User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive 3

Not clear why you reverted that one? I understand there is an agenda-based attack on him, but this particular edit was valid. I tagged the article with citation needed; the WP:GNG quick-delete or AfD will be rejected (WP:SNOW), but the lack of secondary sources is more of a problem. I will try to dig some up and post them on the talk page, but somebody else will have to add the material in; I am busy on a bunch of psych. articles. Churn and change (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The point is moot now. Somebody added an edit mentioning Krosnick was a courtesy faculty in psych. and you undid it. But the article is deleted now, so doesn't matter. Churn and change (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been a contributor to this article and so I am notifying you that a vote for consensus is currently ocurring on the main A vote for consensus on Lead in main article. Would you please look here and vote as you see fit? Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I guess you are referring to Talk:Hundred Years' War. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC).

I have made a comment there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC).

I re-created the first paragraph in the lead with your comments in mind, and if you wish to add, detract and/or comment, that would be great. I am told by an editor who knows how to use some of the "Wiki tools" on readability scores, that the new paragraph already holds a higher rating then the previous one, so it would seem we were correct in our assessment. Mugginsx (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to take out the second paragraph. I am sorry because I know that you liked it but it was copied word for word from http://www.slideshare.net/e007534/the-hundred-years-war . Meanwhile, why don't you try your hand at a second lead paragraph - you write so well. Mugginsx (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That source could have been copied from Wikipedia. It could be that the original source is out of copyright and useable. This discussion is best suited for the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC).

But it wasn't. Anyway, copyright duration can be up to 100 yrs. Yes, indeed, no good words go unpunished on Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please dont revert the substantial contributions of other editors with poorly thought out comments. While the article is old, its C class and overall it doesnt look like its been written by someone who's read her more authoritative recent biographies. In such cases theres no need to insist on discussion before making large improvements, that would be obstructive. Very little of my edit to the Nighengale page constituted a "revision". It expanded the lede per the tag, mostly to summarize the key points already in the body. And I expanded the theology section. There were a few minor revisions which you can change back if you wish. Its actually in need of serious attention by someone who can get it up to GA status, per the importance of the subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the top of this page and put this material on the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC).

Re the D. H. Lawrence bibliography, the editors are only relevant to the Cambridge University editions. I can see no reason to include these editions them on this bibliography; perhaps they could be included in the individual articles but the author bibliography should really only include the original publication date and possibly original publisher, surely...GrahamHardy (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked and they are included in the individual articles - I am happy to replace Cambridge University Press with the first publisher if that would make you happier.. GrahamHardy (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The maximum amount of information is always desirable so that interested parties can trace the work easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

But surely you dont want to clutter up the DH Lawrence article with editors of specific recent editions; They should be replaced first edition publishers which is what most author articles seem to use GrahamHardy (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked a couple of featured articles (James Joyce, Mary Shelley) and it looks like we are both wrong; they just have the dates, so I guess we should go with that...GrahamHardy (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be the line of least resistance but publisher, place and date of publication might be given, as in a reference in an academic journal. I suppose there is a Wikipedia policy on this, I'm not sure what it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

I reverted your edit, since it seems to have restored an old version of WP:AN. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have been confused. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

Hi, Xxanthippe. How can you tell how often an author is cited by others? (This is with reference to James Norman Afd.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Enter the name in Google Scholar, making sure that person and topic area are identified correctly . There is further material in WP:Prof, Citation, h-index and their talks. Best wishes Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Overton Fuller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Neuburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

can you please semi protect the page Vehicle beacon lights in India,due to rampant ip addresses attacking it and adding misleading information to it.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC))

I am sorry, I don't have the authority to do that. You will have to ask somebody else. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC). (A look at the talk page of user:Harishrawat11 is instructive.) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

Hi - you may be interested in this AFD. I know you have stated before it should be deleted - and I agree. Feel free to comment. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I see that the article has been kept. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

"Respectable cites"? Yeah right. They consist of two Imageshack-hosted scans of personal documents, a dissertation that makes no mention of him, and two PDFs hosted on a site that otherwise hosts only a download of a DOS kernel. Did you even look at what you were deprodding? Or the forum post I linked that clearly said no mention of him existed online until 2010? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

When I look here I get lots of citations. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

That search leads to Alexander I Popov in the chemistry department at Michigan State University. A quite different person who died in 2001. Please check your "facts" and "lots of citations" more carefully next time. Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Please note that the rules for citing quotations are different than for article text. All quotations require a directly following footnote with a fully detailed citation including all publication details. Page numbers are required and the ISBN should also be included. Simple attribution is not sufficient. Please do not remove citation needed tags without fixing the issue. Yworo (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. Can you cite the policy? Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for backing me up. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that we achieved this outcome. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC).

Jussychoulex has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The Ada Lovelace article was changed and you did undo everything, reasoning that people should agree on the changes on the talk page of the article. Checked the changes: textual changes were based on reliable sources, that were mentioned. Think that is enough to leave textual changes intact. Eager to read your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.111.189 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — 87.183.111.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have placed this on article talk. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

So how much more do you need to prove that you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation beside subtle grudge-inspired disruptiveness? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not harass me on my talk page. You have already collected two warnings and the threat of a block for personal attacks on other editors . Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC).

Plus a 24-hour block for incivility. Followed by a 24-hour block for 3RR. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC),

and more complaints about your behavior which led to the dismissal of a vexatious complaint that you made about another editor on WP:ANI/I. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC).

and more complaints about incivility. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

plus a warning not to engage in personal attacks after a GA review that you botched.,

and have been community banned from Wikipedia for socking, hoaxing and widespread vandalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

This will be my only comment here on this, but in the recent WP:ANI discussion, I found it rather "not an accident" (Russian: Nye sluchaino), as the Soviets used to say, that you seemed to pop up at the most convenient times (i.e. disputes where you can resurrect your old grudge against me). This is likely the third or fourth time that you've popped up in the last sixth months in such discussions that you otherwise would not be involved in except for some personal vendetta to seek to insert reference to our old grudge (it's typically considered "bad form" to continue bringing up dead issues). I do hope that this is not a slight case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and if you're watching my edits, I'd appreciate very kindly if you stopped. Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For the second time, please will you stop harassing me on my talk page. This is ironic as you have just had a vexatious complaint dismissed that you made on WP:ANI/I in which you called for sanction against another editor who posted on your own talk page. Let me make myself clear: further edits by you on my talk page are unwelcome unless you have something constructive to say. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

Hello, I wanted to thank you for your suggestion to me on the article I nominated for deletion. I was just wondering, do you have any more suggestions for me other than to read WP:Before? Hmm, I think I was maybe a bit too quick to nominate that; some tags would have done, maybe a PROD. Perhaps just research a bit more before making a decision? Thanks so much, and I'm a new Wikipedian, so any suggestions/criticism I can get is greatly appreciated! ChaseAm (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If you are new to Wikipedia, AfDs are probably not the best place to start at as they require specialist knowledge of the policies concerned, in this case WP:Prof. Also, best not to be too quick on the trigger. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

Mhm, right. Perhaps observe many AfDs, participate a bit as well, and of course "study up" on the policies? Would that be a good place to start? I really appreciate the input ChaseAm (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The best move may be to lurk and learn. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

Thank you very much! ChaseAm (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not change my edit without a discussion here. It is awarded to a less than 50 individuals since 1965 out of a billion population making it a 1 to 2 crore ratio. It is awarded to works in 22 languages. Every awardee has a article but every Bancroft Prize winner do not have a article. Please respect languages other than English. No award in my knowledge has a 1 to 2 crore ratio. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two national awards in India on Literature

• Jnanpith Award
• Sahitya Akademi Fellowship
• Sahitya Akademi Award

out of these three I have only considered the Jnanpith Award because only a single person is chosen every year and that is also since 1965. Two persons are also chosen in some years though total number of awardees since 1965 to 2013 is only 53 out of a billion population. I have no source to claim but the 1 to 2 crore ratio makes me believe it as the most selective award in history of mankind. Added to these literary works in 22 major languages are taken into consideration which Bancroft Prize or Pulitzer Prize for History cannot claim since they are awarded in only English. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You should discuss these matters on the talk page of the article, as another editor has suggested. Further, you will need sources to back your argument. Your own unsupported opinion is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

See the link and participate in the discussion. Solomon7968 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I went through your Contributions and it seems that you are more interested in reverting edits rather participating in a discussion. Please participate in the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History about the criterion 2 and share your views. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not make any more edits to my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

If you do not participate in the talk link above Please do not revert the consensus edits any furthur. You have more than once reverted a number of consensus edits. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When you revert a change, please make sure that you're not reverting something else than what you intended. Jules.LT (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I only reverted the spam put in by User talk:84.20.238.83. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

I undid your revert to the Paul Frampton article with regards to his status as a former member of the Institute of Physics in the UK. The Daily Mail article is relied upon only to assert the fact that he is no longer a member and there is no good reason it cannot be considered a reliable source for this purpose, being a well established news outlet as per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. The statement is true, as has been confirmed to me yesterday by the IoP's director of membership. SheffGruff (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The confirmation by the IOP is definitive. However, I don't like your edits to the Paul Frampton page. They appear to be of undue emphasis. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. I see that other editors have removed your attack material. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC).

Hello. I have developed a work-in-progress stub on one of my sandbox pages. At the moment I am intending to add more references. Feel free to add content or copy edit as you see fit, and your help would be appreciated. I am going to try to use some of the refs posted in AFD 3 and AFD 4. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I may have found a set of articles on Google Scholar using the search term Burkhard Heim + theory of everything. Well, let's see what is available. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. These articles are not going to be helpful. For example, the very first one was published in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" (see Wikipedia article). The next one doesn't waste much time in moving away from scientific validity. Oh well. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will take a look at it. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

I have puy some notes at User:Xanthippe/Heim, but they need references. You are welcome to use as much of this as you like. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

This is good. These are the points I wanted to cover. Off hand, I can think of references that I can match to most of what you have. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a helpful reference because it is comprehensive. Good idea. I don't have to attempt separate references to convey the idea. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see what the fringe fanboys do. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC).

Well, it has been posted, and I was wondering about the same thing (fringe fanboys). Well, I suppose it's good to have fans :>) ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake in your quick judgement on this. You shouldn't believe somebody that doesn't check their sources, but just goes directly to Google Scholar or similar. There was a reference to Sage Open, and it's a fact that Sage Open is peer-reviewed, and that all their contents eventually (but not immediately) ends up on Google Scholar. Rdos (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

hi Xxanthippe, pls check out this. thank you.Gravitophoton (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice. You will see that I have commented on the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC).

I did what Barney should have done--perhaps you want to revisit the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

Please see new message here regarding your contribution to Afd discussion. MilaPedia (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a COI in this matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

Rick570 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)==Talkback==

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synaptopathy.
Message added 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Xxanthippe The deletion nominations are not being made by me. But I will be much more conservative in creating articles on living persons in the future for the reason you mention. I feel helpless to defend the articles in the face of such a wholesale attack. But I am attempting to preserve the texts of the articles for future development and republishing. Have you any other suggestions? talk). Rick570 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, conventions and standards on notability and so avoid writing inadequate articles that get deleted. You may also wish to consider seeking the permission of the people about whom you write BLPs. You may be surprised by the small number in favor. As a first step I suggest you WP:prod all the BLPs that you have written but have not yet been deleted. Anybody else who wishes to keep them can remove the prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC).

Dear Xxanthippe, I hope all is well. Could I ask you to have another look at the GS H-score for Dr Kinsella as I seemed to find it a bit higher than 4 and am not sure if I am doing something wrong. Still too low I think but... Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC))

You are right. I now get cites in GS of 133, 62, 36, 29, 25, 19, 13 and (575) for a chapter in a multi-chapter book. I don't know what I did wrong before. I have ignored the unlinked entries with [CITATION] as these seem to be double counting. This still gives an index of around 10 which is low for a well cited field. A bit too early. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC).

I saw your comment on DN earlier but nobody else has responded. I've tagged the DN article and put a note on its talk page. It's certainly very short of non-fluff sources. Looks nice, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Talk:Canonization of Joan of Arc.
Message added 06:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayarathina (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a gentle reminder that I am waiting for your reply at Canonization of Joan of Arc Talk page --Jayarathina (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As you suggested, I went back and read WP:Prof again and left a comment on the AFD about my findings. GB fan 12:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You might care to consider Dr Johnson's aphorism. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC).

So you leave an argument that h index of 7 is enough to show notability, but the guideline you talk about does not say anything about what a notable h index is and does say that google scholar has inflated h indices. I quote the same guideline that says they need to have independent reliable sources and that none have been found. So your response is to insinuate that I don't understand. You can not refute my stance so you attack me instead? GB fan 15:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice sometimes given to people who do not understand policy in an area is that it can be a good strategy to avoid editing in the area until further study has brought enlightenment. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You made very much the same comment to me. My advice is that you not advise other people. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good day! I am not understanding your criticisms. My contribution is a summary of publicly and freely available information obtainable from registrar's office. The registrar is explicitly stated as source and I was not involved with the investigations or decisions beyond knowing they exist. The information provided is factually provable with signed documents merely by requesting them from the registrar's office. Some EU countries forbid the naming of individuals in public, but not their institution, despite names being printed on the documents. The remark that one side can argue differently than another side regarding authorship may seem POVy, but this is not unusual to find in cases where authorship is disputed and was indeed found in cases summarized. I do not know where to post such documents. They are not themselves publications with ISBN numbers, but are freely available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deewells (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained on the talk page that primary sources are not acceptable for Wikipedia, particularly for BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Xxanthippe. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw your recent edit to Bloomsbury Group - and found another source, actually a later edition, of the same book that provided the article's long-standing quote. Based upon your comment, it may be that there needs to be an addition of information that counters the viewpoint: "The group was accused by some of "intellectual elitism its reputation faltered in the 1940s and 1950s, but from the 1960s critical interest in their achievements began to revive." Is there something specifically that you question?

Regarding the edit summary comment: "Also could you change Mary to Molly," I am confused. I never changed her name in the work I've done today. She's referred to as Molly in the article, and I don't find a stray "Mary" on the page (Control-F). I'm guessing I'm missing something here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I find the claim "critical interest in their achievements began to revive" hard to swallow and rather POV. A flurry of interest certainly began in the 1960s with the books of Michael Holroyd, but the interest that his work generated was less about their cultural achievements than about their personal and sexual relations. My reference to Molly and Mary does not refer to your edits but to the diagram which has remained inaccurate for a long time. I thought that as you had shown an interest in the article you might like to correct it. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

Based on your comments and that it was supposedly a comment by "some", I don't have any problem removing the "critical interest..." sentence altogether. Regarding the diagram, hmmm. I'll see if I can made the graphical edit without having to redo it. Of course, it would be nice if whoever created it and has the graphic could update it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted an updated diagram, but it's not ideal. I couldn't get the color quite right and had to work with the closest font/font size to match what appears.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. The text is now correct. Don't bother about the color. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

Ok, cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You've rightly noted that a blog is not a reliable source for such an important piece of information, so I have added a reliable source now. By the way, his work Eight or Nine Wise Words About Letter-Writing was already earlier mentioned in section "Inventions", so it should be included also in the list of his works at the end of the article. Anyway, I believe it is far better to verify new important information (or insert an alert that a more reliable source is needed) instead of deleting it immediately. I'm a very busy working mother but I believed that this piece of information was so important that I needed to spend some time on entering it in Wikipedia. Your deletion was very discouraging. Please think about it next time before deleting important information. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources you give for this important article (Lewis Carroll) are inadequate. You should find the Jan Susina source or preferably a major biography and quote the page number. The Huffington Post blog is unsuitable and I have removed it. Wikipedia does not take account of the personal circumstances of editors when assessing their contributions. Many Wikipedia editors are working mothers. My best wishes for your career (and your parenting). Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, just curious what your rationale was for reverting an AGF vandalism cleanup revert from myself here. I have since reverted it back, might have been done in error, but I just wanted to clarify and move on. Thanks --Slazenger (Contact Me) 22:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it was an error. I watch that page for vandalism as you can see from its history. My apologies for the confusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC).

Xxanthippe may I ask what evidence you need for Haruna Iddrisu inclusion? Masssly (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, I can't find the link leading to Salby's h-index. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Here it is . Best wishes Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

Thx. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Xxanthippe, Hi. hope all is well. I was having a look at Hobson's h-score and it is I think much higher than you suggest. When I look under WS Hobson instead of William S. Hobson in GS there seem a lot more - and at least the first lot seem to be by our man. Could you have another look. . Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

Yes, you are correct. This is a better search. Modification made. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Could you please read my post on the talk page of user:The Banner and reconsider your position? Would you like any changes to be implemented? Could you please let me know of any puffery - what words, sentences and/or sections are you referring to? I have written the article according to: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Dmatteng (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to canvassing spa. Do you engage in paid editing? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

...but this time it was apparently written by the scientist himself. The article I am referring to is Alon Kahana, and given that his h-index is 11 I wanted to know your opinion on whether this was good enough to establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been deleted so I am unable to comment. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

{U|Jinkinson}}, I see from his website he is currently an Assistant Professor. That doesn't mean he can't be notable, but for someone still at that rank to pass WP:PROF is quite unusual. The significance of h index varies by field, but h-11 is not very impressive in the biomedical sciences. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

Why is the move required to be announced, and why am I required to revert it, especially given that Ada Byron is referred to as "Lovelace" for most of the extremely long article? Quis separabit? 00:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

I did as best I could. I found no evidence of any sanction or prohibition on changing the article name. I would be more inclined to go along if you had not initiated this conversation in a demanding, almost threatening tone. Quis separabit? 00:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page more carefully and please do not edit the same article under two different user names. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

If you have the time, could you comment on the potential sources that have been offered in the AfD discussion? Your recommendation for deletion was made before they were listed, so it's not clear if you've looked over them or not. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the difference between hotel and hostel:

• hotel – an establishment providing accommodation and meals for travellers and tourists
• hostel – an establishment which provides cheap food and lodging for students, workers, etc.

(COD, 12th edition, 2011)

I changed hostel because it disagrees with the text and the caption.

The caption reads: 日軍拘捕西方銀行家，並將他們囚禁於中國旅館。 As far as I am aware, 旅館 means "hotel" (source). "hostel" gives different results.

The text itself also says hotel: "British, American and Dutch bankers were forced to live in a small hotel, while some bankers who were viewed as the enemy of the Japanese were executed."

--James (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this sound information. My best wishes for your editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Thank you. I have changed it back. --James (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread is about the Template:In Search of Lost Time and whether A Visit from the Goon Squad is an appropriate addition to it. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

I have reverted based on WP:TRUTH. see source in article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? The source is utterly trivial. The vaporings of a pretentious auteur. Don't you get it when some-one is pulling your leg? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

"Gay fancy dress party" is not a direct quote. "Gay" had a totally different meaning in the old times "happy, cheerful" and readers might incorrectly assume the modern meaning of the word. The characters were not being described as gay in the modern sense on the word. SlightSmile 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Copyvio is not allowed. Ref. 27, which I use as source, was written in 2012 and uses "gay" with the modern usage of that word. If you doubt that the Montesquiou menage was "gay" then I suggest that you read Philippe Jullian's book. I have copied this exchange from my talk page to the talk page of Moberly and Jourdain, where it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

I see. I had assumed it was a description from 1901. Thanks for clarifying. SlightSmile 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)