User talk:SofieElisBexter

Hello, you just created a new category called Boaron's remedies, and added Oscillococcinum to it. Did you mean Boiron? --BillC 16:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry
Man, you are right, sorry in my language it is Boaron but in French and English, Boiron, thank you very much indeed for you accurate and timely comment. -- SofieElisBexter 16:31, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)


 * Hello again. Just a point: first, if you are making minor (small) edits, you don't need to enter "small" in the edit summary. Now that you have a user account, you can click in the box marked 'This is a minor edit'. That way you can enter text in the edit summary that describes the changes you have made. --BillC 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not exaactly new but except for writing issues i dont know much things. For exaple im not happy that i cannot make issue about classical homeopathy, because it automaticaly refers to homeopathy, but then there is much diference in classical and non-classical homeopathy. I also make usually mistakes in titles, :)...., i knoe. -- SofieElisBexter 16:49, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
 * Ok, i discovered how to change this :))

-- SofieElisBexter 16:52, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)

Classical homeopathy
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia; are you going to work further on classical homeopathy, or could I just revert it back to the redirect (there's information in the main homeopathy article)? --CDN99 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure I will, but do you think I can do it per day. Look. Misses are quite much here and you are not helping me with deleting my stuff...And y is that? It is not fair, besides the Bach issue is too short. Rather too short. If you have an oppinion better tell me. --SofieElisBexter 20:30, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
 * Sorry I didn't check back here. I haven't deleted any of your work yet, I'm just suggesting that classical homeopathy be redirected to homeopathy and your information merged into that article.  There is a rather large section comparing complex and classical homeopathy in the main article. --CDN99 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * aha, I will look over, may you be right.SofieElisBexter 10:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read the classic vs non-classic section. I dont like it. Its true. Its definite. Its proper, its profetional. But i dont personally like it.
 * Its hard to read, not making it exactly clear what is and what is not classical homeopathy, i think the seperate issue may be needed to have a broader explanation of that point, where can be showned:
 * classic homeopaths, or homeopaths regarded as classical, ie with other words or as they say i dont think you will get that but in literature is said the CANON. so it must be an issue and broad one for the homeopathic canon. What is it. Because otherwise it is like something we all know, but ask someone to define it, well it was about Mono-Poly remedies. I dont think this alone exhausts the point. There are certain premises in homeopmathy underlying structures, thoughts not clearly spoken. For me.
 * the section is good and should stay such because it is written for a first say about the point. For such it is good to be there in the issue homeopathy. It is not intended to be broaded probably, and to merge will be both hard and not wise, since you will fuck up the both texts. They - my and the other have diferent logics and intentions. I have to say i too much respect the short text written in homeopathy to merge my with it, but at the same time feel it like not sufficient to keep it only. Also,
 * People need alone issue about classical homeopathy to look over, otherwise we cen merge all the existing issues in that for homeopathy - why not. But thats y we have a category. Isnt it? SofieElisBexter 10:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bach flower remedies
Sofie, not sure if you are aware but Category:Bach flower remedies is up for deletion see WP:CFD. --Salix alba (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I put that category up for merging with the main Category:Homeopathy as it contained only 3 articles. Do you have an idea of how much it is likely to grow? If it is valuable, please chime in at the link above. -- John DO | Speak your mind  14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Homeopathic Materia Medica
I have nominated Homeopathic Materia Medica, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Homeopathic Materia Medica. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride


The article Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable book. See WP:BOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Username concern
Hello, I hope that I don't seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy because, although the spelling is different, it is similar enough to the name of a real person that it could cause confusion.

Could you please look over the policy? Per the policy, you must make it clear that you are not the well-known Sophie Ellis-Bextor. There are other options available as well, for example, you can keep your contributions history under a new username. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, I just noticed today that policy but didn't have time reading it. I hope if I make a mention on my page that I'm not, it would be enough to keep the nickname, coz I like it very much. Regards, --SofieElisBexter (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked over it, but it says nothing on similar names, only on similar nicknames. In fact it only talks not to take offence if you are banned with your real name in Wikipedia. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section WP:REALNAME reads "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution." Exploding Boy (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont bother and dont be aggressive. Of course I'll make sure to make it clear, although I doubt any sensible man or woman would think that Bextor not Bexter edits here, regards ;) --SofieElisBexter (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could possibly have taken anything I wrote here as "aggressive." I could have blocked first and asked questions later, but instead I left you a friendly message informing you of the policy, and pointed you to the specific section of the policy when you couldn't find it yourself.  If you think that was aggressive, then you must spend a lot of time feeling offended.  Anyway, I see you've left a note on your user page now, per the policy, so that's all I have to say on the matter.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Svante Arrhenius
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.

It's not very appropriate to add Nazi categories to a biography, such as you did to Svante Arrhenius, without providing reliable sources or even an edit summary. For a person who died in 1927, you'd have to provide pretty strong evidence that they were actually Nazi. Being a board member of an academic institute in racial hygiene/eugenics is definitely not enough, as there were a lot of e.g. liberals and social democrats that held these views in the 1920s. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Biofascism


The article Biofascism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * neologism and NPOV

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I was not the one who PRODded the article, but I noticed that you hadn't been given a prodwarning. Tomas e (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness in category names
Hello again, when I had a quick look at your edit history I found additional things that made me frown. You created Category:Female mathematicians, despite being fully aware of the existence of Category:Women mathematicians. If you are unhappy with the name of a category, you should bring it up on Categories for discussion, not create a parallell category. And specifically, the argument "the name woman mathematician is not politically correct", as you wrote in this edit is not a valid or convincing reason for renaming a category. Please refer to WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you very much for the information. However, when I created it I did not know of the existence of the other for the simple reason that two female mathematicians were not included in any category, not even in Women mathematicians. That is why I created the new one. When I decided to include some cannonic list of female mathematicians in my new category it appeared that the 3rd mathematician was in the Women mathematicians. I still think the name is politically incorrect, but I don't have time for large discussions about this. I hope someone will pay attention in the discussion page, becuase it is a long history of discrimination through language on female mathematicians. And, of course I myself am not able to turn the direction, and Wiki is not the place for it. I just found out some mathematicians, female, were not mentioned as mathematiians at all (although somehow included with issues) in wiki, not included in the already existing category, etc., and tried to remedy the situation. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, although I would like to point out to you that this edit was made by you to Category talk:Women mathematicians, so I'm surprised to know you didn't know about the very same category's existence! Tomas e (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Homeopathic remedies
Category:Homeopathic remedies, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination in scientific talk page
He, In 21 July 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim32#Racism_in_Wikipedia you wrote: "I saw you wrote in WikiProject Discrimination talk page that you suspect racism and discrimination in Wikipedia. I am on a search on the same topic." Please, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Graph_isomorphism --Tim32 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Homeopathic Materia Medica for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homeopathic Materia Medica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Homeopathic Materia Medica& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 13:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)