User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Criterion of Chair

The criterion of "named chair" for categorizing the notability of professors is questionable as in many universitites the "chair" may be distributed based on the availability of funds (sometimes minute ones) contributed by families who wish to commemorate their loved ones or themselves. I would limit the "chair" criterion to those chairs named after major scientists of the past - such as chairs named after Nobel prize winners, Alan Touring medal winners etc...and use it only for chairs in the upper 50 universities of the world by some of the acceptable lists

Rastiniak (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)rastiniak


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).

Deletion of page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" from article "Scientific plagiarism in India[edit]


The page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" of article "Scientific plagiarism in India" contains invalid information about him and the controversy, He is a former scientist who has registered patents and works at National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India. The page also refers to unofficial invalid sources. I request you to check official website of NCCS,Pune,India which is a Indian government body. the URL is Please consider this request because it affects his reputation.

Thanks. Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Shrikantbhalerao101 has posted this to 13 different users' talk pages. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, before considering replying, you may like to see my responses here and here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


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, (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Advice accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit] 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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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

Message for you on Pseudoscience talk page[edit]

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).


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?[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.


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 (talkcontribs)

FYI: Pseudoscience editing is subject to restrictions[edit]

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[edit]

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).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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


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

Reverted category in John Wallis[edit]

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).

Articles for deletion/Roy Ciampa[edit]

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)

Alain de Botton[edit]

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)

When to revert[edit]


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)

please explain[edit]

Why you just undid my edit and called me a vandal. Sillystuff84 (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. looking at your Discussion page, it seems you have a history of this kind of behavior... Let's have a look at your "Contributions" history... Sillystuff84 (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You need to be a little less "Gung ho" in your deleting of other people's edits. Sillystuff84 (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: Sillystuff84 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC).
are you sure you want to use the word you used on my talk p.? since it's in the edit summary, I want to ask for oversight. Whether or not literally true, we shouldn't be saying it. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If you think it best to be withdrawn then I do so. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC).
thanks. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

External Link on H-index Page[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoursneck (talkcontribs) 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Hoursneck (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The link I added to h-index is not spam. It links to a very good software I designed for calculating the h-index and other parameters online. It sends the results by email in a cvs format. For more info please see this link. Also I'm not advertising my personal website, Via-academy is an organisation of Italian Scientists working abroad, it has around 400 members, which includes professors and researchers working for Universities around the world, but mainly in UK. This software has been tested by the Via-academy's members and it has been using by many Italian Academics in Italy. The results of this software are under rewiew by the ANVUR, the National Agency for the Evaluation of Italian Universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca boscolo (talkcontribs) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Luca boscolo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not harass and canvass those editors who have determined that your site is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC).
fwiw, I agree with Xxanthippe. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what this about. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

H index check please[edit]

Here I saw you mention the index, FYI, but I'm unsure if this guy (Jeffrey Braithwaite) is notable. Could you check? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks notable at first sight. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC).
Thanks I took off the notability tag. Jesanj (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for Lawrence Society (DHLSNA) Links[edit]


I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia so please forgive any blunders. (I seem to always be posting to the wrong place.) I'm still in the process of learning proper procedure, criteria, and communication methods for Wikipedia so please bear with me as I try to explain why I added the external links to the D.H. Lawrence pages.

I'm the Webmaster for the D.H. Lawrence Society of North America (DHLSNA), a non-profit academic society, one of a handful of International Lawrence Societies around the world. We sponser International D.H. Lawrence Conferences, have yearly Lawrence panels at the Modern Language Association (MLA) conferences, publish a biannual newsletter for our members (who are among the top Lawrence scholars working today), so of course we have PayPal on our website to collect membership dues and conference fees (the Lawrence Ranch fundraising was aimed at our members in honor of deceased scholars). However, most of our website is open to the public (except for the Directory page containing member contact info), and we are continually adding new content which we feel benefits anyone doing Lawrence research. (The above details about the Lawrence Society are offered merely to show we are an established organization and "knowledgeable source" of information regarding author D.H. Lawrence).

In particular, we have a page that lists women Lawrentian scholars and their publications for those interested in the feminist take on Lawrence ( ). And we have the essays (80+ pages) contained in the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the D.H. Lawrence Ranch (both a printable MS Word version and a web-friendly version). These narratives contain biographies of Lawrence and his wife, Frieda, discuss his experiences in America and on the ranch, his works of literature produced at the ranch, Lawrence's influence on the Taos art colony and other American writers, and the uses of the ranch today. Its accuracy has been approved by the DHLSNA and by several of the State Historical Preservation Officers. It is a non-copyrighted government document that the DHLSNA has published on our website (divided into web-friendly sections), and we would like to make it available to the general public as supplemental information about Lawrence.

I feel that this particular ranch page is especially appropriate for the Wikipedia entry on the "D.H. Lawrence Ranch," since your page uses as a reference Art Bachrach's book, "D.H. Lawrence in New Mexico." On page 46-47 of Bachrach's book, he writes: "In 2003, the D.H. Lawrence Society of North America submitted a proposal to the Cultural Properties Review Committee of New Mexico for historic registry of the ranch, a proposal that was unanimously approved and forwarded with recommendation for National Historic Register and National Historic Landmark status. The National Register of Historic Places entered the ranch into the registry in January 2004. The comprehensive proposal was supported by many members of the society and was prepared by Tina Ferris and Virginia Hyde. New assessments, measurements, and other records were necessary for this proposal, and many details in the following descriptions of the ranch come from this extensive document." That would be us--we are the primary source! And our goal isn't self-promotion for our society but rather to provide this additional in-depth information to students and improve Wikipedia's scope. If you need further credentials, please let me know what they are, and I'll provide them. I'm a published Independent Lawrence scholar and elected officer in the DHLSNA. Dr. Virginia Hyde of Washington State University is also a published scholar, a Cambridge edition editor of Lawrence's "Mornings in Mexico," and past president of the DHLSNA.

The following webpage provides a history of the DHLSNA: and here's the page with the ranch essays:

Please reconsider allowing us to link to the Wikipedia pages on author D.H. Lawrence ( ) and The D.H. Lawrence Ranch ( ).

Thank you for your diligence and for your consideration, Tina Ferris TFerris (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean to suggest linking to the society's History page--I just listed that here for you to check out our credentials as a legitimate academic society (founded in 1975) and a reputable source of information. It's difficult to establish one's authority without seeming to self-promote. But my intention was to provide the 6 years worth of research on the Lawrence ranch to supplement the Wikipedia Lawrence entries. And the Wikipedia guidelines for new research says you must prove academic credentials and publication--our ranch nomination was submitted in 2003 and approved by the U.S. government in 2004, which led to the Lawrence Ranch becoming a National Landmark. Unfortunately, I originally linked to the society's Homepage (which contains a lot of new information for society members) rather than the Ranch page here:

Again, membership is not required to access this page or most other resources on our website.

Thanks, TFerris (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFerris (talkcontribs) TFerris (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to canvass for the inclusion in it of a website that you are associated with and which collects money. You have been told by at least two editors that your site is not suitable for inclusion. I suggest that you give the matter a rest (at least on my talk page). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Please take another look[edit]

You recently voted in an AfD discussion for the Tom Segalstad article. Since your vote, I have significantly changed the article. Can you please take another look and reword or change your vote, if necessary? Thank you. SilverserenC 04:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For better comprehension Shahdaei Paradox[edit]

Please reevaluate. To make this more understand able, please first consider the animation on Shahdaei_pradox page. As the Y direction of the lab (perpendicular to observation) is all the time parallel with the observer, then and there won’t be any length contraction as predicted by Special relativity. If we make a more simple example, consider a train passing by and a boy on the train through up an apple, to him it appears just a movement up and down, but for a person on the platform (standing still) it appears not a straight path (as the boy on the train observes) since the trains moves. Now imagine the observer on the platform turns his head synchronized with the train’s movement, then he also sees a straight movement for the apple i.e. up and down, hope I could make it clearer. kooroh shahdaei 09:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talkcontribs)

Edit error[8][edit]

You are absolutely right. I am afraid, I have more errors in other articles. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Royal Shell[edit]

The main article has been deleted. You have recreated a dead link.

The remaining claims to be referencing the Financial Times yet they are linked to a blog website. If the Financial Times did publish these articles then link should be to the articles. Blogs do not count as reliable sources. QuentinUK (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All the other controversies are only given 1 or2 lines. They are also much more significant than this, which was mainly notable for being badly written. It is not usual for anything in an internal email to be considered plagiarism. QuentinUK (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I see you have reverted an edit that I made which was in turn a reversion of someone else. I have read the guidelines on nationlity and they say that there should not be an unreferenced change. That is why I reverted English to British. Uvghifds (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Rolfe[edit]

I'm not familiar with this person at all. Do you think Frederick Baron Corvo is the common name? Marcus Qwertyus 00:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article and the numerous biographies you will find that he was known both under his true name Frederick Rolfe and his assumed name (to which he claimed to have entitlement under Italian law, but which was not accepted by English law or even Italian law) Baron Corvo. Frederick Baron Corvo would not be correct as it mixes the two. I see that most of your prior edits have been on military matters and I commend you for extending your interests into this obscure area. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Talk:Frederick Rolfe#Requested move.
Message added 03:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaissance music[edit]

That was my opinion, mind you -- based on my reading the article today for the first time in -- years? I'm trying to imagine reading it as a naive reader, knowing next to nothing about the topic. It reads like an accretion of bits from many editors, some professional musicologists, some amateurs, some undergraduates, all mixed around, sometimes repeated. It's not full of things that are blatantly untrue, just needing to be melded into a coherent whole. For whatever reason (maybe I was just in a surly mood) it rubbed me the wrong way. Most of the work I've done on Wikipedia since 2004 has been in Renaissance music, and this is the overview article, and when I compare it to articles on Grove, Oxford, or the writings of Atlas, Brown, Reese -- it strikes me as needing a rewrite. And that's a big, big job! I don't know about you, but I find it relatively easy to write on tightly focused topics: a specific composer, genre, piece of music, with three or four good sources and some uninterrupted time: but writing the overview articles is hard. (I honestly had no idea anyone would look at my scurrilous asides in my /contribs! Sorry! I feel like the Invisible Man on Wikipedia, presuming no one notices what I write.) After writing this I'm not sure I've answered your question. What are your thoughts on it? Antandrus (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As a non-musicologist I found the article quite useful in its present state, but I guess there is always room for improvement. My only contributions to the article have been in vandal-busting. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Introduction to Gauge Theory[edit]

Given that my 'layman introduction' is based on an example by Barry Parker "a professor of physics and astronomy at Idaho State University for thirty years... His research area was general relativity, black holes and cosmology". I have a (rusty) MSc in Astronomy and about thirty tears experience in producing educational material and trying to make difficult concepts understandable to laymen & beginning students. That said, I might have got it wrong, but would you like to explain exactly how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal (talkcontribs) 17:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two editors are of the view that some of your edits to advanced physics topics are not appropriate for Wikipedia. You might be advised to start your editing career on more elementary topics, but beware: physics is not a closed subject and elementary topics can lead into deep waters. It is an admirable ambition to make difficult concepts understandable to the layperson, but a thorough understanding of those difficult concepts has to be obtained first. Also, please do not delete material from my talk page; I reserve to myself the right to do that. I note that you delete from your own talk page material critical of your editing. That is your right and privilege. My best wishes for your editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
Your edits removed technical information from the lede. The examples given seem to be a violation of WP:OR and should also not be present in the lede, the lede should also broadly cover what is in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
@IRWolfie-. Who are you addressing? What are you talking about? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC).
To mals edits generally: The example here seems close to OR with the citation given a book which does not appear to verify the text. [9]. From a google books search [10] it returns two mentions of ropes in the book none of which seem to verify the statement used. The wording in the example added was also not clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Xxanthippe. I was wondering if you'd be willing to enable your email feature. I've been having some privacy-related issues lately, so I'd prefer to talk to you somewhere that isn't public. Thanks, -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is my policy not to communicate with other Wikipedians off-Wiki. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Citation Index (ICI).
Message added 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sino-African relations[edit]

If you are 'disturbed' by my so called language skills. Why can't you correct it. Instead of reverting, you can help. (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Xxanthippe reverts often. He doesn't answer questions about it User talk:Xxanthippe#When_to_revert Bhny (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your subpage[edit]

Just a heads up, if you ever want a page in your own userspace deleted, you can simply put a {{db-user}} tag on top of the page. The proposed deletion tag should only be used on articles. I have gone ahead and placed a tag on User:Xxanthippe/draft, so it will be deleted shortly. If you need help or have any questions please let me know. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I was just using my user space as a place to park sometimes used templates. I didn't want it deleted but it doesn't matter if it is. No worries. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration Committee Review[edit]

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

  1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
  2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
  3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
  4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
  5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

who the fuck is this???[edit]

Is Michael Faraday your father?? No.Too bad.

Well, He is my father. So stop sucking up to me and let the changes be. You're a damn servant here at Wiki, don't let it go to your head.

Amanbir Singh

Son,I'm sorry for the harsh words. There is a War going on. Don't come here. You'll get shot. Regards, ASG

Well, if you want to Volunteer for this Crusade, you can do one thing. Lock that article right now.As it is. Can you.

Or are you a lowly serf with no powers but that of Undoing...:))))

This is John Churchill, Marlborough, Will you fight????

If you can't , then the least you can do is see that it stays this way.

I have some ventures to complete.

God be with you.

And there's one more Gate that you must guard.

All the Best.

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

comment: abusive IP spa is from Bangalore. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Xxanthippe. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Warning. This link goes to outside Wikipedia and may be a scam. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC).


Hi Xxanthippe, I don't quite know why you reverted my edit to the list of Anthony Blunt's works since in single authorship lists I'm pretty sure the "correct" method is to forgo the author's name entirely. If there's a policy or guideline that directly covers this, I don't know it; a look through the pages on bibliographies does at least imply the name should go. But WP:PUNCT does prescribe double quotation marks for articles and chapters. I won't revert back since I was just reading the article and making MOS fixes as I ran into issues. Best — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 23:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Because books and scholarly publications often have multiple authors, the bibliometric convention is to give the names of all authors (except in rare cases where there are too many). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[edit]

Thanks for the edit summary [11]. I understand now why these are being removed. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page comments removed[edit]

Hello. Could you restore the comments you removed here[12]? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't know why that happened. Some IT mix-up. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC).
No problem. Jesanj (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Not really sure why you reverted [13], but it's not vandalism. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

An ArXiv article is not considered to be a reliable source. Even if a paper is published in the refereed literature it is not considered notable unless it has been noted with many cites. If you look at the contribution history of anon spa User talk: you will find they have added ArXiv articles by two particular authors as references for many physics articles. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Notability of Academics[edit]

I replied to your comments on the talk page of WP:PROF. NJ Wine (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable narrators revert[edit]

Hi, The source given for my addition of Unreliable narrator to Midnight's Children is an article by the author himself. How is that not a reliable source? Nwe (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference was not properly formatted. Also, a source about oneself is not necessarily independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
Ah sorry about that. If it's properly formatted will it be fine then? The author saying that the narrator is unreliable is a fairly good reason for caller the narrator unreliable.Nwe (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably OK in this case but we don't want the list to expand interminably. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. O'Neill[edit]

Dear Xxanthippe, I hope all is well. (And my past transgressions have been forgiven if not forgotton.) Could I ask you to have another look at the calculations for Dr O'Neill's H-index. I have had a look at couple of the extra papers which I think weren't included in your calculation and they seem to be by him but I am not sure? I don't know how many more there are like these. He is I think listed there as Marc (sic) A O'Neill but has a Newcastle address and shares a co-author with one of the other papers which seems indesputable him. I am writing here rather than just leaving it up to the Afd page - because I was a bit worried you might have missed my question - as it was up the page a but. Sorry if this is inappropriate/annoying and feel free to ignore this. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

Many thanks for your careful comments. I have replied to you and others on the AfD page. Basically my position is unchanged for the reasons given there. I was concerned by the possible attempt to use Wikipedia for commercial promotional purposes. If such a possibility is in the offing then I think that very strong evidence of notability is needed to overcome it and the evidence here is, at best, weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC).

Proposals at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)[edit]

I am thinking of doing an RFC on the proposals in order to get broader coverage. Do you think this is a good idea? I was thinking these could put under one RFC with a short summation. - Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that it might not be a good idea because most of the regulars are already taking part and new participants might flush out more hares for people to run after and prolong the process. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC).

Vandalism of Ann Widdecomb[edit]

My edit was called vandalism even though another wikipedia page on tone-deafness cites her as a tone-def person. Here is a link to prove it: plus the wikipedia one: Lawful Reasoning 23:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Feynman template[edit]

Hello! Navboxes for scientists are currently being discussed on the Wikiproject physics talk page. Famous writers and political leaders usually have corresponding navigation templates (Template:Mohandas K. Gandhi,Template:Adolf Hitler, Template:Shakespeare, Template:Richard Dawkins, Template:Barack Obama). Because there was an established precedent for it, I thought it would be uncontroversial to create similar navigation templates for the careers of scientists. It's conceivable that a user looking up Feynman diagrams may also be interested in other aspects of Feynman's career as a scientist and writer. I do agree with you that the templates should be discussed first, and I hope that you'll to offer your two cents. --SGCM (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Comstock[edit]

In case you had this AFD watchlisted, please note that it's been moved to the correct page name. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC).

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

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)

Thanks for your comment, but I am not clear about what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
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)