Hello, LeBassRobespierre, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for recognizing the benefits of becoming a registered user, creating your user/talk page, and your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you need help, check out useful resources & Getting Help below, ask on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page & add ((Help me)). Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) after your text entry, or by clicking if shown, in order to produce your username & date. Please always fill in edit summary field with a brief description of your article or talk page edits (optional when just adding your communications on talk pages). You can practice in your personal sandbox (add ((My Sandbox|replace with your user name)) on your user page for future easy access) or your user page. Masssly —Sadat (Masssly)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

—Sadat (Masssly)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For using your head on brain stuff. May Phineas give ye a nod! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:James I Ausman, M.D., Ph.D.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:James I Ausman, M.D., Ph.D.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Regarding the image copyright, I have emailed the organization in which the image appeared and asked them to email wikipedia to grant permission for use or confirm that as per Wikipedia: "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, James I. Ausman. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: James I. Ausman grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." LeBassRobespierre (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Communication from Dr James I Ausman to Talk Page of James I. Ausman:

"To the editors of Wikipedia: I have been requested by a Wikipedia editor to confirm that I own the copyright for the photo "James I Ausman, M.D., Ph.D.jpg" uploaded in this entry under my name (James I. Ausman) and I identify that this is a picture of me, that I own the copyright, and that I freely allow the use of this photo in Wikipedia. Any questions, e-mail me at jamesausman@mac.com" James I. Ausman, M.D., Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.106.1 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • You really cannot be seriously thinking that a message by an unidentified IP could be a legally-binding release of copyright. Please see WP:OTRS for guidelines on how to do this properly. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:James I Ausman, M.D., Ph.D. photo, James I. Ausman, M.D., PhD.jpg, which you've attributed to http://people.healthsciences.ucla.edu/research/institution/personnel?personnel_id=100186. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y OTRS Confirmed ~ Nahid ^Talk 04:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thus issue satisfactory concluded and image of Dr. Ausman is now available in his Wikipedia entry! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:"Front cover for neurosurgical journal, Surgical Neurology.jpg".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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Image File should be deleted.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LeBassRobespierre. I just noticed that, probably due to my own mistake, a relatively large note of mine to support any fresh efforts to for this journal's page to stay in Wikipedia was not properly saved. Please feel free to contact me with further specifics if you think I can help. My email address is available in my Neuralia profile. Regards, Neuralia (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Surgical Neurology International journal cover, SNI cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The appropriate tag was added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surgical_Neurology_International_journal_cover,_SNI_cover.jpgLeBassRobespierre (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Developments in creating new entry for Surgical Neurology International. Draft talk:Surgical Neurology International: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Surgical_Neurology_International LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Surgical Neurology International new entry has been approved as a notable neuroscience journal but needs expansion.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letter to administrators involved in draft entry of Surgical Neurology International (SNI)[edit] Hi JohnCD and Slakr, Wikipedia administrators,

I have carefully perused all the Wiki links and submissions you (JohnCD) kindly advised me to review before I resend my new entry on the journal Surgical Neurology International (SNI). They were extremely helpful and I thank you for them. They were truly invaluable!

Previously, in the deleted entry, to which, I repeat, I was not a party to contribution, edits or discussion. SNI was said to be a non-notable journal, firstly because the submitter did not make a proper contribution. His research and his entry were inadequate. I can see why it was deleted!

Other factors included the fact there were only 3 or 4 references in the article. In my new submitted entry, there are nearly 20 references; some in primary but also in reliable secondary sources.

It was also said that the journal was not indexed in any selective databases and there are not independent third party references. This was initially incorrect but I have remedied this with my new submission. For example, the previous entry was criticized for lack of Goggle Scholar Search. In fact, SNI can be found in Goggle scholar citations= http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Surgical+Neurology+International&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32+International&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C32&as_sdtp=

I agree with Neuralia who wrote: " Criteria clearly state "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources (NO NUMBER OF REFERENCES MENTIONED), it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article" AND ALSO "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". The fact that only four notable-journal references were added doesn't mean these are the only ones existing, but it does mean that the rules are being met." I also agree with Neuralia that the criteria for "influencing the field" was absurd and would be difficult to fulfill even for Science and Nature!

Moreover, SNI is a relatively new journal so the impact factor expectedly is low, and so is the impact of another equally new journal World Neurosurgery that I contributed and was approved by the same editor.

The Impact factor of this new journal SNI is relatively low consistent with the fact it was founded only in 2010. Journals with low impact factors and few references and of longer duration are already listed in Wikipedia, including some created by one of the editors who participated in the original SNI deletion. I am prepared to cite a dozen of those journals that may then need to be speedily deleted. For If SNI is not approved this time, then those other journals which do not fulfill the same criteria should be speedily deleted to maintain the high standards of Wikipedia without favoritism.

Relying on Impact Factor as a major index is faulty. In fact Wikipedia states the following in the" Impact Factor" entry: "Numerous criticisms have been made of the use of an impact factor. For one thing, the impact factor might not be consistently reproduced in an independent audit. There is a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). In short, there is some controversy about the appropriate use of impact factors."

Moreover, as of March 2014, "Surgical Neurology International" had the largest circulation of any neurosurgical journal in the world with 27,000 individual readers a month in 213 countries and territories. (SNI Newsletter for February/March, 2014, March 11, 2014, http://surgicalneurologyinternational.com/blog/2014/03/11/newsletter-for-februarymarch-2014/)

This is important because it is used widely in developing nations because it is a open access journal. This is a journal that brings the latest developments in neuroscience worldwide, including Third World Nations. Impact factor is less important for developing nations than it is in more advanced nations.

The standards of proof of notability that were set for SNI during the first submission seemed unrealistic and unattainable for a new journal. But this has been so for many of the journals approved by the same editors and now listed in Wikipedia. As I have said, I am prepared to compare some of those journals with this new entry. I think standards should be complied equally by all. I agree though that the previous entry was lacking and inadequate even for a stub. Some later additions to the article were considered unverifiable and the initial contributor then decided to join the other editors with deletion. My new entry overcomes the problems of the previous faulty entry. It has been posted at the Draft page for Surgical Neurology International.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The previous article got deleted because it did not meet WP:GNG, nor the (relaxed) criteria of WP:NJournals. The current draft does not show any notability either. If this gets re-created, it will either be deleted as a re-creation or be taken to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC) On fresh entry for Surgical Neurology International (SNI)[edit] Hi JohnCD and Slakr, Wikipedia administrators, I am glad to see a new well-organized, fully rule-abiding project to create a Wikipedia entry for SNI. Unfortunately in our previous attempt to create an entry for SNI there was no opportunity for a fair discussion on the issue of notability of the journal. Notability is and cannot be an "all or nothing" trait. We previously made meticulous observations to support the FACT that some SNI articles have influenced the research field, as shown by their being meaningfully cited in other scientific articles published in mainstream -fully indexed- scientific journals. At the time Randykitty demanded that not just a few but "hundreds" of cases of this type would have to be demonstrated in order to accept this as a notability criterion. As far as I know setting such amount (hundreds) is not stated anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines for establishing the notability of a scientific journal. Of course, several additional cases of secondary, independent citations of SNI articles exist, beside the ones provided at that opportunity, but attempting a comprehensive revision of every single article case seemed beyond a single editor's real capabilities. As an alternative Randykitty demanded to provide a valid citation to a document whereby some duly notorious entity would explicitly state that SNI-published articles had had an general influence in the field. In our hands google searches showed that no statements of that nature have ever been issued for any scientific journal whatsoever.i.e., Randykitty was asking for the impossible. Open Access Journals (like SNI) constitute important, legitimate new ways to publish scientific research results. Page WP:List of open-access journals includes dozens of journals having fully admitted WP entries for whose creation Randykitty's criteria were never demanded or applied, which comes to show an unduly discrimination against SNI, as compared to the cases of articles referring to all other open access. In short I fully support this new attempt to create a WP entry for SNI. Neuralia (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Standards of Proof of Notability should apply to all[edit] If SNI does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NJournals — which it certainly does — then you Randykitty are in big trouble with MOST of your own journal stub submissions already posted in Wikipedia, not meeting those same standards. I kindly ask the administrators, JohnCD and Sklar, to review all of your journal stub entries which fall WAY below SNI in notability!

You, Randykitty, wrote during the first the deletion process, as recorded in the Deletion page: "In order for one single researcher to be notable, hundreds of citations are needed. Just four (4) citations to a complete journal are basically, if that is possible at all, proof of lacking notability." --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC) I have been reviewing and studying your own journal creations (Randykitty) and they simply do not come close to fulfilling the exulted requirements you demand from others, particularly the SNI journal. I only ask this new SNI entry be judged by the same Wikipedia standards and measured with the same rule as others have done for themselves. I have checked Randykitty's own entries and found that MOST of his journal entries have only one or two references.

A. Consider his "multiple, reliable independent sources, of which none are neither multiple nor independent sources: 1) Journal of Neurotrama has only 6 references 2) Molecular Brain has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Brain 3) Molecular Neurobiology has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Neurobiology 4) Molecular Neurodegeneration has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Neurodegeneration 5) Neural Plasticity (journal) has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Plasticity_(journal) (Impact factor: 2.8) 6) European Journal of Neurology has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Journal_of_Neurology 7) Neurotoxicology and Teratology has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotoxicology_and_Teratology (Impact factor: 3.1) 8) Bipolar Disorders has only 1 reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_Disorders_(journal) 9) Developmental Neurobiology has only 2 references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_Neurobiology_(journal) 10) Sleep Medicine Reviews has only 1 reference

B. Low Impact Journals: 11) Optometry and Vision Science Impact factor is 1.8, and journal has been in publication since 1924! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optometry_and_Vision_Science 12) Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 1 reference and an impact factor of 2.6 in publication since 1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacology,_Biochemistry_and_Behavior 13) Physics Essays has an impact factor of 0.3, although it has been in publication since 1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays

Thus Randykitty has set requirements he himself has not fulfilled in his own created entries for medical journals, but he expects others to follow them! This is very unfair and detrimental to other Wikipedians and Wikipedia! if this entry is deleted I will move all those journal entries by Randykitty created and maintained way below the standards of SNI be deleted as well. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there are several misunderstandings here. WP has over 4 million articles. With a limited number of editors, it is unavoidable that some of them are below par. That is not a reason to add other below par articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Instead, if you see articles that don't meet our guidelines, feel free to either bring them up to standard or, if that is not possible because of lacking evidence of notability, to PROD them or take them to AfD.All articles that I have created contain evidence of notability, either under WP:GNG or under WP:NJournals. Of course, if you doubt that one of them (or several) is/are notable, feel free to take them to AfD and we'll discuss their notability.You are confusing citations in a WP article to reliable sources that discuss a journal in-depth (of which there generally are not very many for academic and scientific journals, if any) and citations in the scientific literature to works published in another journal. Most articles in academic journals have between 20 and 50 such references ("citations to others"). It is the latter type of citations of which many are needed to show notability of a journal and where a total number of citations of 4 is unbelievably low.The Journal Citation Reports is very selective in which journals it includes and which not. Any journal included in the JCR is therefore considered to be notable, regardless how low the impact factor. Hope this explains things a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• To the contrary, there are no misunderstandings and Randykitty's explanation does not explain a bit! Incidentally, this is the most cordial comment he has made in regards to this and other issues in which we have been involved. Neuralia is entirely correct. Randykitty "asks the impossible" of others. He apparently believes he is the only writer that can create neuroscience journal articles, and has placed insurmountable obstacles in the way of anybody else doing so. This is extremely unjust to other Wikipedians. We are not critical or talking "about 4 million articles and a limited # of editors" here, but Randykitty's own entries that fall way below what he demands of others, as I have demonstrated under "Standards of Proof of Notability should apply to all" above. The Surgical Neurology International (SNI) entry fulfills and surpasses the requirements of Wikipedia and yet Randykitty ostentatiously continues to discriminate against SNI because it is not his own creation. Frankly he has been acting as if this is his own turf and no one else can do anything without being harassed. I have noticed that instead of helping newcomers and making them feel welcomed, Randykitty has been disdainful and unhelpful, as he has done with me, Neuralia, and others. The fact is the new SNI entry has fulfilled Notability under both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals despite Randykitty's verbiage. With his alleged expertise, instead of criticizing and discouraging other Wikepedians, Randykitty should, as he advises others to do, help them "to bring their submissions up to standard." In short, I just request just and equal treatment with my entry LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • If you have any problems with my behavior, ANI is here. As for me not accepting any articles not created by myself, I invite you to check my edit history a bit better. The large majority of articles on academic journals that I edit have not been created by me. As for the SNI, if you don't believe me that it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, then you should create it and we'll see what independent admins think of the re-creation either through WP:CSD#G5 or another AfD. Given that their is n o new evidence for notability, my bet is that G5 will do it. --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I did check your entire history of editing: The deficient journals I listed were not ones you did minor edits but your own creation entries as listed under "As Journals I have Started" in your own User Page. As to your behavior it is obvious to anyone who has read your comments in this entry and in my own talk page! I am not here to start problems or recriminations. I just want this entry which fully fulfills Wikipedia criteria for inclusion to receive equal and just treatment. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• If you're not here "to start problems or recriminations", you should refrain from personal attacks like "He apparently believes he is the only writer that can create neuroscience journal articles", "he has been acting as if this is his own turf and no one else can do anything without being harassed", and "instead of helping newcomers and making them feel welcomed, Randykitty has been disdainful and unhelpful", among them. If you I whether you want or not. Instead of ranting against me, you should spend your time and energy on trying to understand the way WP works. That may not be the best way possible, but neither you (nor I) will be able to change that. --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • If you take those remarks as personal attack, I apologize as that was not my intention. My remarks were based on repeated observations from the way you treated others, including Neuralia and myself, relative newcomers to Wikipedia, who needed guidance rather than disdainful treatment. Consider your dismissive response to Neuralia: "... Single-digit citation rates? Whatever the field, discussing that further is a waste of time and breath. --Randykitty (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neuralia correctly stated that "Knowing how many SNI articles have been referred by notable journals would probably require a bot to examine every article case. However this is not required by the rules, they only demand proof that the journal articles have influenced the subject areas. "Neuralia (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC) You [Randykitty] responded: "You don't need a bot for that: Google Scholar and the Science Citation Index give all that information. --Randykitty (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Neuralia: Google scholar results give an average of about 10 citations per SNI article, quite a few of them showing >10 to 39 citations.-- Neuralia (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Randykiity: Sorry, but I don't see that at all. Just click the link at the top of the page. --Randykitty (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC) In fact the Goggle Scholar Citations were there in plain view as asserted by Neuralia. More disdainful remarks to Neuralia: "Please be serious... If you have any idea how scientific publishing works, you'll know that a single citation doesn't mean zilch... I think this point has been made sufficiently, so I will not comment again here unless someone manages to come up with clear evidence of notability, in which (unlikely) case I'll withdraw my nomination." --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • So you, Randykitty, claimed that SNI was not indexed and criticized Neuralia because there were supposedly no selective databases and that there were not independent third party references — and NO Goggle Scholar Citations for SNI. This was faulty information. In fact, there are multiple selective databases, independent third party references and hundreds of references to SNI that can be found in Goggle Scholar citations= http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Surgical+Neurology+International&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32+International&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C32&as_sdtp= And to me, my first attempt to place an image to enhance an entry needing one (and request had been made by editors to improve the entry of James I Ausman) — I was savaged for attempting to place a lawful image. I needed guidance not the threat I received: …”the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement... as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing...Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) And now sarcasm: Sarcasm that does not or should not have a place in Wikipedia: “You really cannot be seriously thinking that a message by an unidentified IP could be a legally-binding release of copyright… --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC) In fact I was backed and confirmed as correct by Wikipedia OTRS Confirmed ~ Nahid Talk 04:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC) So the issue was confirmed in my favor. But is that the way to treat a newcomer to Wikipedia needing assistance, if anything? I think it is time to stop the recriminations, yes, and help us get this worthy and Notable entry in Wikipedia for the benefits of Wikipedia readers. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• One reason why it is important to familiarize oneself with WP policies and guidelines is that if you had made less effort to include all kinds of irrelevant stuff into the article and more in finding out how to show notability, you would have seen that listing in Scopus actually is enough. I checked, and the journal is included in Scopus (which is, by the way, getting less and less selective). It has no impact factor, it is not in MEDLINE, nor in any other selective database, but Scopus suffices. I have cleaned-up the article, removed all kinds of irrelevant material and fluff, and moved it to article space. --Randykitty (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Thank you for agreeing with approval of this worthy and notable entry. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What you considered "irrelevant fluff," not only helped get this entry approved for Notability (despite your condescending denial) but it is worthwhile INFORMATION! At least, you do apply austere simplicity across the board, including your own journal entries, and I must give that to you. I think you should consider allowing others to "fluff up" this and other similar entries with worthwhile information, assisting writers and satisfying curious minds. Data about # and distribution of readership, access to peer reviewers, access to editorial boards, history of a journal's foundation, are all worthwhile pieces of information that may be sought out by inquiring minds in Wikipedia. I think you should do that to your own spartan entries, and/or allow others to do so! Wikipedia is not a monk's registry of arid information in an isolated and remote monastery —if it had been, it would not be what it is today — a vibrant and colorful repository of interesting and encyclopedic knowledge! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As per tag, "This article about a medical journal is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" and the WikiProject Academic Journals, info that should be added. I included relevant information on the history of the journal: "The journal has a significant history" and "Publication history: Former title(s), Founding editor(s), Mergers and splits with other journals." LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you misunderstand some things here. There are a few minor problems (use of academic titles -we don't even do that in biographies- for example). However, there's a more important thing. There is absolutely no proof of any link between Surgical Neurology and SNI, apart from the fact that the last editor of the former is the founding editor of the latter. To conclude from this that SNI is a successor journal of Surgical Neurology is therefore pure synthesis. You then compound the problem by talking at length about the founding editors of Surgical Neurology and their accomplishments. Their accomplishments belong in biographies of these people and unless there are reliable sources documenting that they were important for the journal, should not even be mentioned in the article about Surgical Neurology, let alone in this article that has a much more tenuous connection with these people. Neither Buci not White should be mentioned in this article at all. Biographical details on Ausman belong in his biography, not here. Again, unless there are reliable sources that make a connection between Ausman's editorship of Surgical Neurology and his editorship here, this stuff should not even be mentioned. In short, I'm afraid that the whole history section that you added should go... --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• • OK, will do as you say. In the meantime, how about this other supplement additions? Supplements and side publications WikiProject Academic Journals: "Some journals have supplemental issues or side publications (such as The Astrophysical Journal, with The Astrophysical Journal Letters and The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series). If this is the case, mention them along with relevant information..."LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • The supplements mentioned above are basically a kind of parallel journals. From what I can discern from their website (it's a bit slow and could be clearer), my impression is that the supplements here are more like what other journals call "special issues" or "thematic issues". I would change the section as follows: the title should just be "supplements" (no need to specify that it's for this journal, that's wath the article is about after all). The I would put as text: "The journal regularly publishes supplements organized about a common theme. Recent issues have covered neurooncology, new developments in neurosurgery, or stereotactic techniques, for example." The collaborations and other publications section is problematic. The SNI website is very unclear what these "collaborations" actually mean. So I would keep it a bit ambiguous here, too, until better sources can be found or until Medknow cleans up their act. For example, you could title the section "collaborations" and make a lead sentence saying: 'The journal collaborates with:", followed by the list you put there. You should check whether any of these societies/journals have wikipages and if yes link to them. There is no need to follow each entry with "official etc", the foreign names are clear enough. By the way, there are clear rules for the use of capitals in section headings, see WP:MOS (or one of its subpages). --Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: in the history section you write that the journal was established by Ausman. Is there actually any evidence for that? It could simply have been created by Medknow who then subsequently recruited Ausman... --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly for your very helpful comments. I will make those changes and do further verification. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)LeBassRobespierre (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel inclined to make a special recognition to LeBassRobespierre for having constructed a meticulous, insightful and ruthless case for reconsidering the case for an SNI WP:entry. LeBassRobespierre went further into unveiling the arrogant, obviusly malicious & unduly disqualifying comments made by Randykitty when discussing the issue of SNI notoriety in the previous attempt. I am glad to perceive that justice seems to have finally prevailed in this case. Neuralia (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LeBassRobespierre. Unfortunately I have had to decline your request at WP:3O as you have not made clear where the dispute is. If you would like to file a revised request, please first read the instructions, and then make your request linking to a section of the affected talk page where exactly two editors have thoroughly discussed the issue. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Stfg, I don't know why the link did not appear. I thought I placed it in double brackets, but I will do so with the link itself this time. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Here is what you put, then I'll explain why it doesn't work.

1) By linking to staug73 and yourself like that, you're linking to articles with those names (which don't exist). You should write [[User:staug73]] etc, to link to users. Similarly to link to the talk page of an article, you write [[Talk:History of psychosurgery]], and to link to its Faria reference section, you write [[Talk:History of psychosurgery#Faria reference]].

2) For a third opinion request, you must link to an article talk page (as above), not to a user talk page. This is because the issue must have been open and visible to discussion by any editor, not merely those who are watching a user talk page.

3) Third opinions are only available in situations where exactly two editors have been discussing the issue on the article talk page. In Talk:History of psychosurgery#Faria reference I see four editors: Randykitty, Staug73, Lesser Cartographies and yourself. So if that's the section you're referring to, I'm afraid third opinion isn't the way forward.

Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Stfg. Just a short clarification: I asked LeBassRobespierre a single question regarding a potential WP:COI, and s/he answered. I have not participated in the content discussion. I think Randykitty's participation has also been tangential, but I'll leave that up to your judgement. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's correct, I treid to give advice, but al not a party to the conflict. --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Lesser Cartographies, I'll take a closer look. --Stfg (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've done that. I can't agree that Randykitty's participation has been "tangential". However, I think for an issue like this, the best chance to get a good opinion isn't WP:3O, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, so I've recommended asking them. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good—thanks for the help! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• First I want to thank you all, Randykitty, Lesser Cartographies, and Stfg, for your interest and suggestions in this matter. I have looked at the last option and I think it will take too long. In the meantime I feel as if a wet blanket has been thrown at my editing work in Wikipedia. I wish one or more of you gentlemen or ladies would look into the matter and give a firm opinion as to guide the course of this conflict. In particularly, I think Randykitty, who has been more than "tangentially" involved and is aware of details— with supplementary comments by the two of you (Lesser Cartographies and Stfg(and anybody else who cares to comment) — could go a long way to settle this matter. Could not the three of you mediate this dispute? Again, thanks. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Actually I think I will proceed with Stfg's suggestion. I hope if any of you feel you can contribute there from what you have learn, will do so. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LeBassRobespierre: Against my better judgment, I'll offer the following observations. These kinds of disagreements go on all the time on en.wp; becoming an effective editor is in large part learning how to deal with them. This means observing lots of disputes, either by having them (which gets tiresome quickly) or learning from the actions of others. When I started editing here, I hung out at WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ANI, WP:RSN, WP:RFA, and (most exciting) WP:FTN. There are still other boards if your interests tend towards biographies of living persons or copyright issues. On these boards, you'll see policies cited again and again (e.g., WP:N, WP:V) as well as several essays that illuminate how the policies are implemented (e.g., WP:TIGER, WP:FLAT). You'll also get a much better sense of what kinds of disputes the community considered to be important and which are left to the individual editors to resolve as best they can. Knowing that, you'll have a much better idea of when and how to pick your battles.

In this instance, Staug73 has taken care to comment on the paper itself, rather than the author: no accusation of plagiarism has been leveled, only several well-supported observations that the later work hews perhaps to closely to the former. Had accusations been made, that might have risen to the level of a WP:BLP issue: we're circumscribed as to what we can say about living people, but sources here have no such protection.

That said, I don't consider the evidence of copying to be particularly scandalous. As an academic, I understand that different fields have differing levels of tolerance. In my field, this would be considered lazy writing and it's not something I would want my students to throw in my face, but I don't think it's anywhere close to being actionable. Other fields will have different standards.

As to its suitability as a source: I would weigh several factors including citation counts, whether the source was WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY literature, and to a lesser extent the accessibility if they were otherwise equal. More important, though, I'd realize that at the end of the day, the sources are more or less equivalent, and if another editor strongly prefers one over the other for whatever reason, it's not a good use of my time to try to change their mind.

And that, ultimately, is the most important lesson to be learned in order to keep your sanity here. If you have much academic training at all, it's hard to find an article that you can't improve, but life is short and you need to be very careful where you apportion your time. Insisting on one reference over another is unlikely to improve the article significantly. Insisting on a retraction of an accusation of plagiarism when no such accusation was made will not improve the article, and will either be ignored or (eventually) shut down.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have on editing in general. There are lots of articles that need help, and your work here can reach a huge audience. Don't get bogged down on just this one issue (and yes, saying that is far easier than doing it; I've been where you are several times).

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lesser Cartographies, thank you for your sound and valuable advice. But as you allude, leaving an issue you consider important, "it is easier said than done." The area in dispute is one of my areas of interest. In fact I first began working in two other related entries Deep brain stimulation and Electrical brain stimulation that had (and still have) tags asking for help to improve them. Those entries led to psychosurgery —and suddenly I failed in the maelstrom. Thank you for your beneficent advice. I will follow it as much as possible!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulatios for having created a surviving page for Surgical Neurology International Neuralia (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LeBassRobespierre. May I kindly invite you to have a look at our recently created page José Esparza and make any constructive critique you may deem appropriate. Thanks for your help. Neuralia (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for your gracious words, (Im kind of a vegetarian therefore I removed the hamburger image, but left the note and appreciate the thought)...thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]