User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive 3

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

Hmmm Jon Krosnick is a "By courtesy" professor in psychology at Stanford

Not clear why you reverted that one? I understand there is an agenda-based attack on him, but this particular edit was valid. I tagged the article with citation needed; the WP:GNG quick-delete or AfD will be rejected (WP:SNOW), but the lack of secondary sources is more of a problem. I will try to dig some up and post them on the talk page, but somebody else will have to add the material in; I am busy on a bunch of psych. articles. Churn and change (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but I am not clear about what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The point is moot now. Somebody added an edit mentioning Krosnick was a courtesy faculty in psych. and you undid it. But the article is deleted now, so doesn't matter. Churn and change (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A vote for consensus on Lead in main article

You have been a contributor to this article and so I am notifying you that a vote for consensus is currently ocurring on the main A vote for consensus on Lead in main article. Would you please look here and vote as you see fit? Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I guess you are referring to Talk:Hundred Years' War. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I have made a comment there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I re-created the first paragraph in the lead with your comments in mind, and if you wish to add, detract and/or comment, that would be great. I am told by an editor who knows how to use some of the "Wiki tools" on readability scores, that the new paragraph already holds a higher rating then the previous one, so it would seem we were correct in our assessment. Mugginsx (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

Sorry, I had to take out the second paragraph. I am sorry because I know that you liked it but it was copied word for word from http://www.slideshare.net/e007534/the-hundred-years-war . Meanwhile, why don't you try your hand at a second lead paragraph - you write so well. Mugginsx (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. That source could have been copied from Wikipedia. It could be that the original source is out of copyright and useable. This discussion is best suited for the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
But it wasn't. Anyway, copyright duration can be up to 100 yrs. Yes, indeed, no good words go unpunished on Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Dear Andy Mabbett, Stfg, Qworty, • Gene93k, and Xxanthippe, I appreciate all of the efforts and consideration everyone put into the article about Pauline A. Chen. I look forward to working with all of you on different articles. Cheers. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Please dont revert the substantial contributions of other editors with poorly thought out comments. While the article is old, its C class and overall it doesnt look like its been written by someone who's read her more authoritative recent biographies. In such cases theres no need to insist on discussion before making large improvements, that would be obstructive. Very little of my edit to the Nighengale page constituted a "revision". It expanded the lede per the tag, mostly to summarize the key points already in the body. And I expanded the theology section. There were a few minor revisions which you can change back if you wish. Its actually in need of serious attention by someone who can get it up to GA status, per the importance of the subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the top of this page and put this material on the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

D. H. Lawrence

Re the D. H. Lawrence bibliography, the editors are only relevant to the Cambridge University editions. I can see no reason to include these editions them on this bibliography; perhaps they could be included in the individual articles but the author bibliography should really only include the original publication date and possibly original publisher, surely...GrahamHardy (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked and they are included in the individual articles - I am happy to replace Cambridge University Press with the first publisher if that would make you happier.. GrahamHardy (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The maximum amount of information is always desirable so that interested parties can trace the work easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
But surely you dont want to clutter up the DH Lawrence article with editors of specific recent editions; They should be replaced first edition publishers which is what most author articles seem to use GrahamHardy (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked a couple of featured articles (James Joyce, Mary Shelley) and it looks like we are both wrong; they just have the dates, so I guess we should go with that...GrahamHardy (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would be the line of least resistance but publisher, place and date of publication might be given, as in a reference in an academic journal. I suppose there is a Wikipedia policy on this, I'm not sure what it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

FYI

I reverted your edit, since it seems to have restored an old version of WP:AN. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I must have been confused. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Citing an author

Hi, Xxanthippe. How can you tell how often an author is cited by others? (This is with reference to James Norman Afd.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enter the name in Google Scholar, making sure that person and topic area are identified correctly . There is further material in WP:Prof, Citation, h-index and their talks. Best wishes Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Overton Fuller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Neuburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

lock the page

can you please semi protect the page Vehicle beacon lights in India,due to rampant ip addresses attacking it and adding misleading information to it.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry, I don't have the authority to do that. You will have to ask somebody else. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC). (A look at the talk page of user:Harishrawat11 is instructive.) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination)

Hi - you may be interested in this AFD. I know you have stated before it should be deleted - and I agree. Feel free to comment. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I see that the article has been kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback at WP:BLPN

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Ivanovich Popov

"Respectable cites"? Yeah right. They consist of two Imageshack-hosted scans of personal documents, a dissertation that makes no mention of him, and two PDFs hosted on a site that otherwise hosts only a download of a DOS kernel. Did you even look at what you were deprodding? Or the forum post I linked that clearly said no mention of him existed online until 2010? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I look here [1] I get lots of citations. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
That search leads to Alexander I Popov in the chemistry department at Michigan State University.[2] A quite different person who died in 2001. Please check your "facts" and "lots of citations" more carefully next time. Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Quotations

Please note that the rules for citing quotations are different than for article text. All quotations require a directly following footnote with a fully detailed citation including all publication details. Page numbers are required and the ISBN should also be included. Simple attribution is not sufficient. Please do not remove citation needed tags without fixing the issue. Yworo (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info. Can you cite the policy? Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monoatomic gold

Thanks for backing me up. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that we achieved this outcome. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Jussychoulex has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Changing article based on reliable sources - no undo reason

The Ada Lovelace article was changed and you did undo everything, reasoning that people should agree on the changes on the talk page of the article. Checked the changes: textual changes were based on reliable sources, that were mentioned. Think that is enough to leave textual changes intact. Eager to read your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.111.189 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — 87.183.111.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have placed this on article talk. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thomas Traherne GA

So how much more do you need to prove that you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation beside subtle grudge-inspired disruptiveness? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not harass me on my talk page. You have already collected two warnings and the threat of a block for personal attacks on other editors[3] [4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Plus a 24-hour block for incivility.[5] Followed[6] by a 24-hour block for 3RR. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC),[reply]
and more complaints about your behavior [7] which led to the dismissal of a vexatious complaint that you made about another editor on WP:ANI/I. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
and more [8] complaints about incivility. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
plus a warning not to engage in personal attacks [9] after a GA review that you botched.[10],
and have been community banned from Wikipedia for socking, hoaxing and widespread vandalism.[11] Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent reappearance

This will be my only comment here on this, but in the recent WP:ANI discussion, I found it rather "not an accident" (Russian: Nye sluchaino), as the Soviets used to say, that you seemed to pop up at the most convenient times (i.e. disputes where you can resurrect your old grudge against me). This is likely the third or fourth time that you've popped up in the last sixth months in such discussions that you otherwise would not be involved in except for some personal vendetta to seek to insert reference to our old grudge (it's typically considered "bad form" to continue bringing up dead issues). I do hope that this is not a slight case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and if you're watching my edits, I'd appreciate very kindly if you stopped. Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, please will you stop harassing me on my talk page. This is ironic as you have just had a vexatious complaint [12] dismissed that you made on WP:ANI/I in which you called for sanction against another editor who posted on your own talk page. Let me make myself clear: further edits by you on my talk page are unwelcome unless you have something constructive to say. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Concerning my AFD nomination

Hello, I wanted to thank you for your suggestion to me on the article I nominated for deletion. I was just wondering, do you have any more suggestions for me other than to read WP:Before? Hmm, I think I was maybe a bit too quick to nominate that; some tags would have done, maybe a PROD. Perhaps just research a bit more before making a decision? Thanks so much, and I'm a new Wikipedian, so any suggestions/criticism I can get is greatly appreciated! ChaseAm (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If you are new to Wikipedia, AfDs are probably not the best place to start at as they require specialist knowledge of the policies concerned, in this case WP:Prof. Also, best not to be too quick on the trigger. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Mhm, right. Perhaps observe many AfDs, participate a bit as well, and of course "study up" on the policies? Would that be a good place to start? I really appreciate the input ChaseAm (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best move may be to lurk and learn. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
 Thank you very much! ChaseAm (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History

Please do not change my edit without a discussion here. It is awarded to a less than 50 individuals since 1965 out of a billion population making it a 1 to 2 crore ratio. It is awarded to works in 22 languages. Every awardee has a article but every Bancroft Prize winner do not have a article. Please respect languages other than English. No award in my knowledge has a 1 to 2 crore ratio. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two national awards in India on Literature

out of these three I have only considered the Jnanpith Award because only a single person is chosen every year and that is also since 1965. Two persons are also chosen in some years though total number of awardees since 1965 to 2013 is only 53 out of a billion population. I have no source to claim but the 1 to 2 crore ratio makes me believe it as the most selective award in history of mankind. Added to these literary works in 22 major languages are taken into consideration which Bancroft Prize or Pulitzer Prize for History cannot claim since they are awarded in only English. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss these matters on the talk page of the article, as another editor has suggested. Further, you will need sources to back your argument. Your own unsupported opinion is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
See the link and participate in the discussion. Solomon7968 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went through your Contributions and it seems that you are more interested in reverting edits rather participating in a discussion. Please participate in the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History about the criterion 2 and share your views. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make any more edits to my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
If you do not participate in the talk link above Please do not revert the consensus edits any furthur. You have more than once reverted a number of consensus edits. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pay attention when you revert

When you revert a change, please make sure that you're not reverting something else than what you intended.[13] Jules.LT (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I only reverted [14] the spam put in by User talk:84.20.238.83. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Paul Frampton

I undid your revert to the Paul Frampton article with regards to his status as a former member of the Institute of Physics in the UK. The Daily Mail article is relied upon only to assert the fact that he is no longer a member and there is no good reason it cannot be considered a reliable source for this purpose, being a well established news outlet as per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. The statement is true, as has been confirmed to me yesterday by the IoP's director of membership. SheffGruff (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The confirmation by the IOP is definitive. However, I don't like your edits to the Paul Frampton page. They appear to be of undue emphasis. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. I see that other editors have removed your attack material. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Heim theory

Hello. I have developed a work-in-progress stub on one of my sandbox pages. At the moment I am intending to add more references. Feel free to add content or copy edit as you see fit, and your help would be appreciated. I am going to try to use some of the refs posted in AFD 3 and AFD 4. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found a set of articles on Google Scholar using the search term Burkhard Heim + theory of everything. Well, let's see what is available. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. These articles are not going to be helpful. For example, the very first one was published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" (see Wikipedia article). The next one doesn't waste much time in moving away from scientific validity. Oh well. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I will take a look at it. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I have puy some notes at User:Xanthippe/Heim, but they need references. You are welcome to use as much of this as you like. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
This is good. These are the points I wanted to cover. Off hand, I can think of references that I can match to most of what you have. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a helpful reference [15] because it is comprehensive. Good idea. I don't have to attempt separate references to convey the idea. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's see what the fringe fanboys do. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Well, it has been posted, and I was wondering about the same thing (fringe fanboys). Well, I suppose it's good to have fans :>) ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aspie_Quiz

I think you made a mistake in your quick judgement on this. You shouldn't believe somebody that doesn't check their sources, but just goes directly to Google Scholar or similar. There was a reference to Sage Open, and it's a fact that Sage Open is peer-reviewed, and that all their contents eventually (but not immediately) ends up on Google Scholar. Rdos (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a WP:COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

revert in heim theory

hi Xxanthippe, pls check out this. thank you.Gravitophoton (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notice. You will see that I have commented on the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokenge P. Malafa (2nd nomination)

I did what Barney should have done--perhaps you want to revisit the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks and FYI

Please see new message here regarding your contribution to Afd discussion. MilaPedia (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI in this matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Rick570 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)==Talkback== [reply]

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synaptopathy.
Message added 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rick570

Hello Xxanthippe The deletion nominations are not being made by me. But I will be much more conservative in creating articles on living persons in the future for the reason you mention. I feel helpless to defend the articles in the face of such a wholesale attack. But I am attempting to preserve the texts of the articles for future development and republishing. Have you any other suggestions? talk). Rick570 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, conventions and standards on notability and so avoid writing inadequate articles that get deleted. You may also wish to consider seeking the permission of the people about whom you write BLPs. You may be surprised by the small number in favor. As a first step I suggest you WP:prod all the BLPs that you have written but have not yet been deleted. Anybody else who wishes to keep them can remove the prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Kinsella

Dear Xxanthippe, I hope all is well. Could I ask you to have another look at the GS H-score for Dr Kinsella as I seemed to find it a bit higher than 4 and am not sure if I am doing something wrong. Still too low I think but... Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You are right. I now get cites in GS of 133, 62, 36, 29, 25, 19, 13 and (575) for a chapter in a multi-chapter book. I don't know what I did wrong before. I have ignored the unlinked entries with [CITATION] as these seem to be double counting. This still gives an index of around 10 which is low for a well cited field. A bit too early. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Notability of Danielle Nierenberg

I saw your comment on DN earlier but nobody else has responded. I've tagged the DN article and put a note on its talk page. It's certainly very short of non-fluff sources. Looks nice, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29

[[

File:Farm-Fresh eye.png|15px|link=|alt=]]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Explanation for Changes to Canonization of Joan of Arc

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Talk:Canonization of Joan of Arc.
Message added 06:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayarathina (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gentle reminder that I am waiting for your reply at Canonization of Joan of Arc Talk page --Jayarathina (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Scanlan (logic historian)

As you suggested, I went back and read WP:Prof again and left a comment on the AFD about my findings. GB fan 12:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might care to consider Dr Johnson's aphorism.[16] Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
So you leave an argument that h index of 7 is enough to show notability, but the guideline you talk about does not say anything about what a notable h index is and does say that google scholar has inflated h indices. I quote the same guideline that says they need to have independent reliable sources and that none have been found. So your response is to insinuate that I don't understand. You can not refute my stance so you attack me instead? GB fan 15:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advice sometimes given to people who do not understand policy in an area is that it can be a good strategy to avoid editing in the area until further study has brought enlightenment. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made very much the same comment to me. My advice is that you not advise other people. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific misconduct

Good day! I am not understanding your criticisms. My contribution is a summary of publicly and freely available information obtainable from registrar's office. The registrar is explicitly stated as source and I was not involved with the investigations or decisions beyond knowing they exist. The information provided is factually provable with signed documents merely by requesting them from the registrar's office. Some EU countries forbid the naming of individuals in public, but not their institution, despite names being printed on the documents. The remark that one side can argue differently than another side regarding authorship may seem POVy, but this is not unusual to find in cases where authorship is disputed and was indeed found in cases summarized. I do not know where to post such documents. They are not themselves publications with ISBN numbers, but are freely available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deewells (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained on the talk page that primary sources are not acceptable for Wikipedia, particularly for BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]


Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[17]

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsbury Group

Hi,

I saw your recent edit to Bloomsbury Group - and found another source, actually a later edition, of the same book that provided the article's long-standing quote. Based upon your comment, it may be that there needs to be an addition of information that counters the viewpoint: "The group was accused by some of "intellectual elitism its reputation faltered in the 1940s and 1950s, but from the 1960s critical interest in their achievements began to revive." Is there something specifically that you question?

Regarding the edit summary comment: "Also could you change Mary to Molly," I am confused. I never changed her name in the work I've done today. She's referred to as Molly in the article, and I don't find a stray "Mary" on the page (Control-F). I'm guessing I'm missing something here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I find the claim "critical interest in their achievements began to revive" hard to swallow and rather POV. A flurry of interest certainly began in the 1960s with the books of Michael Holroyd, but the interest that his work generated was less about their cultural achievements than about their personal and sexual relations. My reference to Molly and Mary does not refer to your edits but to the diagram which has remained inaccurate for a long time. I thought that as you had shown an interest in the article you might like to correct it. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Based on your comments and that it was supposedly a comment by "some", I don't have any problem removing the "critical interest..." sentence altogether. Regarding the diagram, hmmm. I'll see if I can made the graphical edit without having to redo it. Of course, it would be nice if whoever created it and has the graphic could update it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted an updated diagram, but it's not ideal. I couldn't get the color quite right and had to work with the closest font/font size to match what appears.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The text is now correct. Don't bother about the color. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll's vast correspondence

You've rightly noted that a blog is not a reliable source for such an important piece of information, so I have added a reliable source now. By the way, his work Eight or Nine Wise Words About Letter-Writing was already earlier mentioned in section "Inventions", so it should be included also in the list of his works at the end of the article. Anyway, I believe it is far better to verify new important information (or insert an alert that a more reliable source is needed) instead of deleting it immediately. I'm a very busy working mother but I believed that this piece of information was so important that I needed to spend some time on entering it in Wikipedia. Your deletion was very discouraging. Please think about it next time before deleting important information. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you give for this important article (Lewis Carroll) are inadequate. You should find the Jan Susina source or preferably a major biography and quote the page number. The Huffington Post blog is unsuitable and I have removed it. Wikipedia does not take account of the personal circumstances of editors when assessing their contributions. Many Wikipedia editors are working mothers. My best wishes for your career (and your parenting). Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Reversion of a vandalism cleanup

Xxanthippe, just curious what your rationale was for reverting an AGF vandalism cleanup revert from myself here. I have since reverted it back, might have been done in error, but I just wanted to clarify and move on. Thanks --Slazenger (Contact Me) 22:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was an error. I watch that page for vandalism as you can see from its history. My apologies for the confusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

List of plagiarism incidents

Xxanthippe may I ask what evidence you need for Haruna Iddrisu inclusion? Masssly (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murry Salby

Xxanthippe, I can't find the link leading to Salby's h-index. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [18]. Best wishes Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thx. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William_S._Hobson

Dear Xxanthippe, Hi. hope all is well. I was having a look at Hobson's h-score and it is I think much higher than you suggest. When I look under WS Hobson instead of William S. Hobson in GS there seem a lot more - and at least the first lot seem to be by our man. Could you have another look. [19]. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, you are correct. This is a better search. Modification made. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

UE Boom

Hello, Could you please read my post on the talk page of user:The Banner and reconsider your position? Would you like any changes to be implemented? Could you please let me know of any puffery - what words, sentences and/or sections are you referring to? I have written the article according to: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Dmatteng (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to canvassing spa. Do you engage in paid editing? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yet another article about a scientist...

...but this time it was apparently written by the scientist himself. The article I am referring to is Alon Kahana, and given that his h-index is 11 I wanted to know your opinion on whether this was good enough to establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted so I am unable to comment. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
{U|Jinkinson}}, I see from his website he is currently an Assistant Professor. That doesn't mean he can't be notable, but for someone still at that rank to pass WP:PROF is quite unusual. The significance of h index varies by field, but h-11 is not very impressive in the biomedical sciences. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ada Byron

Why is the move required to be announced, and why am I required to revert it, especially given that Ada Byron is referred to as "Lovelace" for most of the extremely long article? Quis separabit? 00:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I did as best I could. I found no evidence of any sanction or prohibition on changing the article name. I would be more inclined to go along if you had not initiated this conversation in a demanding, almost threatening tone. Quis separabit? 00:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the talk page more carefully and please do not edit the same article under two different user names. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Isabel Gómez-Bassols AfD

If you have the time, could you comment on the potential sources that have been offered in the AfD discussion? Your recommendation for deletion was made before they were listed, so it's not clear if you've looked over them or not. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese occupation of Hong Kong

First, the difference between hotel and hostel:

  • hotel – an establishment providing accommodation and meals for travellers and tourists
  • hostel – an establishment which provides cheap food and lodging for students, workers, etc.

(COD, 12th edition, 2011)

I changed hostel because it disagrees with the text and the caption.

The caption reads: 日軍拘捕西方銀行家，並將他們囚禁於中國旅館。 As far as I am aware, 旅館 means "hotel" (source). "hostel" gives different results.

The text itself also says hotel: "British, American and Dutch bankers were forced to live in a small hotel, while some bankers who were viewed as the enemy of the Japanese were executed."

--James (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this sound information. My best wishes for your editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I have changed it back. --James (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Visit from the Goon Squad

This thread is about the Template:In Search of Lost Time and whether A Visit from the Goon Squad is an appropriate addition to it. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have reverted based on WP:TRUTH. see source in article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The source is utterly trivial. The vaporings of a pretentious auteur. Don't you get it when some-one is pulling your leg? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Moberly–Jourdain incident

"Gay fancy dress party" is not a direct quote. "Gay" had a totally different meaning in the old times "happy, cheerful" and readers might incorrectly assume the modern meaning of the word. The characters were not being described as gay in the modern sense on the word. SlightSmile 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Copyvio is not allowed. Ref. 27, which I use as source, was written in 2012 and uses "gay" with the modern usage of that word. If you doubt that the Montesquiou menage was "gay" then I suggest that you read Philippe Jullian's book. I have copied this exchange from my talk page to the talk page of Moberly and Jourdain, where it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I see. I had assumed it was a description from 1901. Thanks for clarifying. SlightSmile 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time-like concepts

Ramble
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Xxanthippe, In Wiki, I am newcomer. In physics, I am retired associated professor of theoretical physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles university in Prague (CZ). In terminology, I am Chairman of IEC, Technical committee TC25 Quantities and units.

I see there are some misconceptions in using term time. I wanted to point them out with explanation. That's why I added my short contribution to corresponding page with quotations. Is it the proper manner? If not, can you help me and help it?

On my user talk JOb, you can find following:

Time-like concepts: terminology

The term "time" is generally used for many closed but different concepts. Speaking exactly, one should distinguish at least between:

  • instant[1] as an object - one point on the time axes. Being an object, it has no value;
  • time interval[2] as an object - part of the time axes limited by two instants. Being an object, it has no value;
  • date[3] as a quantity characterizing time instant. Being a quantity, it has value, say, 2014-04-26T09:42:36,75 in the standard form,[4] or today, 9:42 a.m. in a colloquial form;
  • duration'[5] as a one of quantities characterizing time interval[6]. Being a quantity, it has value, say, 15 minutes. Other quantities describing a time interval are e.g. dates of its begin and end.

From this point of view, the term time can be used as a shorthand or in general sense.

Nevertheless, in an exact text like in definitions, proper term should be chosen:

  • effect occurs during time interval of duration Δt = 5 s (full text)
  • effect occurs during short time interval (given property of that interval)
  • effect occurs during 5 s time interval (given quantity = duration characterizing that interval)
  • effect occurs during 5 s (shorthand)

rather than

  • effect occurs during time interval Δt = 5 s

because Δt is neither name of that interval nor its value (it is its duration - one of more quantities connected to that interval, other quantity being e.g. date of its start instant).

JOb 12:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes and references

  1. ^ IEC 60050-113:2011, item 113-01-08
  2. ^ IEC 60050-113:2011, item 113-01-010; ISO 80000-3:2006, item 3-7
  3. ^ IEC 60050-113:2011, item 113-01-012: "mark attributed to an instant by means of a specified time scale"
  4. ^ See ISO 8601:2004
  5. ^ IEC 60050-113:2011, item 113-01-013: "range of a time interval (113-01-10)"
  6. ^ ISO 80000-3:2006, item 3-7

JOb 13:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The talk page of the article is the best place to discuss such matters as then other editors can join the discussion. Also, please sign your edits properly with four ~s. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
OK. As far as I understand, now it is for me time to wait for first reactions :-) JOb 05:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOb (talk • contribs)
I do not understand. I have placed my terminological comment to the Talk page of Time in physics, to show common terminological errors in discussion and papers. Without any discussion, it has been deleted with remark "the talk page is not the place for original research".
  • Where do you see research? My comment is no research at all. It is simply quotation of staying ISO and IEC standards explaining what do terms time, duration, time interval etc. mean, what is wrong in other staying texts and how to improve it.All mentioned standards are quoted.
  • Where to place my comment else to enable discussion (and improve staying errors)? I do not know what to do more.

Use my comment as you like.

JOb 09:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Hello, I would like to know why did you revert my edit on Shakespeare's religion? I quoted the very part of his will which is widely representative of the topic, and I included the references of scholars. I don't know what you mean by "blend it into main article". Thanks in advance. --Goose friend (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this matter on the talk page of the article. By "main article" I mean the body of the article, not the lede. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

h-index

Ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiv Visvanathan. How can we determine a scholar's h-index? Is a tool available? --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article h-index. I do the counting on my fingers. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc

Greetings. I noticed that you reverted my edit because of the lack of reference, but there are many other edits on that page without references with which you don't seem to have any problem. Also the reason why I didn't add reference is because I don't know any reliable sites. The only site I know for this kind of purpose would be IMDb or Family Guy Wiki, but if I remember correctly Wikipedia doesn't allow to use those websites as source. --Pek (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Otherstuffexists. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. Your reverts of my edits in the Film section is why no one outside the Wiki community takes Wiki seriously! Why bother spending an hour or more trying to better an article when someone is going to revert it seconds after it posts? The Twentieth Century entry - which you saw fit to delete - was referenced; silly me, I thought Wiki requires references! If it was in the wrong section, please place it in the right section, but don't delete it. BTW, the Hallmark Hall of Fame "Joan of Arc" episode does not have a Wiki article, which is why I deleted the [[ ]] around it; please revert to my edit. Worc63 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed several instructive comments. Substantial changes to well-established article are expected to be accompanied by an explanation, no matter how long they took to make. I suggest you take the matter to the talk page as per WP:BRD, where the D stands for discuss. Best wishes for your editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Elementary cycles

Dear Xxanthippe I have resubmitted the article adding explicit citations in every section. If needed more citations can be added. In general, all the claims in the article are extracted from peer-reviewed papers. Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#AfC_submission_-_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FElementary_Cycles. Best regards, N4tur4le (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

h-index

Hi Xxanthippe, I was just wondering how you calculate an academic's h-index from GS. Is there an automated tool for this, or is it a manual calculation? Thanks Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

auto tools are unreliable as they may include the wrong people. I count on my fingers. One doesn't need to count to more than twenty. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Laura Mersini's h count

Hi Xxanthippe, I don't know if you might like to look at Laura Mersini's H count again. Some of her best work was done before her marriage/name change to Laura Mersini-Houghton. This [20] looks a lot better than [21] with the more highly cited papers being before the name change. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for this important information. The new data you refer to give an h-index of 15 which, for a highly cited field, is still a little short. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Wong (immunologist)

COI concerns aside, your behaviour and conduct in this discussion was less than ideal. I do note that you struck the worst comments (although it would have been better to remove them altogether), but I still see rudeness, passive-aggression, and snark next to your username with depressing regularity in AFD discussions. Please try and remember to WP:AGF in future discussions of this type. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I described an editor who took part in the AfD of a BLP that he had created and who showed himself not to be aware of WP:BLP or paid editing policy and had an undeclared WP:COI, as "clueless". It was the editor's competence I was critical of, not his good faith. Without being prompted, I redacted my edit with the edit summary WP:Civil. The BLP was deleted without dissent. You are justified in rebuking me for not following WP:Civil in the first place. I do not have the authority to oversight my original edit; you are welcome to do that if you wish. You then went on to make savage and broad-brush accusations about my editing of AfDs in general[22]. Please could you advise me of the diffs that offend you with depressing regularity so that I can re-examine my edits with the object of improving my practice in future? I would also like the opportunity to offer apologies to editors who you think I may have offended. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This thread was continued at User talk:Lankiveil. As all sections of it there were deleted by User:Lankiveil. I copy the whole thread here for completeness. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Wong (immunologist)--

@Lankiveil. On my talk page [23] you made serious and broad-brush accusations about my editing of AfDs in general[24]. I do not claim to be a perfect editor and I would like to improve the quality of my editing. For the reasons that I gave in my reply to you on my talk page, please could you provides diffs to those of my edits that you found objectionable? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't propose to spend my valuable time, or waste yours, on giving you a course on etiquette and manners, nor on combing through your XFD contribs. However, my advice would be, other than the obvious one of sticking to the spirit of WP:CIVIL and not just the letter, would be to try to minimise the amount of "rebuttals" you are making in discussions that are really obvious. On this AFD for instance, closing admins are perfectly capable of appropriately weighting !votes with no rationale, or on interpreting core guidelines like WP:GNG. You're not technically incorrect here, I think you'd have a lot more impact and come off as less of a badger if you made your arguments well constructed, comprehensive in the first instance, and preferably comment only once unless you have some specialised knowledge to contribute. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
There might be a case to justify the serious and wide-ranging accusations that you made on my talk page[25] about my editing of the 2,000 AfDs that I have contributed to,[26] but you have not made it with the pettifogging example you give above.[27] I do not see in this Afd the rudeness, passive-aggression (I am not sure what this is or how to identify it), and snark that you say that you find regularly in my AfD contributions. I suggest that in the second part of the comment that you put on my talk page you overdosed on rhetoric. Your interaction with editors might be improved if you were not so quick on the trigger. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above was deleted by User:Lankiveil with the edit comment (if you can't see how that's inappropriate, I can't help you, sorry.)

--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Wong (immunologist) (continued)--

@Lankiveil. I see that you have deleted the first part of this thread from your talk page[28]. Although you are prepared to make comments critical of others on their talk pages it looks as if you don't like to see comments critical of yourself on yours. To conclude, I make two remarks, the first about your arguments, the second about your actions. The first is that, in your edit in the section of this thread that you deleted, [29] you suggest that closing admins have the wisdom to assess AfD votes accurately. I have learnt in the course of my editing of AfDs that this not always the case. As well, the closer is not the only person addressed by contributors to an AfD debate. Often, new evidence and fresh interpretations of policy will cause other contributors to change their views. I sometimes do this myself. Further, there are many non-admin closures of AfDs nowadays. The second remark is that administrators (as you have been since 2008) are expected to be responsive in their interactions with other editors. After you made your criticisms on my talk page[30] I asked for clarification. You ignored my request for a week, during most of which you were actively editing. You responded only when, after a week, I approached you with the same questions (now deleted by you) on your own talk page.[31] I do not consider my edits to be beyond reproach or criticism. However, Wikipedia users expect such criticism to be given in a sober, temperate and responsive manner, especially by administrators. I do not think that you have handled this matter well. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The above was deleted by User:Lankiveil with the edit comment (Noted. You are of course entitled to an opinion. Neither of us is going to get what we want out of this conversation, and it's quite pointless to continue.)
I am sorry that you are unable to give further guidance (see your last edit comment). I have consolidated this thread on my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Added: User:Lankiveil has said above "I do note that you struck the worst comments (although it would have been better to remove them altogether)." In fact I followed the prescription of WP:REDACT exactly, which states Mark deleted text with <s>...</s>, ..which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). If user:Lankiveil criticises other users for not observing Wikipedia guidelines he should make sure that he knows them himself. I note that my rate of predicting AfD outcomes is 82%[32], user:Lankiveil's is 78%[33]. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Erika Jensen-Jarolim

This is up for AFD. I think that having an h-index of 39 [34] is enough to meet WP:PROF, but I know that it varies from field to field. Since you seem to know a lot about this, would you mind saying whether it is high enough in the field of immunology, in your opinion? Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question. I agree with you that an h-index of 39 should be enough to pass the WP:Prof#C1 guideline, even in the highly cited field of bio-med. I note that the subject's papers have a large number of co-authors and that she often appears last in the list of authors (although sometimes first) so it is not clear how great her contribution has been. She appears to have few, if any, single-author papers. However, the BLP is promotional to a degree that some editors might find obnoxious and some might like to see the more objectionable features pruned. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The result was withdrawn. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - You've got mail

Hello, Xxanthippe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.—  Philg88 ♦talk 06:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Crusio

I have been working on adding independent sources to this bio of a scientist, which is currently largely sourced to his papers. However, I have been having a hard time finding very much independent RS coverage of this man or his research. Do you think Crusio meets WP:PROF? Note that his h-index is 37. [35] Everymorning talk 02:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article needs any more sources (if anything, fewer). There is a clear pass of WP:Prof categories #1 (from citations) #8 and possibly #2. Any one sufficies. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Kathleen Staudt

This article about a political scientist was created recently. Google Scholar indicates an h-index of 24. She is an "endowed professor for Western Hemispheric Trade Policy Studies" at UT-El Paso, but I'm not sure if this is enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 5. Seems borderline to me. Do you think she is notable? Everymorning talk 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A GS h-index of 24, although in the well-cited field of pop-sociology, probably would rate a rate a pass in WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: The BLP was taken to Afd and kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Budberg/Gorkiye

Re your distinctly over-personalized reaction to my edit. The world 'bitterly' does not relate to anything before it. Maybe some text was deleted. If I don't understand the reference, there are plenty of other first-time visitors who also won't. Valetude (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Czar/h-index

I thought you might be interested in expanding this subpage, since you seem to know a lot about what h-indices are notable in a given field for academics. Everymorning talk 12:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your page will be very useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A. L. Rowse

Hi Xxanthippe. I noticed that you reverted my edit on A. L. Rowse and requested an explanation in your edit summary. I removed Category:Male historians from the page after the consensus of this discussion was for the category to be deleted and all pages within it removed from it. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. An explanation would have helped. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

GAR

I have asked for a good article reassessment here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Moberly–Jourdain incident/1. jps (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have commented there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert de Montesquiou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joan Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (to a bot), fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oswald Mosley

Re recent revert, is the link to Roy Carter correct? There's no citation. Perhaps it should be deleted? Rwood128 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, obviously a wrong link here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Article for Deletion/Keeping

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

FYI

A page whose deletion discussion you participated in was re-added and nominated for deletion again. See: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Franklin_(2nd_nomination) Barcaboy2 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:OUTING concerns

In case the notifications system is flaking out again: I've commented and requested your input at my talk page in the ANI-notification section you started. Please explain your concerns there. --Xover (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that an administrator has oversighted your edits for outing. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Augusta King

Hello. You said "no sense here". My English is awful, so maybe I wrote something wrong there. Could you explain me, please, what is the problem? Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand what you wrote, so I am unable to help. Maybe you would make more effective edits in the Wikipedia in your native language. Best wishes for your future editing, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Can I explain you here, please, in much more words, what did I mean? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this task is beyond my powers. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your answer. So, what can I do? IKhitron (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Re this comment, you can see from the nomination that I did my homework first. I don't nominate stuff without checking first. And as you'll see from my comment to DGG a few hours before you chimed in, I'm quite happy to withdraw nominations if/when notability is demonstrated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to do your homework in nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Maley. If you had clicked on the scholar link one inch above your nomination you would have found that nearly 4900 papers have cited the cancer research of Maley. This is enough to satisfy WP:Prof. I suggest you withdraw your nomination. I see that the article has been kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Update on topic ban for user:Chjoaygame

FYI, it has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles. (I know you watch the physics wikiproject page, but posted for completeness). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Gauge covariant derivative

Rather than reverting all edits without any explanation at all, could you perhaps employ the article talk page to raise concerns? I started a section there, explaining what I did and why. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to provide justification for your edits, and I am glad that you have now done that. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This perhaps sounds combative and harsh, but I'm quite serious, and you should take it as real advice: If your professors are not at least mentioning this material in class, you should probably be looking around for better professors, or even contemplating switching to a different school! Start by scheduling some office time with your prof, and start asking questions about differential geometry. If he stalls, you need to escalate to the dean. You should not in any way have the impression that something new is being invented here: this book review sketches out the history, back to the 1930's, Hermann Weyl and Einstein himself, and the recognition of these ideas in the late 1950's, development in the 1960's and the solidification and maturation of these ideas in the 1970's. It is the duty of your professors to teach you at least some of the basics of this stuff. You should not be left hanging, thinking that what I write is "original synthesis". 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This does sound combative. I suggest you read the note at the top of this page and confine your discussion to the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemical potential, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irreversible processes and Phenomenological (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Courtesy

I noticed you suggested that I was discourteous to DGG.[36] It is not discourteous to point out that someone is using a logical fallacy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

There was no logical fallacy. It was discourteous to call the edit of one of Wikipedia's most respected editors vacuous. I note that the article you created was deleted as a result of the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Useful comments

Whatever the outcome of the Sarah Ballard AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ballard) is, thank you for your useful comments on this matter. I believe that this AfD is being affected by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing via Facebook, which is why the don't delete opinions suddenly started to appear just at the very end. OtterAM (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of this, you should report it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
One editor in the field, User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet [37] and has been banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

QuestionPro Inc

Hi there. I have made some significant changes to the page. Could you please check. Also, can you please guide me into making it better as Iam new here. Thanks a lot :) RR007 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monita Chatterjee

Hello,

The Afd for "Monita Chatterjee" was probably closed too early [38]]. In fact, with your Ivote I am surprised it closed that quickly. In any case, I am willing to create a "Monita Chatterjee" page in my user space and I am hoping you can add your references. Also, feel free to write any of the text. After all this, I will move it to the main article space. With good sourcing this should not be a problem. Well, what do you think? Regards, --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the inadequately explained closure, a WP:DRV might be a better way to go. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
OK. The first recommended step in the WP:DRV is to contact the closing Admin and try to resolve the issue with him or her first. This makes sense, and I have done so (see this diff: [39]). I was just thinking, you are welcome to chime in if you feel the need. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If a DRV is opened I expect I will contribute to it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Although the closing admin has some misgivings about impact and therefore notability, the Afd is reopened as the ideal solution. You can read their last comment here: [40] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Expectations about individuals are adjusted according to the citation rates of the field that they work in. So although an h-index of 21 in a low citation field might be a clear pass, in a high citation field it could be a borderline. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Dummies guide to archiving your talk page

1. Edit your talk page.

2. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:username/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 material from current talk page. Finished. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]