User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive 4

Strange
Xxanthippe, your user is marked for proposed deletion, by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users. — Prenote • (talk) 12:40, 03 September 2017 (UTC+1)
 * Thanks for your concern but you might like to check who put the template there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC).

Dummies guide to archiving my talk page
1. Open the talk page for edit.

2. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive N" where N is the Nth archive.

3. When search tells you that this page does not exist create it by clicking on the red link.

4. Copy the contents of your talk page into this archive and add ((archives|auto=yes|search=yes|)) as the first line [replacing the brackets with {} ].

5. Save this archive and delete the transferred material from current talk page. Finished. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC).

Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (3rd nomination)
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Page was kept unanimously. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC).

Deletion review
I am notifying everyone who took part in the AFD discussion on Daniel Romanovsky. Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have contributed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

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

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

AfD
You chimed in at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) so I thought you might be interested to know the page under discussion has now been nominated for deletion. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 13:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sure that my esteemed colleagues will come to a sensible conclusion without my participation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

Lewis Carroll
Look at the edit history. I was reverting back to your version - somebody else had changed it away from the referenced wording. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC).

Paul G. King
In the AFD for this article you said that an h-index of 16 is enough to meet WP:PROF. That seems hard for me to believe; I was under the impression it had to be at least in the mid 20s to meet the "highly cited" aspect of that criterion. Is the bar lower for chemistry (I don't work much in that area) than in biology/medicine? Everymorning (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations vary according to field. There is much discussion of this in the archives of WP:Prof talk. An h-index 16 is probably at the lower limit for chemistry but the fringe activities add to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

Women in Red
Thanks for joining Women in Red. I see you are a seasoned editor but if you run into any difficulties or need assistance on anything, please feel free to contact me whenever you wish.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will call upon you if needed. My best wishes for your project. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

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

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Seeking feedback on new article
Hello, I recently posted a new article on my employer’s company, Spredfast. I now see that there was a previous article, deleted in May in a discussion you took part in. I understand that I have a COI. However, I believe with this new version I have closely followed Wikipedia’s editing guidelines and that the article is written in a neutral tone and is supported with credible references. If you're able to take a look, I would appreciate feedback. Bthoma (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is paid commercial junk and will not be getting any support from me. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * After having been called by you here incompetent and corrupt, you now accuse me of Stalking because I made one edit to a topic that I have been involved with previously and which is therefore on my watch list. Your claim that I never edited the article before is false.
 * Recently, an experienced editor has accused you of disruptive editing on the thread Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). I supported his charge but you chose to remove my statement.
 * There are many complaints about your conduct on your talk page. I see from your edit history that you already have blocks for WP:Civil, WP:Outing and WP:Edit warring. If you do not mend your ways and learn to edit within Wikipedia consensus you may find yourself facing more of them.  Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
 * I warned you not to start hounding me. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!
I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not waste my time with any more of this material, which I am advised you have put on the talk pages of 50 users. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

Editing your comments
Just letting you know it may not be best to add to your comments after someone replies to you in order to avoid confusion. Actually, it's discouraged per WP:REDACT.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 00:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in general but I am not sure which edit you are referring to. Is it the one above? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC).
 * I decided to post here when I noticed you added a sentence (something about one admin already being ready to block) to a comment you'd made over on that gender RfC (the policy one, not the MOS one).  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 11:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Point taken and acted on. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Alain de Botton
His last name's capitalized at the start of the very next paragraph down, so I was just matching that. What source is needed on this?Mcc1789 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess some sort of style policy. Certainly, usage should be uniform. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Comment
Saw your comment at Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_12. Based on past experience, it appears clear that the initiator of the DR does not have a COI in the matter (not that I agree with them). Per AGF, it may be better to remove that portion of the comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have given what I hope is an adequate reply on the DRV page. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC).

Advice before nominating
Would you take a look at this page - Kirk B. Jensen. I intend to nominate it for AfD. However I am not sure if he satisfies any of the criteria for WP:NPROF, which generally results in a keep. Your votes are largely consistent with the outcomes, and I would love to know from you about the chances for its deletion.  Jupitus Smart  04:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I know nothing about the field of administrative medicine. Probably borderline. There is lower-hanging fruit to be found.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Well thanks for looking anyway.  Jupitus Smart  08:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD nomination
Hi, thanks for your comment on my AfD nomination. You wrote that my nomination seems overly hostile. Can you tell me which parts strike you as hostile? I'm happy to modify the nomination accordingly, provided that is permitted. I am also not sure what additional detail you would like to see. (Let me note that I had not seen WP:NPROF before nominating this AfD and I am unfamiliar with the standard practice in such cases.) --Rhombus (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Readers can judge for themselves. You might like to read my comment above about lower-hanging fruit. Please carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

Feynman diagrams
Why "citatio not needed"?

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

PS I notice the Wikipedia line is quoted verbatim by some jouralists in some recent expository articles in New Scientist magazine and elsewhere so it should matter to get it right. And it *can't* be OK to use a source which in turn had just quoted the Wikipedia article(!) in the first place. If it is beyond question that the diagrams have given an correct ab initio value of some constant somewhere I am not too worried, but is this just an anecdote or is it established in reliable sources.Createangelos (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source. You might like to take your concerns to the physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC).


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


 * Well, I could not find any physics noticeboard, so I copied your comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Loops_of_reference.3F, hope that is OK. You succinctly stated the main worry that Wikipedia itself may serve as a reliable source for the New Scientist article as far as I know.Createangelos (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC).

Articles for deletion/Peter Crawley (headmaster)
Hi, I not sure if you remember but you were a "keep" on this AfD in 2011. Crawley has continued to be a notable as an educationalist and has now retired as a Headmaster. This article in The Australian and this one about his Honorary Doctorate suggests that his notability is now above dispute. Is there a way of having this bio retrieved? I would appreciate your assistance. Castlemate (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take it up with the closer. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

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

September 2017 at Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October editathon invitation
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You may be interested in this discussion
Hello, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination).  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 03:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

John Wallis
The "clergyman and" and the category that I added were based on other parts of the article. According to the references, part of the article was derived from, which says that he took orders (see Holy Orders), so please don't remove "clergyman and." If you don't think the Westminster category should be there, please also remove its mention from the text. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have placed this thread on the Wallis talk page. Please see the note at the top of my own talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC).

User:Chris troutman
. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
 * ? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace
Why is the clarification necessary? Who else would the titles and styles including her name be for? -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  22:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because she was entitled to use different titles and styles at different times. Please see Note 1 above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC).

Correction to my edit summary
In my recent revert at Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist) I said "ask Jytdog" I meant to write "ask the IP who wrote the comment that you were trying to remove" Tornado chaser (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Note 1 above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC).
 * What is note 1 and where is it? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First item in Contents. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Do you mean the part of your talk page that says to discuss article content on the article talk page? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

new development in the Aharanov-Bohm Effect
Dear Xxanthippe, You blocked an addition I made to the article on the Aharanov-Bohm Effect, and said that one should not post "original research". It is neither my own work nor original. It is not my work, but that of Rizzi and Pearle. It is no original (in the sense of unpublished) because their two papers were published in Physical Review A recently. So your reason for blocking it seems to be unfounded. Please allow me to add this information to the article as it is important and timely. I will update the text to make it even more clear than before that it is not my own and not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.128.227 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Best regards, Murray Daw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murraydaw (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please will you and your sock stop bothering my talk page and follow note 1 at the top. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC).

Chemical potential
Hi Xxanthippe, please read the discussion page on chemical potential. --Biggerj1 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. I will leave solution chemistry to editors with a higher tolerance of boredom than myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC).
 * ;) Hehe --Biggerj1 (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ANI Post
Hey, can you repost your comment on ANI? Your edit here removed a number of comments by other editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry. I don't know what happened. I will leave correction to your expertise. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Unsourced styles
Your comment on my Talk page was both logically flawed and patently ridiculous. I am removing completely unsourced information and you are complaining that my changes are inadequately sourced. Just think about that a little. . . you demanding that I source the absence of information. Agricolae (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for seeming patently ridiculous for my edits on the Ada Lovelace page. All the information there is sourced from biographies and compendia of title usage: see thepeerage.com etc. Please do not continue with your mass edits until consensus is established. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC).
 * It is not your edit to the Ada Lovelace page that is ridiculous - it just violated policy regarding tags. Your insistence on my Talk page that I must have a source for the removal of unsourced material - that is a different story.  The information I removed was completely lacking in citation, and remains so.  Oh, and note that though such sources are convenient, self-published web compendia like thepeerage.com are not Agricolae (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Aharonov–Bohm effect. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  21:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have used the talk page, your suggestion of the project noticeboard is useful though. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Also: Talk:Aharonov–Bohm effect
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science
 * User talk:Murraydaw
 * User talk:EdJohnston

Psychometrics task force
Hi Xxanthippe,

User:Everymorning and I are working on creating a psychometrics task force in the psychology wikiproject, which we're hoping will help to maintain Wikipedia's articles related to personality and intelligence. Our goals for this task force are discussed here: It's been a long time since you and I last interacted with one another, but I remember you having been a helpful editor on these articles years ago, and I'd find it valuable to have you as a member of the task force. Are you interested? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation but I don't have enough technical knowledge of the subject to be able to contribute to it usefully. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC).

Question about academic notability
I was thinking of creating an article about Jeffrey Milyo, but I wasn't sure if his h-index of 26 was high enough to meet WP:PROF in his field (economics). What do you think? Every morning  (there's a halo...)  23:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With 11 publications with over 100 cites each it ought to pass WP:Prof, but others might disagree. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

Invitation to WikiProject Portals
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,   &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's  going International. To make this event a grant success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)