Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities/Editors/Archive 2018

Editorial board application of Alice White
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 15:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very useful modern history and history of science knowledge. Excellent work with the Wellcome Library. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I have worked with Alice on a number of occasions and believe she would be perfect for this role. Jason.nlw (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - she sounds like a wonderful addition. Penny Richards (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bienvenue ! Welcome! --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 06:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt about this one. Denniscabrams (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Great to see history of science folks contributing here. --mikeu talk 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see Dr. White as a wonderful addition and certainly lending to the topics that cross journals. Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - a great addition to the team. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome Alice --Fransplace (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of João Alexandre Peschanski

 * Denniscabrams (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rachel Helps (BYU) (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, I can't access the LATTES link. Could the applicant please give a short summary? T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)! It is odd you are unable to access the site. Anyway, I have made it available on a server. The LATTES CV is the place to when you need to know the background and production of Brazilian researchers and professors. What I believe is interesting for you there is a list of all publications I have authored and co-authored, which includes: 22 peer-reviewed articles, 6 books (5 books I have organized and 1 I have written) and 24 book chapters. Most of this literature is written in Portuguese --but I've had quite a few in other languages, mostly French and Spanish. My last publication, if I am not mistaken, is in a book on alternative democracies, in Spanish. Happy to provide more information if needed. --Joalpe (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-hosting the CV. The publication record looks excellent, especially when taken alongside the experience across a great many wikis. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * --Eystein Thanisch (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Rachel Wexelbaum
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rachel Helps (BYU) (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks like a very well-rounded set of publishing and librarianship experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Eystein Thanisch (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 09:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Kai Alexis Smith
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Useful experience in interacting with a number of departments. Publishing and librarian experience also a particularly valued skillset. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - I met Kai at the Wikimedia Diversity Conference. I can say the passion about knowledge, education, and wiki is present in her every thought. I have no doubt she will be an asset to the quality of this journal with her skills and passion. Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -Will be great to work together--maybe we can brainstorm an art history-focused issue? - AMcClanan (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 30 March 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Welcome --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Sarah M. Vital
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - board member via email
 * - board member via email
 * - board member via email
 * - board member via email
 * - Particularly interesting links to WikiEdu. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome! --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Amy Fountain
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome!--Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - expertise sounds great! --Zeromonk (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yes. Penny Richards (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very interesting and diverse experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Jeffrey M. Keefer
Status: Accepted to board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Jeffrey would be excellent! Zeromonk (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Good addition. Penny Richards (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Jeffrey is an absolute asset to the community. He is always willing to support good scholarship. Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very nice credentials. Denniscabrams (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm also happy to support this, especially given their work in Wikipedia+teaching as well as editorial experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 13:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Vineeta Singh
Status: Accepted to board. F. Di Lauro(Fransplace)talk21:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - I support this application by V2singh. Welcome! Fransplace (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Approve. Looks like a fine addition to the board. Penny Richards (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Sounds like you'll be a great addition to our Board! Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Interesting humanities background --Smvital (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - We need your expertise! Rachel Helps (BYU) (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Jack Nunn
Status: Accepted to board. F. Di Lauro(Fransplace)talk21:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - I support --Jacknunn. Perfect qualifications for WikiJournal of Humanities. Fransplace (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Approve. Interesting combination of subjects and experiences. Penny Richards (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Looks like you have a diverse background of experience which will be great! Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - More great humanities background and previous editorial experience --Smvital (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Yes, help us figure out what we're doing! :-) Rachel Helps (BYU) (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Cecelia Musselman
Status: Accepted to board. F. Di Lauro(Fransplace)talk21:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome aboard! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - I happily support. Welcome! you bring great expertise to the board. Fransplace (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Approve. Publishing and pedagogy are helpful to bring to the board. Penny Richards (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I am excited you are continuing with the wiki community. So glad to have you! Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Rich publishing background is a great plus! --Smvital (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - happy to have more writers! Rachel Helps (BYU) (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Spyros Koulouris

 * - Great range of expertise. Welcome! Fransplace (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Active user of Wikipedia with background in humanities Smvital (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Welcome --Gilles Sahut
 * - Evidence of an understanding of the research process and levels of evidence along with a background that will add to the editorial board of peer-reviewed academic journals --- FULBERT (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - A great addition to the board Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Johnson C. Philip
This is an administrative closure based on obvious vote fraud. This is done without predjudice to the candidate. We simply can't have a discussion of the candidate's qualifications in the presence of voting interference. I'm semi-protecting this page to only allow autconfirmed accounts to edit it. The stacked votes in this discussion are disruptive to wikiversity, as a whole. In the future I would recommend using checkuser requests to verify if a single controlling party is using multiple accounts to influence the outcome. --mikeu talk 19:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - The applicant seems to have substantial research/writing experience in several areas relevant to this journal. The Hermes (discuss • contribs) 08:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: this is the only edit for this account on Wikiversity and the account has several edit of the Wikipedia biography of Johnson Phillip --mikeu talk 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I support Johnson C. Philip because he has substantial research and writing experience in several areas relevant to this journal. He has an understanding of and passion for your overall research and content strategies. Strong communication skills. By Gerson Fumbuka.
 * to Gerson Fumbuka, please feel free to register an account. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This is one of only two edits by this ip on any wiki. --mikeu talk 19:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - Johnson C. Philip seems to have substantial experience in areas that would enrich this journal. I endorse his candidature. HealthyMan2018 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)HealthyMan2018.
 * Note: this is the only edit for this account any wiki. --mikeu talk 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - I support Johnson C. Philip because of his longtime historical contributions to other Wikis, as well as his depth and quality of education and contributions to a variety of other publications, and for the respect for him on academic levels. by Doug Engle Uncleflo (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: this edit is the only edit on Wikiversity; this user also made one edit to the WP biography. --mikeu talk 21:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - He will be useful.
 * to 'He will be useful', please feel free to register an account. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: this is the only edit for this account on any wiki. --mikeu talk 19:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - Their promotion of pseudoscience concerns me. Although they are applying to the Humanities journal and not the sciences journal, it makes me question how far their fringe views extend to other areas. I've struggled to find works of theirs that have been peer reviewed. Since I'm only an advisor for the journal, and my opinion is heavily skewed by their pseudoscientific works, it is up for the editorial board to decide on their relevant expertise. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 03:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for your question. Critique always helps self-examination. Actually I applied for this position because my private views about theology or theology training does not overflow into my objective works in Religion, theology, ethics, Indian history and culture. Over the years I have realized increasingly that pseudoscientific outlooks need to be weeded out rigorously from humanities. I hope to be highly useful in doing so because I have relevant training in such areas and I can spot them faster than those not trained in these areas. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - I echo concerns about pseudoscientific promotion, and hesitate, for right or wrong, on how that would reflect on the credibility of the journal. Open-access and user created content faces an uphill battle for recognition and respect. While I constantly struggle to balance my personal opinions about someone's beliefs or scholarship with being nonjudgmental and an advocate for diverse experience (I am, afterall, a librarian), the associative concern does give me pause. Does experience in the medium (as this applicant has with Knol) rise above background concerns? I certainly would like more comment from the Board. Smvitaltalk 10:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the concerns you expressed. In fact my background makes me highly suited to spot pseudosciences compared to many others. Since I have training in multiple areas considered pseudoscience, and since at the same time I have training in physics, I can be a big help in keeping pseudosciences away from this journal. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - I vote for himSamshaversdr (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Above account has this as their only edit on any wiki. Vermont (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - I vote for himpaulmarkadewale **Note: Above account has this as their only edit on any wiki. Vermont (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * to paulmarkadewale, please feel free to register an account. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Based on the Wiki article on Johnson C. Philip (provided as his bio), it appears largely unsupported with reliable citations and reads more as a fan page. I was not able to find evidence of work with research or peer-reviewed academic expertise. There are lists of self-published pamphlets (referred to as books), though I could not locate anything to suggest involvement with broad academic research. The area of religion that is mentioned throughout seems to focus on creationism as a science, which seems contrary in many ways to more readily acceptable aspects of scientific method across the mainstream academy. --- FULBERT (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish to appeal against the above opposition. Wikipedia itself List of Christians in science and technology has made it clear that one's religious credentials and personal beliefs do not have to affect one's scientific work. Though I have a strong creationist background (Cf. the Wiki document I cited about myself), I am known in Christian circles as a person who tries to push to community to an NPOV stand in as many things as possible. In fact an Open Theology movement is brewing in theological circles where NPOV is gaining momentum. A journal "Apologetics" launched by me has invited even atheists to submit papers critical for publication. The aim is to develop an NPOV theology. I am sure those who evaluate will take these things into consideration.
 * If my Wiki biography reads like a fan page, and if it has weaknesses, that reflects only upon people who wrote it. I do not know any of them. That article cannot be used against my scholarship if those who wrote it did a shoddy work.
 * I am 65 years old. I am based in India. So it is practically impossible to trace my academic work on the net. The net came very late to my country, and by that time I was already semi retired. I appeal to the editors to give me a chance to prove my scholarship and commitment to NPOV. I assure them that with a strong background in numerous sociological fields I will be an asset to the Journal.
 * Added February 1, 2019. Today I found that there is a whole school of theology on Wikipedia under PART OF THE FACULTY FOR HUMANITIES. This makes my case strong that theological beliefs of a person are not a disqualification for professional activities or for Wiki involvement. Here is the Wiki link https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/School:Theology. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Such words as "Quantum Chromodynamics" must be supported by (at least one) reference to a research article in a peer refereed journal in physics. I tried to find one, in vain. And, about "practically impossible to trace my academic work on the net": why? I am familiar with some Indian experts, for example, Raja Bhat, and can find easily their works (old and new) on the net. Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 06:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ** I did my PhD in Quantum Chromodynamics in 1980s, when the Internet did not exist. The net became available in my University only in late 1990's and by that time had already left the University. So none of my works related to PhD can be found on the net. However, anyone can search for my name and find numerous popular level works on physics on Amazon Kindle. Simplifying physics to an average reader has been my passion. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * at present, I reluctantly oppose as the external links from the relevant Wiki page only link to self-created content. The ethics statement for these journals states that 'The full names and affiliations of the editorial board members should be displayed online' - at the moment, the only affiliation I can find is a self-created website. Public domain affiliation with an institution or reference to some peer-reviewed work would be preferable before approving. I accept there may be an inclusion issue here - with this being an insurmountable barrier for some would-be-editors and recommend this is discussed in more detail in other forums Jacknunn (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I am based in India, and since all my research work and institutional link dates from pre-internet times, the problems you raised do fall in the "insurmountable" category that you mentioned. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - I am apprehensive on multiple levels that his involvement could induce a bias towards pseudoscience within the board(s), there could be a clash in belief systems and a departure from scientific methodology. Diptanshu &#128172; 10:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It is simply AMAZING that wiki has an elaborate section on religious ideas on Wikiversity, and still you are apprehensive that a person with religious background will introduce "pseudosciences" here. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I appeal to the admins that I should not be ignored on the basis of apprehensions. Eliminating a person on the basis of "apprehensions" is unfair. Rather, give me a chance, see my work, and take disciplinary action if I fail to maintain NPOV in my work.  Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * But what about the quantum chromodynamics? Do you intend to support your bold claim as needed? Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you want me to prove that I have the PhD degree in QCD? If that is so, that is very easy. I can upload a copy of my PhD degree if the admins desire to see it. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 05:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - For the reasons articulated so well by FULBERT.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  22:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I appeal again. 1. All objections raised from western perspective about my physics background are prejudiced. 2. A good background in theology or apologetics does not prevent me from working with NPOV for the journal. 3. The main problem here seems to be that objections are being raised POV whereas any critique should be from NPOV. 4. Since none of you have gone through my printed non fiction work (large textbooks, but in Indian language) you have no idea of my academic work. 5. Unless I am given a chance, all objections that my work will be POV are invalid. The critics are showing a POV against a person and judging me in the light of your POV.


 * Here are some undisputable facts 1. I have an earned PhD in Quantum Chromodynamcis 2. I have an earned ThD in Christian Apologetics 3. I have published the following books in Malayalam language: 800 page systematic theology, 800 page christian apologetics, 3000 page (3 volume) Bible Encyclopedia, 1500 page Dictionary of Theology, 600 page Bible Survey. Photographs can be supplied if needed. . I am a LIFE member of Indian Physics Association (like APA), and Indian Association of Physics Teachers. At present I am working single-handedly on a 3 to 5 volume Encyclopedia of Indian Coins and people worldwide have given me permission to use their coin pictures. All these tomes were trade publications, and not self published.  Thus you cannot question my qualification and attainments. Everything else (that I MIGHT support POV in the journal is simply a POV without proof).


 * - I'm in opposition to this application due to the suspicious activity of the above noted accounts. At the very least I would recommend striking the support comments from editors who have not made mainspace contributions to our project. I would also suggest a speedy close. We might also want to consider using a bot to automatically check for unusual activity to alert us to the possibility of vote stacking. (note: I also tagged the WP biography with notability and self-published sources issues) --mikeutalk 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I've changed my Oppose to Comment due to my failure to meet the eligibility requirement in the journal bylaws, in particular: "Editors with at least 30 edits to WikiJournal of Humanities pages." --mikeu talk 19:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - I've read through much of "Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics" by the applicant and co-author. Currently, assuming good faith, we have six supports and five opposes. We have 19 board members on this journal and so far only two have voted, one I consider an expert on religion, our other two have not yet voted. I see no reason for a speedy close. There's also the option of assistant editor should a religious submission occur the applicant can be allowed to help with. I also agree with Smvital and T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo). Some pseudoscience has become main-line science and some has not. But pseudoscience may not be suitable for this journal. Coming back to the piece I read at least in part I was struck by a feeling of faith über alles. But I'm no expert on religion. Can such an approach be beneficial to a journal of the humanities when the authors of the above appear to believe we have elevated ourselves to the level of God? And, I'm uncertain that this is a fair question. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with FULBERT and Jacknunn --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Wiki Editors are expected to evaluate me on the basis of my qualification, not on the basis of the religious bias they claim I MIGHT show. You cannot arbitrarily say that I will introduced POV into the journal. Highly religious people have rendered unquestionable NPOV service to the Wiki. I intend to do the same -- if selected. If I fail to do the job, there are mechanisms to censor or even remove me. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - I accept the outcome because it has been made "This is done without prejudice to the candidate.". I am not at a level where I can check for voting fraud, but I appreciate that those who are able to check have done so. I would want to be elected only on the basis of honest votes+my qualification, if such an opportunity arises in future. Thank you very much all of you here. Dr. Johnson C. Philip (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)