User talk:Xxanthippe

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

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]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

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 c ookie! 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) This template must be substituted.[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]

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.[8] Jules.LT (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I only reverted [9] the spam put in by User talk:84.20.238.83. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2013 (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 [10] 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]

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 [11] 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]