User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Please place comments about articles on the talk page of the article, not on this page

Welcome! Hello, Xxanthippe/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not linkspam

Please do not remove the Folie a Deux Winery link from the Folie a Deux page. Thank you very much. I would also like to add that I am a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia and I am trying very hard to adhere to all the standards. I appreciate your Folie a Deux page, and I feel the winery is a valid link due to my participation in WikiProject Wine.Lucy456 (talk)

Help with Eastbourne

I am trying to gather a small group of people to improve the Eastbourne article and writing to you as you have edited that page recently. I have set up a what needs to be done section on the talk page, and I am hoping that I will get a few people to start a discussion. It would be wonderful if you could spare a few minutes just to look at the current Eastbourne article and give your opinion. It would be evern more wonderful if you could join in with this small project as well. Thank you MortimerCat 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Strand Magazine..co.uk

I went ahead and nominated the article for deletion. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers. -- Seed 2.0 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Preview

Jim, it is possible to preview your changes before saving them and thus avoid producing dozens of versions. Xxanthippe 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I often preview my changes five or six times between each save. Infuriatingly, my keyboard has a "back" button next to the arrow keys that sometimes causes me to lose my work, so I like to save every few minutes. Because I save so many times, I usually copy an article to my user page and edit a draft there, which avoids cluttering up the history of the main article.
Thanks for the tip, though. Aside from cluttering up history pages (which I try to avoid), is there any reason saving so often would cause trouble? Jim 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know not apart from that. I agree that it is a good idea to do most of the editing off-line. Xxanthippe 03:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Protest the Hero

They are on wikipedia, thus they are notable. I'm not even a fan of the band, but I think that is some noteworthy information, and the revision I made does not violate any wikipedia guidelines. In fact, it upholds them. I decided not to start a Trivia section because they are discouraged, so I included it in the influence section. Even as we speak, there is an AfD discussion on this article, so that type of information will soon be included in the influence section based on how things are going now. Your revision will be undone. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC): The above concerned a proposal by Pwnage8 to place a reference to a popular music band Protest the Hero in the article on the Russian novelist Dostoevsky.

Azure Bonds etc

I think the best form of defense is attack. If the articles do not have proper referencing, citation, critical comment, assertions of notability and verifiability, then find the material and add it. If these things cannot be found then "maybe" the article is not actually supportable. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your words are wise ones. The problem is that the subjects of this genre, although having a vast fan base and being a significant manifestation of popular culture (and what is wrong with that?), get little exposure in authoritative venues. Few D&D novels, no matter how good they are, are likely to be reviewed by the Times Literary Supplement. So it can take some effort to find sources that give ironclad protection against the scattergun approach of quibblers, such as those active in this area at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

While I don't like the attack metaphor, Kevin is spot-on that sources should be found — if they exist. And if they don't, articles here are not warranted. If authoritative sources do not comment on a subject, then it is not notable --Jack Merridew 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note added: Jack Merridew has been revealed as a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template (and other cleanup templates) from Azure Bonds, an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the template which was put there to address this problem. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by a rational interpretation of the notability guideline WP:BK and WP:RS which applies to this topic.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on user page of Gavin Collins talk where there is so much of similar nature. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC). See also this Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender, this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and this Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 3. Xxanthippe. (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

Wilson

These are the bot's changes. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 09:12 18 February 2008 (UTC).

I think you're over-reacting. Edit comments can't be edited, anyway, and no-one is going to look at the page history and think ZOMG... Rich Farmbrough, 22:22 20 February 2008 (GMT). O.K. but please try not to do it again. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Waterwindsail

Can you please review this sandbox article and let me know your thoughts on notability at this time ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waterwindsail/Sandbox thank you --Waterwindsail (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Angular_momentum 10:07, 10 April 2008 Xxanthippe ... (consistent)

You undid some of my corrections on the angular momentum page. The problem is that in a single formula the letter is used as an index and as the imaginary number at the same time. While you and I might not have too many problems understanding this it is a incredibly confusing for people who do not know the topic so well.

For example look at the exponential function:

and ask yourself who would understand that notation (correctly).

To be correct and consistent one would have to change all indexes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.181.86.1 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. I have changed the indices to {l,m,n} as these are more conventional than {a,b,c}. Discussions such as this are better placed on the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Sorry for the wrong placement ... but it can be removed now anyway ... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.181.86.1 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

John Gallaher AfD

I'd invite you to revisit this AfD, as I've found evidence that Gallaher has been a finalist in several other awards including the Walt Whitman Award. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)

This AfD has recently been closed by an admin as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. This decision has been taked to a deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). Since you have voted in the original AfD, you may want to comment in the deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosley

Hi Xxanthippe. Re: Oswald Mosely, removed items were unsourced assumptions, hence entirely removable per WP:V and not valid for restoration without a source, and trivial items in an already well populated trivia section, which are discouraged on Wikipedia and, if and when present, should be concise, and contain sourced or bluelinked items with direct relevance to the subject. The point of such sections is not to list every instance where a person or entity has appeared in popular culture, but simply to show that the subject has appeared in popular culture. That "so-and-so" was based on Mosely may be a widely held belief, but remains unsourced speculation without appropriate sourcing. Hope that clears things up for you. Deiz talk 12:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Crews

Xxanthippe, I have undone your recent edit to the article on Frederick Crews. If you are going to undo my edits, you might at least be sure to get your facts right - Slate Magazine is not a "blog." Skoojal (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Folie a deux winery

I've reverted your removal of the external link in Folie a deux winery. An external link to the website of the article subject is compliant with WP:EL, and spcifically, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." If you fee that the article itself is spam, then you could propose it for deletion, but I don'y see how it is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Children's

Please be sure of your facts before editing. In English, the possessive of a plural word that is not formed by adding "s" to the singular form is formed by adding an apostrophe and "s"—thus, children's, men's, feet's, mice's, etc. Deor (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Does Wikipedia acknowledge a canonical source for such matters? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

Spin in magnetism

I'd love to discuss your recent revert at Talk:Magnetism. Thanks!! --Steve (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Florence

Next time please use tag {{fact}} and do not just remove edit. Or you can post comment to my user page.

Florence is one of the proponent for Miasma theory [1] [2] [3], therefore she and her colleagues began by thoroughly cleaning the hospital and equipment and reorganizing patient care. Yosri (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that you had been vandalising this (Florence Nightingale) continually vandalised article. The references you have now added amply justify your edit. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC).
It's ok. I was translating Miasma theory into Malay, when I realise those info. I add it in cause I tought Miasma theory is uknown b4 germs theory became popular. Yosri (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Angular momentum vs rotation

I'm sorry, but a subtle point of angular momentum is that it doesn't have to involve any rotation at all (and this isn't OR).

For example, if I have a mass moving at 1m/s downwards, 5 cm to the right of my finger, it has an angular momentum about my finger. If the mass moves down a bit (we'll ignore gravity) and then tightens a string, it will then swing around my finger in circular motion, with that same angular momentum.

It's not usually discussed very much, but it is true, and it's not my OR.

Hope this helps.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

see comment on Angular momentum talkpage. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC).

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Moberly-Jourdain incident

Hi, with this edit, you violated the Manual of Style - references come after punctuation, not before. Can you please go through and fix? Thanks, Majorly talk 11:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Please cite policy reference and I will put things right. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
See this. I'm surprised you didn't know. Take a look at every featured article - citations always come after the punctuation. Majorly talk 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop hostile disruption!

If you persist in deletion of my talk page comments for no apparent reason, I will need to escalate this to a user conduct RFC against you. Your edits on the Crews talk page are highly inappropriate and the worst sort of violations of WP:AGF. Stop this crap, right now! LotLE×talk 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Frederick Crews talk page excites strong passions. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

John von Neumann

The text you excised from the article John von Neumann is sourced, even if it is not flagged. The source I believe is from Paul Halmos, in an obituary published in a mathematical journal. This reference shows up as note number 9. While I understand that removal of material can be made if the source is not clear, in this case, the editor was not clear, for it is unlikely that you would have excised the text respecting number manipulation by an eight year old had you read the references given in the article. The deleted text should be returned, and if you have complaint about source of statement, then add a reference to the end of the statement. Cheers. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Feudal society

I look forward to working with you on improving the feudalism and manorialism articles. You seem like a very intelligent and knowledgeable person on this topic - and on Wikipedia! - and I've been hoping to find someone like yourself I can work with to improve these very important articles, and someone to help guide me through the maze that is Wikipedia! I have read many books on Feudalism and even have a BA degree in History (although not in medieval history sadly), but anyway I have been looking for like-minded "obsessives" like myself (and hopefully yourself) to contribute and improve what we have here. I look forward to your reply on the Feudal society talk page as a beginning of our working relationship! Thanks and look forward to hearing from you! It's really a big project as I'm sure your aware(!) but I know if we work together as a team to improve it. So the first thing we need to do is settle the question of how to represent the historigraphical split of the traditional political feudalism as defined by Ganshoff and the other "classics" and integrate this (or not) with the revisionist "feudal society" in the Bloch sense of the 1940 (or 1960's in English tradition), more technically known as manorialism. Currently Wikipedia has it structured with these two as separate articles which I generally agree is a good idea because the political aspect alone is what Brown has attacked and denied and which has fallen so out of favor of late, not as much manorialism (ie feudal society), plus the concepts are far enough apart they are discussed and linked in different contexts so having them separate is a good idea. The only real question is to keep split or combine. To combine would probably mean entirely re-writing the feudalism article because it is so focused on the classic aspect, it would have to be re-factored in a delicate way since saying one thing about the political aspect would be different from the social one, so it would mean lots of conditional statements and would not be as clear or easy as having the two concepts as separate articles. Anyway I look forward to your thoughts and reply and working closely with you! Green Cardamom (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to list all the terms on the disambiguation page Feudal (disambiguation) (with See alsos on the individual pages) than issue autocratic redirects. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Please explain

Please explain your reason for the removal of the cited direct quotation from Soliton. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC). Read the edit comments and the article talk page Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

Mittell AfD

Please take a look at Talk:Jason Mittell. Mittell now doesn't object to having the article. I was the one who nominated it, but ended up voting 'keep' after Mittell chimed in.--ragesoss (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Infinity

Please explain the reasons of removal of the "dictionary.of-the-infinite" link from the infinity page. You commented "dotty blog removed". Ok, but neither is it a blog, nor do I see anything dotty. I see only a comprehensive compilation of serious information about infinity with the same or higher relevance as the other links to external pages. Jcl365 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Often highly speculative but fun. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

Dr. Seal has requested deletion

If you would like an email from Dr. Seal for verification, please indicate where it should be sent. Reidthaler (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Dr. Seal has emailed Wikipedia and requested that the article be removed: It has already been nominated for deletion as the article may only minimally meets the criteria for inclusion. Nonetheless, I request that the article be deleted in accordance with your deletion policy 4.3: 4 Presumption in favor of privacy. 4.3 Articles about people notable only for one event. I posted this article without Dr. Seal's approval or permission and request that you respect her privacy and remove the article as it also may pose a threat to her work helping disabled veterans. Reidthaler (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already said that I favour delete. I note that you have been subject to accusations of vandalism and COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

David Stack

Dirty Pool

Trying to stink up my talk page so that I somehow will be prevented from nominating articles on non-notable topics is uncalled for, and will fail. I have a right to non-disruptively edit on Wikipedia, and Prods and AfDs are to be judged on their merits, not on the failings of the nominator. I could be much worse at discovering articles on possibly non-notable topics, and still Wikipedia would be better for the debates and for the deletion of those articles that the community agrees should be deleted. I now ask you never to contact me again. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear what this is about. I have no power to prevent anybody nominating or editing any article of WP. If offence has been given I apologise for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Arguments

watch out for arguments that may backfire. "well on his way to WP notability" unfortunately means not yet having achieved WP notability. /we have had in the past considerable difficulty in getting even full professors recognized as notable; trying to extend this to all associate professors is going to be quite a stretch, though i hope that we will get there. I do not think I would normally even try with most assistant professors. There's good reason for not asking too much; if one appears to accept the general consensus, one can push it a little; if one appears to be outside it altogether, one is likely to be ignored. For a history of our attempts to develop this area you might be interested in my talk p. archive on the subject. I'm glad we have another ally, but be careful not to let annoyance at Joey/Abductive get in the way of effective argument. I agree he is reckless, but the only way to show it is to persuade the community to defeat his nominations. DGG (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and the link to your instructive talk page. I agree with your approach to WP:Prof articles. I judge notability à la WP:Prof on the basis of achievements rather than academic rank (although that is a significant factor because a high ranking academic will have been through several stringent review processes, as is argued in your talk). I agree with the current bar at: Professors are usually notable, Assistant Professors usually not and Associate Professors in between. There will be many exceptions to this rule and in all cases sources (in the broadest sense and as interpreted by experts) are the key. The best edits to WP articles are made by those who are best qualified in the fields that they edit. In the case of WP:Prof AfD discussions the best-qualified people are those who have been involved in academic appointments, tenure and promotion processes and those, like yourself, with extensive knowledge of the world of scholarship. However, this is a counsel of perfection as any twelve-year-old can edit WP and many do. People who edit WP without sufficient knowledge do little credit either to WP or their own reputations as editors. Lastly, the remark of mine quoted by you at the beginning of your comment was made by me in full awareness of the linguistic subtleties involved. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on WP:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Dunning-Davies. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I was re-reading this AfD for another reason and saw your comment "If I had referred to him (which I didn't) as "unhelpful", "uninformed", "trolling", "no familiarity at all", "out of your depth" that would indeed have been a personal attack.." It seems pretty obvious that you were aiming those comments at the editor you allegedly weren't attacking. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If Dougweller had read this unedifying debate more thoroughly he would have found that the phrases "unhelpful", "uninformed", "trolling", "no familiarity at all", "out of your depth" were first used by another editor about me without any conditional "If" attached. Dougweller's interpretation of my remark is not pretty obvious at all. He should exercise more care when accusing users of misbehaviour. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC).
In a separate arbitration case the user who made the above remarks about me was reminded to "avoid personal attacks at all times". The user was also blocked previously for "harassing other users, making threats". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

About: Frank Duckworth AfD and Tony Lewis AfD

Hi, Ggolden ddude,
I noticed you commented on the Frank Duckworth AfD. I withdrew the appended Tony Lewis deletion. It now has its own deletion discussion page. See User_talk:Shirt58#Frank_Duckworth_and_Tony_Lewis for why this had been added to your talk page.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Charles Babbage

Why did you identify my edits to this article as vandalism? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused your edit with those of the vandal 59.178.202.8. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
OK. No worries. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember when?

Remember when I asked you not to edit my talk page? Also, did you know that A nobody was caught actually sockpuppeting? Abductive (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Source (John von Neumann)

Is there a source for this? What is it? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Faith?

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Folie à deux. Thank you.--猛禽22 •• 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from WP:Assume good faith "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet, since it fails to assume the assumption of good faith if the perceived assumption of bad faith is not clear-cut." Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Redundant categories

I removed the witchcraft category from the Loudun possessions article as it is already in the witch trials category, which is a subcategory of the witchcraft category. Thus, the witchcraft category is redundant and I pruned it. You don't necessarily need an edit summary when you edit, although it is good form to use one. If someone doesn't leave an edit summary, you can always click the "prev" option on the history tab to see what they changed. Asarelah (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It does help if an edit is explained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

check this out,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Maximum_Entropy_Production —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Peter A. Stewart

An article that you have been involved in editing, Peter A. Stewart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. Stewart. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Thanks for this info. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

NZonscreen

Okay. But you must have some sense that the current WP is an utter disgrace. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

David Lewis-Williams

Before AfDing I thought I'd ask you what part of WP:PROF you believe he meets in case I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar cites for one: WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

A note on AFD tone.

I've withdrawn the AfD. But please note that the original article had the subject's surname spelled incorrectly, which is why I dind't find any sources. I brought it to AfD instead of speedy deleting as content created by the sock of a banned user it in the hope that someone might recognise the subject - which is what happened. The tone of your statement came off as quite unpleasant, and I'm hoping that it wasn't intentional. Please be careful in the future. Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if offence has been given. The subject's name was spelt correctly in the two external links of the version of Tsuhan Chen that you nominated for AfD and those links recorded the subject's qualifications that enabled him to satisfy several of the criteria of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Contested prod of Asad Naqvi

I have taken the article Asad Naqvi to AfD, whose prod you contested. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asad Naqvi. I am inclined to disagree with you that the cites listed there are any good: they are certainly not independent of the subject (they are all either to the subject's own university homepage or to that of the research group of which he is a member). At any rate, none of them confers any notability on the subject sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Le Docteur (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

Hi, re your revert yesterday; I've discovered where the IP editor found the figure 750. On 16 November 2009, BBC4 broadcast a drama titled "Enid", details here. Just before the closing credits of the programme there are three captions in succession: "Enid suffered with dementia in her later years. She died in 1968, aged 71."; "She wrote over 750 books and has sold 500 million copies worldwide." and "Her books still sell around 8 million copies every year." - is it possible to use at least the second one as a citation do you think? Which cite template might be best? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The question is, I suppose, where did the 800 figure come from? A written source would be best; surely the biographies will supply one. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Michael Faraday

Isn't that statement already cited? I've just removed the weasel word "some" and paraphrase the sentence, that's it. Best. E104421 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Would like you to revisit Faraday discussion. Am reading the Cantor biography of Faraday. The answer to the Knighthood question points back to the supporting material at the beginning of the discussion page. Cantor located much of the Faraday correspondence. One of the criticisms of the current article is that the focal point lies on the achievements and not the man. To help the reader identify with the man, they need to know about his relationships within the community, and his faith.
As an example, the scientific influences listed for the article are correct, as Davy was vital in helping Faraday bridge the gap from bookbinding to chemical assistant (scientist). What missing influences allowed Faraday to resist the everyday pressures to conform to Victorian England (e.g. refusing a Knighthood, refusing burial on hallowed ground)? Marriage and burial services were non-anglican and are only indirectly mentioned by way of tombstone photo, but they help illustrate a person so deeply rooted in faith that they were able to weather the storm. JamAKiska (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
My guess would be his non-conforming religious beliefs. The biographies must have something to say about that. Best wishes- Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
Thanks! Did not intend to ask a rhetorical question. The current article reads like a list of accomplishments, but does not help the reader connect with Faraday the person. The real question is how to bridge this impersonal gap? The key issue with the biographies is that few deviate from his notes and accompanying letters over very specific time periods. Most 19th century authors seem to analyze him topically and this approach casts him in an inhuman light. JamAKiska (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Faraday's scientific achievements were so mighty that I expect most biographers concentrated on those. An investigation of his psychology and theology is certainly of interest but I don't know enough about Faraday studies to know if this matter has been dealt with. If not, it would make a good PhD topic for students of the history and philosophy of science or of theology. There is an article on the Sandemanian Church in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
Cantor and Thompson both record the date of Michael Faraday's and Sarah Barnard's marriage as 12 June. On page 59, Cantor specifies the register at St. Faith-in-the-Virgin near St. Paul's Cathedral, and 12 June was the date their licence was issued. The witness was Sarah's father, Edward. Their marriage was 16 years prior to the Marriage and Registration Act of 1837. It seems reasonable to me that the first transcribed date from the Oxford dictionary a leading one was missed in the tens place. JamAKiska (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Only source I could find on James' movement south is Cantor on pages 57-8. James Faraday was an apprentice blacksmith in Outhgill (he must have learned the trade well as he became foreman some time after relocating to London working for James Boyd) and a member of the Sandemanian meeting house located there. His wife and two children moved south during the harsh winter of 1790-1. During this winter he visited London in search of work. The Sandemanians were quite good at helping each other find employment. James joined the London meeting house on 20 February 1791, and shortly thereafter moved his family south from Outhgill to London. Seven months later Michael was born. JamAKiska (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion would be better held on the Faraday talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Copied the previous two comments to Faraday's discussion page and several hours later added inline citations to the article for those two points. I'll work on the in-line citations for the WP sect article as most of it follows the first four chapters of Cantor's 1991 work. JamAKiska (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent move. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Misplaced edit

You appear here to have accidentally edited someone else's comment. We tend to frown upon that, so you'll probably want to undo that change. Thanks. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 08:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC). There must have been an edit conflict (not uncommon), I only made the edit above my name. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Your recent edit at ANI

I believe when you wrote "block" you meant "ban". Please reconsider and correct as necessary - there is quite important difference between those two. Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC). Thanks, done. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC). - Excellent proposal. I guess the best thing I can do now is staying out of the debate. Good coincidence, I have other urgent business anyway. Wish you the very best for reaching a sustainable solution. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

hallo from uwe kils

we donated thousands of photographs and i editied thousands. i donated over 40 000 dollar anoumously over the years. it would be nice if you have the entry alive, so my grandchildren and former students could find me. i shut down all other accounts. you can cut it down to 5 lines no picture. it would be nice if the categories stay.

best greetings and good luck to wikipedia, which is the greatest on the planet (see my endorsements on user kils, my gallery there and my gallery on commons user uwe kils

http://web.archive.org/web/20010803121250/krill.rutgers.edu/uwe/

Professor Dr. habil.habil. u. k.

user kils Uwe Kils

Frederick Crews

Note this belated comment regarding my revert earlier today - I don't see any BLP concerns there, and there's actually a couple minor improvements that are worth keeping and an extra interview in the EL section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The article looked as if it had been edited by Skoojal socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal/Archive). Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
Oh it absolutely has been, but I wouldn't say that the edits you reverted were necessarily some of them. I looked at the page the day after Skoojal crapped all over it, and his changes were reversed. I think in between the socking and reverts some helpful changes occurred as well - adding a new interview, italicizing a publication title, moving some stuff around and minor wording. It all looks good to me, so if you don't see any issues that I'm not (always a possibility) then the current version seems better. It's mostly a courtesy note 'cause I did undo a good-faith edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
That's O.K. Article looks good now. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks! I understand your concerns, sockpuppeting is a bitch and it's obvious Skoojal still has both axes and a grinding stone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the Higgs mechanism

As I attempted to clarify in rewriting of the introduction of Higgs mechanism, the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs boson are not the same.

The former is also known as spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking. The evidence for it is overwhelming. This evidence includes, for example, the existence of massive W and Z bosons.

The latter is a hypothetical realization of electroweak symmetry breaking. It is the simplest and best-known realization, but still one possibility out of many.

Your Twinkle reversion re-introduced confusion between these two concepts, which I have again corrected. Please make an attempt to maintain (and improve!) this rather important distinction in future editing. Thank you, David Schaich Talk/Cont 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

While the evidence for electroweak symmetry breaking is strong (but not overwhelming) evidence that it is due to the Higgs mechanism is less so. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC).
They are being used synonymously in this article (since at least 2004), as is common (though not universal). Again: please don't confuse the Higgs mechanism (spontaneous "breaking" of gauge symmetry) with the specific implementation of EWSB in the standard model (a scalar doublet Higgs field with a massive Higgs boson). The Nobel Prize for EWSB was awarded thirty years ago, and the evidence has only continued piling up since then: it's a fact of nature. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 03:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Williams (geometer)

I'm posting this on your page because you voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer):

Good news

Hello Xxanthippe, Instead of being deleted, the article Robert Williams (geometer) has been moved into the article incubator. The incubator is a collaborative environment aimed at helping new articles be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in an environment that is free from the pressures of impending deletion. To continue working on your article, please visit Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Robert Williams (geometer).

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to ask and I will be glad to help. — Sebastian 07:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Thanks, after substantial improvement the article is now back in article space. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Re your note

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't think sanctions are warranted at this time, but I've left Likebox a reminder that they need to act in a collegiate, civil fashion. If you don't mind a friendly reminder too, looking at the article I noticed that you've been edit-warring recently. Reverting is only for dealing with obvious vandalism, and by serial reverting - even where another editor may be making unsuitable edits - you run a significant risk of getting blocked yourself. WP:3RR is treated as a bright line, but the spirit as well as the letter is expected to be adhered to, and a slow-burning edit war or one that just avoids four reverts per day is often treated as a 3RR violation in all but name. See WP:BRD (if you weren't already aware of it) for some sound advice on dealing with editing disputes. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 09:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. Hold on though! Four edits here in five days is a long way from 3RR. Thanks too for letting me know about WP:BRD; I wasn't aware of it before but I think I have been following the principle by explaining my edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
True, you're not in any imminent danger from the letter of 3RR. I was pontificating :) However, the point I wanted to make was that edit-warring and 3RR are intimately linked, and a series of reverts spread over a few days, while avoiding the 3RR "bright line", may be seen as gaming 3RR and can still attract sanctions. What I find works for me is: if an editor reinstates an edit after I've reverted it for the first time, I wait to see how other editors react. If someone else reverts their edit, it's an indication my original revert may have been in line with consensus. If not, maybe my revert was against consensus. Either way, I make no more edits but move straight to discussion to clarify matters. It can be a long process, but it seems to result in more stable articles and fewer bruised feelings :) EyeSerenetalk 10:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Krishna Kumar

An article that you have been involved in editing, Krishna Kumar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Kumar. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rockpocket 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re AfD you participated in

The only reason that article Andrej Grubacic was not deleted (in my opinion) was because the AfD was listed under "Croatia-related AfD's". Had it been under the regular AfD's, many deletionist-oriented editors (especially concerning BLP's) would have opined to delete. If you are passionate about this article's not contributing much to our base of knowledge I believe Deletion Review would maybe change things a bit. I personally do not care either way. Happy editing.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Enid Blyton II

I can't help noticing (because I've got the page on my watchlist) that you're having a right old ding-dong. I think the current score is Bots 6, Xxanthippe 5 - but there are four of them against one of you, so on balance, you're winning. My question is: if following ar:Username:Mustafa Sameer انيد بلايتون: leads you to a page about Enid Blyton (albeit in Arabic), why is it wrong to have that as an interwiki on the English Enid Blyton article? Checking the infobox text, and the numeric portions of the dates, convinces me that the articles are about exactly the same person. I agree that "Username:Mustafa Sameer" is strange, and I don't know how the Arabic Wikipedia operates - but surely that can be solved by a page move at the Arabic Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K. I will take your word for it, leave the matter alone and hope that it sorts itself out. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
Yay! --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Afd for Littman

I think that additional evidence you were looking for is now reflected in bountiful fashion in the article, as well as e.g. at these books.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rydberg matter

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rydberg matter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rydberg matter. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Materialscientist (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD Renato M.E. Sabbatini

I'm asking everyone to take another look at [1] based on recent changes to the article. Upsala (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Appreciate your comments here:[2] I know this went to ANI, but I never say the end results. Ikip 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

David Mertz

Apologies for the change to your edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz (3rd nomination). Whitespace generally annoys me, so I tried to fix it, but should have been more considerate that you had done it like that on purpose! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I like a bit of whitespace myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Perhaps of interest

I have seen your comments on recent AfD's and thought you might be interested in the thread I started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Readership standard for WP:AUTH. I believe it relates to a number of comments you have made on those AfDs. LotLE×talk 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tchoroev Tyntchtykbek

I see you changed your !vote after mine. But it looks like I've overestimated, possibly a lot, his notability. I'm not sure what the deal is with the alternate draft of their constitution. Pcap ping 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

infinity

Concerning your edit: D. Jesseph's article reproduces some pertinent quotes concerning Leibniz' views of infinity. You can take a look and let me know if it is worth including here. Tkuvho (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for apparently vandalising Talk:Aharonov–Bohm effect. I was trying to simultaneously copy your formula to the coulomb gauge and correct an indenting problem, but screwed both up. --Michael C. Price talk 09:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I was thinking of rewriting the Coulomb gauge section myself as there are several other interesting things that could be said. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC).
Done. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Enid Blyton

Hi. I reverted your revert. You requested an explanation of my edit (though you might have done so before needlessly reverting!), so here it is: Approx. Line 36: Changed a soft return to a hard return so that the edited text would better reflect the text as shown when viewing the article. Approx. Line 120: Changed a geographic location to the name of a country. Approx. Line 127: As above. --94.14.168.125 (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is standard practice to add an explanatory note to each edit. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC).
I had thought it obvious. I don't generally comment on minor edits. In fact, I considered marking it as such, though that's something I rarely do. --94.14.168.125 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Alain de Botton

Please comment on the Talk page "Request for Comment", since you reverted the change under discussion. Currently it's just me against one editor who seems to be using socks. ► RATEL ◄ 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigation underway. Just FYI. ► RATEL ◄ 22:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Scholz

To: Xxanthippe:Please don't reopen AFDs after they have been closed. Comments subsequent to the closure of an AFD should be directed to the AFD talk page, the closer, or to deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not do this. My last comment was at 9.52, you closed the AfD at 10.35. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
Actually I closed it at 9:49. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It says 10.35 on the version of the AfD available to me here. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
I closed it at 9:49, you reopened it at 9:52, and I closed it again at 10:35. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A 3 minute time difference! Probably an edit collision. You should not be so quick on the trigger when issuing reprimands. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
Stifle, on my talk page you allege that I reopened an AfD after it had been closed. I assert that I did not do that and that the three-minute discrepancy was in all likelihood due to an edit collision. I do my best to obey the rules of Wikipedia. Please will you withdraw your allegation from my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

No reply. In order to avoid more disagreeable encounters of this nature I shall not participate further in AfD debates about academics for a while. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Re: Oswald Mosley

I must query your reversion of my addition to the article Oswald Mosley. I agree with you entirely that blogs are not reliable sources. However, in this instance, the "blog" is a column by one of the world's foremost film critics, published in a major American newspaper. This hardly constitutes a blog by the normally accepted meaning of the term. If you prefer, the identical article can be found at <http://www.ebertfest.com/frame_thewall.html>, the site of the Ebert Film Festival, which isn't a blog by any sense of the term. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - the irony is that most (11 of 14) of the other items in the list to which I added this had no references of any kind! Grutness...wha? 02:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that few of the sources meet WP:RS standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
That blogs are not reliable sources is a general rule, but not a hard and fast one. Blogs connected to newspapers and the like, for instance, are usually treated like columns or op-eds in the paper itself, good for documenting opinions, if not always for facts. It sounds as if in the case of Grutness, the material should be allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dirac monopole

Dear Xxanthippe

Firstly, I am new to wiki, apologies if this is not the right way to comment. Also, I have a conflict in this matter. I would like to ask you to reconsider deleting chemguy's recent changes, especially on the grounds of "I do not think they are monopoles." Clearly Nature and the peer review process do think they are monopoles. The lack of citation of a "Direct observation of magnetic monopoles" Nature paper, and a statement saying they have never been directly observed devalues the page. I do think it would be reasonable to modify chemguy's edit to make it clear that the monopoles observed are confined to the nanostructure and not Dirac's cosmological monopoles. thanks Topological (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The place for such discussion is on the talk page of the article. Note that the field of a magnetic monopole can be simulated almost everywhere in space by the end of a long thin solenoid or a chain of dipoles so its appearance in a condensed matter system violates no laws of physics. Dirac's hypothetical monopole was an isolated elementary particle, an entirely different beast. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Your revert

Hi Xxanthippe, regarding the edit summary of your undo of my revert, please note that my revert was a reaction to an unexplained anon removal of content (see my warning at User talk:70.242.0.174). So marking my action as good faith and OR was inappropriate. This could have been someone else's in the past, but definitely not mine. I have reverted your undo, and added a CN-tag. Cheers. DVdm (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC) . O.K. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

"(ec)"

Hi -- "(ec)" on a talkp page thread is short for "edit conflict", which means that someone tried to post a comment but was prevented from doing so because someone else was posting at exactly the same time. We put "(ec)" or some equivalent on those comments to indicate that the comment was delayed in time by some amount, and is not in direct response to the comment above it -- it just helps keeps the conversation straight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC). Many thanks for this explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

If you want to do it nicely, there is even a template for it: {{ec}} comes out as (edit conflict). Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to

I see that in your few edits so far you have been changing the texts of "In order to" to "To". In most cases this does not clarify the meaning. Xxanthippe

Thanks for the feedback. It isn't grammatically wrong to say "in order to" instead of "to," but it should only be done when it adds meaning, and never (again, just stylistically, not grammatically) at the beginning of a sentence. Research (Jakob Nielsen, to name one source) shows that extra words always make for slower, less accurate reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.130.53 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I demand that you withdraw your remark about my edit being "vandalism". I explained it in the edit summary, and I had left an argument on the talk page that had not been addressed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert to previous version. I had tried to remove the phrase "BUM∞.*∞" from the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC).
Ah, OK, I see. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Kenneth Kim

Hi, you voted to delete Dr. Kenneth Kim's article, but I was wondering if this was based on the fact that he was not notable as a scholar and whether or not there were considerations made for the articles that were put up regarding from the korean newspapers, which CaliforniaAliBaba provided some explanation for. I am trying my best to improve the article, so any help/suggestions/recommendations along these lines would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you.People bios (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Be calm

then see if the sockpuppetry affected the AFD. If so, SSP report. I try not to bother the CUs for every thing. The sockpuppetry may just be interested in helping their friend, Kenneth, and are not really interested in anything else. If so, they sometimes go away after the Kenneth issue is settled. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your sympathetic comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Keyes (2nd nomination)

Dear Xxanthippe - I hope it is Ok to write here and ask if you, as an influencial editor, might have another look at Prof Keyes article before the deadline and see if any of the "new" evidence is enough to allow you to help change your mind and avoid the deletion. The H-index up to 16 (from the original 10) - and new (old) article not in the old h-index calculations with 135 citations - a number of citations which is 948. A reviewed book. An article in the: Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry. A mention in Highlights of Chemistry. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) (PS: I have also written about this to Crusio)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Virginia Woolf revert?

Hi Xxanthippe. I was puzzled by your revert of the Virginia Woolf edits. You mention that the "English expression not good enough". I didn't actually change the syntax. I toned down the POV of "While nowhere near a simple recapitulation of the coterie's ideals... " and "writers of the calibre of Jorge Luis Borges and Marguerite Yourcenar" which have judgement loaded into the phrases re WP:EDITORIAL. 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is not to do with Virginia Woolf. A list of cultural references is discouraged by WP:TRIV - especially ones repeated in other sections. I think my edit summaries reflect this. I'm not sure what this has to do with English expression. I look forward to hearing your reasons for reverting. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See Virginia Woolf talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

I'm assuming you didn't mean to link to WP:OVERSIGHT in this edit? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, I meant WP:SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

H index on GScholar

Re: [3] How do you find the h index on GScholar? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC). Read the article on h index. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Assume good faith please

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Handsome is as handsome does. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Heim theory and Terra Novus at ANI

Hello Xxanthippe. Dougweller suggested a few days back after the last editing spree of physics articles by Terra Novus that he should be discussed at WP:ANI for an nth time. At that stage, he stopped editing for a few days, so we let things drop. Even after all the explanations from multiple users, including you I think, Terra Novus has repeated an identical set of reverts, each to suggest that Heim theory is considered part of mainstream science. There is a thread on WP:FTN about Heim theory and I think that there is likely now to be yet another thread on WP:ANI. You might wish to comment on FTN and possibly to undo some of the other recent edits connected with the linking of Heim theory. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to nominate you guys for an WP:ANI for refusing to discuss your reversions?--Novus Orator 06:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately the article is in such an atrocious state that it is going to take more than a few reverts to clean it up. I am in favor of articles on fringe science as they can provide instructive examples of the pathology of culture and of the psychopathology of those who promote the ideas. In its present state this article is promoting the view that Heim theory is recognised as valid science. The aim of the article, wittingly or unwittingly, is essentially deceptive. Radical change to its approach is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
Largely because there is no (properly referenced) proof that it isn't valid science. It seems to me that certain editors use the words science and fringe when they are talking about something they agree with and don't, respectively...--Novus Orator 08:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Novus Orator 08:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC). This editor has now been blocked for a week. [4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ BRIEF HISTORY DURING THE SNOW ERA (1813-58)
  2. ^ Who was William Farr?
  3. ^ [http://www.scpub.org/data//files/revinfdischron-9694.pdf Development of the Germ Theory of Disease]