Jump to content

User talk:Hoopes/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

3RR warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at la Ciudad Blanca shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please respect the opinion of the third party arbitrator. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please respect the opinion of the third party arbitrator, who said, "But if the subject must be broached at all, then I would prefer a direct source, like the one Hoopes provided." Where we differ is on whether the subject must be broached at all. I think it must, and you disagree. The results of the edit should not favor one side or the other. Hoopes (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And where exactly is this consensus that it "must be breached"? Both Serendipodous and I agree it is best not to mention it at all, yet you insist your opinion is correct and that it must be so. In other words, seeking a third party was a farce - if they agreed with you, great; if they didn't you'll do whatever you want anyway. That is not how things work here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you will also be mindful of the three revert rule, since you have repeatedly reverted my work. Hoopes (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
ThaddeusB: You can't just tell someone that they've violated 3RR; you have take the case to the Edit warring noticeboard and provide evidence in the form of diffs that 3 reversions had taken place within 24 hours. Also, you should be mindful of the fact that if you yourself have violated 3RR (as seems likely, given the storm of reversions on the history) you could also be cited for edit warring.
Hoopes: before you go all gung-ho, I would ask, why do you feel that mentioning this guy's specialisation is important enough to risk an edit war? If this goes to arbitration, tehy won't say, "Well, fair's fair; he 3RR'd, the other guy 3RR'd, quid pro quo, it's over"; They will block both of you. Serendipodous 04:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Um actually you are supposed to warn someone (which I just did) before taking it the the notice board. Then if they continue, you take it there. The warning is to prevent the need for a report that could end in a block. (And no I haven't violated 3RR.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the issue of identification of the specific areas of specialization of Fisher and Joyce is pertinent to the article and to providing readers with meaningful and relevant background. Fisher's experience in Western Mexico, where there are large archaeological sites with Aztec pyramids and other structures similar to those identified in the UTL LiDAR imagery (as well as an Aztec presence), is important to consider. Joyce is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost experts on the archaeology of Honduras, including both the Mesoamerican portions (in central and western Honduras) and the non-Mesoamerican portions (in eastern Honduras). Her relevant expertise--which is substantially different from that of Fisher, even though the two do overlap to some extent--is not adequately apparent if both of them are described in identical ways. I think the additional information improves the quality of the article. However, I am not willing to risk being blocked and losing my editing privileges over it. I do appreciate the mention of possible violations of 3RR by ThaddeusB, since he has also repeatedly reverted many of my own edits. Hoopes (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And why exactly is mentioning Fisher's experience (LiDAR in Mexico) in the second sentence insufficient? Why is it necessary to both make a judgement about his expertise and state his experience. No one is arguing that the "had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico" should be removed. Only that the additional "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico" is not needed (and not neutral in my opinion). (Joyce isn't even being debated. I am fine with leaving her bit as "expert on Honduran archaeology" because it is relevant to the context - Fisher's expertise on Mexico, even if true, is not relevant to the context.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of compromise, the language pertaining to Joyce now reads, "Rosemary Joyce, a Mesoamerican specialist and expert on Honduran archaeology on the faculty of UC Berkeley" and the language pertaining to Fisher reads, "archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico." See Hopkins, Curt "Indiana Jones goes geek: Laser-mapping LiDAR revolutionizes archaeology." Arstecnica March 10,2012. I think this is far more informative than referring to each as "a Mesoamerican specialist" with no further information about either one. Hoopes (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is not in any way a compromise. It is just a more wordy version of your preferred version. I do not have a problem with Joyce being referred to as (simply) a Honduran expert, so you can drop that red herring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Fisher's expertise in Mexico is relevant to the context because Western Mexico is not Honduras. No judgement is being made about his expertise. The facts are being stated as backed by cited sources so that readers can make their own interpretations based on those facts. If you have different facts that are backed by sources, please include them. I think User:Serendipodous would support that. Hoopes (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"No judgement is being made about his expertise" but "Fisher's expertise in Mexico is relevant to the context because Western Mexico is not Honduras.". Seems like a pretty obvious contradiction to me... Again, why is it necessary to state his "expertise" is in Mexico (in contradiction to his own statement on what his specialization is). Why is listing that his LiDAR experience is in Mexico (not Honduras) insufficient? --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It may in fact seem like a pretty obvious contradiction to you, but that does not mean that it is actually a contradiction. Do you really not see how you are reading your own interpretation into the facts? I have said why I think it is necessary to state this expertise and I have modified the language to reflect exactly the specialization that Fisher said he preferred (with the exact wording--"a Mesoamerican specialist"). His LiDAR experience in Mexico is no more evidence that he has expertise in Western Mexico than is his LiDAR experience in Honduras evidence that he has expertise in Honduras. Fisher's expertise in Western Mexico is independent of his LiDAR experience. Hoopes (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are not familiar with Mesoamerica, there is a good description on the page for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mesoamerica. If you look at the map of the Mesoamerican region, you will see an area marked "West" that indicates Western Mexico. If you look at the right side of the map, you will see that only a small part of Honduras is included and that the region in which Ciudad Blanca is supposedly located is actually not even on the map. It is this geographical disparity, which is accompanied by cultural disparities and disparities in scholarly expertise, that makes the difference significant. Hoopes (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you not see that your insistence that this fact is important is because you want a certain conclusion to be drawn as you have stated almost completely explicitly. I do not recall Fisher saying "please describe with as a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico", probably because he didn't. Again, why is it insufficient to show he experience is in western Mexico, which the very next sentence states? Why must we explicitly say "he is an expert on Western Mexico?" What exactly does this sentence convey that the next does not? --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Now you are arguing again on the basis of WP:ABF. As you have pointed out, and as User:Serendipodous has affirmed, Wikipedia content must be based on the content of source material, not on the basis of personal communications from individuals (something that would constitute WP:OR on the basis of primary material). There is a difference between experience and expertise, so conflating the two is not helpful here. The wording you mention is different from what I am arguing for: "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico" (with citation). Hoopes (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm arguing to not take a position on his expertise. It does not take OR to abstain from taking a position. And you still have failed to provide any justification for why this phrase "a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico" is necessary. Once again, what crucial information does it convey that the sentence which follows it does not?--ThaddeusB (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And I do not need a geography lesson. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not, but you do need to understand my reasoning, which is based on geography. Hoopes (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, although you may not have technically violated the 3RR rule, I will provide arbitrators with detailed documentation of your persistent deletions of edits that I have made to this article. I think User:Serendipodous is correct. The likely result is that we would both be blocked. The best strategy is "using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." Hoopes (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The talk page was used to form a consensus and that consensus was that it is preferred to not include the specialization. An edit was made on the basis of this established consensus. You then ignored it and put your version back without first seeking to change consensus. An arbitrator will look far more unkindly upon that action than whether 3RR has or has not been violated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The talk page "consensus" was not a consensus in which I was a participant, but your own interpretation of specific language that you interpreted to support your own position. That does not honor WP:NPOV. You are ignoring the part that read, "But if the subject must be broached at all, then I would prefer a direct source, like the one Hoopes provided." This leaves open the question of whether the subject merited discussion. Hoopes (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You are ignoring the part where Serendipitous said their preference was to not include it --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, you are choosing to ignore the qualification, "But if the subject must be broached at all, then I would prefer a direct source, like the one Hoopes provided." This is why external mediation is required. Hoopes (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't help you guys if neither of you is willing to compromise. I need something to work with. Otherwise, take this to arbitration and see what happens. My guess is you both will be blocked for a day and then this will resume immediately afterwards. Let me start by asking, Thaddeus, what is wrong with the citation Hoopes is using? Serendipodous 08:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment is taken out of context. In the context it is used (about Mexican archeology), it is a complement. In a different context (Honduran archeology) it is a subtle undermining of Fisher's authority. It is also inaccurate as indicated by Fisher himself. I don't know how you expect us to "compromise" - Hoopes wants to include the info and I want it excluded. There is no middle ground, we just need a decision on which way to go. I thought you had given one: "I would prefer a wording that left out the man's specialisation entirely (even simply calling him an "archaeologist" would be good enough)." However Hoopes choose to interpret this as an agreement with him using the "But if the subject must be broached at all, then I would prefer a direct source, like the one Hoopes provided" to reinsert the words. So which is it - should we use "an archeologist specializing in Western Mexico" or simply "an archeologist"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The comment is not taken out of context, nor is it either "a compliment" nor a "subtle undermining." Those represent the personal interpretations of User:ThaddeusB and are therefore inappropriate violations of WP:NPOV. It is not a matter of reinserting any words, but of deleting edits that I have made which provide relevant factual information supported by a cited source. Hoopes (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether it is relevant or not is not something you get to decree. That is the dispute. I find it irrelevant and inaccurate. You find it relevant and accurate. You still haven't specified what important fact "with expertise in Western Mexico" conveys that previous worked at the "Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico" does not. Why is this information so crucial that we need it TWICE? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I have specified it in my discussion in the relevant portion of the talk page. I explained that experience is different from expertise and that you are conflating the two. The information is not repeated twice. You seem to be intentionally ignoring explanations that I have already given on the article's talk page, violating WP:ABF. Hoopes (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, saying expertise and experience are different in no way explains why we need both (and they are essentially the same thing in a professional setting - as you yourself said all professors are experts). Second, I don't know why you keep quoting ABF (assume bad faith) - that is a "humorous essay", not something that can be "violated" and certainly not something which relates to content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Also expressing one's opinion in a discussion is not a violation of NPOV - it is encouraged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not with expressing one's opinion in a discussion on a talk page, it is with allowing your personal point of view to dominate the content of the article. You are repeatedly violating WP:GF and behaving as if you own the article (WP:OWN). Hoopes (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not. That is your opinion of the situation - not a fact - and repeating it a 100 times doesn't make it so. You are the one that insisted your version had to stay in tact until talk said otherwise, not me. And you are also the one that restored your version after Serendipitous said they preferred my version. If someone is trying to OWN the article, it is you. And for you to tell me I am violating AGF is laughable considering you have explicitly said you are incapable/unwilling to AGF about me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Referring to my complaint about your violations of WP:GF as "laughable" suggests that you are not taking my concerns seriously. I have not said that I am incapable or unwilling to assume good faith on your part in the future, although I am having trouble doing so at this time. I will be happy to assume good faith when and if your actions and your words are modified to represent an attitude of mutual respect rather than one of active hostility. The series of ad hominem accusations that you have made, despite my repeated requests that you desist, make it difficult for me not to assume bad faith. A good start would be by not repeatedly referring to my comments as "garbage." Hoopes (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand, because I feel precisely the same way. We both have engaged in attacks and assumptions of bad faith and the situation has continued to escalate as a result. I tried to start over once - I am not sure what went wrong. We can try again if you are willing. You have to agree to respect third party input though. If Serendipitous again says they "leave out the specialization bit", will you respect it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you link the the source in question please? I want to see it for myself. Serendipodous 17:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Here it is: Indiana Jones goes geek: Laser-mapping LiDAR revolutionizes archaeology]. I think this source is directly relevant to the article. Hoopes (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that no source about the UTL project or Ciudad Blanca describes Fisher the way this article does... If you could, please also comment on whether "In mid-June 2012, archaeologist Christopher Fisher of Colorado State University, a Mesoamerican specialist with expertise in Western Mexico, joined the UTL project. Fisher, who had previously used LiDAR at the Purépecha archaeological site of Angamuco in Michoacán, Mexico, spent six months analyzing Elkins's data" is redundant (mentioning Western Mexico [Michoacán is in W. Mexico] twice). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I could be mistaken about this, but I think that what appears to be the interpretation by User:ThaddeusB that only sources that explicitly mention Ciudad Blanca are relevant to this article is a reflection of his personal POV. It is overly narrow and restrictive. Because the very concept of "Ciudad Blanca" is controversial and is one that tends not to be used by professional archaeologists, his approach insures that the article will not be neutral. There are facts relevant to this Wikipedia article that come from sources that do not explicitly mention Ciudad Blanca. These include the cited article about Fisher. Hoopes (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Using only sources about the subject of an article avoids original research and synthesis. Just because something is true, doesn't make it relevant to all subjects. If other sources haven't drawn a conclusion about X in relation to Y, then Wikipedia should not either. Tying two facts together that other sources do not is synthesis. (For example tying the "fact" that Fisher "specializes in Western Mexico" and the fact that he joined the UTL project. Of course here, the accuracy of the first "fact" is also disputed, but even if it was not it could be viewed as synthesis.) Allowing any fact regardless of context to appear in any article is a license to push a POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
However, you are ignoring the reality that tying these facts together in this Wikipedia article is an example of pushing a POV. Your editing of this article, including assumptions such as the "fact" that Morde's "City of the Monkey God" is the same as "Ciudad Blanca," has been an example of synthesis. Your arbitrary restrictions on what sources are relevant--and even what internal links to other Wikipedia articles are permissible--contributes to this synthesis. These restrictions have not been placed on other Wikipedia articles. Hoopes (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
By your own standards, the entire section on Theodore Morde's City of the Monkey God should be removed because that source does not mention Ciudad Blanca. What should be noted is that authors such as Stewart and Preston equate Morde's "lost city" with Ciudad Blanca, but Morde's statements (by your standards) should be excluded. Hoopes (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
That is false. It is not my conclusion is is the conclusion of reliable sources. That is the difference between our edits - mine reflect what sources say, yours reflect what you think is true. Numerous sources (including those used in the article) have tied Morde's city to Ciudada Blanca. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In order to maintain WP:NPOV, the article should not imply it as a fact that Morde's city is Ciudad Blanca but as an association that has been made by specific authors. Interpreting it as a fact rather than as something that has been asserted by specific individuals as a matter of interpretation is where the issue of POV lies. At present, the article is worded in such a way (including in the lead) that it implies Morde's "City of the Monkey God" (which has never been demonstrated to actually exist) and Ciudad Blanca (which is also a matter of imagination, rumor, and maybe even "legend") are one and the same. This is a non-neutral interpretation that represents your specific POV (even to the extent that you have claimed the association is "obvious" when it is not). Hoopes (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. That sources imply the two are the same thing, so we do too. It might be a POV, but it isn't mine - it is the POV of what our sources say, which is what an article is supposed to be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You're mistaken. There are a number of sources cited in the article that say that Ciudad Blanca doesn't exist and that reports of it probably don't refer to a single site. This is far from "the sources" implying the two are the same thing. Some quotations already in the article: 1) "Rosemary Joyce, a Mesoamerican specialist and expert on Honduran archaeology from UC Berkeley, called it 'big hype' and 'bad archaeology'. She added, 'there is no White City. The White City is a myth'; 2) "Hasemann believed that rather than a single Ciudad Blanca there might be multiple Ciudades Blancas in la Mosquitia"; 3) "Most professional archaeologists remain skeptical that the various legends surrounding Ciudad Blanca refer to a specific site"; 4) "When asked if Ciudad Blanca had been found, Fisher laughed and said 'I don't think there is a single Ciudad Blanca. I think there are many.' The legend may hold cultural meaning, he said, but for archeologists it is mostly a distraction." Note that none of these refer to Morde. You are relying upon select sources to support your own POV, which is asserting it as fact that Morde's "city" and Ciudad Blanca "are the same thing" when that is not a fact but an opinion expressed by cherry-picked sources. You are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. Hoopes (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I've had a look at the source; it's not an academic source but it's still a valid one. So as far as I'm concerned it can stay. If Thaddeus can find a better source that places Fisher's specialisation elsewhere, then fine. I don't think the issue is major enough to justify this amount of back-and-forth, though. If it was dropped entirely the article would suffer little as a result. As far as Hoopes's other complaints go, yes,synthesis and POV pushing should be avoided. If Thaddeus is pushing points not found in sources, he should stop. Serendipodous 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hoopes (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Why did you not address the obvious redundancy? Saying the source is valid does not really address the issue. Why dod you view Hoopes' wording of the information as superior? (Also OR and SYNTH are my complaints about Hoopes, so I don't know why you said " If Thaddeus is pushing points not found in sources, he should stop" - that is what Hooopes is doing, not me.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Previously you said your preference was not to include the info. What changed? Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it must be used in this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss the content, not the editor

The only way we can move forward is by discussing specific content. Debating whether or not I (or you) am pushing a POV is going to get us nowhere. I will be focusing all my future comments on the content & suggest you do likewise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the suggestion to drop this line of debate, which I wholeheartedly support. Hoopes (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to La Ciudad Blanca may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Remote sensing (archaeology)|remote sensing]] technology, especially light detection and ranging ([[LiDAR]].<ref name=Independent />

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to La Ciudad Blanca may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Man Finds Central America: The Archaeological Bridge.'' Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge, MA.</ref><Lange, Frederick W. and Doris Z. Stone, eds. (1984) ''The Archaeology of Lower Central America.''
  • ballcourts for playing something similar to the [[Mesoamerican ballgame]].<ref name=dissertation>{{cite journal|last=Begley|first=Christopher Taylor|year=1999|title=Elite Power Strategies and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to La Ciudad Blanca may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of-the-ciudad-blanca-myth.html On the Development of the Ciudad Blanca Myth], JasonColavito.com).</ref>
  • ballcourts for playing something similar to the [[Mesoamerican ballgame]].<ref name=dissertation>{{cite journal|last=Begley|first=Christopher Taylor|year=1999|title=Elite Power Strategies and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Kirkland Lothrop

Hello the new article has been moved from the user space of User:Jhawkfan1 to mainspace. Since you contributed to the user space draft I think you may be interested in it. The Legend of Zorro 11:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to José Argüelles may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], Argüelles lived in [[Boulder, Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Australia]], and [[New Zealand]][[<ref>South, Stephanie (2009) ''2012: Biography of a Time Traveler - the Journey of Jose Argüelles'',

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Ainsworth Means concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Ainsworth Means, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jerice123/Rand Flem-Ath

User:Jerice123/Rand Flem-Ath, 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/User:Jerice123/Rand Flem-Ath and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jerice123/Rand Flem-Ath 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Assignments for "The Ancient Maya" at KU (Spring 2014)

Your assignment (due March 5, 2012) is to make a meaningful contribution of at least 1000 words (and code that includes relevant hyperlinks) to Wikipedia in the form of a new entry relevant to scholarship on Maya civilization. Your entry should be in the style of current Wikipedia content, including relevant headings and subheadings, hyperlinks, and (especially) references. It will be graded on the basis of overall appearance as well as the value of its content and the degree to which it contributes to the value of the resource. Please note that you are NOT required to include digital images, although you are encouraged to do so if you are comfortable with the necessary permissions and procedures. The value of your contribution will depend not only on the information content you provide, but how well it is integrated into Wikipedia via hyperlinked text. Please note that it is good procedure to make minor edits to other existing entries so that they link back to your own entry when it ultimately goes "live".

Please use this space for asking any questions you might have about the assignment. I'll answer if I can, but there may also be some answers from others. Please remember to sign your posts!

To develop your article for this assignment, please set up a dedicated user subpage for it and save the link on your main userpage. You would do this by creating a name consisting of a backslash followed by the proposed article title (or "Draft" or any text). It should be coded like this: [[/Article title]]. Click on that link to create the new subpage, which will be created at User:Student username/Article title. You can then add some text, save it, and then continue.

For convenience, you can transclude your working draft subpage onto your main userpage so it's visible from there by adding {{User:Student username/Article title}} to the main userpage somewhere.

Start out with using the particular referencing system wikipedia calls WP:CITESHORT. You can then build a separate bibliography of sources towards the end of the article (in a separate section called either "References" or "Bibliography". Within the body of the text itself, you can then cite individual statements with shortened cites that correspond to some entry in the bibliography. This is easily done by adding cites in the form of <ref>Smith 2008, p.123</ref> after the statement to be cited.

Basic Wikipedia Principles

Neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research are Wikipedia's three core content policies. Together, these determine what type and quality of material will be acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Be sure to familiarize yourself with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. If you violate these policies, your article may be subject to sharp criticism, correction, and even deletion! It is strongly recommended that you review the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Tutorial to understand what is meant by a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles.

Comments and Procedures

The editors at WikiProject Mesoamerica will do their best to help out and advise where we can, without intruding on assignments before they get marked & published to mainspace. Please feel free to contact any of of the WikiProject Mesoamerica editors for editing how-to's or leave a message at the Mesoamerica project's discussion board WT:MESO.

Instead of developing your article on you userpage or user talkpage, please set up a user subpage for it by saving a link on their main userpage consisting of a backslash followed by the proposed article title (or "Draft" or any text, really), like this: [[/Article title]]. Then just click on that link to create the new subpage, which will be created at User:Student username/Article title. Add some text, save it, and away you go. For convenience, you can transclude your working draft subpage onto their main userpage so it's visible from there, by adding {{User:Student username/Article title}} to the main userpage somewhere.

Citing Sources

It is very important to provide citations for the sources you are using I urge you to go to the information on citing sources for information about how to do it. To see how it's done, look at models in other Wikipedia entries. A particular referencing system that is good when you're just starting out is one Wikipedia calls WP:CITESHORT. To use this style, build a separate bibliography of sources towards the end of the article (in a separate section called "References"). Within the body of the text itself, make individual citations using shortened cites that correspond to an entry in references section by adding cites in the form of <ref>Smith 2008: 123</ref> after the statement to be cited. Your references will appear in a section called "Notes" followed by the list of references. For an example of how this is used, look at the code in the entry on Mayanism.

Sources of Ideas

You may have to search a bit to find good article topics that haven't already been created, but there is always work to be done in modifying and improving existing entries. There are many good sources of ideas for needed articles online. If you scroll up on my talk page, you'll find some discussions of similar assignments (and example entries) that I've had students do in the past. Of course, the best way to get ideas for a model entry is to look at ones that already exist. You should also consider some of the priorities of the WikiProject Mesoamerica a, but please make sure the topic that you pick is relevant to ancient Maya issues. That is, topics relevant to Maya civilization.

Wish List

This is a list (that you should feel free to edit and expand) of either existing entries that need expansion or articles that do not yet exist in Wikipedia. Feel free to choose one of these for your project and to suggest additional projects for your classmates. (This list will grow as I and others contribute ideas.) If there is a relevant topic about which you would like to know more that is not yet in Wikipedia, please add it to the list!

  • Barbara Tedlock - An anthropologist and scholar of K'iche' culture.
  • Kaminaljuyu Stela 11 - One of many important Maya stelae, a masterpiece of ancient art. Examples of individual works of ancient Maya art that have individual Wikipedia entries include Copan Altar Q and Yaxchilan Lintel 24. Note that there is also an entry on Potbelly sculpture but not ones for other categories of objects, such as Maya "mushroom stones" (the current entry for mushroom stones does not mention these objects.)
  • Maya kings, queens, and other historical personalities. There are detailed entries for Maya rulers such as Spearthrower Owl of Tikal, K'inich Janaab' Pakal of Palenque and K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo' of Copan, but the one for this famous ruler of Tikal is still brief. The book Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens and other sources provide information about many ancient Maya rulers. You can see which members of ancient Maya royalty already have entries by referring to lists such as Category:Maya rulers, Category:Maya queens and even Category:Rulers_of_Palenque and Category:Kings_of_Caracol. Please note that these lists may not be complete, that important categories are missing, and that all of the individuals listed may not have full entries. There is also inconsistency in the use of terms such as "kings" vs. "rulers". These issues still need to be addressed. Doing anything to help organize these kinds of entries would be a worthwhile project!
  • Maya belt plaques - An important class of artifact, the best-known of which is the Leiden Plaque.

Examples of Model Entries

None of these are perfect, but nonetheless good models for the kind of work I'd like to see.

Examples of Wikipedia entries created by KU students in previous semesters:

KU Student Authors in ANTH 507 "The Ancient Maya" (Spring 2014)

Please sign this list (with four tildes) once you've created your Wikipedia user account. You should also add a short statement about what entry you'll be creating or working on. (You can see how your user page should appear by clicking on those of other students.)

Add your username to the list below by editing this section, typing an asterisk and four tildes in the list below. When you save your editing, it will look like this:

'Your completed assignment should be hyperlinked from this page, ideally to your User page. If you have been editing an existing entry, I will be looking at the version that was completed as of the due date.'

New articles

Moving Your Article to Wikipedia Mainspace

When I have provided feedback and the article has been revised to your satisfaction, it can be moved to Wikipedia mainspace by going to the subpage, clicking on the "More" icon (near the upper right-hand of the toolbar at the top of the page), and selecting "Move." Select "Wikipedia" from the drop-down menu and add the title for you new page. You may give a brief reason if you like.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Assignments for "Topics in Archaeology: Ancient Central America" at KU (Spring 2016)

Your assignment (due Monday, February 22, 2016) is to make a meaningful contribution of at least 1000 words (not counting the code that includes relevant hyperlinks) to Wikipedia in the form of either a new article relevant to the archaeology of Central America and Colombia or a revision of an existing article in that subject area. You may get some ideas for these by visiting the page for WikiProject Mesoamerica, but please note that Mesoamerica is a region north of what we are discussing, so many of the observations and comments may not apply.

Your article and/or editing should be in the style of current Wikipedia content, including relevant headings and subheadings, hyperlinks, and (especially) references. It will be graded on the basis of overall appearance as well as the value of its content and the degree to which it contributes to the value of the resource. Please note that you are NOT required to include digital images, although you are encouraged to do so if you are comfortable with the necessary permissions and procedures. The value of your contribution will depend not only on the information content you provide, but how well it is integrated into Wikipedia via hyperlinked text. Please note that it is good procedure to make minor edits to other existing entries so that they link back to your own entry when it ultimately goes "live".

Please use this space for asking any questions you might have about the assignment. I'll answer if I can, but there may also be some answers from others. Please remember to sign your posts!

To develop your article for this assignment, please set up a dedicated user subpage for it and save the link on your main userpage. You would do this by creating a name consisting of a backslash followed by the proposed article title (or "Draft" or any text). It should be coded like this: [[/Article title]]. Click on that link to create the new subpage, which will be created at User:Student username/Article title. You can then add some text, save it, and then continue.

For convenience, you can transclude your working draft subpage onto your main userpage so it's visible from there by adding {{User:Student username/Article title}} to the main userpage somewhere.

Start out with using the particular referencing system wikipedia calls WP:CITESHORT. You can then build a separate bibliography of sources towards the end of the article (in a separate section called either "References" or "Bibliography". Within the body of the text itself, you can then cite individual statements with shortened cites that correspond to some entry in the bibliography. This is easily done by adding cites in the form of <ref>Smith 2008, p.123</ref> after the statement to be cited.

If you are going to be revising an existing Wikipedia article, please considering making a printed or PDF copy before you make any changes so that it will be easier for me to see what additions and revisions you've made.

Basic Wikipedia Principles

Neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research are Wikipedia's three core content policies. Together, these determine what type and quality of material will be acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Be sure to familiarize yourself with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. If you violate these policies, your article may be subject to sharp criticism, correction, and even deletion! It is strongly recommended that you review the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Tutorial to understand what is meant by a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles.

Comments and Procedures

The editors at WikiProject Anthropology will do their best to help out and advise where we can, without intruding on assignments before they get marked & published to mainspace. Please feel free to contact any of of the WikiProject Mesoamerica editors for editing how-to's or leave a message at the Mesoamerica project's discussion board WT:MESO.

Instead of developing your article on you userpage or user talkpage, please set up a user subpage for it by saving a link on their main userpage consisting of a backslash followed by the proposed article title (or "Draft" or any text, really), like this: [[/Article title]]. Then just click on that link to create the new subpage, which will be created at User:Student username/Article title. Add some text, save it, and away you go. For convenience, you can transclude your working draft subpage onto their main userpage so it's visible from there, by adding {{User:Student username/Article title}} to the main userpage somewhere.

Citing Sources

It is very important to provide citations for the sources you are using I urge you to go to the information on citing sources for information about how to do it. To see how it's done, look at models in other Wikipedia entries. A particular referencing system that is good when you're just starting out is one Wikipedia calls WP:CITESHORT. To use this style, build a separate bibliography of sources towards the end of the article (in a separate section called "References"). Within the body of the text itself, make individual citations using shortened cites that correspond to an entry in references section by adding cites in the form of <ref>Smith 2008: 123</ref> after the statement to be cited. Your references will appear in a section called "Notes" followed by the list of references. For an example of how this is used, look at the code in the entry on Mayanism.

Sources of Ideas

You may have to search a bit to find good biographies that haven't already been created. There are many good sources of ideas for needed articles online. If you scroll up on my talk page, you'll find some discussions of similar assignments (and example entries) that I've had students do in the past. Of course, the best way to get ideas for a model entry is to look at ones that already exist. You should also consider some of the priorities of the WikiProject Anthropology, but please make sure the individual about whom you are writing is relevant to to the history of anthropology. While the obvious choices are anthropologists, please consider this term in a broad fashion. Individuals who have played specific roles as informants or about whom anthropologists have written significant life histories are also appropriate. In selecting individuals, it may be best to choose those who are deceased rather than creating entries for people who are living. This is both a way of honoring those who are no longer with us and of avoiding any issues with living people.

Examples of Model Entries

None of these are perfect, but nonetheless good models for the kind of work I'd like to see.

Moving Your Completed, Reviewed, and Graded Article to Wikipedia Mainspace

When I have provided feedback and the article has been revised to your satisfaction, it can be moved to Wikipedia mainspace by going to the subpage, clicking on the "More" icon (near the upper right-hand of the toolbar at the top of the page), and selecting "Move." Select "Wikipedia" from the drop-down menu and add the title for you new page. You may give a brief reason if you like.

KU Student Authors

Please sign this list (with four tildes) once you've created your Wikipedia user account. You should also add a short statement about what entry you'll be creating or working on. (When you've done this correctly, it should look like the first entry below.)

Articles Created by KU Students in Previous Courses

Biographical Articles (from ANTH 500, ANTH 507, and ANTH 701)

Thematic Articles (ANTH 507 "The Ancient Mayas")

Thematic Articles (ANTH 410 "Archaeological Myths & Realities)

Thematic Articles (ANTH 603 "Shamanism Past & Present")

Possible Entries for "Ancient Central America"

The following is a partial wish list of just some of the entries that I would like to see created (in red) and/or improved (in blue). Please feel free to add additional entries that you would like to see! (I'll be adding more, too, as I find time.) If you decide to take one of these, please sign after it (with four tildes) so other students will know it's already taken.

Archaeological and Historical Sites

Note that there will need to be disambiguations for some of these entries!

Archaeological Regions and Cultures

Archaeologists and Others

General Topics

Editing layout

Hey Dr Hoopes, we were discussing in class about how some people were getting a different editing layout when they went to work on their Wikipedia pages. After messing around for awhile, I found that there is a Visual mode (where an individual can edit straight off the page) and a source editing mode (where an individual can edit articles through computer code). Any user on Wikipedia can switch between the two at any point in time by pressing a specific button in the toolbar of the editing box. If a user is in the visual mode there will be a editing bar that runs across the top of the web page. In the upper right corner you will see a big blue button that says "Save Page", if you click the button just to the left of that which looks like two sets of brackets (or the code for a hyperlink) than it will change the editing source layout to source editing mode. If you are already in source editing mode (code based layout) there will be a button at the top right hand corner of the input box information. It is marked with a picture of a pencil and if you click on it then it will change the page to the Visual mode. I don't know if you guys figured this out after i left class on Thursday, but i do know that many people weren't there when we discussed it, and i thought this could be helpful to bring up on your talk page. I'v already found that both modes have there pros and cons and constantly switching between the two from time to time is very helpful. Jcarls28 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I had been editing source code in Wikipedia for so long that I didn't realize they had added this "helper" mode. It makes editing a lot easier, though I would encourage you and anyone else to learn some source code basics, too. That can be helpful in diagnosing problems if they occur. Hoopes (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Where do we submit our assignment

Dr Hoopes, When I was trying to submit my Wikipedia assignment today (2/21/16) via ‘digital drop-box’ per the instructions, I found that I did not have that tool on my Black Board. Upon searching the black board website, I found the flowing page.BlackBoard website It turns out that digital drop box was replaced with a tool referred to as ‘assignments’. Unfortunately, I could not find a tools called assignments either. The page above lists several options for sharing information including Blogs, Journals, Discussion Boards, and Wikis. It appears that we can also submit attachments via this email system. My question to you is how do you want us to submit these assignments?

Will.Fleming.III (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC) - I would also appreciate help with this.

Hi Dr. Hoopes, I seem to be having the same confusion as well. Thanks for your help! Tappantay (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about all of that! I sent a message and it looks as if everyone figured it out! Hoopes (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to El Caño

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from El Caño without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The explanation appears on the Talk:El Caño page. The content was moved to a new article, El Caño, Panama (archaeological site), because it did not have to do with the modern town of El Caño. Hoopes (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please

Would you please ask that your students leave wp:edit summaries? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Sure, but would you please be reasonable and patient with them and not make major changes while they're clearly in the middle of something? Hoopes (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing the infobox at the top of a page as was done here is a common form of wp:vandalism. I also noticed that just previous to Will.Fleming.III's edit was another revert by a reputable editor who left an wp:ES of Reverted to revision 706278956 by Will.Fleming.III (talk): Rv editing test, vandalism? Will.Fleming.III really should leave an ES. I probably would have looked further but after seeing the "test, vandalism?" comment, I reverted. With WP:Huggle, I have to click for each previous ES. It would make life much easier for WP:RCPs if editors gave some clue to their reasoning. As a WP:RCP, I go through sometimes several thousand edits a day. It can get quite frustrating to fathom what an editor is up to. I do try to avoid causing consternation to other editors, but there are limits.
May I recommend that you avoid starting a new line with a space. It causes a formatting issue (as above). Please see Help:Using talk pages (and, for protocol, wp:talk page guidelines). Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoopes/Archive_4&oldid=1141796276"