish the work of others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.74.215 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have probably taken this to WP:AN3 before you had reverted too much. I'll use this message as a warning, just because I have to be fair (since the IP is on grounds for block due to keeping up the edits after warnings were given). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychotherapy a. Medicine

Hi, Guillaume2303! It’s really a pleasure to take part in the project if only because of your help and attention. When my revisions are corrected by a professional scientist with a good grasp of English, I receive a powerful impetus to continue editing. The same can be said of my art. about Moscow j. for psychotherapy. To be sure, I don’t think much of this stub of mine. In addition, I’ve been partly disappointed at the journal itself since I began reading it. But for your attention I would not return to my stub concerning this journal of too little repute.

I’d like to make more precise the point you challenge: scientific journal → medical journal. I know the psychiatry of your country entirely differs from that of Russia. Perhaps, French psychiatrists consider psychiatry a branch of psychiatry, i.e. a medical discipline. But as for Russian literature, the relation of psychotherapy to medical sciences including psychiatry still remains controversial.

Psychotherapy was already endeavouring, at the dawn of its existence, to separate itself from medicine including psychiatry. As an example, take the works by S.Freud, esp. his The Question of Lay Analysis (1926). Nowadays many authors of the journal being discussed undertake great efforts to prove psychotherapy to be an independent discipline which is close to the humanities rather than to medicine. Besides, members of the editorial board are primarily psychologists who graduated from the psychological faculty of Moscow State University. I don’t think they’ll agree with you in treating their journal as a medical one. I therefore propose to restore the previous version of the stub (medical → scientific).--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You're right, I've changed this back. Thanks for your contributions! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Existenz (Journal)

Thank you Guillaume2303 for your helpful edit of the Existenz entry. It was my first new entry, and obviously I goofed quite a bit. Earlier in the day I noticed that the entry was marked for deletion, but your generous help seems to have taken care of it. Thanks again, Kjsna HW 00:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsna (talk • contribs)

  • My pleasure,. And don't worry, you didn't goof that much at all. Thanks for your contribution! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok

Ok, ok, I was still laughing about the last Afd. But anyway, no big deal. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for this edit [2]. Psychiatrick (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science

Dear Guillaume2303, you have changed quite significantly my new entry on the journal named above - I wonder whether this way it is more compliant with other EN Wikipedia journal entries? We felt (I work for the journal) that the info we originally provided was important, especially since several more indexing databases were included. Also, I wonder what copyvios you mean as being removed from the homepage. Jagusia75 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Exactly, see the guide to writing journal articles (linked on the article's talk page in the WPJournals banner). The "aims and scope" section was copied verbatim from the journal's website. This is a violation of copyright. Even if it weren't, it never is a good idea to copy stuff directly from a publisher's website, because it will almost always be too promotional for Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines (in the current case the claim that it publishes "high quality" research). The indexing databases that I removed were rather trivial, the important ones weer maintained as they show that the journal is notable. Hope this explains. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - that explains everything. I also understand redirecting the page to a name without the acronym, although we (the journal) use it frequently (that's why it's still in the entry and infobox). I did the same with the Polish version, but don't know how to force italics in the page title and infobox - can you help? Jagusia75 (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I could make the infobox in italics, but don't know how to change the article title. As I don't speak/read Polish, I cannot even start to search either... The Polish manual of style can perhaps help you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and apologise for all the trouble - hope to improve my skills soon. As for acronym deletion, I am just concerned that people searching for the journal using the acronym might find it troublesome. Jagusia75 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful for all the help! Jagusia75 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On rating the Questions of History

Dear Guillaume2303, thanks for your help once more. Can I consult with you on the article mentioned? When I came across this article, it contained the characteristics “a principle Russian journal for historical studies”. I considered it a typo and substituted “principal” for “principLE”. Why did you remove this word at all? Was my revision a grammar error? If so, I have no further questions being quite aware of my broken English.

But it seems to me that you have some doubts concerning the rank of the journal. If so, then I can say there is a long Russian tradition to title the journals of paramount importance as “Questions of…”:

Every Russian philosopher considers his publications in the Questions of Philosophy to be the subject of his professional pride. The same can be said as well about Russian psychologists who are so successful as to publish their articles here. Similarly, Questions of History is the leading Russian journal on history. I just know that, albeit I’ve received a degree in history of (Western) philosophy. It’s not history of countries, of course. And yet I remember exceptional respect which our university teacher of history had for Questions of History.

In short, I propose to re-add the word “the principal”, “the leading” or something else of that sort. Unfortunately, I can’t provide anything except the facts from my personal experience. Then we can insert the template “citation needed”. May be, someone will adduce the sources at last.

On the other hand, Filosofický časopis is the most prestigious philosophical journal in the Czech Republic, too. And yet a Czech Wikipedist recommends me to remove the word “leading” from the English article about this journal. The WP principle of notability, on the contrary, insists on ranking the importance of articles. Should we escape using the characteristics “leading” etc., even though they correspond to real repute of a journal?--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Solus ipse, don't worry, your English, as far as I can see, was correct. However, stating that a journal is "principal", "leading", "most prestigious", or such, we need a source. Our own knowledge here is not sufficient. WP:N does not oblige us to rank journals, all it does is tell us what the criteria are for an article to be included in WP. So unless we have a reliable source that says that so and so journal is "leading", we cannot say that in an article (that's called using peacock words). I have no doubts about these journals or that what you say is correct, but without sources, we cannot include it. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven’t even guessed about the template:Peacock term and its main page.

P.S. While correcting my broken English, you contribute to WP articles that are of little interest to you (philosophy, psychology). Why not to create a WP article related to your neuroscience? So I’ve written about your colleague from Russia. Do you know Boris Khodorov? My best regards, --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Somewhat by accident, I have started to concentrate on academic journals. I do a lot of publishing-related work, so even if it is for me off-topic scientifically, it isn't foreign to me either. I'm sorry, I don't know Khodorov, but there are many more valuable neuroscientists that I don't know than that I do know... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I can understand the breadth of your erudition. At first I thought: “How do you know?” Such knowledge of philosophical details is not a common case among those who are not engaged in philosophy professionally (at least in our Russia).--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And yet talk pages often contain assessments that do not correspond to the real importance of some journals. In addition, such assessments do not rely on any sources. As an example, take this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solus ipse Inc. (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Those assessments have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject itself. The class just indicates how good the article is, so if it is stub-class, that means that there is a lot left to improve, etc. Just click on the link to "quality scale" and you'll get an explanation of the criteria used. For those projects where an "importance" parameter is used, again, that is not a qaulification of the subject's absolute importance, just its importance for that particular project. So a certain article may be peripheral to one project and classed "low priority" for them, but be absolutely essential to another project and be classed "high importance" for that one. None of this is a quality judgment on the subject itself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

European Commission project

Glad you got to them; I've been meaning to. If they end up at AfD, let me know.

(and there is something else--Princeton has decided to no longer give remote database access to retired librarians, so I do not have convenient access to much of what I did. I can still get to things by going there but this is not something I do every day or every week--every month is more like it. (I can also get to many things at various places in NYC, etc., but this too is not every day.-- In particular, as it affect work we've been doing together, I have no remote access to JCR. ) DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Several of them are currently at AfD, I don't have a list handy at this moment. Most of those articles are quite horrendous, apart from any questions of notability. I do them in batches, so as not to overload the system (and myself)... As for the library access, I've emailed you about that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

PARIS SOCIETY OF MEDICINE

Hi Guillaume2303. I sow your contribution – and I thank you – at the article “Mario Christian Meyer” concerning "PARIS SOCIETY OF MEDICINE" / "SOCIÉTÉ DE MEDECINE DE PARIS" in a phrase I introduced named. I changed it to "PARIS SOCIETY OF MEDICINE", because otherwise there is a problem: the link will direct to the French release, which is “incomplete”. The second point is that the English release does not appear in Google search. So, is necessary to keep the English title, for the MCM article, in order to reach the English release existing in Wikipedia, which is more “complete” (also, to avoid confusion between the two releases). Many thanks in advance for your comments. --Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your message. I never edited Mario Christian Meyer and I am at a loss to what you mean with the "French release" and "English release". Nor do I understand why you would need to wikilink to the English society name in the MCM article, because that just redirects to the (correct) French name.B y the way, you should read WP:MOSBIO and edit the MCM article accordingly. Also, it is not necessary to include details that are covered better elsewhere and do not belong in this bio (such as when the Societé de Médecine de Paris was founded). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi again. I thik I see now what you wanted to say (with "release" you meant the French and English Wikipedias, I guess and how they turn up in Google searcher, not local searches on Wikipedia itself). I also checked the manual of style and see that my move actually was wrong (see also WP:Naming conventions (use English)), so I have moved the article back and modified it a bit because of the now-different title. By the way, I speak French, so if it is easier for you, you can write me in French. I would probably respond in English, though (because I make errors when writing French and also to keep things open here where most people don't understand French). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contributions on the page "Paris Society of Medicine". Is it possible that, when the Internet user introduces "SOCIETE DE MEDECINE DE PARIS" in Google, he will also find this article (and not only the "French version", which is quite limited): << Société de Médecine de Paris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Société_de_Médecine_de_Paris - En cache The Société de Médecine de Paris (English: Paris Society of Medicine) is a medical organization based in Paris, France. Its predecessor, the Société Royale ... >> As you are a "Wiki Expert", can you be kind enough to do this “redirection”? cheers Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. That redirect already exists and if I search Google for "SOCIETE DE MEDECINE DE PARIS", the article here turns up in third position. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SUPER

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from SUPER, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development

Bonjour. Moi aussi, after merging a few of the projects into the prose I came to a similar conclusion, so did not proceed. My first thinking was that if someone went through the trouble of creating an article at one time, it would be sad to have that information disappear totally. Most of the articles are written so badly (mostly fluff from the grant applications) they are going away eventually as they should. However, there are a lot more of them than I first realized, so not sure what to do. I thought perhaps a table, but if there are a thousand that would not work. Some might be notable (if they continued under subsequent programmes, or get notable papers published, spin off viable products etc). The programs (sorry, programmes, 'mercanism) deserve more than the small article that the "Framework" is turning into after the fluffy language gets excised from that too. Probably further discussion merited on the talk page, although not sure active editors are watching it any more, sigh. Thanks for any suggestions. W Nowicki (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on this myself, but it should certainly be possible to make a good article about the Framework Programmes. As for the individual projects, I am convinced that only a very small proportion of those will be independently notable, although many ore will yield results that should be useful for improving articles on the subjects in question. this whole area of WP really is a mess... Part of the problem is, I think, that the EU pushes grantees to make as much publicity for their projects as possible. NIH, for example, likes that, too, but pushes much less and concentrates more on scientific output in the form of papers and such. But in the EU, the managers have the upper hand, despite blissfully unaware of how science works (if you have any experience with EU grant applications, where the forms are a nightmare of "managerese" blabla, you know what I am talking about)... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can guess. The only grants I was involved in were DARPA, which were just based on being lucky enough to know the right people, mostly. I do hear that NIH grants are mostly based on what congresional district one is in. Well, hope someone has time to work on these, except deleting them as they "time out". W Nowicki (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I've reviewed quite a few NIH grant proposals and have never noticed any bias towards certain congressional districts (of course, some districts just have a higher concentration of excellent scientists, such as the Boston area where you have some of the most prestigious institutions in the US). Heck, I'm not in any congressional district (I'm not even in the US but in France) and I hold an NIH grant, too. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You can see the diffs

Just giving you a heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yep: I put three tags on the article. Headbomb removed them. I replaced a "disputed" tag, Headbomb removed that. I placed an NPOV tag. Where's the 3RR there? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry should have left you a more personal message. The reverts are here [3], [4] and [5] as all the tags had been added here [6]. Not all reverts need to be regarding the same text to apply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Those are different edits. 3RR does not apply here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have been confused by this as well but per here [7] it appears to apply. I can be persuaded by the evidence but we must reflect what independent sources say.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway my apologies once again for being less then friendly. I am sure we can figure things out on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected on 3RR and will back off now. Apologies accepted. It's weird, in fact, that we are fighting so heavily on this. I very strongly feel that not having needle replacement programs borders on the criminal neglectful... So I think we agree on the basics, just not on the form. Let's cool down and see that we find a solution. I stand by my comment that this looks like something dredged up from Conservapedia, though :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes I do not know how I have been dragged into this one. I usually stick to disease articles. It really is not that big of a deal one way or the other in the end. While from the research I have seen needle replacement seems like a good idea but I do not feel strongly about it just wish to see high quality sources reflected. More so I guess I do not want to allow PR fronts to get away with creating journals for that purpose and not getting called on it. I looks like you do lots of good work so am sure we will find a compromise. Seems like it is mostly just a bit of non face to face misunderstanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising blitz in Wikipedia

I infer that you have taken up arms agains the entire collection of press releases that one or more European consortia have infiltrated into Wikipedia. I did what I could to make life hot for them on the Webinos page, mostly for idealistic reasons that should be evident, though I also dislike subversive advertising generally. You have flagged many of the spurious pages, but I found many more fairly easily; and the discussions of the flagged pages (due to the torrent of salesmanship) may not converge on the essential points about advertising in Wikipedia.

I'm a retired technical writer with no financial interests in anything commercial, I can write a good polemic when it reflects an actual structure of principles and facts, I know how to avoid imbroglios, and I don't mind doing repetitive things if they are in a good cause. Seeing that you are already mounting a global effort, I would not start doing anything that tended to duplicate it, but if you can find a coordinated role for me in tracking down pages yet unflagged, and trying to focus discussions on Wikipedia principles, I would be happy to make the effort. Ornithikos (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks! A lot of these projects can be found in the categories on Framework projects, or "European Commission projects" (which they are not, of course). You're welcome to PROD or AfD other of these articles. There's only so much I can do, so I have been going at it gradually. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Synthetic logic

I saw that you participated in the AfD for Stephen Palmquist. The discussion on his synthetic logic could use more discussion. If you're interested, see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic

Thanks!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

deletion of FINNOV page

Dear Guillaume2303, I don't understand how the subject of the page can be considered ephemeral, it's a EU funded project like many others on Wikipedia (we modelled our page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOA4All). Could you please advice on how to solve this problem? The page is also linked to Prof Mariana Mazzucato wiki page, and FINNOV is cited in several external websites.

Thanks in advance!

Mustang80 (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • As you may have noticed, quite a few of those other projects have already been deleted or are in the process of being deleted. I am (slowly) going through the whole lot and almost all fail Wikipedia's notability requirements and one by one they are being proposed for deletion. Having said this, if you have reliable sources that show this project is an exception and is, in fact, notable, then don't hesitate to add these to the article (but to avoid unnecessary work for both of us, please read the policies that I have linked in the foregoing: being "cited in several external websites" is not really a good indication for notability). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi there, here's a list of links where there's a mention of FINNOV

EC website: http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=result.document&RS_LANG=ES&RS_RCN=11829479&q= http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=proj.document&PJ_LANG=EN&PJ_RCN=10759398

Other websites: http://www.openaire.eu/en/component/openaire/project_info/default/541?id=217466 http://www.scoopproject.org.uk/do-financial-markets-reward-innovation.aspx http://www.researchprofessional.com/media/pdf/Highlights3397.pdf

FINNOV press releases: http://cordis.europa.eu/wire/index.cfm?fuseaction=article.Detail&rcn=26827 http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=16501&filter=research

I hope this is enough evidence of the validity of the project, since it involves an important monetary investment from the European Union and sees the collaboration of several important European Universities.

137.108.145.34 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Whether or not this project is "valid" is absolutely not being questioned here. WP does not make value judgments. Please take a moment to read the policies that I have linked to above (here they are again: WP:RS and WP:GNG). The links that you have provided are not independent and do not establish notability (which is not the same as validity or quality or good/bad). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So basically it's not a matter of whether the project is "good" or not, but whether it's a notable one. The project is directed by Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who's a notable academic and already has a wikipedia page, does this count in terms of notability? Mustang80 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly! We don't judge quality. Something may be "notable" because it is very bad... That notable people are involved does not mean that a project is notable, too, because notability is not inherited. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I expressed myself wrong before then, the links that I provided you with should show the notability of the project itself. I suppose that the support not only of the European Union, but also of 7 prestigious universities should guarantee the project enough notability. Mind you, we are talking about a sectorial, academic notability. I have been looking through the links you've provided me with, but I didn't find them of help: could you give me a concrete example of what you reckon could certify the notability of the project? Mind you, this is not a speculative or lucrative thing, it is a European Union founded research project on the world of finance and innovation, part of a broader research network.

137.108.145.34 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Following you reasoning, each and every research project is notable. I myself hold a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The official document is an agreement between NIH and my employer, the CNRS. Does that now mean that my grant/project is notable? Of course not. If you would have multiple sources (such as newspaper coverage) that mention this project in a more than in-passing way, that would establish notability per WP:GNG. If we adopt the same standards to a project as to individual researchers (and that does seem reasonable, even though one might even argue that the bar should be higher for a group of researchers), then you would need hundreds of academic articles that cite publications from this project. The EU funds hundreds of research projects, national research agencies in the US, Japan, EU countries, etc. fund thousands more each year. All of them involving notable institutions and (often) notable people. I think a bit more than that is needed for an encyclopedic article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there is so much useless junk on Wikipedia, I don't see why something as important as EU funded research projects shouldn't be there, as an academic you will have to agree with me that something like an online encyclopaedia is more a place for academic outputs than juvenile and mundane subjects. Anyways, FINNOV is cited several times in a notable publication recently released by the prestigious UK Think Tank DEMOS, available at the following link http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/theentrepreneurialstate would that be enough to validate the notability of the research project? There is also another press release made by sourcewire.com: http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=52440

Kind regards

Mustang80 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely correct that there are loads of useless junk on WP. But that is not a reason to lower our standards, because then this would just become something like Facebook or so. Eventually, all that stuff will get deleted, I hope. The argument that you use is often referred to as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, less reverently, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). As for sourcing, press releases are rarely considered to add anything to a subject's notability. And just a few citations in one publication (even by a prestigious think thank) does not do it for me either, sorry... Kind regards, -Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

so not even a book published by a prestigious think tank, distributed to hundreds of academics and sector professionals and where the research project FINNOV is quoted 10 times, is enough to prove the notability of the project? From the notability guideline "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention." Other than the aforementioned book, can I draw your attention to this journal where the authors extensively talk about FINNOV? http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/innovation-creating-knowledge-and-jobs_en.pdf

Mustang80 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That is one book that mentions this project. The PDF is not a journal but a EU brochure. As I said before, an academic would need hundreds of mentions like that one book in order to be considered notable. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guillaume2303/Archive_8&oldid=1139205122"