User talk:Xxanthippe

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

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

Not linkspam

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

Help with Eastbourne

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

The Strand Magazine..co.uk

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

Preview

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

Yes, I know. I often preview my changes five or six times between each save. Infuriatingly, my keyboard has a "back" button next to the arrow keys that sometimes causes me to lose my work, so I like to save every few minutes. Because I save so many times, I usually copy an article to my user page and edit a draft there, which avoids cluttering up the history of the main article.

Thanks for the tip, though. Aside from cluttering up history pages (which I try to avoid), is there any reason saving so often would cause trouble? Jim 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know not apart from that. I agree that it is a good idea to do most of the editing off-line. Xxanthippe 03:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Protest the Hero

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

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

Azure Bonds etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilson

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

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

Waterwindsail

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

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

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

For example look at the exponential function:

$e^{ix}=\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }{\frac {(ix)^{i}}{i!}}$

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

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

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

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

John Gallaher AfD

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

Request for Mediation?

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)

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

Mosley

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

Frederick Crews

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

Folie a deux winery

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

Children's

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

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

Spin in magnetism

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

Florence

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

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

Sorry. I thought that you had been vandalising this (Florence Nightingale) continually vandalised article. The references you have now added amply justify your edit. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC).

It's ok. I was translating Miasma theory into Malay, when I realise those info. I add it in cause I tought Miasma theory is uknown b4 germs theory became popular. Yosri (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Angular momentum vs rotation

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

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

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

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

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

Gavin.collins RFC/U

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

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

Moberly-Jourdain incident

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

Sorry about that. Please cite policy reference and I will put things right. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

See this. I'm surprised you didn't know. Take a look at every featured article - citations always come after the punctuation. Majorly ^talk 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop hostile disruption!

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

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

John von Neumann

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

Feudal society

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

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

Please explain

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

Mittell AfD

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

Infinity

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

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

Dr. Seal has requested deletion

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

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

David Stack

• Would you take another look at the David Stack article and possibly change your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Stack !vote? ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Pool

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

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

Arguments

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

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

June 2009

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

If Dougweller had read this unedifying debate more thoroughly he would have found that the phrases "unhelpful", "uninformed", "trolling", "no familiarity at all", "out of your depth" were first used by another editor about me without any conditional "If" attached. Dougweller's interpretation of my remark is not pretty obvious at all. He should exercise more care when accusing users of misbehaviour. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

In a separate arbitration case the user who made the above remarks about me was reminded to "avoid personal attacks at all times". The user was also blocked previously for "harassing other users, making threats". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

About: Frank Duckworth AfD and Tony Lewis AfD

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

Edits to Charles Babbage

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

Sorry, I confused your edit with those of the vandal 59.178.202.8. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

OK. No worries. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember when?

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

Source (John von Neumann)

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

Good Faith?

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

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

Redundant categories

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

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

check this out,

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

AfD nomination of Peter A. Stewart

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

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

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

NZonscreen

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

David Lewis-Williams

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

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

A note on AFD tone.

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

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

Contested prod of Asad Naqvi

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

Enid Blyton

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

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

Michael Faraday

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