User talk:Xxanthippe

Strange

Xxanthippe, your user is marked for proposed deletion, by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users. — Prenote • (talk) 12:40, 03 September 2017 (UTC+1)

Thanks for your concern but you might like to check who put the template there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC).

Dummies guide to archiving my talk page

1. Open the talk page for edit.

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 the transferred material from current talk page. Finished. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (3rd nomination)

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) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Page was kept unanimously. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Deletion review

I am notifying everyone who took part in the AFD discussion on Daniel Romanovsky. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have contributed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Recreating article "Vaidyanathan Ramaswami"

Hi, Would you please take a look at this improved and substantially different new draft and consider recreating the article "Vaidyanathan Ramaswami". This article had been the subject of a discussion before here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaidyanathan_Ramaswami_(3rd_nomination) . As suggested during that discussion by one admin: "as still questionably better for any improvements, best deleted and restarted if better later. SwisterTwister", I have rewritten entirely the article wih better structure and referencing. It is available in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoshanKarki123/sandbox . I will be grateful if you would evaluate this draft and consider publishing it on Wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation. RoshanKarki123 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP

Sort of seems that IEEE article was fairly damning. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD

You chimed in at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Asking for some other opinions so I thought you might be interested to know the page under discussion has now been nominated for deletion. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 13:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure that my esteemed colleagues will come to a sensible conclusion without my participation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

Lewis Carroll

Look at the edit history. I was reverting back to your version - somebody else had changed it away from the referenced wording. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC).

Edward Wild AfD

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I want to thank you for your contributions to the discussions about the AfD for the Edward Wild page. The whole thing ended up becoming much more of a mess than I had wanted it to be, but you showed real integrity in the way that you handled it. By comparison, I feel disappointed in myself. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Paul G. King

In the AFD for this article you said that an h-index of 16 is enough to meet WP:PROF. That seems hard for me to believe; I was under the impression it had to be at least in the mid 20s to meet the "highly cited" aspect of that criterion. Is the bar lower for chemistry (I don't work much in that area) than in biology/medicine? Everymorning (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations vary according to field. There is much discussion of this in the archives of WP:Prof talk. An h-index 16 is probably at the lower limit for chemistry but the fringe activities add to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Xxanthippe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red

Thanks for joining Women in Red. I see you are a seasoned editor but if you run into any difficulties or need assistance on anything, please feel free to contact me whenever you wish.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will call upon you if needed. My best wishes for your project. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

Weigh-in Needed from Eds with Science Background

The issue of "junk journals" has come-up in a scientist-related AfD, e.g. my latest comment. I don't think this is receiving due consideration from many of the panelists, but would appreciate a heads-up in case I'm over-emphasizing this. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

January 2017 at Women in Red

January 2017
	Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Angelica Catalani

Ah, sorry - that's her sister-in-law, Angelica. Not Adelina, or Adele, or Adelaide, or whichever she chose to go by - I've found all three. Thanks, though. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on new article

Hello, I recently posted a new article on my employer’s company, Spredfast. I now see that there was a previous article, deleted in May in a discussion you took part in. I understand that I have a COI. However, I believe with this new version I have closely followed Wikipedia’s editing guidelines and that the article is written in a neutral tone and is supported with credible references. If you're able to take a look, I would appreciate feedback. Bthoma (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This is paid commercial junk and will not be getting any support from me. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

February 2017 at Women in Red

February 2017
	Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Battle of the Herrings

Would you mind adding more inline citations to the "Aftermath" section of Battle of the Herrings? I was thinking of including it in WP:Selected anniversaries/February 12, but without the citations there, someone's going to notice and object. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wave function

As I understand it, wavefunction is not (yet) a word. Specifically, it isn't in the OED, so I changed it to two words.

If it is an actual word, then revert is fine.

Gah4 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red
		March 2017 Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met" Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Stalking

I understand we had just had a negative interaction but please avoid escalating things. Hounding behavior like showing up at an article you have never edited to revert me, as you did here, is very easy to demonstrate. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

After having been called by you here incompetent and corrupt, you now accuse me of Stalking because I made one edit to a topic that I have been involved with previously and which is therefore on my watch list. Your claim that I never edited the article before is false.

Recently, an experienced editor has accused you of disruptive editing[1] on the thread Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMO. I supported his charge but you chose to remove my statement[2].

There are many complaints about your conduct on your talk page. I see from your edit history that you already have blocks for WP:Civil, WP:Outing and WP:Edit warring. If you do not mend your ways and learn to edit within Wikipedia consensus you may find yourself facing more of them. [3] [4] Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

I warned you not to start hounding me. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

April events at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Psychology" "Book Artists" "CEE Countries"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not waste my time with any more of this material, which I am advised you have put on the talk pages of 50 users. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

Editing your comments

Just letting you know it may not be best to add to your comments after someone replies to you in order to avoid confusion. Actually, it's discouraged per WP:REDACT. — Gestrid (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you in general but I am not sure which edit you are referring to. Is it the one above? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC).

I decided to post here when I noticed you added a sentence (something about one admin already being ready to block) to a comment you'd made over on that gender RfC (the policy one, not the MOS one). — Gestrid (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Point taken and acted on. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Alain de Botton

His last name's capitalized at the start of the very next paragraph down, so I was just matching that. What source is needed on this?Mcc1789 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess some sort of style policy. Certainly, usage should be uniform. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

May 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Organizations" "Sports" "Pacific islanders"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

June 2017 offerings @ WikiProject Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:Nefertari.jpg "Met artwork by women" "LGBTQ women & Wiki Loves Pride" "Pre-20-century women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

July 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Comment

Saw your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_12#Moglix. Based on past experience, it appears clear that the initiator of the DR does not have a COI in the matter (not that I agree with them). Per AGF, it may be better to remove that portion of the comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have given what I hope is an adequate reply on the DRV page. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC).

Women in Red's new initiative: 1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice before nominating

Would you take a look at this page - Kirk B. Jensen. I intend to nominate it for AfD. However I am not sure if he satisfies any of the criteria for WP:NPROF, which generally results in a keep. Your votes are largely consistent with the outcomes, and I would love to know from you about the chances for its deletion. Jupitus Smart 04:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that I know nothing about the field of administrative medicine. Probably borderline. There is lower-hanging fruit to be found.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC).

Well thanks for looking anyway. Jupitus Smart 08:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Hi, thanks for your comment on my AfD nomination. You wrote that my nomination seems overly hostile. Can you tell me which parts strike you as hostile? I'm happy to modify the nomination accordingly, provided that is permitted. I am also not sure what additional detail you would like to see. (Let me note that I had not seen WP:NPROF before nominating this AfD and I am unfamiliar with the standard practice in such cases.) --Rhombus (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Readers can judge for themselves. You might like to read my comment above about lower-hanging fruit. Please carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

Feynman diagrams

Why "citatio not needed"?

I'm vaguely aware that Feynman diagrams are credited with accurately calculating the Lamb shift, although the two authors who independently got the same result were eventually considered to have got the wrong result. It is not clear in that case whether the Feynman diagrams were only a heuristic (with how they are calculated and determined done a posteriori to match the known experimental value). Is there any case where an ab initio calculation was done with Feynman diagrams that later matched experimental data? Does this only happen with collision/scattering experiments, where such a heuristic might be appropriate anyway? Surely if more is true, a reference would be appropriate?Createangelos (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

PS I notice the Wikipedia line is quoted verbatim by some jouralists in some recent expository articles in New Scientist magazine and elsewhere so it should matter to get it right. And it *can't* be OK to use a source which in turn had just quoted the Wikipedia article(!) in the first place. If it is beyond question that the diagrams have given an correct ab initio value of some constant somewhere I am not too worried, but is this just an anecdote or is it established in reliable sources.Createangelos (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source. You might like to take your concerns to the physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

OK I will. 'Concerns' might be a bit strong but it is a question and it is true that the quote has propogated into the science magazines which copy each other a lot.Createangelos (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I could not find any physics noticeboard, so I copied your comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Loops_of_reference.3F, hope that is OK. You succinctly stated the main worry that Wikipedia itself may serve as a reliable source for the New Scientist article as far as I know.Createangelos (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Crawley (headmaster)

Hi, I not sure if you remember but you were a "keep" on this AfD in 2011. Crawley has continued to be a notable as an educationalist and has now retired as a Headmaster. This article in The Australian and this one about his Honorary Doctorate suggests that his notability is now above dispute. Is there a way of having this bio retrieved? I would appreciate your assistance. Castlemate (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up with the closer. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

Ok Castlemate (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Hispanic and Latina Women" "Women in the Olympics" "Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October editathon invitation

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/57|"Women and disability"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/58|"Healthcare"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/59|"Geofocus on the Nordic countries"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Begin preparing for November's big event: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|Women World Contest]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You may be interested in this discussion

Hello, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination). NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)