User talk:XxanthippePlease place comments about articles on the talk page of the article, not on this page, and put new comments at the bottomDummies guide to archiving my talk page1. Open the talk page for edit. 2. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive N" where N is the Nth archive. 3. When search tells you that this page does not exist create it by clicking on the red link. 4. Copy the contents of your talk page into this archive and add ((archives|auto=yes|search=yes|)) as the first line [replacing the () brackets with {} ]. 5. Save this archive and delete the transferred material from current talk page. Finished. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC). Re: Reversion on page for "Only Lovers Left Alive"I realize that it has now been nearly 2 years since the event I'm talking about, but you reverted my addition (here: [1]) with the claim that this was unsourced. I had seen the film prior to making my edit, and I have watched the film at least twice since then, and I still can't find any evidence that any other vampire appearing in the film shares an ability similar to Eve's (i.e. the ability to identify the relative age of an object). Therefore it stands to reason that my edit is valid, as my source is the film itself. That said, in retrospect it's probably an extraneous detail that may be unnecessary for a plot summary, so instead of calling my edit "unsourced," for what it's worth, I think it would have been more reasonable to suggest that it was contributing to excess detail in a plot summary.Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
You're not a new editor, so you should seriously know better. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Thank you very muchThe RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up. By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject. I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity. Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them. If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience. Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 11:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC) P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
Women in Red June Editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging Notice of discretionary sanctionsThis message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Just adding a reminder here that J. K. Rowling is also under discretionary sanctions (I can't tell if you have already been notified: my apologies if you have). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Hi. As I stated in my edit summary, the recently (some days ago) added content does not have any source. I have asked the editor who added it to provide sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The extract that you want to delete: Much of this centers around his identify as there are many discrepancies regarding the identify of Wongar in the forewords of his books. In his book "The Track to Bralgu'" the foreword mentions that the author B. Wongar is part Aborigine, while in his book "The Sinners", the foreword mentions that the author B. Wongar is in fact a mixed race American Vietnam veteran seems to me to be a fair synopsis from Meyer's well-sourced PhD thesis on these literary frauds. I suggest you take the matter up with the person who first inserted the material into the article. I have transferred this thread from my talk page to the B. Wongar talk page, which is its proper home. See the note at the top of my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC).
In my opinionRajendra Rathore (chemist) manages to pass NACADEMIC. It'll be interesting to learn your take(s).......∯WBGconverse 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
July 2018 at Women in Red
August 2018 at Women in Red
Unprecedented behavior and Vandalismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion Your act was a pure act of vandalism and malice... your claim proposal was 100% ungrounded and done for your personal reasons. You are holding a vendetta on me and I will not play your game. You have been warned. Markoulw (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Warning by KudpungTake this as official - do not post again on my talk page. Even to add a link or correct a typo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Following the debacle of his editorship of Signpost Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ceased to be an administrator on 16 August 2018.[21] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC) and was later resysoped without community discussion [22] on 26 October 2018. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC). Kundpung's behavior led to a complain about harassment at AN/I [23] and an Arbitration request [24] Complaints about Kudpung's behavior had been made at AN/I before 2015, 2017, 2018 but dismissed without action. As a result of the arbitration of 2020 Kudpung's position as an administrator of Wikipedia was terminated on 29 February 2020. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC). September 2018 at Women in Red
October 2018 at Women in Red
RfC withdrawn and restatedYou had !voted at an RfC. I withdrew and restated it. See RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Get ready for November with Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging RfC on which you !voted, has been amendedIn response to objections, I struck the two year mortatorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Re: D. H. LawrenceI just thought it would be interesting to know. I guess not, eh? WQUlrich (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Xxanthippe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) December 2018 at Women in Red
December 2018 at Women in Red
Ada Lovelace copyeditHi there, Have you checked my earlier copyedit to Ada Lovelace yet? As you reverted it, I thought I'd give you time to come back to me on it, but haven't heard anything from you yet. Please give me some feedback. As I stated in my follow-on edit, I'm a proofreader/copyeditor by profession, so I'm basically interested in improving the text and presentation of wiki articles. Ada Lovelace has been in the local news a lot lately as the people of Nottinghamshire are campaigning to get her on the £50 note, hence my current quest to improve her article. You should be able to see from my previous edits over the past couple of weeks that I can be trusted! So if you're not happy with my entire copyedit of the Early life section, then would you rather I did it in small stages (more transparent but also rather tedious)? By the way, I arranged for the article to be semi-protected for the next 3 months as it was being plagued by IP vandalism. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ANI-noticeThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. January 2019 at Women in Red
February 2019 at Women in Red
Greetings, I'm sorry but I have to insist. This article - and many others as well - make a bad confusion between the two notions of lattice and structure. A lattice is an abstraction that represents the periodicity of a crystal structure. Atomic positions in the unit cell can be anywhere, not only on lattice nodes. This is something that many non specialists get wrong, unfortunately. Mahlerite (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
March 2019 at Women in Red
Thank you for your adviceThanks for pointing me to the PROD page to nominate an article for deletion (Antibodies from lymphocyte secretions). It turns out the author has many other pages in the process of deletion, so I feel validated!Logophile59 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC) April editathons at Women in RedApril 2019
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging (Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!) May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging June events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging Broken linkA heads up that you have broken link to WP:PROF#C1 in your !vote at WP:Articles for deletion/Danai Koutra. If it were in an article, I'd fix it for you but I never feel comfortable editing somebody's talk page or AfD comments. Btw, I appreciate your willingness to consider new information. Msnicki (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
-- 03:49, Friday, June 14, 2019 (UTC)
July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging Copyright and speedy deletionWhen the charge is that the content is in violation of our copyright policy, a notability criterion is not relevant. Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Bad testI have no idea what thing did you intent to test, but the namespace 1 pages of actual articles would do better without Twinkle rubbish. Go elsewhere with it, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging September 2019 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging Joan of ArcYou blanket reverted ALL of my edits without providing any indication what you are objecting to or why. Please state your reasons or at least which edits you are objecting to. Str1977 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging Removing unsigned comments on talk pages is not "edit warring." Akmal94 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
November 2019 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging About AfD discussionMy apology for misunderstanding. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter messageHoward JacobsonThanks for this edit on 26 July https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Jacobson&diff=908025185&oldid=907950358 I am having a lot of trouble with the user Jontel, as it is clear from their edits that they are a member of the hard left and are removing (or at least attempting to minimise) all criticism of the Labour Party over the well-documented antisemitism issue. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC) December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging Happy Holidays
Happy HolidaysHello Xxanthippe: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
January 2020 at Women in Red
Good luckMiraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. Merry Christmas!!Hi Xxanthippe, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC GA for Moberly–Jourdain incidentHello. In regards to Moberly–Jourdain incident, I was going by Talk:Moberly–Jourdain incident. As it's currently a GA, the icon shouldn't be removed. If you feel that it no longer passes GA, feel free to do another Good Article Reassessment. However, this article is currently GA unless it get delisted. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case openedYou recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a chance you have unintentionally misspelled your user name in the section title? --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging Abraham–Lorentz forceHello, I've wanted to notify that I've re-added the some of recent content on surface plasmons back to the Abraham–Lorentz force article. I think my recent additions got mixed up with a previous edit that used Arxiv as a source; the content on surface plasmons cited highly cited papers from reliable, peer-reviewed journals. The best, Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Pass by commentYour comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision are unnecessary and inflaming. The gender thing is completely unfounded and provocative. RHaworth isn't female but he was desysoped. What's the point of bringing up "venue of the 2020 Wikimania" which has now spilled WP:BEANS and is potentially jeopardizing Kudpung's participation in it because he is now aware of it due to your comment? I had to spell it out for you lest more redundancies. Sad Boy Jesus (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging Florence NightingaleHole Xanthippe, you recently reverted my reference request at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Nightingale&oldid=prev&diff=945774488&diffmode=visual , saying that it was referenced below. But the reference at the end of the sentence does not mention media exaggeration, let alone particular recent commentators. Maybe it's referenced much further down somewhere, but if so, that reference should be duplicated up. Or perhaps the sentence should be re-writted to more adequately represent the claims in the reference? Cheers -- naught101 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging Drop the stick, pleaseThis is friendly advice rather than a formal warning but your recent contributions on user talk pages have not been conducive to writing an encyclopaedia. I strongly suggest you stop behaving in a manner that could be taken as antagonising other editors, and focus on the mainspace. Nothing good lies down the path you're currently on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Login attacksOf late I have been subjected to dozens of login attacks, so if my edits suddenly become odder than usual, take note. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC). May 2020 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging June 2020 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging Meat puppetry in AfDsAs one of the few Wikipedians who weren't blatantly canvassed to AfD/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, I wondered if you see benefit in re-opening this case, or whether we should just let it go. While I do believe that WP:SELFPROMO by proxy shouldn't be rewarded, I'm actually hesitant to re-open an AfD since the same chaos is almost inevitably going to repeat. --bender235 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020Hello I'm Cameron11598 and I am a clerk for the arbitration committee. I recently removed your statement from the JzG Request for Arbitration, as they violated our policy on Personal Attacks and Civility. If you'd like to post a statement please do so without calling one's faith into question, additionally you will need to support your claims in the form of diffs. Failure to do so will result in your statement being removed again. Please keep in mind that all editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so. I am also required by our procedures to warn you that arbitration clerks are authorized by the arbitration policy and ArbCom precedent to sanction users for conduct on arbitration pages, including by blocks and topic bans from Arbitration Committee pages. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging Roman RetzbachI've listed 4 non-fiction books demanded as recommanded. Is it now ok? Can you change your decision, opinion, ...not to delete please?! Can I ask you to get my mentor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roman_Retzbach --YvesMe (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Alyssa CarsonHi Xxanthippe! I saw your comment on the AFD for Alyssa Carson, where you suggest it might be an attack page. I was trying to update the article to have a neutral POV. Did I do something wrong here? Everything is sourced. If you can explain or make suggestions that would be great. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
UndidI undid this edit; it's not really fair to substantially change a comment that has been replied to, and then add an indent. The fair thing to do is add it as an indented followup to your original comment. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Re:badgeringHi Xxanthippe. I understand you may see this as further badgering but I feel as though we ended our AfD discussion on a toxic note and that any further contributions I may make to it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggie Zed would only worsen the tone of the debate. I apologize for any badgering and any time-wasting I have done. Also, this particular conversation has more to do with WikiEttiquette than that particular BLP. Feel free to ignore this message if you feel as though it is a continuation of my "badgering" behaviour. My intention in our AfD discussion was to get you to address the sources I had previously listed and say why they did not constitute sufficient sourcing to meet WP:BASIC. I felt that your !vote was just a vote with WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You said that your reasons were given above, but you never gave any reasoning that wasn't just listing policies. I felt that this not proper AfD ettiquette. As a newish editor, I strive to follow WP:GOODARG when contributing to AfD discussions. I felt as though you were not following WP:PERPOL by not explicitly stating why you felt that the article did not meet WP:BASIC. I am sorry if you felt as though my attempts to get you to explicitly state your reasoning were badgering or harassment. I understand that assessing !votes is not my job as I am not closing the AfD but I do feel an obligation to engage in discussions to keep AfDs productive. I admit that I did get a little snarky in my first response as I felt your "advice" was an attempt to undercut my interpretations of AfD policies by referencing the fact that I have only been editing Wikipedia for 5 months. I am sorry for any snark and now realize that it was inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion to comment in any way other than to ask you to clarify your !vote. If I offended you in any way, know that this way not my intention. Apologies for further wasting your time. I do not expect you to return to the AfD to make the clarifications I have requested nor do I expect any reply to this message. I wish you all the best and hope that in the future you will strive to give reasoning in your own words as to why certain policies are relevant. Samsmachado (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging Nomination of Günter Bechly for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging You may benefit from using RedWarnHello, Xxanthippe! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience. RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed talk! 12:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC) A kitten for you!Thank you for checking my modifications of the page on Literary_realism. Of course you're right, and we need references. I added two. I hope this will be accepted :) Skater00 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
October editathons from Women in Red
Marcel Proust page: Category “lgbt jews” should be removed and “French Roman Catholics” Category should be put in.Proust did not consider himself jewish and was proud of his certificates of baptism and confirmation (source) [31] He s only of 50% jewish ancestry so "lgbt jews" must go. Also, his partial jewish ancestry is covered under "french people of jewish descent" and he was Baptized Catholic. I don’t understand why you can’t grasp this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.9.203 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
No. WP:BRD is optional, but i'll humor you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.9.208 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse MitigationHi, it looks like WMF is going ahead with "IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation". You said something about it in the comments section of The Signpost (March "By the Numbers"). I'd like to invite you to read over the recent proposal and if possible, write some thoughts that I could include in an analysis. Our writing deadline is Saturday, so if you could do it during the week that would be great for the upcoming issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC) November edith-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageDecember with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging A cookie for you!
A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging February 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging Re: Fermi energyRe: Fermi energy, what is the subject of the sentence? If "a group", the verb should be in the singular form (obeys), which makes the sentence even more awkward. Further, when enumerating *types* of members of a group, each should be singular, I believe. E.g., "Mammals (for example, lion, bear, horse) are animals that ...". --Evgeny (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging Scholia = dubious website?Dear Xxanthippe, reacting on your recent reverts on Richard Dedekind and Ronald Graham, is the Scholia box considered as spam/unwanted among Wikipedia community? If it is at the moment, what about in the future, could the attitude change? Personally, I consider it interesting and there're supporting tools that manage the underlying Wikidata database. Thank you in advance for any reaction. --PKalnai (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Xxanthippe, Concerning your recent reverts on Marcel Proust#Further reading. [32] 1) Jozef Czapski's Lost Time, like Celeste Albaret's Monsieur Proust, is published by New York Review Books. See title page of either book. (The New York Review of Books is a periodical.) 2) What does "source needs improving" mean? Please explain. Hunu (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging On your reverts
In the end, I'll defer to you on any sourcing/citing choices, since you seem to have much more active involvement and experience in these articles than I do. However, I do want to bring these idiosyncrasies to your attention. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Xxanthippe! I'm really sorry to have edit warred with you, but I'm hoping this can clarify the issue. The primary problem is taht we can;t use a self-published source for claims about a living person who is not the author of the SPS. Gorski largely publishes in two forums - one is his personal blog (Respectful Insolence) which is an SPS and the source of this claim (from Gorski, anyway) and the other is the group blog, Science-Based Medicine. The latter is debatable, but I think most editing in the fringe area will argue that it is not self-published, as there are multiple editors (one of whom is Gorski), so I'm going with that. The problem is that we cannot use an SPS at all here, so if Gorski was teh only source we couldn;t cover the claims. However, Gorski is directly quoting Martin, and Brull also directly quotes Martin for the same claims. Thus Brull's article is a fair substitute, and in fact makes more sense, given that the wording was "Brull reports that according to supervisor Brian Martin, Wilyman's thesis makes four major points", which makes it even more odd that we're using Gorski to source it, giving that we're saying the the source is Martin via Brull. :) In the normal course of events I'd just quote Martin directly, but as in this article it is better to use secondary sources, so Brull it is. I've added in the direct quote from Martin, though, in the hope it makes things clearer. It is an ugly mess, as this would be much easier to fix on other articles, but here we're stuck with it. Such is editing in this area. Sorry that you had to get caught up in it. - Bilby (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC) btw, I've always loved your choice of username. :) I read Xanth as a teenager, and was intrigued by the possible connection to Xxanthippe, which then connected again when I was studying philosophy. It was very neat to see your username turn up the first time. - Bilby (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging She seems to have left Rotterdam as a small child. It doesnt appear to be defining that she was born there. And its not clear that she was of Dutch nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging August Editathons with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging September 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging Joan of ArcI misunderstood your "semi" meaning semicolon. You were right, but I think the required fix is not reversion, it is a sentence break. You reverted while I was adding important information to the list of creations inspired by Joan; that confused me. Zaslav (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging Moberly–JourdainRe your reverting of my additions to the lede. The appeal of the book had just as much to do with the explanations as it did with the event itself - which is why they rightly occupy a quarter of the article. I would have thought that a couple of sentences about them in the lede would have been appropriate and proportionate. Valetude (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) October 2021Hello, I'm VQuakr. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Classical electromagnetism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageDecember 2021 at Women in Red
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging Some helpHi, Can you help me by closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Abbas (legal scholar). I don't know how to do it. I withdrawn. Thanks for any help. -- ওহিদ (💬 | 📝) 11:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you look at Muhammad Al Hayrsh? It was previously deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Al Hayrsh. Thank you. -- ওহিদ (💬 | 📝) 07:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC) January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging Rowling FARHi, Xxanthippe: regarding this comment, I had given a bit of background in this earlier post but I recognize not everyone reading the page has that knowledge, so the comment could be interpreted "ambiguously" or even unfavorably. This is where a bit of AGF helps. Victoriaearle does excellent work at FAC and FAR when her health allows it, so when she starts editing, many of us who have worked together before try to stay out of her way for the avoidance of edit conflicts. I was happy to see that she had decided to engage, as early on it was not clear if we had enough participation to address the issues raised. I understand, in retrospect, that the comment could be taken wrong and even make others uncomfortable, and I'm sorry for causing that. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging May 2022 at Women in Red
--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging May 2022 at Women in Red
--Innisfree987 (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Hi @Xxanthippe: How goes it? I'm looking for a considered opinion. Another editor was concerned about this article. You originally attended the Afd on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saju Chackalackal stating the citation count was too low. Would you perhaps say he is notable now? Thanks. scope_creepTalk 08:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
CategorizationHi! Nice to meet you. I see you reverted my edits on Uehling potential and Gauge fixing, reinstating the QFT category. I would argue that this should not be so since those articles belong to more specific categories. For example, gauge fixing belongs to the gauge theories category alone. It being a QFT topic is implied by the fact that the gauge theories category has one parent category: the QFT category. MoS at least stipulates that an article should only belong to the most specific category, unless there is something important not captured by it, which I do not see being the case here. Without this principle, pretty much ALL the articles found in the QFT subcategories would also belong to the QFT category as well. They would also belong to the theoretical physics category, etc, which is just a mess. Currently the QFT category already has too many articles (I'm working on creating some more specific categories for it), so this better categorization seems rather necessary. OpenScience709 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Board of Trustees electionThank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC) WIRI've made one or two (depending) WIR articles on major subjects, I'm not messing with Ada Lovelace. I'd never spam that article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Gopal article (organisation and balance)Hi, I saw that you were active on the Priyamvada Gopal talk page and article. I've raised a couple of issues there to do with the substantial removal of material and reorganising the material there, I'd really appreciate you weighing in as you are clearly familiar with the page and were part of the previous discussions. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging Hello, it is true that Daniel Lazard has numerous citations, but this is not a sufficient criteria for WP:NOTE. The notability needs to be attested by independant tier 2 sources which is not the case. On the 3 sources on the article, 2 are written by Daniel Lazraq, and 1 is a tier 1 from university only stating his PhD Username1789 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging "Spree"This comment by Skyerise was in response to the message below that I placed on his talk page and was rapidly deleted by him. His 9-edit response comes next: also@User:GiantSnowman Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC). @Skyerise. Please slow down your edit spree on BLPs (like Lars Onsager) and please do not use edit summaries to edit war. I see that you have been involved in BLP issues recently [33] and have a substantial block log. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC).
Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging Intentional?Did you mean to remove two sections on top of the changes you said you made in this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Biography%2FScience_and_academia&oldid=prev&diff=1150410505&diffmode=source BhamBoi (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 19 June 2023
Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging Re: citations in the ledeRegarding this tag removal, per MOS:LEADCITE, it is permissible to have citations in the lede, particularly for contentions not covered in the body text: "
The Signpost: 3 July 2023
The Signpost: 17 July 2023
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 1 August 2023
I am familiar with BRDI am familiar with BRD captcha: leakwaldo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.223.203 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 August 2023
Quick apology for accidentally removing your comment (which is now restored).I accidentally removed your comment in this AfD diff. Not sure what happened, as I was editing the single section, so I shouldn't have been able to edit from an old version, and I didn't get any edit conflict noticed or anything. Very strange. But thankfully another editor noticed and fixed it. Sorry! —siroχo 19:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 31 August 2023
The Signpost: 16 September 2023
Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 3 October 2023
The Signpost: 23 October 2023
Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 6 November 2023
Einstein Solid Grammar errorThe sentence I fixed (and you reverted) is "Although the Einstein model of the solid predicts the heat capacity accurately at high temperatures, and in this limit … which is equivalent to Dulong–Petit law." Do you believe this to be a complete sentence?
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
"... best selling books, which have sold millions"Thank you, Xxanthippe, for your very kind words. I think your suggestions were quite sensible. Although it now seems that the outcome has been beneficial for the encyclopaedia overall. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging ArbCom 2023 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add The Signpost: 4 December 2023
Invitation
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 December 2023
Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 10 January 2024
Finally time for an SPI?Possibly you remember this. It seems like they've never been run through SPI. Comparing this and this is pretty compelling that they're the same person as the IP, but I don't know if the IP was ever connected to Vujkovica brdo. On the other hand, the last article they've edited substantially was Milan Raspopović (back in February), which was pretty heavily edited by Taribuk in 12/2017, and they just appeared for the first time at Talk:Josip Pečarić, a big-time hangout for Vb & socks. Do you think this is enough for an SPI? --JBL (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 31 January 2024
The Signpost: 13 February 2024
Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 2 March 2024
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 25 April 2024
Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
Dear Wikimedian, You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter. Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. On behalf of the UCoC project team, RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 May 2024
Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 8 June 2024
Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 4 July 2024
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 14 August 2024
Ada LovelaceWould you mind explaining to me how calling Ada Lovelace by her "surname" is sexist? If anything, it's calling women by their first name that tends to be regarded as sexist. Векочел (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 4 September 2024
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
Inappropriate removal of referenceThe Journal of Alloys and Compounds is well established in metallurgy and materials science. It was previously the Journal of Less Common Metals and dates back to 1958. Invited reviews of a field like this are not uncommon as an alternative to a special issue. I actually read the article in question, and there is nothing wrong with it; the topic is on the edge of my expertise as a grey haired materials scientist. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Women in Red October 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 19 October 2024
Women in Red November 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 6 November 2024
The Signpost: 18 November 2024ArbCom 2024 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
What is......this?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
Women in Red December 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 18:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging The Signpost: 12 December 2024
The Signpost: 24 December 2024
|