Xxanthippe

Help:Archiving a 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).Reply

I realize that it has now been nearly 2 years since the event I'm talking about, but you reverted my addition (here: [1]) with the claim that this was unsourced. I had seen the film prior to making my edit, and I have watched the film at least twice since then, and I still can't find any evidence that any other vampire appearing in the film shares an ability similar to Eve's (i.e. the ability to identify the relative age of an object). Therefore it stands to reason that my edit is valid, as my source is the film itself. That said, in retrospect it's probably an extraneous detail that may be unnecessary for a plot summary, so instead of calling my edit "unsourced," for what it's worth, I think it would have been more reasonable to suggest that it was contributing to excess detail in a plot summary.Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you take the matter to the talk page, as many people have edited the article in the last two years. You could also start a RfC. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

You're not a new editor, so you should seriously know better. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   11:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Thank you for your thanks so graciously expressed. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC).Reply

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

 

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The placing of the above template on this page may be related to these links [2] [3]. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC).Reply

You can treat the notice as some kind of combative thing, or you can be mindful of it. If you keep editing in violation of PSCI you will end up topic banned from editing such topics. Everybody chooses their own path here. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

And I see that you have put three templates [4] on the talk page of another contributor to the RfC. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC).Reply

• Comment. User:Jytdog has been indefinitely blocked [5] from editing Wikipedia by the WP:Arbitration Committee. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an Arbitration Committee case about his conduct Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

The case resulted in User:Jytdog being indefinitely site banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

Just adding a reminder here that J. K. Rowling is also under discretionary sanctions (I can't tell if you have already been notified: my apologies if you have). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As I stated in my edit summary, the recently (some days ago) added content does not have any source. I have asked the editor who added it to provide sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response a ^{[citation needed]} notice is helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC).Reply

The cn tag is ususally used for unsourced content that has been in the article since a relatively long time. Very recently added content should preferably be removed. Otherwise Wikipedia would be flooded with cn tags. In this specific case, I leave the solution up to you. Do what you feel is better. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks: the material seems well-sourced in the Meyer reference. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC).Reply

Can you provide the relevant page and quote? Before the text I removed is a sentence added by the same editor. That sentence has a source, Meyer page 132. I checked Meyer on GBs and on that page Wogar is not mentioned. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The extract that you want to delete: Much of this centers around his identify as there are many discrepancies regarding the identify of Wongar in the forewords of his books. In his book "The Track to Bralgu'" the foreword mentions that the author B. Wongar is part Aborigine, while in his book "The Sinners", the foreword mentions that the author B. Wongar is in fact a mixed race American Vietnam veteran seems to me to be a fair synopsis from Meyer's well-sourced PhD thesis on these literary frauds. I suggest you take the matter up with the person who first inserted the material into the article. I have transferred this thread from my talk page to the B. Wongar talk page, which is its proper home. See the note at the top of my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC).Reply

I do not want to add or delete anything. I only want to make sure all of content of Wikipedia is sourced to reliable sources. If you can not not provide sources, including the correct pages and quotes, do not add content again. It is disruptive no matter your good will. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rajendra Rathore (chemist) manages to pass NACADEMIC. It'll be interesting to learn your take(s).......∯WBG^converse 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The easy way is to take a look at his citation profile on Google scholar. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC).Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion

Your act was a pure act of vandalism and malice... your claim proposal was 100% ungrounded and done for your personal reasons. You are holding a vendetta on me and I will not play your game. You have been warned.

Markoulw (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is the diff[ [6]. I have no personal reasons relevant to you. Please do not issue threats against me. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC).Reply

I note that the articles that you wrote have been deleted at AfD and that you have been banned as a sockpuppet. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC).Reply

Take this as official - do not post again on my talk page. Even to add a link or correct a typo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "official"? Do you mean policy-based or a personal request? In the edit that you deleted [7] from this [8] thread, and which I copy below for reference, I offered a solution for ending this time-wasting to and fro. I am sorry that you ignored it but continued to present false information about the matter here [9]. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC).Reply

@User:Kudpung. From looking at this edit[10] I have concluded that you have been harassing me in an attempt, possibly in your mind, to earn Brownie points from the Women in Red project by attacking what you suppose to be a critic of them. Now that you have had a bust-up [11][12] with that project I hope that you will stop harassing me with further personal attacks and threats including instructing me toPipe down [13]. It's a bit rich to be told you are a misogynist by somebody who makes an edit so sexist [14] that a woman user asks for it to be changed for future use[15]. Your response to her request was not gracious. See also [16]. I found this[17] edit to be particularly incongruous: when you were whining about admin-baiting while simultaneously making personal attacks and threats against me. Here[18] you ask me to give your talk page a "permanent pass". I will be happy to oblige provided that you stop making personal attacks and threats against me either explicitly or implicitly. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC).Reply

• Pardon my intrusion but I feel that you're badgering. This is not productive. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your intrusion is welcome. I am finding that this matter is a vast waste of time. I have made a proposal to end it which has been ignored. I would like it to stop if the badgering of myself (like being told to "pipe down") stops too. If false claims about me are made[19] I feel that I am entitled to respond. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Knock it off, and dial down this completely unnecessary dispute, Xxanthippe. You are skating on very thin ice. Try silence instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is a good suggestion. I hope you will urge it on the other people involved. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC).Reply

My suggestion applies to everyone involved in this and similar disputes, and I will repeat my advice wherever I conclude that it will be useful. I will remain silent while observing the situation elsewhere if I do not believe that my comments would be helpful, but I will remember. I noticed this thread, and this is where I have chosen to comment at this time. Please retreat from the confrontation. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Cullen³²⁸. Was this pile-on threat really necessary? I see that another editor commented on your even-handedness in the matter.[20] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC).Reply

• Xxanthippe, you will be blocked very quickly if you refactor other user's posts to change the meaning. See WP:TPO. I have reverted it. You are welcome to remove posts from your talk page if you don't like them. FYI Cullen328. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. Maybe a double heading would have been more appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC).Reply

Comment: Following the debacle of his editorship of Signpost Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ceased to be an administrator on 16 August 2018.[21] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

and was later resysoped without community discussion [22] on 26 October 2018. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC).Reply

Kundpung's behavior led to a complain about harassment at AN/I [23] and an Arbitration request [24]

Complaints about Kudpung's behavior had been made at AN/I before 2015, 2017, 2018 but dismissed without action.

As a result of the arbitration of 2020 Kudpung's position as an administrator of Wikipedia was terminated on 29 February 2020. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

You had !voted at an RfC. I withdrew and restated it. See RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

In response to objections, I struck the two year mortatorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just thought it would be interesting to know. I guess not, eh? WQUlrich (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to explain. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

Hi there, Have you checked my earlier copyedit to Ada Lovelace yet? As you reverted it, I thought I'd give you time to come back to me on it, but haven't heard anything from you yet. Please give me some feedback. As I stated in my follow-on edit, I'm a proofreader/copyeditor by profession, so I'm basically interested in improving the text and presentation of wiki articles. Ada Lovelace has been in the local news a lot lately as the people of Nottinghamshire are campaigning to get her on the £50 note, hence my current quest to improve her article. You should be able to see from my previous edits over the past couple of weeks that I can be trusted! So if you're not happy with my entire copyedit of the Early life section, then would you rather I did it in small stages (more transparent but also rather tedious)? By the way, I arranged for the article to be semi-protected for the next 3 months as it was being plagued by IP vandalism. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor who is challenged after making substantial edits to an important and well-established article should follow WP:BRD and discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, not here: see the top of this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC).Reply

You're the only person who's objected to my edits so I wanted to open a personal dialog with yourself, but failing that I will proceed more cautiously. I don't see the point in opening up a discussion on the Ada talk page that would basically just say: Any objections to me improving this article? What would be the point in that!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The point is that it would be consistent with WP:BRD. There are many other watchers of the page apart from you and I. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC).Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Greetings,

I'm sorry but I have to insist. This article - and many others as well - make a bad confusion between the two notions of lattice and structure. A lattice is an abstraction that represents the periodicity of a crystal structure. Atomic positions in the unit cell can be anywhere, not only on lattice nodes. This is something that many non specialists get wrong, unfortunately. Mahlerite (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Me again. am I getting it right that you do not care to reply? I'm going to post in the discussion page of the article, before correcting it again. Regards. --Mahlerite (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing me to the PROD page to nominate an article for deletion (Antibodies from lymphocyte secretions). It turns out the author has many other pages in the process of deletion, so I feel validated!Logophile59 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in (EN-WP) / Opt-in (international) / Unsubscribe

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

A heads up that you have broken link to WP:PROF#C1 in your !vote at WP:Articles for deletion/Danai Koutra. If it were in an article, I'd fix it for you but I never feel comfortable editing somebody's talk page or AfD comments. Btw, I appreciate your willingness to consider new information. Msnicki (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thx. Fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC).Reply

 

Hi Xxanthippe! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 03:49, Friday, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

• removal of copyright violation notice

When the charge is that the content is in violation of our copyright policy, a notability criterion is not relevant. Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Copyright is nothing to do with AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC).Reply
  • What you did had nothing to do with AFD. Why did you remove a copyright violation speedy deletion notice claiming a notability criterion as justification for doing so? Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

[25]

I have no idea what thing did you intent to test, but the namespace 1 pages of actual articles would do better without Twinkle rubbish. Go elsewhere with it, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia[26] because of persistent incivility. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

You blanket reverted ALL of my edits without providing any indication what you are objecting to or why. Please state your reasons or at least which edits you are objecting to. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please follow Wikipedia procedure WP:BRD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

Okay, I will post my question on the article talk page. If I don't get an answer there, I guess you have no objection. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Posted on talk page of Joan of Arc: Thank you for following WP:BRD and bringing a discussion to the talk page. User:Str1977 has made 6 consecutive edits to Joan of Arc, 4 without edit summaries and 1 with an incomprehensible edit summary. His edits seem mainly to be changing Roman Catholic to Catholic and coronation to anointed. There may be theological issues of WP:POV here and the changes in this sensitive area need to be justified by sources. User:Str1977 may like to open an RfC in Portal:Catholicism or elsewhere. Under WP:CAUTIOUS it the responsibility of the changer of an article to justify their changes. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Removing unsigned comments on talk pages is not "edit warring." Akmal94 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Policy please. I note accusations of continual edit warring on your talk [page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC).Reply

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

My apology for misunderstanding. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this edit on 26 July

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Jacobson&diff=908025185&oldid=907950358

I am having a lot of trouble with the user Jontel, as it is clear from their edits that they are a member of the hard left and are removing (or at least attempting to minimise) all criticism of the Labour Party over the well-documented antisemitism issue. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, and the same to you. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

 

 

 

 

Hello Xxanthippe: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hi Xxanthippe, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

Hello. In regards to Moberly–Jourdain incident, I was going by Talk:Moberly–Jourdain incident. As it's currently a GA, the icon shouldn't be removed. If you feel that it no longer passes GA, feel free to do another Good Article Reassessment. However, this article is currently GA unless it get delisted. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please make your comments on the talk page of the article concerned (as above). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to add a thank you for your contribution on that case. I had exactly the same responses hearing about the ban and potential return. He was absolutely a bully who seemed to believe he was king of Wikipedia and that his contributions were more valuable than dozens of other editors combined. I deeply appreciated hearing that someone else recognized it too. It was brave of someone still editing. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jenhawk777. Is your comment about the recently defrocked Kudpung or about Jytdog? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

Jytdog! I'm sorry--I had no idea you were connected to two of them. You're even tougher than I thought!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment. It is a sad state of affairs that users need to be "tough" to raise questions about abusive editing. I am afraid that there are coteries of mutually supporting bullies on Wikipedia. One way they acquire allies is by grooming suitable editors. They focus on an editor and suggest that they support that editor for RfA. If the RfA is successful a client relationship is established and, like the Mafia, favors may be called in when required. Also, like the Mafia, no trace of collusion is left behind. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

I suspected collusion. I tried going to arbitration once and Jytdog told me--in other terms--that he had people who protected him. He warned me I would never win an arbitration case against him and he was right. I wish I could find that, but I think it was in a personal email. He wanted my email address so he could send me materials and references he had. I didn't know why he couldn't do that here, but as long as that was all he did, I didn't mind. He did send me some good material too. I included it in what I was working on. He could be nice at times--and then he would stab you in the back. I never attempted arbitration again. I did go to one administrator and ask to be banned from interaction with Jytdog, but he said it didn't work that way! I am not as strong as you are I guess. Jytdog eventually ran me completely off of Wikipedia. I admire you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is there a chance you have unintentionally misspelled your user name in the section title? --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

It looks like it. Correction made. Thanks for the alert. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC).Reply

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports!   Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hello,

I've wanted to notify that I've re-added the some of recent content on surface plasmons back to the Abraham–Lorentz force article. I think my recent additions got mixed up with a previous edit that used Arxiv as a source; the content on surface plasmons cited highly cited papers from reliable, peer-reviewed journals.

The best, Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

O.K. I can make mistakes. I was editing rather heavily today. I will look at the previous edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Your comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision are unnecessary and inflaming. The gender thing is completely unfounded and provocative. RHaworth isn't female but he was desysoped. What's the point of bringing up "venue of the 2020 Wikimania" which has now spilled WP:BEANS and is potentially jeopardizing Kudpung's participation in it because he is now aware of it due to your comment? I had to spell it out for you lest more redundancies. Sad Boy Jesus (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

To 1 edit Spa and presumed sock puppet (please correct if wrong): How so? The banner for Wikimania 2020 has been on Kudpung's talk page for weeks. Have you edited under any other user name? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Comment: User:Kudpung's privileges as an administrator were revoked as a result of the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC).Reply

Sad Boy Jesus may have been blocked,and correctly so, by TonyBallioni as a sock, but he is perfectly right. Do you never give up? FWIW, I may be retired but I'm watching... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159 Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.       Online events: New: Art+Activists & Folklore / Aviation / Great Britain & Ireland Photo and image initiative: #VisibleWikiWomen photo initiative Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hole Xanthippe, you recently reverted my reference request at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Nightingale&oldid=prev&diff=945774488&diffmode=visual , saying that it was referenced below. But the reference at the end of the sentence does not mention media exaggeration, let alone particular recent commentators. Maybe it's referenced much further down somewhere, but if so, that reference should be duplicated up. Or perhaps the sentence should be re-writted to more adequately represent the claims in the reference? Cheers -- naught101 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment (Hole?!). It seems to me that the last two sections of Bostridge's 2011 article imply this notion. It would be better to discuss this matter on the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

This is friendly advice rather than a formal warning but your recent contributions on user talk pages have not been conducive to writing an encyclopaedia. I strongly suggest you stop behaving in a manner that could be taken as antagonising other editors, and focus on the mainspace. Nothing good lies down the path you're currently on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I presume that you refer to this [27] thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

I read your comment as a passive/agressive threat. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

To clarify: On 24 March 2020 administrator Ritchie333 doubled up[28] on an earlier unsigned allegation he made[29], and asserted (about me) that you were being annoying and disruptive towards ****. The opinion of the editor that Ritchie333 named is here: [30]. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

• Kudos to HJ Mitchell for spelling out a few home truths. Are you going to try and get him desysoped too for offering some polite advice? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proverbs 26:11 Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

Of late I have been subjected to dozens of login attacks, so if my edits suddenly become odder than usual, take note. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166 May offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Healthcare / Women and their animals / Marys and Mays/ Geofocus Central & Eastern Europe Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

As one of the few Wikipedians who weren't blatantly canvassed to AfD/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, I wondered if you see benefit in re-opening this case, or whether we should just let it go. While I do believe that WP:SELFPROMO by proxy shouldn't be rewarded, I'm actually hesitant to re-open an AfD since the same chaos is almost inevitably going to repeat. --bender235 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If the AfD were to be reopened I expect that I would contribute. Please ping me if it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

I'll keep it in mind. In the meantime, there's a discussion at VPP about whether certain changes to the AfD process could prevent a similar chaos in the future. In case you can think of a solution, because I'm actually struggling with it. --bender235 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello I'm Cameron11598 and I am a clerk for the arbitration committee. I recently removed your statement from the JzG Request for Arbitration, as they violated our policy on Personal Attacks and Civility. If you'd like to post a statement please do so without calling one's faith into question, additionally you will need to support your claims in the form of diffs. Failure to do so will result in your statement being removed again. Please keep in mind that all editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so. I am also required by our procedures to warn you that arbitration clerks are authorized by the arbitration policy and ArbCom precedent to sanction users for conduct on arbitration pages, including by blocks and topic bans from Arbitration Committee pages. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I take note of your comment. I have submitted another statement to ArbCom that I hope meets with your approval. Please let me know if it does not. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173 Online events: New: July Julies / Disability / Women from Where? ... and starting for an extended period: BLM/Anti-discrimination Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

I've listed 4 non-fiction books demanded as recommanded. Is it now ok? Can you change your decision, opinion, ...not to delete please?! Can I ask you to get my mentor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roman_Retzbach --YvesMe (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The BLP has been deleted at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi Xxanthippe! I saw your comment on the AFD for Alyssa Carson, where you suggest it might be an attack page. I was trying to update the article to have a neutral POV. Did I do something wrong here? Everything is sourced. If you can explain or make suggestions that would be great. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. I have no problem with your edits or the current state of the BLP, which I now read as NPOV. I certainly do not think that the BLP was created as an attack page in any deliberate sense. But by the intrinsic nature of the material it contains it just reads as one. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

@Xxanthippe: thanks. I think I see what you are saying, but I guess you mean something along the lines of it providing derogatory information that does not fall within the scope of an attack page, which would exist purely as a derogatory page. The information about NASA disclaiming any connection is all out there and well documented at Politifact and Snopes. There are also a number other corrections that are not in the article, for example this one from Vt.co: "On 5th July, we published this story suggesting that a 17-year-old girl was being trained by NASA to travel to Mars. This story was published in error, and it has since been reported by The Weekly Standard that the girl in question, is not, in fact, affiliated with NASA, as confirmed by a spokesperson for the administration. There is a rigorous process in place and set of requirements in place for anyone hoping to become a NASA astronaut, which can be viewed on their website. At VT we take false news stories very seriously and unreservedly apologize to all of our readers for this lapse in editorial standards." Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, I am not suggesting any deliberate attack by anybody. Thank you for the extra information. I suggest you add it to the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

I undid this edit; it's not really fair to substantially change a comment that has been replied to, and then add an indent. The fair thing to do is add it as an indented followup to your original comment. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. It just seemed the most convenient place for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

yeah I felt a little bad reverting that, but it wasn't proper to edit it after the fact. Just add an indented item below it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Xxanthippe. I understand you may see this as further badgering but I feel as though we ended our AfD discussion on a toxic note and that any further contributions I may make to it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggie Zed would only worsen the tone of the debate. I apologize for any badgering and any time-wasting I have done. Also, this particular conversation has more to do with WikiEttiquette than that particular BLP. Feel free to ignore this message if you feel as though it is a continuation of my "badgering" behaviour.

My intention in our AfD discussion was to get you to address the sources I had previously listed and say why they did not constitute sufficient sourcing to meet WP:BASIC. I felt that your !vote was just a vote with WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You said that your reasons were given above, but you never gave any reasoning that wasn't just listing policies. I felt that this not proper AfD ettiquette. As a newish editor, I strive to follow WP:GOODARG when contributing to AfD discussions. I felt as though you were not following WP:PERPOL by not explicitly stating why you felt that the article did not meet WP:BASIC. I am sorry if you felt as though my attempts to get you to explicitly state your reasoning were badgering or harassment. I understand that assessing !votes is not my job as I am not closing the AfD but I do feel an obligation to engage in discussions to keep AfDs productive.

I admit that I did get a little snarky in my first response as I felt your "advice" was an attempt to undercut my interpretations of AfD policies by referencing the fact that I have only been editing Wikipedia for 5 months. I am sorry for any snark and now realize that it was inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion to comment in any way other than to ask you to clarify your !vote. If I offended you in any way, know that this way not my intention.

Apologies for further wasting your time. I do not expect you to return to the AfD to make the clarifications I have requested nor do I expect any reply to this message. I wish you all the best and hope that in the future you will strive to give reasoning in your own words as to why certain policies are relevant. Samsmachado (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aggie Zed has been deleted Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly‎ 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)‎ 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the alert. I wish other editors were as conscientious as you. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

 

Hello, Xxanthippe! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed talk! 12:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for checking my modifications of the page on Literary_realism. Of course you're right, and we need references. I added two. I hope this will be accepted :)

Skater00 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebration: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Proust did not consider himself jewish and was proud of his certificates of baptism and confirmation (source) [31] He s only of 50% jewish ancestry so "lgbt jews" must go. Also, his partial jewish ancestry is covered under "french people of jewish descent" and he was Baptized Catholic. I don’t understand why you can’t grasp this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.9.203 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia works by consensus. Please obtain consensus on the talk page of the article for any edit you propose according to WP:BRD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC).Reply

No. WP:BRD is optional, but i'll humor you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.9.208 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Consensus is not optional. I see that another user has reverted your edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC).Reply

Hi, it looks like WMF is going ahead with "IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation". You said something about it in the comments section of The Signpost (March "By the Numbers"). I'd like to invite you to read over the recent proposal and if possible, write some thoughts that I could include in an analysis. Our writing deadline is Saturday, so if you could do it during the week that would be great for the upcoming issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Re: Fermi energy, what is the subject of the sentence? If "a group", the verb should be in the singular form (obeys), which makes the sentence even more awkward. Further, when enumerating *types* of members of a group, each should be singular, I believe. E.g., "Mammals (for example, lion, bear, horse) are animals that ...". --Evgeny (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

See the top of this page. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Dear Xxanthippe, reacting on your recent reverts on Richard Dedekind and Ronald Graham, is the Scholia box considered as spam/unwanted among Wikipedia community? If it is at the moment, what about in the future, could the attitude change? Personally, I consider it interesting and there're supporting tools that manage the underlying Wikidata database. Thank you in advance for any reaction. --PKalnai (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

You will have to produce evidence that Scholia is accepted as a RS of merit unless you want your edits to be regarded as mass spamming. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

I don't see how this is spam. Scholia is a wikidata project developed by fnielsen, Daniel Mietchen, and bluerasberry, among others. It doesn't look like any of PKalnai's additions are using it as a source. He's adding it as a relevant external link, the same way we link to other sister projects like Commons categories, Wikiquote, etc. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

(I am one of the developers) I am unsure what RS. I think it means "reliable source". Scholia gets data from Wikidata and that is not a reliable source, but hopefully it is somewhat of a knowledgeable source. We strieve to make Scholia accessible, useful, informative, factual and strieve to make it remain so (quoting "What to link"). Hopefully it can be regarded as "links to be considered", particular "links to finding aids" and "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." — fnielsen (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Scholia is part of the Wikimedia ecosystem and hosted in Wikimedia servers. It presents content from meta:Wikicite, which is a broad initiative to make citations and source metadata more accessible.

Sometimes Wikipedia articles about scientists contain a bibliography, which is typically some editor's choice of a few of their publications. In comparison, Scholia presents a machine-generated list of the publications. When the data is available, Scholia also sorts the articles by most cited and topic.

Scholia is not supposed to be a source to cite, but is just a list of publications for an author. Of course I do not want the project to disturb anyone, but also I think it is a reasonable addition to connect biographies of scientists to their publications. One way that I could explain it is that Wikicite is a project to neatly organize all citations for Wikipedia, and Scholia is a project to browse those citations. I could say more if anyone asked questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Xxanthippe, Concerning your recent reverts on Marcel Proust#Further reading. [32] 1) Jozef Czapski's Lost Time, like Celeste Albaret's Monsieur Proust, is published by New York Review Books. See title page of either book. (The New York Review of Books is a periodical.) 2) What does "source needs improving" mean? Please explain. Hunu (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Date and page at least so readers can verify the source (if they can get past the paywall). Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

• Czapski, Józef (2018) Lost Time. Lectures on Proust in a Soviet Prison Camp. New York: New York Review Books. 90 pp. ISBN 978-1-68137-258-7 I included both the date of this NYRB title and the number of pages.Hunu (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

• Observer effect (physics):

I looked at all the online, accessible sources in the article myself, and couldn't find anything supporting the statements in Electronics. Though source 2 mentions a thermometer, it doesn't say anything about mercury thermometers as claimed in the article. Regardless, I believe these sections require inline citations, whether or not the sources are in the article. Yes, I did attempt to source these myself, but I have yet to find an accessible and reliable scholarly source for these two. In the meantime, I feel CN should be used to indicate that the sourcing for these claims is unclear. It also baffles me that if the article's sources do support the text in question, then why weren't inline citations used in those sections in the first place like everywhere else in the article?

• Measurement problem:

Same as before, all I wanted to point out was that the entire section has no inline citations, in contrast to the other sections. I certainly have found a few sources in the article that do support the claims, but if so, why weren't these cited in text for both reader's and editor's convenience?

In the end, I'll defer to you on any sourcing/citing choices, since you seem to have much more active involvement and experience in these articles than I do. However, I do want to bring these idiosyncrasies to your attention. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making the effort. Many cn warriors don't. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

Hi Xxanthippe! I'm really sorry to have edit warred with you, but I'm hoping this can clarify the issue. The primary problem is taht we can;t use a self-published source for claims about a living person who is not the author of the SPS. Gorski largely publishes in two forums - one is his personal blog (Respectful Insolence) which is an SPS and the source of this claim (from Gorski, anyway) and the other is the group blog, Science-Based Medicine. The latter is debatable, but I think most editing in the fringe area will argue that it is not self-published, as there are multiple editors (one of whom is Gorski), so I'm going with that. The problem is that we cannot use an SPS at all here, so if Gorski was teh only source we couldn;t cover the claims. However, Gorski is directly quoting Martin, and Brull also directly quotes Martin for the same claims. Thus Brull's article is a fair substitute, and in fact makes more sense, given that the wording was "Brull reports that according to supervisor Brian Martin, Wilyman's thesis makes four major points", which makes it even more odd that we're using Gorski to source it, giving that we're saying the the source is Martin via Brull. :) In the normal course of events I'd just quote Martin directly, but as in this article it is better to use secondary sources, so Brull it is. I've added in the direct quote from Martin, though, in the hope it makes things clearer.

It is an ugly mess, as this would be much easier to fix on other articles, but here we're stuck with it. Such is editing in this area. Sorry that you had to get caught up in it. - Bilby (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

btw, I've always loved your choice of username. :) I read Xanth as a teenager, and was intrigued by the possible connection to Xxanthippe, which then connected again when I was studying philosophy. It was very neat to see your username turn up the first time. - Bilby (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. I do not think that any of Gorski's blogs can be considered reliable enough for Wikipedia. He has too much editorial control over what he writes. There are plenty of impeccable sources that critique Wilyman's work and more are superfluous. Supporting an argument with a flaky source does not enhance the argument, it diminishes it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

She seems to have left Rotterdam as a small child. It doesnt appear to be defining that she was born there. And its not clear that she was of Dutch nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Louisa left Rotterdam as a small child but her childhood memories of it left a lasting influence on her adult writing, as you will see from Chapter 2 of the Cooper biography. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC).Reply

Note: Rathfelder has been site-banned from Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208 Online events: New: Women writers & their works Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

I misunderstood your "semi" meaning semicolon. You were right, but I think the required fix is not reversion, it is a sentence break. You reverted while I was adding important information to the list of creations inspired by Joan; that confused me. Zaslav (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Re your reverting of my additions to the lede. The appeal of the book had just as much to do with the explanations as it did with the event itself - which is why they rightly occupy a quarter of the article. I would have thought that a couple of sentences about them in the lede would have been appropriate and proportionate. Valetude (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm VQuakr. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Classical electromagnetism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply