User talk:Xxanthippe

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Daily pageviews of User:Xxanthippe A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Please place comments about articles on the talk page of the article, not on this page, and put new comments at the bottom[edit]

Help:Archiving a talk page

1. Open the talk page for edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		Hello again from Women in Red! July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed! Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Are we losing momentum? London calling (the Mayor of London!) Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians Women in Red is featured in Toolhub
		(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[reply]

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (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[reply]

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

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

Markoulw (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (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[reply]

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: Women of War and Peace Play! January geofocus: Caucasus New, year-long initiative: Suffrage Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Greetings,

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

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

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

Thx. Fixed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

• removal of copyright violation notice

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

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

[25]

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

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

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit on 26 July

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

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello,

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

The best, Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Proverbs 26:11 Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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