User talk:Xxanthippe
Please place comments about articles on the talk page of the article, not on this page, and put new comments at the bottom
Dummies guide to archiving my talk page
1. Open the talk page for edit.
2. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive N" where N is the Nth archive.
3. When search tells you that this page does not exist create it by clicking on the red link.
4. Copy the contents of your talk page into this archive and add ((archives|auto=yes|search=yes|)) as the first line [replacing the () brackets with {} ].
5. Save this archive and delete the transferred material from current talk page. Finished. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
Re: Reversion on page for "Only Lovers Left Alive"
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)
- 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).
You're not a new editor, so you should seriously know better. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much
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)
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).
Women in Red June Editathons
| ||
|
(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 MassMessaging
Notice of discretionary sanctions
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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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).
- Comment. User:Jytdog has been indefinitely blocked [5] from editing Wikipedia by the WP:Arbitration Committee. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is currently an Arbitration Committee case about his conduct Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC).
- The case resulted in User:Jytdog being indefinitely site banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC).
- There is currently an Arbitration Committee case about his conduct Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC).
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)
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)
- Thanks for the response a [citation needed] notice is helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC).
- 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)
- Thanks: the material seems well-sourced in the Meyer reference. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC).
- 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)
- Thanks: the material seems well-sourced in the Meyer reference. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC).
- 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)
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).
- 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)
In my opinion
Rajendra Rathore (chemist) manages to pass NACADEMIC. It'll be interesting to learn your take(s).......∯WBGconverse 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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).
July 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
August 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Unprecedented behavior and Vandalism
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)
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
Warning by Kudpung
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)
- 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).
- @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).
- Pardon my intrusion but I feel that you're badgering. This is not productive. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- That is a good suggestion. I hope you will urge it on the other people involved. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC).
- 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)
- @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).
- 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)
- That is a good suggestion. I hope you will urge it on the other people involved. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sorry about that. Maybe a double heading would have been more appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC).
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)
and was later resysoped without community discussion [22] on 26 October 2018. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC).
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).
September 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
October 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
RfC withdrawn and restated
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)
Get ready for November with Women in Red!
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (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 MassMessaging
RfC on which you !voted, has been amended
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)
Re: D. H. Lawrence
I just thought it would be interesting to know. I guess not, eh? WQUlrich (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to explain. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Xxanthippe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018 at Women in Red
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
December 2018 at Women in Red
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
Ada Lovelace copyedit
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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
January 2019 at Women in Red
 January events:
|
February 2019 at Women in Red
 February events:
|
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)
- 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)
March 2019 at Women in Red
   Please join us for these virtual events:
| ||
|
|
Thank you for your advice
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)
April editathons at Women in Red
April 2019
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
(Please excuse this post if it is a duplicate!)
May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June events with WIR
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Broken link
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)
- Thx. Fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC).
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- 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.
-- 03:49, Friday, June 14, 2019 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
July events from Women in Red!
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Copyright and speedy deletion
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)
- Copyright is nothing to do with AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC).
- 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)
Bad test
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)
- This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia[26] because of persistent incivility. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
August 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Joan of Arc
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)
- Please follow Wikipedia procedure WP:BRD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
October Events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Removing unsigned comments on talk pages is not "edit warring." Akmal94 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Policy please. I note accusations of continual edit warring on your talk [page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC).
November 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
About AfD discussion
My apology for misunderstanding. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Howard Jacobson
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)
December events with WIR
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Happy Holidays
|
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) |
- Thank you, and the same to you. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC).
Happy Holidays
.jpg)
.jpg)
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)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
January 2020 at Women in Red
|
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはXxanthippeたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
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
GA for Moberly–Jourdain incident
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)
- Please make your comments on the talk page of the article concerned (as above). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC).
Arbitration case opened
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, CodeLyokotalk 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Jenhawk777. Is your comment about the recently defrocked Kudpung or about Jytdog? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- @Jenhawk777. Is your comment about the recently defrocked Kudpung or about Jytdog? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
Is there a chance you have unintentionally misspelled your user name in the section title? --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like it. Correction made. Thanks for the alert. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC).
February with Women in Red
.jpg)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Abraham–Lorentz force
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)
- 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).
Pass by comment
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)
- 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).
- Comment: User:Kudpung's privileges as an administrator were revoked as a result of the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC).
- 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)
- Comment: User:Kudpung's privileges as an administrator were revoked as a result of the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC).
March 2020 at Women in Red
  Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Florence Nightingale
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)
- 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).
April 2020 at Women in Red
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Drop the stick, please
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)
- I presume that you refer to this [27] thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC).
- I read your comment as a passive/agressive threat. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC).
- 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).
- I read your comment as a passive/agressive threat. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC).
- 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)
- Proverbs 26:11 Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC).
Login attacks
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).
May 2020 at Women in Red
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2020 at Women in Red
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Meat puppetry in AfDs
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)
- 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).
- 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)
June 2020
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)
- 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).
July 2020 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Roman Retzbach
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)
- The BLP has been deleted at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC).
Alyssa Carson
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)
- 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).
- @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)
- 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).
- @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)
Undid
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)
- Fair enough. It just seemed the most convenient place for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC).
- 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)
Re:badgering
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)
- Aggie Zed has been deleted Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC).
August 2020 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Günter Bechly for deletion
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)
- Thanks for the alert. I wish other editors were as conscientious as you. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
September Women in Red edithons
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You may benefit from using RedWarn
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)
A kitten for you!
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)
October editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Marcel Proust page: Category “lgbt jews” should be removed and “French Roman Catholics” Category should be put in.
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)
- 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).
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)
- Consensus is not optional. I see that another user has reverted your edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC).
IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation
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)
November edith-a-thons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A cookie for you!
|
thanks for the heads up on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, helpful clarification. 10SFan (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
A New Year With Women in Red!
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Re: Fermi energy
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)
- See the top of this page. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC).
March 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Scholia = dubious website?
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)
- 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).
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- (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)
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)
- 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).
- 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)
April editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
On your reverts
- 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?
- 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)
- Thanks for making the effort. Many cn warriors don't. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC).
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)
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)
- 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).
June 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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)
- 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).
July 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
August Editathons with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Joan of Arc
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)
- OK. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC).
October 2021 at Women in Red
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Moberly–Jourdain
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)
October 2021
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)
- Please look at the notice at the top of this talk page and comment on the talk page of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC).
- This was regarding editor behavior not article content. VQuakr (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Some help
Hi, Can you help me by closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Abbas (legal scholar). I don't know how to do it. I withdrawn. Thanks for any help. 
-- ওহিদ (💬 | 📝) 11:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- This misbegotten AfD has been closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC).
Can you look at Muhammad Al Hayrsh? It was previously deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Al Hayrsh. Thank you. -- ওহিদ (💬 | 📝) 07:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022 Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Rowling FAR
Hi, Xxanthippe: regarding this comment, I had given a bit of background in this earlier post but I recognize not everyone reading the page has that knowledge, so the comment could be interpreted "ambiguously" or even unfavorably. This is where a bit of AGF helps. Victoriaearle does excellent work at FAC and FAR when her health allows it, so when she starts editing, many of us who have worked together before try to stay out of her way for the avoidance of edit conflicts. I was happy to see that she had decided to engage, as early on it was not clear if we had enough participation to address the issues raised. I understand, in retrospect, that the comment could be taken wrong and even make others uncomfortable, and I'm sorry for causing that. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your post here. I am not familiar with the edit history of user:Victoriaearle or yourself. I remain of the view that you should strike your comments as they might be interpreted in a pejorative way. However, I am excited by the way in which the Rowling BLP is developing. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
February with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
March editathons
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
April Editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2022 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2022 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in July 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi @Xxanthippe: How goes it? I'm looking for a considered opinion. Another editor was concerned about this article. You originally attended the Afd on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saju Chackalackal stating the citation count was too low. Would you perhaps say he is notable now? Thanks. scope_creepTalk 08:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The BLP has been deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC).
Categorization
Hi! Nice to meet you. I see you reverted my edits on Uehling potential and Gauge fixing, reinstating the QFT category. I would argue that this should not be so since those articles belong to more specific categories. For example, gauge fixing belongs to the gauge theories category alone. It being a QFT topic is implied by the fact that the gauge theories category has one parent category: the QFT category. MoS at least stipulates that an article should only belong to the most specific category, unless there is something important not captured by it, which I do not see being the case here. Without this principle, pretty much ALL the articles found in the QFT subcategories would also belong to the QFT category as well. They would also belong to the theoretical physics category, etc, which is just a mess. Currently the QFT category already has too many articles (I'm working on creating some more specific categories for it), so this better categorization seems rather necessary. OpenScience709 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you hold off your edit spree on physics categories until there is consensus on the talk pages. You could try the Physics notice board Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC).
Women in Red August 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in September 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
WIR
I've made one or two (depending) WIR articles on major subjects, I'm not messing with Ada Lovelace. I'd never spam that article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in December 2022
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Gopal article (organisation and balance)
Hi, I saw that you were active on the Priyamvada Gopal talk page and article. I've raised a couple of issues there to do with the substantial removal of material and reorganising the material there, I'd really appreciate you weighing in as you are clearly familiar with the page and were part of the previous discussions. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am reluctant to get involved with the culture warriors and all their sockpuppets on that page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy holidays
 |
Seasons greetings! |
|
Wishing you joyous holiday spirits,  |
|
Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Charming: Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC).
Women in Red January 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red in February 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello, it is true that Daniel Lazard has numerous citations, but this is not a sufficient criteria for WP:NOTE. The notability needs to be attested by independant tier 2 sources which is not the case. On the 3 sources on the article, 2 are written by Daniel Lazraq, and 1 is a tier 1 from university only stating his PhD Username1789 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- The result was Speedy Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC).
Women in Red March 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
"Spree"
This comment by Skyerise was in response to the message below that I placed on his talk page and was rapidly deleted by him. His 9-edit response comes next: also@User:GiantSnowman Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC).
@Skyerise. Please slow down your edit spree on BLPs (like Lars Onsager) and please do not use edit summaries to edit war. I see that you have been involved in BLP issues recently [33] and have a substantial block log. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC).
- I'm not sure why you want to characterize the work of a long-time member of WikiProject Biography who has contributed to the guidelines that we follow, who has been here more than 15 years and made over 114,000 edits as a "spree", but I find it inappropriate and uncivil. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. WP:BRD is not even a guideline. It's an essay. WP:BLPDOB is part of WP:V, a policy, and WP:CONTEXTBIO is a guideline. So BRD trumps neither of them. Discussion is not required before improving an article based on policy or guideline. Though I'm happy to engage in discussion, it should be started on the talk page by the objecting party when they revert, explaining why they believe the article should be an exception to the guideline, since I've already clearly specified the policy or guideline I am applying in the edit summary. I don't have to ask permission. Attempting to make an editor ask permission is what is known as page ownership. Not looking for a gatekeeper. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Intentional?
Did you mean to remove two sections on top of the changes you said you made in this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Biography%2FScience_and_academia&oldid=prev&diff=1150410505&diffmode=source BhamBoi (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- So sorry, no I did not. I must have been editing an earlier version. I will leave you to fix it to your satisfaction. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC).
Women in Red May 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - June 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 19 June 2023
- News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing
- Featured content: Content, featured
- Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics
Women in Red July 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Re: citations in the lede
Regarding this tag removal, per MOS:LEADCITE, it is permissible to have citations in the lede, particularly for contentions not covered in the body text: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead
" (emphasis in the original). Not to be overly particular, but to say that a BLP subject "is known for" something, we really need a source stating that the subject "is known for" that thing (or perhaps "is famous for", or that is the thing "for which they are known"). There are plenty of instances of citable biographical facts about individuals that are not the thing for which they are known. BD2412 T 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please take your concerns to the talk page of Andrew Ross (sociologist), which is the proper place for them (see the top of this page). In view of the yet unconfirmed allegations made on that page, can you advise if you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay? I never have never done that myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC).
- I brought my concern to your talk page because it relates to an apparent misunderstanding of policy unrelated to the specific article in question. Specifically, you removed a {{citation needed}} tag from an article lede with the edit summary, "citations should not be in lede". As noted, per the quoted language from MOS:LEADCITE, it is not only permissible, but necessary to provide a cite in the lede for challenged assertions. I am concerned that you may have acted on this misunderstanding with respect to other articles. With respect to your question, I am one of the senior-most administrators on this project, and I have been compensated by the Wikimedia Foundation for various activities conducted in support of the project, including beta testing features in the course of regular article editing. I have never been paid to make any specific edit to any specific article. As an administrator, I have investigated and addressed countless UPE and COI issues where these are raised, as they have been here. BD2412 T 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your standing as a senior-most administrator of this project certainly sounds impressive, but I am not clear what it signifies within the structure of Wikipedia. As for the cites in the lede, they are already in the body of Andrew Ross (sociologist), but they can be added to the lede also, if you wish. MOS:LEADCITE allows cites in the lede to be determined on a case by case basis by editorial consensus, and this can be done on the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC).
- I brought my concern to your talk page because it relates to an apparent misunderstanding of policy unrelated to the specific article in question. Specifically, you removed a {{citation needed}} tag from an article lede with the edit summary, "citations should not be in lede". As noted, per the quoted language from MOS:LEADCITE, it is not only permissible, but necessary to provide a cite in the lede for challenged assertions. I am concerned that you may have acted on this misunderstanding with respect to other articles. With respect to your question, I am one of the senior-most administrators on this project, and I have been compensated by the Wikimedia Foundation for various activities conducted in support of the project, including beta testing features in the course of regular article editing. I have never been paid to make any specific edit to any specific article. As an administrator, I have investigated and addressed countless UPE and COI issues where these are raised, as they have been here. BD2412 T 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please take your concerns to the talk page of Andrew Ross (sociologist), which is the proper place for them (see the top of this page). In view of the yet unconfirmed allegations made on that page, can you advise if you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay? I never have never done that myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC).
The Signpost: 3 July 2023
- Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia
- Featured content: Incensed
- Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?
The Signpost: 17 July 2023
- In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia
- Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)
- Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!
- Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 1 August 2023
- News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server
- In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change
- Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!
- Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!
- In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia
- Opinion: Are global bans the last step?
- Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July
- Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party
I am familiar with BRD
I am familiar with BRD
captcha: leakwaldo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.223.203 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 August 2023
- News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects
- Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them
- Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing
- Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether
- Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed
- Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion
Quick apology for accidentally removing your comment (which is now restored).
I accidentally removed your comment in this AfD diff. Not sure what happened, as I was editing the single section, so I shouldn't have been able to edit from an old version, and I didn't get any edit conflict noticed or anything. Very strange. But thankfully another editor noticed and fixed it. Sorry! —siroχo 19:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. These things happen. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC).
September 2023 at Women in Red
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 31 August 2023
- From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online
- News and notes: You like RecentChanges?
- In the media: Taking it sleazy
- Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia
- Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties
- Humour: The Dehumourification Plan
- Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday
The Signpost: 16 September 2023
- In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?
- Obituary: Nosebagbear
- Featured content: Catching up
- Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic
Women in Red October 2023
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 3 October 2023
- News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published
- Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"
- Featured content: By your logic,
- Poetry: "The Sight"
The Signpost: 23 October 2023
- News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?
- In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements
- Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!
- Traffic report: The calm and the storm
- News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes
Women in Red - November 2023
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 6 November 2023
- Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
- In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man
- Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023
- News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia
- Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades
- Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.
- Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare
Einstein Solid Grammar error
The sentence I fixed (and you reverted) is "Although the Einstein model of the solid predicts the heat capacity accurately at high temperatures, and in this limit … which is equivalent to Dulong–Petit law." Do you believe this to be a complete sentence?
- A link would help. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC).
- Here you go: Einstein solid Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 November 2023
- In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup
- News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health
- Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads
- Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom
- Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships
"... best selling books, which have sold millions"
Thank you, Xxanthippe, for your very kind words. I think your suggestions were quite sensible. Although it now seems that the outcome has been beneficial for the encyclopaedia overall. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 December 2023
- In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns
- Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"
- Comix: Bold comics for a new age
- Essay: I am going to die
- Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence
- Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain
- Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies