User talk:Xpander1

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

CS1 error on Kenneth R. Westphal

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kenneth R. Westphal, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Rinaldi moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Giacomo Rinaldi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Broc (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peter J. Lewis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter J. Lewis, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Lewis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Calosi moved to draftspace for better proof of notability

Thanks for your contributions to Claudio Calosi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and he is an assistant professor, not as claimed a full professor, and notability is very unclear. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Claudio Calosi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Claudio Calosi. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Herman Nohl, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thanks for creating these pages. Just so you know, categorization works differently on every wikipedia. Here are the guides for the English language wikipedia. Please don't add non-defining categories like Men ^SMason_Garrison 00:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Hegel Society of Great Britain

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hegel Society of Great Britain, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language in articles

Hi Xpander1, I noticed that on your recent article Manfred Baum whenever there was a foreign title (like his books) you made them cursive instead of using the {{lang}} template. This may look the same visually, but plays a vital role for wiki users using screen readers, only by using the language template can these screen readers read the article correctly and not make a mess out of it. I've gone ahead for now and fixed it in the article but please consider this when writing your next article. Kind regards and happy editing Squawk7700 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw here's the mos link if you're interested: MOS:OTHERLANG Squawk7700 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I noticed all the work you've been doing creating pages for Hegel scholars, great job! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosen

Just a note that your move of Michael Rosen -> Michael Rosen (author) has been reverted as an undiscussed move. Please use the WP:Requested moves process for moves which may be controversial. Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Sebastian Luft

Hello, Xpander1,

Thank you for creating Sebastian Luft.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This entry urgently needs improvement with secondary sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Icem4k}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Icem4k (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Icem4k, I was hoping other people would chime in and add sources gradually. Wasn't the gscholar alone adequate to establish notability? Nonetheless the article has enough sources for now. Please take a another look. Xpander (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve article for David Sherman

Thank you for contributing the article for David Sherman (psychologist). The article is fairly short, and would benefit from expansion. Adding additional sources would also be helpful, so we can verify that this person is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.

Happy editing! David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve David Sherman (philosopher)

Hello, Xpander1,

Thank you for creating David Sherman (philosopher).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hello Xpander, I've restored the Notability tag. Please read WP:NACADEMIC - this is not a matter of quantity of sources cited in the article, rather how they do not prove David Sherman is individually notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Coeusin}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Coeusin (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about David Sherman (philosopher)

Hello Xpander1, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, David Sherman (philosopher), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sherman (philosopher).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Coeusin}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Coeusin (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Michael J. Thompson

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Michael J. Thompson, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richard Boothby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Boothby 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/Richard Boothby 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 until the discussion has finished.

SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for your message. I think you have misrepresented the CSD criteria in that a CSD nominator should notify the editor, but the whole point of CSD is that an admin can delete without further discussion. I'm amused that you post in article space text without any in line references at all, and then suggest that I should have done the referencing for you instead of deleting. You appear to be writing the article backwards. Find independent verifiable sources first and write text based on what they say. Don't write the text in the vague hope you can find references later.

I'll restore as draft, where, of course, it should have been in the first place. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak I just restored the article to the main space. As I said I didn't dispute the deletion, what you did was technically correct. Neither have I asked for adding sources, just indicated what the WP:N encourages, namely, notability is 'not a feature of an article' and a simple search which determines sources exist is recommended. Afterwards the article can be Drafted or tagged with Template:Sources exist, Template:No footnotes etc.

As for CSD, I just quoted the policy verbatim, you can see for yourself: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. In other words how are users supposed to find out if their page got deleted? Through chance?

And as for vague hope, I wouldn't approach a subject in the first place, If I knew that it was not notable. In this case I betted too much on the de-wiki source, which the article was translated from (the source they provided is not available anymore). So in the end, there was no "vague hope" to begin with, just didn't have the time to add the sources. If you still think the topic is not notable, you can nominate the article for an AfD. Xpander (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of idle curiosity, why all the references to reviews? His notability is largely due to his academic position rather than what people think of his work, especially the reviews are primary source journal articles. I've correct two characters, and I've removed the link to a sales page that serves no other real purpose in terms of content, and the doi, alas, gets there anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak The subject is primarily known through his works as per WP:AUTHOR C#1, in this case mostly reviews. As for the link you're describing, It's what most academics have access to as well as the Wikipedia Library, therefore it saves a lot of time, in locating the resource. I'm not sure if its removal is beneficial. Xpander (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Peter Fuss, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 20:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, Please do elaborate, which category and why? Xpander (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! So the one I see the most of translated articles is Category:Men. On English wikipedia, it isn't one that is supposed to be used for individual people because it's not considered defining. If you look at the categories I changed [1], you can see that most of your tags weren't in the most specific categories. WP:CATDD has a quick list of tips, but WP:CATPEOPLE is also helpful to getting at the why we try to use the most specific category (with some exceptions, so check out WP:EGRS if you want to know more about exceptions). ^SMason_Garrison 20:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, Those categories weren't added by me, they came from the de-wiki source, which I usually leave intact. If you see the page's history the only category by me, was added towards the end. In any case thanks for sorting those out. Xpander (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you created the page, they were added. You're responsible for the edits you make, even if they're populated by other tools. Please clean them up instead of leaving them intact. The norms for categories differ by wiki. ^SMason_Garrison 23:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. @Smasongarrison Xpander (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Douglass North. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08. Thanks for your note. However I think the particular duplicate argument you're referring to was not added by me, but rather the user @Aspects. Regards. Xpander (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Thanks for the note. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Philosophie moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Philosophie. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sina Bathaie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sina Bathaie, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sina Bathaie (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Xpander1. Thank you for your work on David Sherman (psychologist). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating a page for this researchers, who reaches WP:NACADEMIC through the coherent body of well-cited work. It is a single-source stub, so there is much more to build here: finding other reliable sources discussing his work and biographical details for example. Professional listing by societies can help; or published reviews covering the scope of his output. It would also be helpful to link this page from others.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain, I added a couple of more sources, the most important of them being the Google Scholar page. You can take another look. Xpander (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to separately include the Google Scholar page because it's already present in the 'Authority Control' databases - have a look at the bottom of the page. It's there along with Scopus and ORCID. Regarding additional sources, they're fine, but also rather 'connected' to Sherman. What about the view of his critics? If he doesn't have critics, is actually just following the crowd ;) Klbrain (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]