User talk:ThaddeusB/Archive 2013, Jan-Jun

Deletion of Red5 Media Server page
I was surprised to discover that there is no page for the Red5 Media Server.

Red5 Media Server is a notable open source project, so I thought I might contribute a stub. But then I noticed that this page had been previously deleted.

So before I dive in, I was hoping you might give me some insight as to why the previous Red5 Media Server page was inappropriate.

Adamelk (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The page in question was deleted as a result of (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red5. You can find the reasons for its deletion there, but do let me know if you have any further questions after visiting that page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages
Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Article Incubator/Hridoy Khan
Article Incubator/Hridoy Khan, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at here and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Article Incubator/Hridoy Khan during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Illia Connell (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Article Incubator/Elliott Wald
Article Incubator/Elliott Wald, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments here and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Article Incubator/Elliott Wald during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WebCiteBOT in other project and manual
Hello, I beg your pardon. Can Your bot User:WebCiteBOT to work in other Wikipedia, in particular, in the Russian Wikipedia, and if he can work in projects that do not belong to the Wikimedia Foundation? Are there to work instructions for installation and use? Thank you.--Ворота рая Импресариата (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in my bot. The software has not been released to the public, but I have always planned to expand its use into other Wikipedias.  I just returned after a long hiatus, so first I need to get it back running here.  Hopefully, I will have a chance to branch out into other Wikipedias in the next few months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello, ThaddeusB, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 10:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Big Content
Hi! I was thinking about creating a Big Content page and noticed it has already been created and deleted. I agree that the title has inherent POV concerns, but I think it fits in with the broader context of Big Business, Big Media, etc. I think having some info on the different topics are appropriate. Would condensing them into one page, and/or establishing sub-pages be appropriate? Arttechlaw (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As an expired PROD, the article can be restored upon request - just let me know if you want it back. However, you would probably be better off just starting over.  The old article is basically just one user's essay as to why the MPAA and RIAA are bad with no sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Kepler-37
-- Spencer T♦ C 01:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Butler Blue II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgetown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for 2013 Daytona 500
-- Spencer T♦ C 03:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

C. Everett Koop
Hi Thaddeus! I saw your edit at C. Everett Koop. Thanks for the explanation. I won't revert it and will just allow other editors to deal those quotes. However, the layout of the quotes seems very awkward; one is centered on the page, the other is a separate paragraph, and I don't think the name of the unknown reporter (Josh Voorhes), who was simply quoting another source, should be included. Also, is the statement, "No official determination of death has yet been announced" necessary? It seems odd to add something that we don't know, and it's not a point of contention anyway. After all, the man was 96 years old. Haha. In any case, the primary concern I have is that one editor, User:Medeis, has repeatedly reverted the headings within the Career section. I explained to him that the Career section comprised three subsections - Medical career, U.S. Surgeon General, and Later career - yet he keeps turning the three from subsections of Career into their own sections. I've also explained in edit summaries and on his talk page that "Koop Reports" is a subsection of the "U.S. Surgeon General" subsection; so it's a sub-subsection of the entire Career section. ;) Hopefully, you'll be monitoring the article for any inappropriate edits (by me or anyone else). Anyway, thanks for the edit summary education. Have a great evening. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In regards to the death quotes, shorter ones that fit inline would probably be preferable. Feel free to find shorter and/or better ones (i.e. from more notable people).  The "no official determination" sentence is probably not needed, but doesn't hurt to have for a few days to see if one is announced either.  In other words, it could go either way.
 * I'll keep an eye on the article for problematic edits. I did notice the mini-edit war on the sectioning.  Hopefully the problem will work itself out now that you've left a message on his talk page, but if it re-arises I'll step in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thaddeus. I think the article is much improved over where it was prior to Koop's death. I think the biggest problem prior to the influx of editing was that all the various career info, from early in his life to the end, was haphazardly scattered all over the page, in no logical order, and in separate, confusing sections. I worked hard, with some other editors, to organize all that conent into a logical order and layout by creating a single Career section split into three primary subsections - Medical career, U.S. Surgeon General, and Later career - to make it very easy for readers to follow. Also, at various points, there was career info in the personal life section, and, conversely, personal content placed in some of the mulitple career-related sections. It was head-spinning because it was so confusing and illogical. Haha. Assuming Medeis doesn't remove the Career subsections again (smile), I think we're on our way to having what I think can be a great article.  One favor: For those two quotes in the Death section, can you please clean those up a bit so that, first, they're separated from the first paragraph, and second, they're aligned on the page in the same way? One quote is introduced at the end of the first paragraph and then centered on the page in another paragraph, and then the second quote is a whole new paragraph that is left-justified, not centered. The layout just looks very haphazard. And also, remove the reference to "Josh Vorhees of Slate", which is unnecessary? It should start with, "The Associated Press said," and then the quote. For obvious reasons, I prefer not to touch that content. ;)  Thanks for educating me on that issue and for keeping an eye on the article! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised the article was disorganized. Often times articles are built a few sentences at a time with one user not bothering to read the whole thing before adding their two cents.  This works, but the best articles usually are the result of one or two dedicated editors doing most of the work with incremental improvements by readers.
 * I have done as you requested. The two quotes are not ideal, maybe I will look for something better tomorrow.  What we really want is famous people reminiscing about Koop.  For a couple examples I was involved with previously, check out Dick Clark and Maurice Sendak. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix and showing me those examples! 76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Stéphane Hessel
You should actually feel proud of the work done, rather than resentful for having had to do it. Let me know if you don't get credit for the posting and I'll give you it myself. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not resentful - a little annoyed at the implication that I added unsourced material perhaps - but certainly no hard feelings going forward. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Stéphane Hessel
-- Spencer T♦ C 05:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thank you, much appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Swiss referendum "against rip-off salaries" of 2013
Hello there, could you please move the page we've been discussing to Swiss referendum "against rip-off salaries" of 2013? I tried to move it back, but I need an administrator to approve it because that page was already created. It's now got the repetitious "executive pay" thing in the title - my fault. We now have an official email from Thomas Minder's office on the proper name.  Wik idea  10:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved it to Swiss referendum "against rip-off salaries" - there is no need to disambiguate by year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

about 'In the news' section of the front page...
Hi, As a wikipedia reader, I think that the six-line news section of the front page is one of the most respected sources of news. ...at least according to me. Although this wiki (of English language) is heavily influenced by Anglo-American culture and preferences, there is plenty for the rest of the world to learn in that small box, as news agencies tend to filter a lot according to local taste and administration (as the case in my native Turkey)

Having not done my search, my guesses for the news box eligibility includes: - Outstanding performance in effort (e.g. expeditions, sports of any kind, Nobel prizes but not ig Nobels, record achievements of Sachin Tendulkar the cricketer) - Recent discoveries (e.g. stuff about lake Vostok) - Result of a popular activity (e.g. winner of wimbledon, super bowl etc.) - Notable event in world politics (e.g. Death of late Hugo Chavez, some meeting of an international council) - Notable event in economy (e.g. Greek bailout)

However, I really didn't get the thing with the do, although I did my wiki and rest of Internet searches. It's a dog show (ok, it's sports but an uncommon one), not a record-breaking thing. Is the system hacked somehow?

- turanyuksel Turanyuksel (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In The News (ITN) entries are selected by a consensus process at the page WP:ITN/C. Often time participation is pretty light, so I encourage you to get involved if this is something that interests you.  There are no hard rules about what is and what is not included, but WP:ITN gives some good guidelines.  Of particular note here, "an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion".  The subject also got a bit of a boost from it being an exceptionally slow news week in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rotnei Clarke
Hey, nice job on the Rotnei Clarke article, very good read. He was on my to-do list, but way down there, and I'm glad to see you wrote it. What a crazy high school career, I had no idea he has the Oklahoma scoring record. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, glad you enjoyed the article. It will eventually head to WP:GA so any suggestions for improvement are welcome. I know for sure I need to get some good pics of Rotnei... --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Credit for Ieng Sary
Hi Thaddeus,

Would it be possible to get an update credit for Ieng Sary? I didn't do much except to get it past the 5 sentence threshold for posting. I'm not a glory hound, but a template on my userpage would make me look like less of a troll at ITN.

Thanks,

--IP98 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nom for Rotnei Clarke
Hi ThaddeusB, I've got a small question about your DYK nomination on Rotnei Clarke. Could you please add your thoughts there? Chamal T •C 06:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rotnei Clarke
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work on this article! I just read it and it was very interesting. Go   Phightins  !  00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you; glad you enjoyed it. It's always nice to get positive feedback. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ed Rush
Why leave out the denial? -- Kevin W.  - Talk  02:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Two reasons - items should be short and a denial is hardly surprising. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Matthew Graves
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger Ebert - Reactions
Hi ThaddeusB - I noticed you partially restored the reactions list on the Roger Ebert page. I've added a new section in the talk page to address this, as I'd like to get it taken care of soon, since the page is quite high profile now, and the list of quotes feels very unencyclopedic to me. It seems like you're curating the article quite actively, but if you have a moment to comment with your perspective it'd be appreciated. 0x0077BE (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually replied on the talk page as you were posted this. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, FYI I just wanted to say you did a great job with this whole thing. That section really looks like it's shaping up. Thanks for that. I'd give you a barnstar but I don't really know which one is appropriate, and I don't have time now to figure it out. Maybe in a few weeks I'll look into it.0x0077BE (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad to hear that a consensus version has emerged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Emile Turlant DYK? Nomination
I have now improved his article for his DYK? nomination. Please respond to me here -- Template:Did you know nominations/Emile Turlant -- whenever you'll have the time. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Thaddeus. I just wanted to make you aware that I re-added the recent death template to Roger Ebert. I noticed that an angry user, 124.148.212.42, repeatedly removed it earlier today and some experienced editors restored it mulitiple times. Then the IP had this discussion on the talk page about it. After out-of-context reasoning by both of them, the template was removed. I replied and explained why the template is still appropriate to use, then restored it. I just wanted you to be aware of this. If you disagree with my reasoning and feel the template is no longer needed, please feel free to remove it. I totally trust your judgment. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I have no special authority over Ebert's page. That said, I agree that you acted properly by restoring the template for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Btw, I fully realize you have no special authority :P, but I've seen some of your editing and guidance to others, and think you're a great editor. Plus, you're an admin, which is a great indication of your knowledge on issues like this. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and thanks for the kind words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. If you wouldn't mind, could you please post your opinion about the template in the discussion? I think others seeing the opinion of a very experienced editor would be helpful. But if you prefer not to, I understand. Have a great rest of the weekend. :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate photo
Thaddeus, is it appropriate to use the same photo two times in the same article? I noticed that the same pic of Roger Ebert is used both in and  (a photoshopped version)? It seems quite odd to use the same pic twice. I know almost nothing about image policy, but I wanted to make you aware of this in case it needs corrected. Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no real against it, but it is certainly something I'd try to avoid whenever possible. Here there are only 3 pictures of Ebert available (I doubled checked for more on Commons), and the article is pretty long, so I don't really have a problem with a cropped version of one appearing in the infobox. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Biocomputer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Data storage


 * Drew Endy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Data storage


 * Transcriptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Data storage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice edit
Nice edit summary. Summed up perfectly. It's annoying when editors completely mischaracterize policy, like this and this. They turned "no more than four paragraphs" into "three paragraphs per guidelines". Haha. The article is over 80,000 characters, so they should've read WP:LEADLENGTH. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yah, that edit perplexed me a bit. If anything, the lead is too short not too long. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. It's a very long article, so a five-paragraph lead would not be inappropriate. And merging unrelated content into one paragraph, like you said in your edit summary, is indeed "awkward". By the way, there's a current discussion on the talk page about the Health section; input from a great and experienced editor/admin like yourself would be very helpful if you're interested in participating. Perhaps inviting other editors to comment would be a good idea, but I don't know the best or most appropriate way to do that. I'll leave that part in your hands if you feel it's something that should be done. But I think the issue is an important one since that section is so lengthy. Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Transcriptor
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Need your guidance
Hi Thaddeus. I received your barnstar and commented there. Thanks! I'm writing now because I just wanted to let you know that I collapsed the bottom part of this thread on the Ebert talk page. This is the edit I made. It was solely tribute comments about Ebert and had nothing to do with the article, which I knew violated WP:TALK. I was simply going to remove all those comments, but decided it would be best to simply collapse it for now, and then get the opinion of an administrator. So if you think it's appropriate to remove all the collapsed content, can you please do it? Thanks again for all your counsel on issues I'm unsure about. :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct that those comments were a violation of talk page guidelines. They were also generally made by significant contributors, so perhaps some leeway is in order.  Collapsing seems like a reasonable compromise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feeback. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Smelling screen
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ebert talk page discussion about health content
Hi again Thaddeus. :) Since it appears that we now have consensus on the Roger Ebert talk page regarding the Health section, I have nominated a most excellent editor (and admin) to make the changes. Perhaps you can guess who it is. However, if you know of another edtior - preferably one with great writing and condensing skills - that you think should do the trimming instead, that would be great too. Thanks so much for getting the discussion focused and headed for resolution! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT: Condense Roger Ebert "Health" section
''Hi, Thad. Here's my condensation of the Roger Ebert "Health" section. (I know you have more important things you're working on.) Use whatever you want.''  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In early 2002, Ebert was diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer, which surgeons successfully removed. He underwent surgery in 2003 for cancer in his salivary glands followed by radiation treatments. Cancer surgery again in mid-2006 left Ebert unable to speak, eat or drink so that he had to use a feeding tube. The 2006 surgery and rehabilitation kept Ebert from reviewing films for months and he did not resume until May 2007. After losing his voice, he adopted a computerized voice system to communicate. Ebert underwent further surgery in January 2008 to address the complications from his previous surgeries. During his various surgeries, doctors carved bone, tissue and skin from his back, arm, and legs, and transplanted them in an attempt to reconstruct his jaw and throat, though these transplants would each be unsuccessful, and eventually removed. In April 2008, Ebert fractured his hip in a fall, a result of the weakening of his body following the unsuccessful tissue transplants. Regarding his death one day, he stated in 2010: "I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. What I am grateful for is the gift of intelligence, and for life, love, wonder, and laughter. You can't say it wasn't interesting. My lifetime's memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris."

In December 2012, Ebert was hospitalized with a fractured hip. On April 2, 2013, he announced that he would be taking a "leave of presence" from his duties because the hip fracture was cancerous and he would be receiving radiation treatment.


 * I think it's an excellent draft. Wow, you reduced a dozen paragraphs down to just the essentials. We'll see what Thaddeus thinks. Btw, I really think the long 2010 quote about his impending death should definitely be removed. While it's a nice quote, it's fluffy and not encylopedic. It's simply unnecessary IMO. On the other hand, the last two sentences of the current health section should not be removed; you don't have them included above. They say: "He said, "I'll be able at last to do what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review." He added an assurance that he was "not going away". ". Those lines are a very appropriate add-on to the April 2, 2013, announcement about the cancer recurrence, and a perfect way to end the paragraph and section. Just my two cents. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this discussion and all of its content be relocated to the article's talk page discussion? That way, it can be part of the consensus discussion in case any editors challenge the changes. And there will be a permanent record of it there. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, 76. Thanks for your nice words. I'll move it on over right now.  I just wanted Thaddeus to see it first because he volunteered to have a crack at it.  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Thanks for moving it over to the article's talk page. When Thaddeus comes out of hibernation, we'll see what he thinks. If he approves, we'll have unanimous support from four editors because JW_Trooper_AA also supported the draft at the article's talk page. We just need to decide what to do with the big block quote that I think should be removed. So it looks like we're about ready for you to make the changes. Anyway, great job. Thaddeus, please add your thoughts at the article's thread so it'll be on the record there once the changes are made. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) 08:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hibernation over. ;)  See article/article talk. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

References

DYK for Drew Cannon
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

tallchief
I would remove my opposition if the article were fully updated with at least five sentences and three sources in her death section showing her notability without regard to race. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you. I will give it a good try tomorrow. For what's its worth, I actually agree with you that someone's race shouldn't impact their notability (except in rare cases where their race played a key role in their life, e.g. Jackie Robinson). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done. μηδείς (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think I'm going to try to bring this one up to GA status. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My two-year-old niece started dancing ballet allong with the Nutcracker when she saw it last December on TV. She thus got a tutu and some ballet DVD's as presents for Christmas.  I just ordered her The Art of Maria Tallchief last night.  Ballet's not a topic that especially interests me, and I am not familiar with the GA process--dou you need reviewers?--but I can help with non-research matters.  Let me know on my talk page if you need anything. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cute story about your niece; I think most people's first (and often only) exposure to the ballet is trough the Nutcracker... At minimum, a good copy edit is always appreciated as it is very hard to see one's own typos/grammar errors. I have more work to do - I picked up Tallchief's autobio and another biography from the library today - but when the time comes, I would certainly appreciate a GA review.  Typically nominations sit for many months before someone reviews them, unless someone with a specific interest in an item grabs it sooner.  GA reviews are pretty simple and there is detailed help available to assist those new to the process.  I'll be in touch.
 * Also, thanks for the barnstar. Such recognition always provides a boost and helps keep me motivated. And I like getting oddball ones to diversify my collection, so good call on the OK one. I was actually born in Oklahoma, although my family moved when I was 3 so I only have a couple real memories of my time there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. I am going to unwatch here now, so do contact me on my talk page when you want a review. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for work on Maria Tallchief

 * (I can't believe there's an Oklahoma Barnstar, but it is quite approraite in this instance, as would have been several others. Great Work! μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC))

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks! I am always glad to hear that people appreciate my efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Brandon Miller (basketball)
 —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  00:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wadi al-Jarf
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Tallchief
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

cookie
aww gee i am one of a crew who tidy up and tweak sentences fun good cooking :) Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  prima help

Thank you for quality articles related to the latest news, such as prima ballerina Maria Tallchief, with a dedication as if it was your one and only topic, for faithfully searching for the most concise wording of her achievements, for your "intelligent bots" and generous offer of help, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I consider this a great honor and am thrilled that my efforts are making a difference.  This award brightened my day and should help keep me motivated for a while :). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for A Boy and His Atom
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Likewise to see you are still around. I was looking at my RfA last night and you managed to be supporter #1 - good times.  What have you been up to lately? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved to China, teaching English! Other then just trying to stay out of trouble. Mostly good things really! A few articles here and there Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, keep in touch. As always, if you need anything Wikipedia related, let me know and I'll be happy to help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks for the recognition, although I'm not sure about the "better than [you] would have" part. I have a number of comments on the article, but since we have company I'll post them there --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Thanks for the recognition. I didn't become an admin just to make the easy decisions, so the time was right to step up and make the right choice.  See also next section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN Alex Ferguson
I strongly opposed posting, but like it or not, there was consensus to post it. I'm not innocent, playing the "football elitism" and "eurocentrism" cards. You held the article to a high standard, put up with an unreasonable amount of abuse, and still sifted through all the yelling and made the correct decision. For what it's worth, thanks for being there.

Cheers, --IP98 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Part of me certainly wanted to let the story continue to linger and possibly die due to Gruesome's behavior.  However, consensus is consensus and someone has to be the bigger person so I chose to let his behavior not affect my decision. While on the user page to try to figure out what the below comment was all about, I noticed that you have a link to one of "my" articles (Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei) which I consider to be one of my finest contributions to Wikipedia.  Consider me honored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:IP98, please quote me correctly on your user page, and please refrain from using "fuck you" as an edit summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:IP98, thank you for your correction, I did indeed "have the balls" to disagree with a particular nomination at ITN, just as you have done to many, but the difference being nobody has said "fuck you" to you when you've objected. Please stop using personal attacks directed at me as your edit summaries, I'd hate to see you blocked again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the disagreement between you too stems from, but it would probably be in both of your self interest to let it go. In particular, unless you are planning on doing something (RfC or similar) with the collected quotes/diffs you both have on your pages, they probably should be removed.  In my experience, being angry/holding a grudge is not worth it.
 * While you are on my page Rambling Man, can you explain what you meant by "Certainly you've provided an insight to the community in your approach here, we'll all have to take that into account in future." At the time, it looked like a threat to me (that you would oppose "my" items based on article quality), but textual communication lacks the subtleties of spoken communication so I may have misunderstood. As such, I wanted to give you a chance to bury the hatchet so we can move forward positively. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was never any kind of threat, it was just that different editors at ITN seem to have different expectations as to what is and what isn't ready to post (possibly one of the problems at ITN at the moment). I don't want any misunderstandings between us, I respect your work here enormously, and wouldn't oppose anything at ITN based on proposer.  It's been a funny few hours with both you and IP98 dropping F-bombs all over the place.  I'm afraid being told "fuck you" by IP98 is not going to result in an RFC, it's going to be dealt with differently, but that's not your problem; the only reason I've replied to this "editor" here is because he has banned me from discussing topics on his talkpage.  And I apologise for that as well.  The matter is in hand and I'll say no more here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. You seemed angry, but it was probably we misreading things.  Sorry for the strong reply.  As to you and IP98, I don't know the situation so I won't comment further.  I was just giving some general advice (unsolicited I know) and only said something because it appeared on my talk page.
 * As to ITN, there does seem to be an usual amount of "unrest" lately. I think part of the problem is that there are only a small number of us regulars so disagreements tend to get carried from one story to the next.  This small number of participants also creates an echo chamber of sorts whereby we think we are enforcing community desires, but may not be since the large community largely stays away from ITN.  I am considering doing a RfC to get wider input on the direction ITN should be heading. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm "relatively" new to ITN and recognise a number of strong personalities who it "appears" think run the show. There is, as you say, an awful amount of quid pro quo (in the anti-sense) in the voting, which is completely un-constructive, but there's not much you can do about that I suppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN - PKK
Thanks for updating that article, well done. --IP98 (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As always, you are welcome. Thanks for bringing the story back to our attention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * I'm glad my efforts are appreciated. Sometimes, I feel like I am fighting a losing battle, so it means a lot to know that I have some support.  With the posting (and subsequent reader interest) of RoboBee and now my latest nomination, Eurasiatic languages, possibly headed towards posting it seems the tide may be turning to where ITN is more accepting of stories outside our usual death, destruction, and ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello
"As such, I have extensive knowledge in Christian apologetics. I am always happy to discuss my faith with anyone, and answer any questions in public or private. That said, evangelic outreach is certainly not my purpose for being here. For example, I have never edited an article related to Christianity." From your user page. I know it may be a slight conflict of interest issue but I strongly believe that if you have extensive knowledge of Christian apologetics, you should edit articles relating to Christianity based upon your knowledge. Would you rather have atheists editing Christianity articles instead? Sorry if this message sounds rude but I just felt strongly about the phrasing you have used on your user page. Thanks. JW_Trooper_AA (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, correct. I am certainly qualified to write good quality, neutral articles about Christianity.  Additionally, articles written only from an atheist perspective would certainly be non-neutral.  My lack of contribution to Christianity articles (to date, which could change) is due to my personal writing preferences not from self-disqualification.  That is, when I write about Christianity (which I do often) I prefer to make my own persuasive argument attempts rather than summarize previous authors thoughts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages
Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages & and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Utricularia gibba
-- Spencer T♦ C 03:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Dove Real Beauty Sketches
Allen3 talk 23:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 10 daily headlines can you look at

 * Taiwan demands an apology from the Philippines. One Taiwanese fisherman died yesterday after a Philippine Coast Guard intercepted a Taiwanese fishering vessel in the disputed waters of the Bashi Channel. (BBC)

i am trying to be neutral as to death but cannot get another editor to agree that this statement does not imply whether the man died to accident or murder

i need you to look at the sentence - thanks--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Looked neutral as is to be, but I tried a new wording to hopefully achieve consensus. We'll see how it goes.  While you are here, I wanted to let you know that linking country names over and over again is pointless and technically should be avoided per WP:Overlink.  When the country is the subject of the blurb it is OK ("China announces ..."), but of doubtful use.  When the country is peripheral linking is useless clutter ("Chinese scientists announce...").  On a related note, linking something like "Chinese" to an article such as Chinese people with a | is usually a bad idea as such articles imply ethnicity whereas the plain adjective only implies location (and maybe nationality).  At bare minimum, it is bad form to link "United States" five times on the same date.
 * I don't care enough about these things to unlink other people's blurbs, but this is why I usually do not link such words in my own blurbs. Since you have been doing a lot of cleanup of blurbs (which is much appreciated), I thought it wouldn't hurt to give you another thing to clean up (if you are so inclined). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * only reason that i have been doing it so much lately is nickst seems to be absent he was always doing it and therefore i thought it was agree upon as required style--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, a lot of people overlink; to be honest, I didn't even know if you were one of them, but since you were here I thought I'd mention it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eocypselus rowei
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the recognition and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Thanks for making several improvements to it while you were there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Ciudad Blanca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN
Thank you. It's frustrating being referred to as "jeering spectator". FWIW, I don't usually update articles because I'm not very good at it. I do actually read articles before commenting. Per WP:BULLY, On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing of all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system., but it feels like some people are trying to chase me away. I recognize that I'm not perfect. It seems like discussions with some editors always turn into a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Anyway, as always thanks for being there and for keeping a cool head.

Cheers

--IP98 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by this...
You have never experienced a malformed edit conflict. That is, when you attempt an edit, a screen comes up indicating that there was an edit conflict, but the diff between the conflicted versions doesn't show any difference but the change you were attempting to make. So, not seeing what there was an edit conflict with, you assume the system is just mistaken or that there was an extremely minor or reverted edit that caused the conflict. And then you copy your version into the edit box, save, and move on... not realizing that the edit conflict mechanism failed to notify you that there was, in fact, some differing content. Because if you had experienced this, you wouldn't have accused Ks0stm of malicious intent. --  tariq abjotu  01:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No accusation of "malicious intent" was intended, but thanks for the info. I don't normally look at the diff but instead hit back and copy my comment and then re-add it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Glad you like the article. Thanks for the recognition and for nominating the item at ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca
I'm an archaeologist at the University of Kansas who specializes in cultures of both Mesoamerica and the Isthmo-Colombian Area. I've been following the recent edits to the article on La Ciudad Blanca, many of which have been made by Chris Fisher of Colorado State University, the project archaeologist. I think it's important to retain corrections to facts, including the acknowledgement that the region of eastern Honduras in which the legend of Ciudad Blanca is located, a region corresponding roughly with the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in La Mosquitia is not within Mesoamerica but rather the Isthmo-Colombian Area. I will be reviewing the content of the article for accuracy and would be happy to answer any specific questions that you or other Wikipedia editors may have. I do understand the reasonable cautions, but think it is essential to get basic facts correct with appropriate documentation. Hoopes (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If by "many" edits you mean 2, you are correct. Please note that the actual corrections (which were minor details, not "basic facts") were left in tact.  However, his edit also introduced an error (changed a direct quote of Elkins) and general were puffery.  I'm sure it was not his intention to introduce such bias, but when you are that close to the subject you can't be objective.  This is why we have guidelines on editing when one has a conflict of interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Nice work expanding it with your own edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's essential for the article to sustain a neutral, "just the facts" tone rather than to promote any particular individual's personal thoughts, feelings, excitement, interpretations, etc. just because those have been documented in popular magazine articles or similar sources. Archaeologists who have dealt with this topic have emotions, too. They just don't typically publish those in dissertations and scientific articles. An important function of this article is to make it clear what is known and what is not, especially given a tendency to exaggerate how "unknown" or "mysterious" the region is. The fact is, it is not "unknown" to the people who actually live there, including both indigenous people and settlers from outside. It is also not as "mysterious" to archaeologists as some would assert. Hoopes (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the most essential thing is to stick to what sources say. Verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia.  This is key to neutrality.  "Correcting" things to fit one's own understanding of the facts is, in actuality, non-neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. If there are facts that require additional documentation in source material, flag them and I will provide the citations necessary to document Verifiability. Neutrality is lost when the only sources used represent bias, as is true with the repeated citations of a recent popular article in the New Yorker that presents a specific point of view. Please note that I have changed one of the subheadings of the article from the name of a living individual to the name of a project. Given current commercial interests in the production and promotion of a future documentary film as well as a recent science fiction film (which goes on sale tomorrow in DVD and Blu-Ray formats) and a recent mass-market nonfiction travel-adventure book, I think it is important to be alert to the use of this Wikipedia article for promotional purposes. Hoopes (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering I wrote Elkins material, I can be pretty certain it wasn't added in an attempt to promote anything. :) We can only use the sources that exist; the New Yorker article is excellent - much better than most other sources.  Of course if you can find scientific critique of the the Elkins material, that would be great, but I don't believe any exists yet.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so certain of yourself. Are you aware that Douglas Preston, the author of the New Yorker article, is a bestselling writer who is also seeking to profit from a book about the making of the documentary film? As someone familiar with the scientific literature, I can assure you that the New Yorker article, although an entertaining read, is actually not so "excellent" when it comes to the facts. For a scientific critique of Elkins, I refer you to this blog post from a year ago by UC-Berkeley archaeologist Rosemary Joyce, perhaps the world's most reliable source on the archaeology of Honduras: Good science, big hype, bad archaeology. With all due respect, I think your copious, uncritical, and poorly informed paraphrase of Preston's New Yorker article for large sections of this Wikipedia article does not represent the best Wikipedia practice. Hoopes (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kettle, Black. I would say adding your own opinions to the article, and especially changing sourced lines to say different things while leaving the source in tact, "does not represent the best Wikipedia practice."  Joyce's so-called critique of the archeology is actually a rant against the sensationalism of the journalism (and the UTL people for seeking the publicity).  She hadn't even seen the images at the time.  (It also actually was already in the article before your post here).  As to Preston, he write regularly about archaeology and has earned a reputation for reliable scientific reporting.  He is a much better source than 95% of the available writings on the subject.  He is not "seeking to profit" anymore than any other writer is, so I guess that means every paid journalist is unreliable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And for the record, the article is still very much a work in progress. It is my intention to expand on previous tries using a variety of sources over time.  It is, however, my style to finish with one source before moving on to the next. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether every paid journalist is unreliable is a debatable point. What counts for "science journalism" these days (The History Channel? The National Geographic Channel? Really?) is often abysmal, even from "reliable" scientific reporters. (Stephanie Pappas, who wrote the story on Ciudad Blanca for LiveScience that was picked up by the Huffington Post, is well-intentioned but has admitted to me that she is simply writing too many things to do more thorough investigative research. She could have contacted me on the story, but neglected to do so before it was submitted. However, as a popular news source she is "reliable" enough for Wikipedia.) You say that Preston "is a much better source than 95% of the available writings on the subject." What would those be? Do you consider Preston to be more reliable than Stewart? Have you consulted Jungleland yet? I will be reading more scientific literature by archaeologists. It will be interesting to see how what they say compares with what appears in "reliable scientific reporting." Hoopes (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, what did you identify as "my own opinions" that were added to the article? What are your criteria for distinguishing opinions from facts? How do you determine which facts are relevant and which are not? Isn't your own opinion at work in that? Hoopes (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by some of the "citation needed" requests. If a statement contains hyperlinks to existing Wikipedia articles and those articles contain the necessary citations, is it necessary to also provide the citations in the parent article? Hoopes (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a valid source, so yes citations are needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. You're saying that the valid sources cited in existing Wikipedia articles that are hyperlinked from an article need to repeated again in the parent article? That makes no sense to me at all. What's the point of hyperlinking articles in Wikipedia if the relevant information in each needs to be repeated? I also don't understand your "not in source" comment about Theodore Morde. If someone is an archaeologist but the reference to that person in a source doesn't explicitly say that they're an archaeologist, then they can't be identified as an archaeologist (or a geographer, filmmaker, cartographer, etc.)? The documentation of Morde as a spy is provided in the article on Theodore Morde. Does that same source also need to be repeated in the La Ciudad Blanca article in order to identify him as such there? Hoopes (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not make sense to you, but that is Wikipedia policy. Each article should stand alone.  A hyperlink, is to provide further information (or needed background) for interested parties, not citation for a fact. Our reader shouldn't be required to go searching for a citation (and almost certainly won't).  Sometimes uncontentious details can be uncited, but yes, claiming someone is spy is definitely something that needs cited. (It is probably also irrelevant, for the record.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that each article should stand alone, but it should not be necessary to document well-known facts with citations. Requesting a citation to document that specific sites are actually in specific countries seems extreme to me, but I provided a citation nonetheless. (I also provided a citation for the OSS/spy reference.) By the way, I disagree with you about the espionage references being irrelevant. There is a long history of Americans using archaeology as a cover for espionage in Mexico and Central America. See this article, for example: Anthropologists as Spies. You'll see that all of the principals in this article (Spinden, Morley, Lothrop, and Mason) were not only contemporaries with Morde but also major contributors to archaeology relevant for the interpretation of the Ciudad Blanca legend. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in the current lingo what they were doing being referred today as false flag research. (See David Price's book Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in the Service of the Militarized State.) There has been a long history of this in Mosquitia, including Sylvanus Morley's coastline surveillance for the Office of Naval Intelligence. If you don't see the connection between LiDAR and espionage/surveillance, then you've just not given much consideration yet to the technology. Mosquitia played a key role during the Nicaraguan Revolution, when the Moskitos provided the Sandinistas with significant logistical support (counter to the infamous contras who were supplied by Oliver North of the Iran-Contra affair). Today, Mosquitia is a hotbed of drug production and trafficking, and LiDAR is another potential tool in the War on Drugs in the region. I don't think that Steve Elkins is working with the CIA or anything like that, but it's likely the agency is keeping track of what's going on with that project. (Of course, we'll have to wait until we have reliable sources before any of that can be mentioned in Wikipedia!) To get back to Morde, I don't think it was by chance that he went down to Honduras in 1940. That was the same year that archaeologist Lothrop was reassigned to Peru to keep track of German U-boat movements and that Mason went to Sitio Conte, Panama (near the Canal Zone) to excavate the gold artifacts that Lothrop was unable to recover. Of course, the events of attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 changed many priorities and the not insignificant U.S. involvement in World War II may have affected--indirectly or not--Morde's ability to return to Honduras to "explore". Note that there is a lot more history here than Douglas Preston has told. I haven't ready Christopher Stewart's Jungleland yet (have you?), so I don't know if he gets into any of that. At any rate, this is a long way of saying that I think Morde's background is actually relevant to the various legends of Ciudad Blanca (whose "mystery" may be more complex than imagined, and not necessarily because of the region's archaeology). I do appreciate that some of this may constitute original research, but there are published and relevant sources that establish relevant facts whose inclusion improves the quality of this article. Hoopes (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously Discovery Channel has destroyed any reputation they may have had in the past, and has long ceased to be a reliable source. I had also already determined that the Live Science article was not a great source.  Despite what you may think, I am actually capable of judging the quality of a source. I have not read Jungleland yet, but it is certainly my intention to do so.  Of course, it was written "for profit" (more so even than a news article), so by your definition it should be considered an unreliable source.  As I alluded to above, I certainly plan to extend the Morde info from additional sources.
 * There is a difference between ("may have) had ties to OSS" and "was a spy", but its a minor point not worth debating - the important thing was to cite the detail. As to the other s - I only tagged entire PARAGRAPHS that were uncited.  It was not intended to say "this last detail needs a cite", but rather "this entire paragraph needs a cite."  As to what is an opinion, when you lead a sentence with "it is important to note" (for example), that is a clear indication you are arguing a point, not presenting "just the facts". --13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could discuss the issues about relevance of Lost World fiction on the article's talk page before deleting those references. I think it is directly relevant to the theme of "legendary" cities and the mystique of the intrepid explorer. Without this stuff, the romance of Ciudad Blanca really makes no sense. R. Tripp Evans discusses this issue in Romancing the Maya, which really should be cited in this article. I hope you will restore the section about Morley's surveys of Mosquitia during World War I, since they represent some of the first work by an archaeologist in the region. For what it's worth, Morley's fascination with the Maya can be traced to his boyhood reading of fantasy writer H. Rider Haggard's novel Heart of the World (1895), which is about an explorer discovering a "lost city" in Central America. The romantic seekers of Ciudad Blanca are following in these footsteps. Hoopes (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworded it a bit, but I didn't delete the material except for a sentence about WWI placed in the context of 1850. I am skeptical of the relevance of the Lost World material, as it does not relate directly to Ciudada Blanca.  Unless reliable sources tie these themes to Ciudada Blanca, it is irresponsible for us to do so.  However, the information is definitely interesting.  I am happy to give it time to be properly integrated.  I will find a place for the WWI bit, per your request, as it does look relevant upon review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. The romance of Ciudad Blanca in Honduran cultural would be better explained by developments in Honduras, not by what some Americans were interested in (although America's interest are also relevant since many of the adventurers/archaeologists were Americans that became fascinated by the story.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to include the relevant WWI material about Sylvanus Morley's coastal surveys of Mosquitia, which are definitely relevant. With respect to the Lost World material, I don't understand why it is necessary to have a specific tie to Ciudad Blanca when it is clear that discussions such as those of R. Tripp Evans in Romancing the Maya (2004) and others refer specifically to "lost cities" in Central America--which is precisely what Ciudad Blanca is claimed to be. Hoopes (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me why you're unwilling to have this discussion on the article's own talk page, which is where it should appropriately appear? In fact, I request that you transclude this entire discussion from your own talk page to the article's talk page, where it can be more easily consulted and referenced by other readers and contributors. Hoopes (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm doing this myself. Hoopes (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Philippine general election
Hi Thaddeus,

Since you're on and posting updates, can you please take a look at Philippine general election. I've not read it, but there seems to be consensus that it's ready.

--IP98 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not my cup of tea, but I posted per your request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WT:LEAD
I put back your revert, but there's a much larger discussion going on about this issue, and I believe willfully disregarding a really basic point of the MOS is bad policy... note that 2001's been bouncing the discussion around so that discussion doesn't begin to encompass the entire debate. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/La Ciudad Blanca
Left you comments there for DYK and GA. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Hi Thaddeus. I've noticed and carefully read the whole discussion about the Hindi Wikipedia and the criteria to evaluate one Wikipedia's quality. This is something that I used to be involved in in the past and I, therefore, left a comment to propose possible solutions in finding alternative ways to replace the old-fashioned "50-article test". Please feel free to comment on it. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * La Ciudad Blanca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to LLC


 * Theodore Morde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Pawtucket

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

liberty
great edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberty_Reserve&curid=39506373&diff=557475150&oldid=557465808

hope you know I am in favor of this story if we can do it honorably. And either the defense will emerge or the defense will be shown to be gagged, either of which balances the story. bed time for me μηδείς (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have no problem with you. Your objection was legitimate and honest.  Although you have made things difficult for me, you are reasonable and willing to talk it out.  You have higher standards for what should be posted on ITN than most (especially me), but that is your pejorative.  I do not take it personally. Hopefully new sources will come out tomorrow and the argument on NPOV will be moot.
 * A certain other party really pissed me off (I'm over it now) with his bullshit opposition and insistence on making things personal. With you, it is always about the article/argument, not the editor.  That's the way it should be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the opposition wasn't bullshit as Medeis agreed with it, unless you think Medeis' oppose was bullshit too? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "not in the news at all" bit. Anyway, in reflection I overreacted and will strike some of my comments on the ITN page. --22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was originally 'weak oppose or neutral' although I didn't vote. My opinion now is in favor, after sleeping on it, and concluding this is as large a story as the Kimdotcom and SOPA ones.  I don't think there's any evidence that any of us thinks the other's opinions here are in bad faith. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that was definitely a typo....
...on my User page. Thanks for the fix. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. It was so off, that I wasn't quite sure. :)  While on the subject, I found your comments re:civility interesting.  I certainly agree that cursing != incivility (although it certainly doesn't help the situation).  I also agree that (real) civility is important and poorly enforced at current.  I find often that "established" members (with no one in particular in mind) are allowed to get away piss poor behavior because they are "valuable" to the project, ignoring, of course, they countless potentially valuable contributors they run off with their behavior. The double standard really irks me, which is one (of many) reasons I rarely read the discussion boards (except ITN/C of course) any more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. Good comments. I still have big issues with the cultural differences here though. I'm currently working at a very up-market school in Australia, and yesterday sat on the edge of a "vigorous" discussion among staff. It would have horrified many from the US, because it contained many words in that category you define as cursing. And that's because it's much more the norm here. The issue was resolved. No-one left the room offended. Life goes on normally. (We don't (normally) talk like that in front of a class, but I have seen it happen. The kids, of course, have heard it all before anyway.) But it made me think. It's like the US vs UK (vs even Australian) spelling issue here. One problem is that many used to only their own spelling aren't even aware that words are spelt differently elsewhere. I suspect the same is true of "cursing" words. What is seen as horrible in one place is perfectly normal elsewhere, and many don't know that. Interesting problem. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting problem indeed, and very good point about cultural differences. I had no idea about "cursing" being the norm in Austrailia, but even here in the US there are significant differences.  In some parts of the country, things are certainly "uptight" but in other parts bad words have little impact- people may try to avoid them in "classy" settings, but aren't offended by them in normal conversation.  For the record, my personal opinion is that curse words are no big deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not quite
I saw this just before the thread was archived. That isn't quite how it happened. I had opposed the posting, and then Medeis suggested it should be pulled, and I agreed with her. If you check the edit history, you'll find the order of edits as described. Probably confusing because I modified my earlier comment in response to Medeis' comment. And for what it's worth, I never expected it to be pulled so quickly, and I never wanted (or asked for) a supervote. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I mentioned you (and not Medeis) because he has !voted before the posting.  I did not realize you hadn't even said pull until after it was pulled.  I certainly realized it was King of Hearts you made the bizarre decision to pull. For the record, if someone was supervoting it was clearly King of Hearts.  Considering he is not even an ITN regular, I am inclined to think that is exactly what happened (if he wasn't, he was being careless in assessing the situation) and using you/Medeis as an excuse to enforce his opinion. No hard feelings. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thaddeus, if you want to repost Liberty Reserve go ahead, assuming the other opposes are not significant. I have resolved my concerns and am now in favor of it posting. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's fine now, but just a point of clarification, Medeis didn't !vote before posting unless you count "Whoa". In any case, time to move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it will get re-posted soon, and I think it will. There are three items marked ready right now - two of which are very obvious posts - so apparently no admin was reviewed ITN recently.  I would never post my own item though, as that would be a call for unnecessary drama. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just posted here given I knew Thaddeus was on line and one of the Admins following up on the page itself, I was not trying to procure some sort of conflict of interest. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: ITNCredit
Could you give credit to User:Dwaipayanc and User:CAWylie too? They did not join at the time of nomination! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks for letting me know they deserved it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

 * That's a pretty epic barnstar! Thanks a lot for the recognition...  Please feel free to comment on the ITN nomination - article contributors are certainly allowed, indeed encouraged, to participate in the discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (June 2013)


From the Editor Since its formation in 2006, WikiProject Christianity has come a long way. A significant number of new articles have appeared on a wide range of topics, and the quality of some key articles has seen dramatic improvement. Yet, by the very nature of the open, crowd-sourced development environment in which we operate, as the number of pages in the project has increased at times our attention has been naturally diluted. We should of course strive for quality everywhere, but we should remember that this newsletter is called Ichthus.

Starting this month we will start a "Focus on" series, where we will try to "bring Jesus back" and focus on him. For five consecutive issues we will focus on one aspect of the study of Jesus. The goal of this series is to inform our members of what the project contains and highlight those articles which have reached quality and stability.

From this month until November we will focus on the historical Jesus, a topic which has been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages, as well as the general media. This is an important topic, and we have a good set of well referenced articles on that now. Then, starting in December we will focus on Christ, and the spiritual and theological elements that the title entails. Following that the review of the life and ministry of Jesus in the New Testament, his miracles, and parables will take place. And each month the "Bookshelf" will mention a book that fits the theme of the month.

We hope you will enjoy this journey as we present a new aspect of Jesus each month. And given that as the number of project pages increases, the ratio of those watching the pages declines, we hope that more of you will watch some of these central pages that help define this project.

Church of the month The current building of All Saints' Church, Winthorpe in Nottinghamshire, England which was completed in 1888, is at least the third version of the church, which dates back to at least the early 13th century.

Good articles and DYKs The article Jesus received the good article mark last month, as did Cleeve Abbey. A number of churches were featured on the main page in the DYK section in May, namely St. Lamberti, Hildesheim, Karja church, Braaby Church, St Patrick's Liverpool, Vlah Church, Freerslev Church, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu, St. Michael's Cathedral (Sitka, Alaska), St. Lamberti, Hildesheim, Karja church, Braaby Church, St. Pierre Cathedral, Saint-Pierre, Mont Saint Michel Abbey, St Patrick's Church, Liverpool, Vlah Church, St Catherine of Siena Church, Cocking, Catedral Nuestra Señora de La Asunción, Roholte Church, Notre Dame Cathedral, Taiohae, Leicester Abbey, Caracas Cathedral, Caldey Abbey, King's Mead Priory, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Hong Kong) andAll Saints' Church, Winthorpe, as well as the hymn What Wondrous Love Is This.

Focus on... THE HISTORICAL JESUS

Did Jesus exist? Did he walk the streets of Jerusalem? The Historicity of Jesus article answers these questions with a firm affirmative. Historicity does not discuss if Jesus walked on water, but if he walked at all. The issue was the subject of scholarly debate before the end of last century, but the academic debate is almost over now. As the article discusses, virtually all academic opposition to the existence of Jesus has evaporated away now and scholars see it as a concluded issue. The discussion is now just among mostly self-published non-academics.

In 2011 John Dickson tweeted that if anyone finds a professor of history who denies that Jesus lived,he would eat a page of his Bible (Matthew 1 he said). Dickson's Bible is still safe.

The article discusses the ancient sources that relate to Jesus and how they fit together to establish that he existed. The evidence for Jesus is not just based on the Christian gospels, but by inter-relating them with non-Christian sources, and the fact that they all "fit together". Moreover, the existence of Jesus is not supported just by Christian scholars and in recent years the detailed knowledge of Jewish scholars and their discoveries (e.g. Shlomo Pines' discovery of the Syriac Josephus) has proven highly beneficial. We encourage you to read and follow the article, for the existence of Jesus is central to the existence of Christianity.

From the bookshelf Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert Van Voorst, 2000 ISBN 0-8028-4368-9

Just a few years after its publication, Van Voorst's book has become the standard comprehensive text for the discussion of ancient sources that relate to Jesus and his historicity. This detailed yet really readable book has received wide ranging endorsements - Blomberg and Harris separately referring to it as the most comprehensive treatment of the subject.

Did you know...
 * ... that Johann Sebastian Bach wrote the initials "S. D. G.", for Soli Deo Gloria, at the beginning and end of all his church compositions to give God credit for the work, and that Handel at times did the same?

Calendar The coming month includes days dedicated to the honor of Beheading of John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, the Nativity of John the Baptist, and Saint Barnabas.

- Help requests Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity. For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the listhere EdwardsBot (talk) ~

Bayern
I am not sure if this should be viewed as a nomination from a bick dominant bully kultur, or one that deals with a very weird bunch of people and their trivia. :) μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "bick" means, but the point is loud and clear. To which I say "touché". :) ... If ITN is to be more accepting of cultural items, we have to start somewhere and I don't think it will be with American items. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bick" is de vay an accentet Inklish-speakink Tscherman woult say "big". μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Emmys and Oscars and actors and deaths.
You're right on Emmys and Oscars. (However there was a "perhaps" in there as I don't routinely follow acting award ceremonies.) By the way, the weak in my oppose was based on a desire that the death criteria should be modified to be more inclusive; i.e. I (still) don't see her meeting the criteria as written, but think it would be good to post someone like her. If the criteria are de facto laxer they should be updated to reflect this; based on strictness they certainly seem like they date from a death posted as blurb period. (The standard for Olympians is apparently that one gold is insufficient for posting.) 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The death rules haven't been revised, true, but as I said on HiLo's talk page the "definition" of "top of their field" has weakened since the introduction of the RD line. This is often how things work on Wikipedia - the practice changes first, then the rules change to match practice. As to Olympians, one gold should be enough as it quite clearly indicates that a person was top in the world at something at one time.  However, people are afraid that there are just so many gold medals given (100+ per Olympics even w/o team sports) that doing so would allow Olympians to over-run the RD list. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Hopefully the criteria will follow suit shortly. I did a little research on Olympians. A search for "Olympic" (no hits for Olympian) at Deaths in 2013 gives 15 hits. Two in the references and one coach leaves twelve Olympians, of which only five were Gold medallists. Of these five, two are stubs, so that would mean three RDs (if nominated and updated) since the start of 2013 if this was an accepted criteria. To my knowledge only one of these was nominated.
 * (Andrew Simpson (sailor), Nino Bibbia, Vladimir Romanovsky, Judit Ágoston-Mendelényi, Ottavio Missoni) 85.167.109.26 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The incubator was an active project last Friday
Hi, I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages (2nd nomination) earlier, and posted a comment, but it was an edit conflict with the closing of the MfD. There is also discussion at WT:Incubator and in the history at. Please review. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of La Ciudad Blanca
Hello! Your submission of La Ciudad Blanca at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

ITN archive bot
Perl? PHP? How will you handle changes in blurbs after posting? I was thinking to maybe just build a rolling diff of the template. Just wondering.

Cheers

--IP98 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perl. Most likely, I'll go based on the diff where the item cycles off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use the item above to demark when one expires off the bottom. +1 for MP balance might trip you up. --IP98 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

European Super League (association football)
Last month user J Morrison slapped a multiple issues notice on European Super League (association football), an article whose existence you defended (correctly in my opinion) at length on its Talk page back in 2009. I removed the claim that the article is an orphan (it isn't), and I think much else in the notice is unjustified (and unexplained), but I have unpleasant memories of earlier dealings with Morrison on this subject, so I really don't want to get involved again. Indeed, for the sake of a quiet life, I haven't even dared restore the link to European Super League which he removed from the Scottish Premier League article's Old Firm section, so the words are still there in the text but linked to nowhere (they are perhaps only still there after 3RR seemingly stopped him deleting my contribution a third time - in fairness to him much of his subsequent moving and re-writing of my contribution may well be an improvement, though I'm not sure about all of it, but I'm not currently willing to fight over it). But I am concerned that this notice damages the Super League article unfairly right now, and if it is ignored for long enough may later be used to justify an attempt at deleting it on grounds that the alleged problems have not been fixed. Any suggestions? Tlhslobus (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the article within the next couple days and remove the tag myself if warranted. I will also reply here with my thoughts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thaddeus, I'll be looking forward to hearing them (but please don't feel obliged to supply them if you find you don't really have the time). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to look at it? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - I got in a content dispute of my own and haven't done much but argue for the last week... You are correct, the tags were nonsense.  I removed all but one (which is questionable, but slightly justified since not all proposals have been listed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thaddeus. I suspect the last one should also go, on grounds that he hasn't bothered indicating on the Talk page which points of view have allegedly been omitted. And maybe there should be some procedure for having him wrapped over the knuckles for putting up nonsense tags in the article while making no effort to explain himself in Talk, but that's perhaps a biased view of mine which in any case I don't really want to pursue. But presumably I shouldn't really delete the tag without first asking him to spell out the allegedly omitted perspectives on Talk, which could tie me up in a distressing and possibly losing dispute for ages when I have other priorities, so I may eventually go down that route, but probably not any time soon. An alternative might be to try to guess some different viewpoints and then use Google to find some reliable sources for them, which is also time-consuming (and at least in theory is a stupid thing to do when I could instead ask him what viewpoints were missing), but possibly less time-consuming, and less distressing, than getting into a dispute. By the way, how did your own dispute work out? Anyway thanks again. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It better to just remove bad taggings and move on than to try to discipline the tagger, IMO. I would say the current tag is indeed somewhat inaccurate - it is more that the article is incomplete than that it lacks some POVS.  (In the context of this article, I don't even know what a POV supposedly would be.)  As to my own problems, see Talk:La Ciudad Blanca if you want to waste several hours of your life or just this latest section to get an idea of the level of unreasonableness I am dealing with.  In short, I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years, edited numerous highly contentious subjects, written well over 100 articles from scratch, and have never encountered anything remotely as different as this situation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong,as I haven't studied the matter in detail (and I'm biased in your favour). And of course I'm not supposed to say so because saying so violates WP:AGF. But my impression is that you ran into a Grand Inquisitor on a crusade to extirpate heresy, and who basically decided you and your article were one of the heretics and one of the heresies in need of extirpation. Of course that's not how he sees himself - he sees himself as a gallant defender of the truths of science against the alleged horrors of pseudo-science in general, and pseudo-archaeology in particular, just as presumably all Grand Inquisitors see themselves as heroic defenders of the one true faith against the forces of darkness. Of course since Wikipedia doesn't allow you say this (due WP:AGF) it's rather hard to defend yourself against it. And I'm afraid I don't have enough experience of Wikipedia to advise on the matter (assuming advice is needed - I get the impression that Serendi may be coming round to seeing it from your point of view after he's now had a taste of arguing with the Grand Inquisitor, and maybe he'll soon rule against him, if he has powers to make such rulings).But if you still need advice, you might perhaps try pointing out this Grand Inquisitor possibility to some experienced fellow-admin and get his or her advice. All the best, and thanks again for the Dua's Layer fix.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My assessment of the situation is likewise, except that I think Serendipitous is about to give up. Hopefully I am wrong.  You are welcome re:Dua's layer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Chen
Sorry for just having shat all over that nomination, nothing personal. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have no intention of working on the article, so even if it is supported it likely won't be posted on quality grounds. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a word of advice, its good practice (IMO) to either tag teh article ref improve or individual lines cn but not both since the two templates serve the same purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hate that (double level tagging) myself. But the sentences are so dense with claims they almost all need individual tags.  I'll get rid of the article one. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 86th Scripps National Spelling Bee
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for La Ciudad Blanca
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The revisions to this page are based upon extensive paraphrase from a popular article published in a recent issue of New Yorker magazine as well as mass media news reports. The claim that filmmakers and scientists are searching for a legendary "lost city of gold" adds harmful spin to a story that has already gotten out of control. This approach is likely to result in permanent damage to archaeological remains in the region as a result of uncontrollable looting. The phrase "lost city of gold" has been sensationalized and the team has in fact not mentioned anything about gold. This is a case of Wikipedia being utilized to forward a personal agenda of fantasy and hype rather than to disseminate information in an objective and responsible fashion. Hoopes (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You insults and accusations of bad faith are not appreciated. If anyone is pushing an agenda it is you - as you yourself admit you are trying to "fight" the media "spint" and protect "legitimate" archaeology. Your insistence on putting your spin in the article is not helpful. Wikipedia does not advocate a position, despite your wish it did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether I wish that it did or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you are pushing a subjective agenda rather than striving for objectivity. While I could be mistaken about this, you appear to have been entranced by Douglas Preston's New Yorker article, which is why you paraphrase and quote it so extensively even when other sources are available. You continue to restore irrelevant information and to delete relevant information. I suggest that one way to ratchet down the emotions is to anticipate controversial changes on the article's talk page and discuss them before making them. I think it is more appropriate to do that there than on your talk page here. Hoopes (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who refuses to source my edits, so if anyone is pushing an agenda it is you. You "could be" mistaken and in fact are QUITE mistaken about me and I have told you as much five or six times.  The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this and continue to spew the same insults tell me you have no intention of being reasonable. --ThaddeusB] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB#top|talk) 22:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In saying, "You 'could be' mistaken and in fact are QUITE mistaken about me," are you admitting that you HAVE in fact been entranced by Douglas Preston's New Yorker article, which is why you paraphrase and quote it so extensively even when other sources are available? If so, that is BIAS. Hoopes (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are unbelievable. I tell yo that you are quite mistaken about me being "entranced" about some damn source and your reply is that proved I am entranced by it. WOW! --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say something about your reading comprehension, but I'll refrain. Hoopes (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it. The problem is not that you are refusing to source edits, but that you are making many edits that rely only upon only a single source, which happens to be a popular article written by someone who has little knowledge of either pseudoarchaeology or the relevant scientific archaeology of Honduras. I don't care how often you repeat things. The way that you are editing the article is biased and you are showing no signs of being reasonable. Please let me know how you would prefer to have this conflict mediated, by whom, and how that will insure objectivity and lack of bias. Hoopes (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it - I have added almost all of the 20+ sources in the article, not just Preston's article. You also don't seem to get it that the article is unfinished.  You especially don't seem to get it that your edits are unsourced. If you would like to seek a third opinion, that is fine.  Pick a specific item of dispute, create a new section on the talk page explaining your POV on that point (preferably without insulting me), I'll add my POV and then we can seek a third opinion on that point.--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have reverted my changes to reflect what YOU feel is relevant. That is extreme pushing of your own biaed POV. Hoopes (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are 100% unbiased. LOL --23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed that. In fact, I made my own bias clear to you from the beginning, when I identified myself as a professional archaeologist specializing in the area where la Ciudad Blanca is located! My bias includes 30+ years of studying the archaeology of Central America with an emphasis on the Isthmo-Colombian Area. It also includes extensive teaching and publications on issues of critical thinking, especially as they pertain to pseudoarchaeology. It also includes supervision of a recent doctoral dissertation based on the use of LiDAR in archaeology. I was one of the principal interviewees for the series on Ciudad Blanca published last year in El Heraldo (a leading Honduran newspaper). I didn't begin editing this article until after I had already communicated directly with Chris Fisher, the UTL project archaeologist, as well as with archaeologists Chris Begley and Rosemary Joyce (and with other archaeologists and anthropologists specializing in Honduras). Yes, I'm biased. My bias is that I am well-informed in subject matter that is directly relevant to the content of this article. How about you? What's your bias and what are the criteria by which you decide what's relevant and what's not? As for "extreme pushing," as I've repeatedly said, your own heavy reliance on Douglas Preston's article in the New Yorker suggests that you are doing some extreme pushing of your own in favor of promoting sensationalized, romanticized, and ultimately misleading interpretations devoid of significant scientifically relevant contexts. You claim this article is about the legend of Ciudad Blanca, but you have included extensive information to make it appear as if it's about LiDAR discoveries and science. The reality is that this article, as it's currently written, really doesn't do justice to either. Maybe if you extremely push the romance and I extremely push the science we'll wind up with something in between. However, I think the best result will be achieved by sticking to the relevant facts. In my opinion, those do not include the personal vignettes and emotional quotations used to add "color" and appeal to Preston's article nor do they include a bias that provides free publicity either for Preston's book (to the exclusion of others already published, such as Jungleland) or for Elkins' film (to the exclusion of others already made, such as El Xendra and other documentaries in English, Spanish, and other languages. Hoopes (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally providing a relevant source (http://www.elheraldo.hn/Otras-Secciones/Especiales/ciudad_blanca/Inicio). I will take a look. If you had just done that from the beginning we could have maybe saved a lot of trouble. As to the use of Preston, I have explained this at least 6 times. I am getting really really impatient with your refusal to assume good faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say that. I provided that source two weeks ago! You apparently ignored that, as well as other sources I have provided. You may have "explained" your overreliance on Preston multiple times, but as far as I can tell you have not deleted one quotation or reference to his article and citations of that source still vastly outnumber those to any other. I don't care about your own impatience, which you have already demonstrated in spades. What I care about is your actual willingness to assume good faith through your actions, which would include consulting with or querying me before reverting changes or additions that I have made. I would like to see this article be as good as it possibly can be, free of bias, and accurate in every respect. Why are you assuming that I am not also editing in good faith? I really don't want to fight, but to proceed with understanding, intelligence, and compromise. If you will tell me what you fell needs a source, I will be happy to do my best to provide acceptable, reliable sources. Hoopes (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you provided it before, I missed it. Sorry.  Let's "start over" - we have the same aim here even if it doesn't seem that way.  As long as we agree not to make things personal anymore (e.g. accusations of bias), we should be able to make progress.  As you yourself said "you can't rush quality", so if you give me some time to reduce the reliance on Preston as I expand with other sources I think/hope you will like the results.  I have actually been collecting resources from inter-library loan which I hope will improve the quality of citations.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's a deal (I'm only just now reading this). I'm willing to be patient with you if you will extend the same courtesy to me. It's good that we both agree that quality takes time. We also both agree that this article is currently incomplete. Most importantly, we agree that it's important that the article be as free as possible from the influence of personal POV and bias. As I mentioned, I was out-of-town the past week and even before that had little time to devote to editing this article. I also have a number of relevant resources at hand in addition to what is probably the best university library on Central America in the United States. In addition, I have a copy of Chris Begley's 1999 doctoral dissertation, which includes a section on Ciudad Blanca (as well as on the real archaeology of the region where it is claimed to exist). One source that I haven't yet been able to consult is Christopher Stewart's Jungleland, which deals specifically with the legend of Ciudad Blanca and exploration in search of it. I imagine his book provides additional historical background on the legend, as well as on the archaeology (especially since he was accompanied on his trip by Begley). Hoopes (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, we are in agreement. I have Jungleland and have started to read it.  It is roughly 50% Stewart's own obsession with the legend and subsequent trek with Begley and 50% on Moore's life and trek.  There is some, but not a lot, on the history of the legend/relevant archeology in the region. One source that I have gotten that looks especially promising is a history of the legend (and related archeology) by Jesus Aguilar Pez.  I will be happy to provide scans of anything you want to see that I use as a source (well knot the entire Jungleland book, that would take forever).  If you get a hold of useful stuff I can't get, I may request the same of you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just did a search through Chris Begley's 500+ page doctoral dissertation in anthropology from the University of Chicago, titled "Elite Power Strategies and External Connections in Ancient Eastern Honduras." It is the most complete archaeological study ever undertaken in the department of Gracias a Dios, Honduras (where Ciudad Blanca is supposedly located) and remains the principal scientific source on the ancient cultures of that region. Begley's research, supported by IHAH, NSF, and other sources, was done during a seven-year period between 1991 and 1998, during which time he documented over a hundred sites through challenging, foot- and canoe-based archaeological survey. Guess what? There's not a single mention of Ciudad Blanca in the whole dissertation. According to your criteria, I guess that means there's no reason to cite it as a source in the Ciudad Blanca article. Convenient, huh? But then, there are lots of authoritative books on Mexican archaeology that don't ever mention Cumorah. Guess we'll have to cite only Mormon sources on that. By extension, sources on geology, oceanography, or cartography that fail to mention Atlantis or Lemuria wouldn't be permissible in articles on those. Sources on ornithology that didn't mention the phoenix or sources on mammalogy that didn't mention the unicorn or the mermaid would also be considered irrelevant in articles on those topics, right? Of course, I'm just being facetious. I do hope you understand my point, however. If only sources that mention the legend are permissible, there will be a significant bias in favor of the "reality" of Ciudad Blanca since most scientific sources on Honduran archaeology fail to mention it at all Hoopes (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think you'll find that the vast majority of sources of said articles do in fact mention the subject by name... It's not my criteria, its Wikipedia's. I'm not saying 100% you can't use any source that doesn't mention a subject by name, but the use of such sources is very tricky. Let's start with sources that mention Ciudad Blanca specifically, as agreed. If after we've exhausted such sources you still have concerns, we can discuss using other sources. (And I'm not surprised Begley didn't mention it - as I've said serious archaeologists tend to shy away form the subject, which is part of our dilemma.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Statements such as "I'm not surprised Begley didn't mention it," which implies that you have some personal interpretations of his methods and motivations, and your observation that "serious archaeologists tend to shy away from the subject," which implies that you have personally observed a tendency (which would constitute original research on your part), are examples of what I'm identifying as evidence of your personal POV and how it is influencing this article. Hoopes (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, although it contains no mention at all of Ciudad Blanca, you may find the website of a current exhibition at the National Museum of the American Indian of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. to be of interest. Cerámica de los Ancestros: Central America's Past Revealed features images of artifacts from the region that were originally part of the Heye Foundation collection (which included the "thousands" of objects collected by Theodore Morde, though I don't know if any are in the exhibition). From the website, you can download a free, full-color PDF version of the exhibition catalogue, Revealing Ancestral Central America, which was edited by Rosemary Joyce and includes a chapter by me (somewhat ironically, given our discussions, on the issue of "authority"). Although it does deal with the archaeology of Honduras, note that it does not mention Ciudad Blanca. Enjoy. Hoopes (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out for personal interest at minimum --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You'll see that one of the issues that I address in my chapter on authority is the concept of mimesis, which I think is directly relevant to pseudoarchaeology. That is, people like to imitate what they think archaeology actually is, rather than actually doing archaeology. However, that's not in the chapter, which is about mimesis in ancient Central America. Hoopes (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite our discussion and agreement, you have made changes to the article that reflect your own POV, including ones for which sources are not provided. Please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before making changes. Hoopes (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that when you make changes based on your opinion that "attributing reporting to a reporter is bizarre and unnecessary" you are editing on the basis of your own biased POV. I thought we had agreed that the goal was to reduce or even eliminate personal POVs, not to continue inserting them. If you will not refrain from these and we cannot discuss them amicably and productively, we will have to return to the plan of seeking third party opinions to resolve these editing disputes. Hoopes (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You are continuing to revert my edits to the article without discussing them first on the article's talk page. I have contacted another Wikipedia editor and have asked them to review the disputes and disagreements and attempt to moderate the editing process. Hoopes (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Every comment you just made applies at least as much to your own edits. I left 90% of your edits unedited you left 0% of mine, yet I'm the one tryign to force my POV. Cute.  And seeking the opinion of people whom you know if hardly the way to get unbiased opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't believe your statistics. Can you provide some data in support of your claim of 90% vs. 0%? I request that we both cease to edit this article further until other editors have been identified who are willing to review our discussion and provide some advice or mediate our dispute. I have now requested the opinions of people unknown to me (except in one or two cases of Wikipedia editors with whom I have worked before on other articles), especially those with specific expertise in relevant areas (Central America, Mesoamerica, Honduras, archaeology, and pseudoarchaeology). Hoopes (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, especially given your claims of and complaints about personal attacks, interjections such as "Cute" are insulting and unhelpful. If you reflect on how you communicate with me, maybe you'll realize that your comments are far from neutral. Hoopes (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you prefer I will revert to the last version before I first edited the article and be done with it forever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't prefer that. Doing that would be incredibly disrespectful and would delete an extraordinary amount of work that both of us have done. If you were to do it, I would interpret it as an extreme example of bullying and threats, as if you were asserting that the article had to be written only your way or you would delete it. If that's not an extraordinary assertion of personal POV, I don't know what is. Hoopes (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If my contributions are highly biased, then why keep them? It is an offer to let you have your way 100%, but not by twisting my writing to fit your POV.  If you want it 100% your POV, then you can have it, but not by using my extensive efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have a clear understanding of WP:CO, which require cooperation and compromise. The attitude of "If you don't let me win, I'll take my ball and go home" is profoundly unhelpful. Why should a Wikipedia have any POV at all? Wouldn't it be irresponsible of you to let me have an article that represents 100% my POV? What about the principle of WP:NPOV? Hoopes (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be irresponsible of me, but I also would prefer just to be done with it. This has wasted way too much of my time and caused me way too much stress. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why don't you just desist from editing the article? Hoopes (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true bully, and in case you haven't noticed I have given up on improvign the article already thanks to your efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised that you have resorted to yet another ad hominem? If you wonder why I assume bad faith, it's because you have demonstrated it in spades. Hoopes (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to your own definition you used as an excuse for attacking me, I, in fact, have not attacked you. I didn't say you were a bully, I said you spoke like one (an accusation you previously made about me I might add).  This is precisely the same word game you have used to justify your attacks.  You can't have it both ways.  And you can't even use that excuse here because you said I have demonstrated bad faith not that it seemed like it.  So again I ask you, why do you feel it is appropriate for you to attack me all you want and there is nothing wrong with it, but when I respond in kind I am doing something wrong? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

'Please consult the talk page for La Ciudad Blanca before'' making any changes to the content of the article. That is where issues should be discussed and resolved.''' Hoopes (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Translation: talk page is where Hoopes says the way it is going to be. If anyone makes a change he doesn't like, he reverts and demands it is "discussed" at the talk page.  In the discussion, he declares he is correct and that is that.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A hostile mischaracterization. In fact, the talk page is where the content of the article should be discussed when there are difference of opinion. The pattern has actually been one of you making the changes that you believe are correct without discussing them first, even when they involve reversion of changes. In editing this article, you act as if you are correct and that is that. If there is a discussion on the talk page that does not support your changes, you go ahead and make them anyway. That is unhelpful. Hoopes (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, an accurate description. Unless I "prove" something to you on the talk page, you revert to your version.  In other words, teh talk page is where you say the way it is going to be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whereas you simply go ahead and make it the way it is going to be, deleting edits with which you disagree and reverting changes that don't represent your own POV, itself represented by your personal interpretations of what's implied rather than what's actually there. Readers should be permitted to draw their own conclusions. Hoopes (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should - free of your POV pushing garbage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone who's complained about assumptions of bad faith, characterizing my contributions as "garbage" is hypocritical. I recommend you consider following the advice in the WP:ABF article. At least we agree that readers should be permitted to draw their own conclusions. Hoopes (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

DYK for Shuanghui
The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ThaddeusB, translation, yes, thanks!!
Yes, please send that text on "La ciudad blanca" to me. Thanks a lot! Best regards from Mexico City. --correogsk 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, ThaddeusB!! What email address you sent the file to? Was it correogsk@yahoo.com? Thanks again! --correogsk 01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea, Wikipedia doesn't disclose that info on the email form - but I got your reply so I assume you figured it out. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

¡Caramba! ¿Hay que policiar tambien la versión de este artículo Wikipedia en español? Hoopes (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ThaddeusB, I did receive the files by email! Thanks! --correogsk 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Theodore Morde
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Samaras
Gatoclass 16:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 French Open – Women's Singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ITN for City of Bohane
-- Spencer T♦ C 14:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Ciudad Blanca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Stewart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kabang
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In_the_news/Candidates
Hello,

This is to inform you that I've worked on the article and improved its English and scope in several places. Please check it and see if I've overlooked anything major, and I'd be happy to improve that.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say
it should be included. I said it could be. And since I couldn't see any reason not to include it (other than the fact that it was mildly irrelevant), I figured it could stay.  Serendi pod ous  19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The entire dispute is whether it is better to include it or not. The question is which is better, not what is permissible.  Saying it "could" be included or "could" be excluded doesn't resolve anything.  Why is the default to leave it and the resulting redundancy?  Why is it so important that it is better to say both "specializes in W. Mexico" and "has experience in (specific W. Mexico site)"?  Why is only the latter insufficient?  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim Whitman
This is ready for reposting at RD. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am repesterring you, having added refs. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wallenda
Hey, please feel free to remove my copy/paste of your comments if you'd prefer to do it another way. It was a good nom, and I didn't want your comments to be overlooked :) --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Nik Wallenda
Those links at the talk page go directly to copyrighted images, so are those links even allowed to appear at the talk page? I'm looking for the policy on that and have to step out soon. Please advise. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think they are fine on the talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You are most welcome and thank you very much for the recognition. It means a lot to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Steven Balbus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John F. Hawley
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

comparative linguistics
I believe you were interested in comparative linguistics? If I do not have you confused for another, you may find the thread on Latin vs Japanese at the language ref desk interesting. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your memory is correct. I have a love for all things linguistics. My area is syntax, so I don't really have anything to add, but it was a good read. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Shame syntax doesn't fossilize so well. Lehmann's Pre-Indo-European addresses it in a deep historical context. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wikicup
Didn't actually notice your talk page message, but I did remove that claim. On the current count, you're through. J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, guess I better get to work. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Jairo Mora Sandoval, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manzanillo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)