User talk:Xxanthippe

User:Scilipoti.venera

You marked this user as a SPA in the AfD discussion for Alessandro Capone (linguist). Actually she's not - she also created James Higginbotham, which while it is another malformatted quasi-curriculum vitæ does appear to be on a notable academic. I have in mind to fix it up, I'm just a bit less inclined to give her that help right now. But her intentions are thus demonstrably not entirely single-purpose and I thought that should be noted. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do an edit count. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

spa

If you are going to use the template please follow the guidance at {{spa}}, in that "This template should be substituted and it takes one or two parameters." Adding the template unsubstituted and with no parameters leaves a distracting mess behind. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Advice accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden

That certainly is a surprising decision! I would have called it "no consensus" which of course defaults to "keep". Did you plan to appeal it or follow up in some way? --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Universities issue

Hello Xxanthippe -- as you participate frequently in AfDs regarding academics (thus with an interest in higher education), I wonder if you would be interested in having a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Attempt_to_delete_Category:Unrecognized_accreditation_associations. I don't know what your perspective will be -- perhaps you won't agree with my sense that there is a problem -- but I'd like to make sure this issue gets some attention. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did something. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

Discussion about ArbCom and Mathsci

Hi Xxanthippe, I noticed your comments in the arbitration request for clarification about your concerns about ArbCom maintaining the appearance of neutrality. I wanted to mention to you that I've raised a similar issue in Jimbo Wales' user talk, and I've brought up your own concern there that you mentioned in the arbitration thread. You don't have to participate in the discussion in Jimbo's user talk if you don't want to, but since I mentioned you there I figured you should know about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the accidental revert

Hi, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently reverting your entry on the Zeera P. Charnoe Afd. I was browsing on my cell phone which puts the rollback button right next to the diff button on my watchlist, and well, you can guess the rest..... Sorry! Sailsbystars (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks, that's O.K. I was puzzled. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Are these docs wikipedia worthy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosh_Agarwal Thomas Diflo Deborah Axelrod Any doctor that appears - and there about 50 plus or more when you type the words Dr. weill into the wikipedia search engine such as Antonio Gotto Thanks for your help Chumleychat (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

He has some respectable cites on GS (reply to sockpuppet). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Notability of clergymen

Hi, I started a discussion as to the notability of clergymen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clergymen, your input is welcome. J04n(talk page) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I am happy with the way the discussion is going. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Hi

Hi Xxanthippe,

We just happened to disagree about deletion. What a big deal? Why go there? I explained this already. Do you want me to strike/remove my AfD comments? I think they are very much valid. If not, a closing admin will see it. Frankly, that was a normal discussion. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's O.K. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Joseph Burton Lumpkin

You're a wizard. Yopienso (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Message for you on Pseudoscience talk page

I left a message for you on the pseduoscience talk page, under the "Why did you delete..." section here[1].HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arno Tausch (2nd nomination)]

Do you also get the impression that there is some sockpuppetry going on here? --Crusio (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC). Yes. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

WP:PROF

I did raise that edit at WT:PROF a few days before making it, and I've tried to clarify the reasons in light of your reversion. Please let me and other editors know at that talk if your concerns have been answered, or not. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I see our edits just crossed! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you help?

Xxanthippie, I noticed you edit on Phil of Sci related articles, and you have edited the bad faith article. So maybe you know something about modern mathematical philosophy too, where “bad faith” arises in a very important and “ethics busting” way. I thought maybe you might be able to help me come up with an understandable sentence or two about this. While “I do not no not a thing” about technical arguments in mathematical realism involving Mackie’s error theory of mathematical realism as it applies to making moral judgments, I am not an expert by any means. A similar, but less formalized, discussion occured between analytic philosopher of ethics Philippa Foot and Fregean Alonzo Church to which I was a witness, and the discussion made my head spin at that time. :About ten years ago, I recall that mathematical philosopher Crispin Wright complained that Mackie's view on mathematical realism relegates ALL discourse on eithics to ONLY be about “bad faith”, a very restricted ethics indeed. How can these ideas be explained in plain English, and in only a sentence or two? You can respond at the talk page of bad faith, where I am copying this request to here[2] HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but your last post nuked a whole bunch of stuff on AN/I. I reverted it; you might want to repost whatever it was you wanted to say. Horologium (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Completely unintended. I have added my comment there.[3]Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[4] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this fascinating item. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

FYI on Noron Theory and the real Richard Hills

Re this "I am not sure that any of the claimants is genuine. Suggest put it on AN/I and delete swiftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)", the second claim came on the heels of an e-mail I wrote to the real Richard Hills. Yakushima (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

At last the article has been deleted. A lot of bad faith was going on. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Bad faith article

I have removed the construction tag from the bad faith article. The article has been reviewed by WP:WikiProject philosophy, and a request for re-review was made to WP:WikiProject law. One sub-section was rewritten by philosophy project member. If there is no further objection to the article by you, I suggest moving all the talk page sections to archives except the last one, because they were only put in for discussing objections, and if there are no objections, there is no reason for an editor to unnecessarily bother reading these sections. PPdd (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

That's fine. I'm glad the article has been worked over by professionals. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. I created Talk:Bad faith/Archive 1, but it does not show up on Talk:Bad faith. But Talk:Bad faith shows on the new archive page. What did I do wrong? PPdd (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

I don't know. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

I figured it out, thanks. PPdd (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IP addresses

While I appreciate your efforts at Talk:Dark matter, I'd refrained from spelling out exactly where they geolocated to because I didn't want to run afoul of WP:OUTING. The "whois" link on the IPs' user pages should be sufficient for anyone with reason to search. While I don't think you've actually violated policy, it's probably still politest/best to remove the post you'd made (otherwise someone else replies to it, and eventually someone says "I think you're Person X, IP editor!", and then admins come in and smite with much smiting). I'll leave the final call up to you as to whether the comment should stay or be reverted (it's your comment). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

I have followed your advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. It really is a grey area, and I'll stress again that you haven't done anything wrong yourself. I'm just trying to preemptively avoid drama. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

unbanned

Hi. I found our prior encounter. You should note that I was unbanned more than two years ago. I've also not been much involved in D&D articles since. Regards, Jack Merridew 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's religion

No need to check: that's exactly what I meant! Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination)

"I can't understand whether the nominator is advocating Keep or Delete and on what grounds." In this case, I thank you for the complement. I was trying to be as neutral as possible despite the fact I was nominating it for deletion. Hopefully, your confusion means I was successful. Of course, I confuse myself all the time, so it's more likely me being my confusing self. Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hunt Painter

I was just reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hunt Painter, and I noted your comment there about an arbitration case. As the AfD is closed, I'm commenting here instead to say that I don't think it is acceptable, in my view, to make a link at the AfD to the case. Bring it up in the arbitration case by all means (though only after the AfD closes), and let any evidence you want to present there stand or fall on its merits, but trying to draw people's attention from the AfD to the case is wrong, especially as you are posting comments in that case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Without further explanation from yourself, I do not see why it should be "wrong" to alert editors to matters going on elsewhere. There are several such alerts from others to me on various matters above on this talk page. For example, on 1 February 2011 WeijiBaikeBianji altered to me to matters relating to an ArbCom case on Race and Intelligence. I welcome such alerts if they are done in a non-partisan manner. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Requesting your opinion on the Periannan Senapathy page

I have found further secondary sources to the page on Periannan Senapathy. I have written a new piece on the same on the talk page of Periannan Senapathy. Would like your views so that we can move the discussion forward. Rahulr7 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neovandalism

Hi. I need help and support from you and others. The new page neovandalism is tagged for speedy deletion under G3. It is not a hoax or vandalism, nor should it be categorized as G3. It is a serious and relevant topic. Kindly help allow several weeks of civil discussion. ----To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

FYI: Pseudoscience editing is subject to restrictions

This note is to inform you that Pseudoscience articles are subject to editing restrictions, as outlined by the Arbitration Committee. Please read and familiarize yourself with this remedy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was this put on my talk page? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

See here [5]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Infinity edits

Regarding these edits you reverted, what is the "botched" thing? I get correct text (FF on WinXP) -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I got a mess Firefox 5.0, Mac OS 10.6.7. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Could you be more specific? Please describe what you see "botched"? I copied the old version in a sandbox: user:DePiep/sandbox10 -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks messy and unWikipedian to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijendra K. Singh.
Message added 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Dewitte

Hi, I probably should have opened a dialogue with you long ago but better late than never. For a little background as to why I bring so many articles about academics to AfD (I apologize if you already know all of this). About a year and a half ago there was a mass deletion of BLP's that had no sources, this was met by resistance (to put it mildly) but the outcome was that time would be given for folks to add sources to these articles. At that point there were >50,000 articles now there are <4,000. I've been going through them attempting to add sources but for those that I can't I've been sending to AfD. Believe me; I add sources to many more articles than I send to AfD. Plus, I'm very purposefully sending them to AfD and not prodding because I want others to see them and believe me I'm very happy when they get improved and kept, I'm doing what I am doing to save these articles.

Now to respond to your comment, I can read WP:PROF until the cows come home and I'll still be confused. Your comments at AfD frequently will give an H-index score and either agree with deletion or argue to keep. WP:PROF states "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." not very helpful to me plus what result is worthy of a keep? I don't know, does anyone know? Reading the h-index page leaves me even more confused, the Criticism section is quite extensive.

So, can we add sources to these articles? If we can fantastic, if not they eventually are going to be deleted, and most folks simply prod them and that is much less visible than AfD. For this case, I can add a source that confirms that he is on the faculty at Cardiff, which I suppose is how I may deal with similar situations in the future. If you're interested, most of the unsourced articles on academics can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Unreferenced BLPs, hopefully you can help clean these up. Take care, J04n(talk page) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice often given to newbies to a subject area (and we are all newbies to some parts of Wikipedia) is to lurk around for a while to learn the standards and conventions that prevail before editing. Some further comments about the applicability of WP:Prof are here [6] (8 July). If you still don't understand the criteria for the area the best thing is to avoid it and leave editing to those who do. It is the job of contributors to these AfD pages to determine if there are enough reliable independent sources for the article to be kept. It is not the duty of AfD contributors to improve the article itself, although many do. Also, please bring only marginal cases to AfD. Leave the obvious fails as prodded and leave the obvious keeps alone. This saves the time of others. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

Lewontin's Argument

Fllowing the recen [7] our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Traphagan

Hi. How do you determine the H index? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As the citation databases can be made to rank their entries in order of cites it suffices to count on one's fingers. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Synthetic logic

I saw that you participated in the AfD for Stephen Palmquist. The discussion on his synthetic logic could use more discussion. If you're interested, see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic

Thanks!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted category in John Wallis

Hello there - I don't mean to intrude, but that category was put in as part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Music theory in efforts to categorize our List of music theorists (sources for this list are at the bottom of the page). It is important to note that John Wallis is considered one in the field and for consistency in the project, we would like to include the category English music theorists.

Unless if you have some other explanation other than the fact that there is not anything about music in that article (at its current state) then I'd ask that the category be restored. (Eventually we plan to get to it as part of the project.) Thank you much! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That's fine. Your expansion of the John Wallis article is excellent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

Alain de Botton

Hi Xxanthippe, you were extremely quick to revert a correction and you were also wrong. Why not check the source that is already there before you do this. It's this kind of stuff that scares away new users Bhny (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No relevant edit summary was given. I apologise for scaring you. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

It wasn't me that did the edit it was an anonymous person trying to help. You were reverting to incorrect info, you didn't check that your reversion was correct. Also reverting it twice: you should really think more before you do that. Bhny (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Roy Ciampa

it's so hard to find the right term sometimes, no? thanks for introducing me to the h index, by the way. i'd never heard of it, but i can see it's going to be quite useful both here and in real life. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When to revert

WP:REVEXP#When_to_revert

Many of your reverts are because the edit has no reference. That isn't a reason to revert except WP:BLP. Some of your reverts even revert to wrong information. If you're going to revert you have to check that! I've been repairing your reverts but it's a lot of work. Why not add "citation needed" if that's all that's wrong with an edit. You could maybe even add the reference yourself...

Also it's really rude to do that to new users, why not try to engage them. Bhny (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're still reverting unnecessarily! any comment? Bhny (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Erm, regarding your reverting my edit at The Two Cultures, care to explain why you "don't think this is an improvement"? (See WP:REVEXP.) joe•roe^t•c 10:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I though the previous version read a bit jejeune. A matter of style. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Okay, but since my edit was a factual correction I think I'll go ahead and restore it – accuracy takes precedence over style. By all means make it less "jejeune" (but still accurate) if you can. joe•roe^t•c 11:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not delete the changes I did on h-index regarding the online Scholar H-Index Batch Calculator. It is proven and it is quite used by the Italian Academics as you can see it on the website. Thanks.