User talk:ThaddeusB/Archive 2014, Jan-May

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello ThaddeusB, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ThaddeusB. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/2000–01 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team.
Message added 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And again. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Left a message at TheRamblingMan just to let him know that his latest post on Monica Spear was kind of beneath him as an experienced user. [1]. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Someone had claimed Spear to be "top of her field", which was clearly incorrect. I provided an example of a more notable Miss V who also died under tragic circumstances, who used her notability for the greater good. Whatever bee got into both of your bonnets, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to get that it is not the notability we are discussing here but your comment which was truly beneath a user like yourself. And you just keep them coming..--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand English. I said the death of a woman through cancer at such an early age was tragic. What are you trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling me "sick" is unnecessary and unacceptable and I will ignore you from now on. It is sad that you as an experienced user had to go on personal attacks when confronted about a unnecessary comment at an ITN discussion. You have no clue about common decency it appears. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And just for the record, I am not at all sorry for confronting you. If anything I saw a new side of you that sadly was not a good side. When confronted you couldnt respond at all but only responded with personal attacks and the classic "you are wrong and I am right" comment. Good luck now and bye :)--BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you think. You're the one who left me a link saying that calling Eva Ekvall's death "tragic" was "beneath me". I never "trashed" any woman. You're not making any sense at all. I just don't follow your logic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the only one who has even mentioned Eva Ekvall is yourself I guess logic is not one of your strong sides my friend. I have had enough of this nonsense for today. You messed up and it is not my problem. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood, as explained to you by others. Now stop forum shopping, it makes you look silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you look silly as you want the argument to go on and on and on.. It makes you look silly :) I have done absolutely nothing wrong and that is why I have kept my cool while you keeps on your tantrum-filled tirade :) God bless.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There must be one other admin around here you haven't gone to yet. Take Drmies' advice and learn from it. And don't bring God into it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just move on and try not to feel hate. Its not good for you. Take care.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not hate, just pity for you and those who you misunderstand in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Love your heated emotions :) Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you both feel an overwhelming need do get the last word or something (don't answer)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I won't revert you again, but no, it's not over. "I do not know what you get out of trashing a dead woman.. but hey if it gives you something .. go ahead." is a downright vile personal attack. I didn't need to "edit them to make them look bad", they look horrible as it is. I used the {{rpa}} template, to remove the personal attack, as well you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ effectively admitted the comment was unnecessary. Edit warning between "comment removed" and "no personal attacks" as the replacement for the comment is just silly and I stand by the gist of my comment - you both need to move on now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. As one half of the argument, you shouldn't be the one deciding a comment needs removed, as well you know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"effectively" is not a redaction nor an apology for accusing me of getting kicks out of "trashing a dead woman". That will not stand, and your tacit advocacy of it is deeply troubling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The only think I am supporting is dropping the stick and moving on. There is no need to write pages of text and waste hours of your time (and other people's time) over something so minor. I think it would be in your own best interest to take a break from ITN as it really seems to be working you up lately, but feel free to ignore my advice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I was fine at ITN until I was accused of getting kicks out of trashing dead women. You need to recognise that's a clear and sick personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The only side I am willing to take is that it is time to move on - I am not taking BabbaQ's side and I'm not taking your side. You both have written way too much on this already. If either of you feel the need to continue this, please use the appropriate dispute resolution page - not my talk, not Drmies talk, not ITN. (Again, I highly recommend dropping it, but if it must continue use appropriate channels.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, will do, and will bring your resolute inaction (in fact worse than that...) over a clear violation of NPA into it as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kelly Gunther, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Thomas (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) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Patrick Meek

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Treasury/Coin Note

Hi Thaddeus- I'm working with Neelix to fix/resolve the name of the article per the most recent entry on my talk page. Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddy Alvarez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Columbus High School (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) 09:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Ringsred

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive bottom

Hi, FYI I fixed this[2]. The shortcut is {{abot}} (which I didn't even know about until now), not {{abottom}}. Best, vzaak 16:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

ITN

For some reason teh CAR posting is not showing up in the ITN box on themain page. Cant figure it out.(Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

Sometimes it takes a few minutes for the MP (or any other page) to actually change after a template on it is changed due to caching effects in the mediawiki software. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah,

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

btw- Ukraine riots were on the 19th, CAR prez was elected on the 20th. ..so swap?Lihaas (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I did tag Samba-Panza as the 20th, but the Ukraine poster tagged it as the 22nd. I will modify it now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ThanksLihaas (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding recent ANI

Dear ThaddeusB,

Thank you for your recent adjudication of an ANI filed by user HathaYogin. HathaYogin was recently confirmed to be a sockpuppet at an subsequent SP/I I filed. This user was subsequently blocked indefinitely. However, the patrolling admins did not address the allegation of meatpuppetry--though it was recognized that HathaYogin was an obvious puppet--and closed the SP/I in a rush.

I recognize the walls of text may be somewhat jarring, but I did attempt later to format it in a more accessible manner. The prime suspect for meatpuppetry has returned to reverting at the original page Dharmachakra, but to avoid continuing an edit war (with predictable consequences) I thought it best to seek your counsel. I should note that well after the SP/I was filed (and long after our revert clash ended) this user filed a bad faith stale edit war ANI against me (though I was able to slip in diffs proving his complicity in time)--we both got blocked (as you will see on my talk page). The blocking admin later commented and closed our SP/I.

The DRN I filed was apparently closed because the other user had opened an RSN a few days before (but there was no resolution there). Since I had nowhere else to turn for advice, I thought I should ask you. Please let me know what you recommend. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tunisia

The new constitution was signated by president --Panam2014 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. "Signated" is not a word & the article article says he signed it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Australian Open, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Li Na and Jan Hajek (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) 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Please accept this belated barnstar. Thanks for your tireless contributions to the DYK project and Wikipedia in general! Zanhe (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated! --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

STAP cells

Great work expanding this article, are you going to take it to DYK? benmoore 13:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be posted the ITN shortly - we are just trying to decide on a blurb. Perhaps you can take a look at the nomination and give some input? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh right I didn't know, thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there now. benmoore 16:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Good work on the article yourself, BTW. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sugar Todd

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eduardo Arnold

ThaddeusB, Cambalachero has come up with two new hooks for this article. Might you take a look at them and see if one of them is interesting enough and sourced enough to deserve a tick? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

recall

I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Emery Lehman

The DYK project (nominate) 12:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Article Incubator graduates listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Article Incubator graduates. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Article Incubator graduates redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ani report

An addition has been made to a report in regards to the Olympics LGBT controversy issue that you were involved with: [3]Lihaas (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eddy Alvarez

Orlady (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Emily Scott (speed skater)

Orlady (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Chris Creveling

The DYK project (nominate) 14:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eva Ganster

The DYK project (nominate) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Jonathan Garcia

The DYK project (nominate) 07:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jessica Smith (speed skater)

Hello! Your submission of Jessica Smith (speed skater) 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kelly Gunther

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Jessica Smith (speed skater)

Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DeadLinkBOT

Hi ThaddeusB! Just a friendly note to let you know your bot was discussed at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#scirus.com_links_need_to_be_dead-headed, in case you weren't aware. You might want to consider adding a note on the bot's page and/or talk page if you don't plan to run it again. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kyle Carr

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

"In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. " If another admin does something you don't like, attempt to discuss it before reverting them. Okay? Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Like you said "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" - not three 1-2 sentence "paragraphs". Posting at that time was a mistake and I undid it. Nothing personal - we all make mistakes, especially me. However, there is no requirement to discuss undoing admin actions before doing so, just as there is no requirement to discuss undoing any other edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There actually is a requirement to attempt to discuss administrative disagreements. ArbCom has said this over and over again. Reverting an admin action without discussion can precipitate a wheel war. This ITN thing is no big deal, and your position on the posting is arguably correct, but I really wish you would model best practices for any newbie admins who may be observing. Don't undo an admin action unless it is an obvious, unequivocal error without first attempting to discuss it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - like I said, I make mistakes too and apparently did here by not contacting you. :) I will certainly do so in the future in the rare instance I feel the need to undo an admin action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forbes list of billionaires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zara (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) 09:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Thaddeus, well done on the new article 2014 Winter Paralympics opening ceremony. I have added it to Template:Did you know nominations/Millie Knight as a joint nomination for Did you know; is that OK or do you want a separate nom? Thanks, Matty.007 08:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:R from character listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from character. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from character redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chiquita Brands International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake Placid (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) 09:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiquita Brands International edit thanks

Right on! Appreciate the nod. Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Oso mudslide

--The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

That was an accident. The dangers of surfing my watch list on a Kindle. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I figured as much. No worries --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, as well

Thanks for your additions to Kakuryu's article and to the sumo work page. We could always use some new blood. There was quite a frenzy of work on sumo some years back but it has dwindled down to a few workhorses. FourTildes (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

King IPO

I am sure you know I am not an asswhole who tries to oppose people just for the sake of opposing. All I am asking for is, please explain this nom as if to your grandmother, who knows what an IPO is abstractly, but has never even seen a first-person shooter, and has no idea what a "social game" is. If you can explain that (on ITN, not here, I won't be watching) you will have my happy support. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Chorisodontium aciphyllum

Thank you for your help Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you messaging me

I didn't do anything wrong dude, I fixed a grammar error, why did you send me the standard welcome to wikpedia your contribution sucks bulletin. #whatever_F_you_overzealous_wiki_editors 50.80.150.128 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, I sent you the standard welcome message to, you know, welcome you. It had zero to do with the quality of your contribution (which was fine). --14:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ITN for Iwao Hakamada

--Spencer^T♦C 16:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

syntax error

there is a slight syntax error in the ITN update (the word new). maybe you could also add the image File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg? Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Eeek, fixed. I will swap the picture out shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In the News

Hi ThaddeusB! I very much appreciate your ongoing efforts for ITN. Could you add this piece there?

Italian architect Pier Carlo Bontempi wins the 2014 Driehaus Prize. (PRweb)

Thank you and have a great weekend! :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All ITN items require consensus which does not exist for the Driehaus Prize at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your response. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Pyjamas. Not "pajamas". Look it up.Charles G. Hart (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In American English, it is "pajamas" - see pajamas. We don't favor one variety of English over another. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

File:Rabbids Rumble.png	rabbid mind
	3DS game awarded 'Rabbids Rumble' for Thaddeus8 Bwaahofjapan (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bwaah it around

🍙omgiei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwaahofjapan (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I like cups of tea Bwaahofjapan (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

💎Diamond Awards #2 This 💻 goes to ThaddeusB!

Bwaahofjapan (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cryolophosaurus/GA1

Hello ThaddeusB. I have noticed you have been active on wikipedia, yet have not completed your review of Cryolophosaurus, even after all the current comments have been fixed. Could you now come back to the review? Thanks, - IJReid (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited April 2014 lunar eclipse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saros (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) 08:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Enceladus, the moon of saturn

I am going to redo the intro section of Enceladus, you had said earlier on its talk page one shouldn't worry about sources in the leadoff, if it is covered in the article. How much can I do that? Reedman72 20:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedman72 (talk • contribs)

I personally rarely use citations in the lead. Here is what WP:Citing sources says on the matter: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2014

Hi there. Yes I do, I will be uploading them soon. I need to sort through them first. I'll let you know once they make it to Commons. -- KTC (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Took a while, but it's all there now. Regards -- KTC (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Attribution to a sandbox

This is interesting. I used it as a template, but all the text was my own. Not sure the attribution is required at all. Perhaps a rev del of the first sandbox variant is appropriate? If not, this is a permanently confusing link to something which has no relevance at all. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a message on it... First, let me say I am not offended by you using "my" article as a template, in fact quite the contrary - I am flattered. There are a few phrases I recognized, but yes most of the text is entirely different. I added the template mostly to be safe. I see the new article as a derivative of sorts which would require attribution by the CC-BY-SA. When I've used an existing article as a template for a new article, I put something like "start article using Article X as a template" which is sufficient to satisfy the CC-BY-SA terms.

If the {{copied}} template bothers you, we could ask a copyright expert for a third opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's more that it's confusing, I used it in my sandbox and believe it to be a reasonably good thing. I've always thought about doing these articles, but your bold start has inspired me to make an effort (and hence I now understand where some of the non-British terminology came from). I'm not bothered about the attribution thing, I always do it where I see fit, but time round I didn't consider it relevant. Ultimately, not bothered, but also thanks for getting me back into article writing! Glad we could finally restore the ITN blurb too, that's become a trauma of its own. US English and US tendencies to use nicknames and phrases like "edition" don't sit at all well with Brit English readers. Commonality is one thing, but writing the blurb correctly and succinctly (as you and I had done between us) was essential. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yah, I did attempt to write it in British English (used dmy dates, spelled honour correctly, etc.), but its hard to know every difference. I had no idea "edition" or "schools" would sound strange, for example. Thankfully, a number of editors have cleaned it up since I wrote the original.

I doubt many people ever look at the template and far fewer care enough to be confused. That said, perhaps we could put a custom notice instead, something along the lines of "This article used The Boat Race 2014 as a template. Therefore, early versions of this article may include text copied from [revision link]..." What do you think? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Methanosarcina

Thanks from → Call me Hahc21) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

ITN / DYK

Indeed, the previous DYK assortment was 111 bytes smaller, with fewer hooks wrapping to a second line under typical settings. —David Levy 19:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

ITN

What's relevant would obviously be the percentage of users. Americans make up far more than 5% of the users. But this user is trolling you, and you are wasting your time with arguments. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right, of course, on all points (50% of users are from the US). I don't know why I waste my time like this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding those that hate basketball enough to make bad faith nominations at ITN...

WP:DNFTT... Let him hang in the wind with no responses to his bullshit. By engaging him in open debate, you just give him more opportunity to add additional lines of text to his silly arguments. If you don't respond to him, he can't say anything else himself. --Jayron32 03:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I really need to not let such nonsense irritate me so much. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

... :D You guys... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

hey

I dont know if im doing this right, but do you want the china thing?

Its gotta be more interesting to you than the awards thing.

I dont know how to edit wikipedia articles anyways, so its kind of pointless me nominating stuff. Its all yours if you want it, and if you honestly think the awards thing is more important, then i guess well get that. Im going to go watch some "mobsters" on my laptop.

Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You are doing it right (you could have also replied at your talk page). Let me know if you prefer I write the China story (which may be hard to get featured due to backlash over our long argument) or the vagina story (which has a good shot at making it) and I will write the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

cheers for your message

lol, il make the whole world hate me, believe me, but no, of course il do my best to be cordial and polite.

Its just, one must express ones opinion, and sometimes people are invested in things that emotionally contradict hearing it!

I concede you seem like a smart and worldly fellow. Fact is though, much as a enjoy the debate, i am woefully under qualified on wikipedia, as i cant just work on stories.

Take the china thing or the vagina thing if you want. they are both yours to do what you will.

And just to give you an idea, my one claim to fame on wikipedia was going toe to toe over the Ye Shiwen, swimmer thing, with a load of you bastards, when you were all trying to say she was on drugs. (!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ye_Shiwen

Again and again, butthurt posters were trying to shoe horn some kind of nasty comment insinuating drug use on the basis of media speculation, that gave undue weight to a tiny portion of western gossip, and a whole load of what we would call waffle.

Now maybe she was on drugs and maybe she wasnt, but i saw no reason based on accuracy or demonstrable proof, that meant a teenage gold medal winner should wake up reading how she was a drugs cheat on wikipedia.

Outside of that little war, i dont edit articles so im really not in a position to be working on anything other than noms.

No hard feelings. I do enjoy the debate. Take which ever story you will enjoy, and give us a shout if you do take one, so I can see it.

Take care man. have a good evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I remember being upset with the accusations against Ye Shiwen (in the media, I never read to Wikipedia article). It was of course due to the fact she was Chinese. There was another young lady (Rūta Meilutytė) whose times were an even bigger surprise and I never heard anyone throwing out drug accusations against her. (In fairness, they probably call American athletes cheats without any evidence in China.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL. yeah, i just didnt want her waking up the next day, reading wikipedia and finding out she was a drugs cheat. innocent until proven guilty. im still somewhat annoyed that the article has subsequently found new and ingenious ways to shoe horn the word allegations into a biography on a clean athletes career, but at least it got blitzed a bunch of times and looks petty and silly now. trading on the word allegations to manufacture a bad name based on performance success and sour grapes is pathetic.

Even now i think that wikipedia article falls short both on accuracy and standards. The war was won over that episode, over those few weeks of olympic action though. As for them acting that way because she was chinese. I have a friend who got jumped one time. I asked him if they did it because you are black. He said no. They did it because they are racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you! Also a biscuit.

Thanks for taking the initiative to create an article suitable for the "Lab grown Vagina implant" news story! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome - glad you like the article. Thanks for the acknowledgement of my work - it is always nice to hear people appreciate what I'm doing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Great work on a hallmark day in history for science and medicine. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For your consideration

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-27007884

A massive forest fire has turned a chilean city into a disaster zone. 2 killed. 500 homes evacuated.

Its been reported by me on ITN and separately on current affairs, already.

Unsure if accessible for article, but the pictures are incredible.

These scenes from the report look like something out of an apocalypse. I have thought about muddling through an article, but story needs someone who will do it justice. Feel free to ignore, obviously, but do click the BBC link and see what you think.

Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a [legal?] concern

Not sure who to reach out to over here, but I know your an admin. I came across this User:CroArhiva, which talks of a "joint military offensive" during "between 25 and 29 July 2014" (Note- todays date is 13 April 2014). There may be some security concern there too (and why hes posted it here I have no idea). May want to look at it...(and at stealth..). Look at the infobox for his belligereants...Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a copy-and-paste (and corrupt) of Operation Summer '95. I don't see anything illegal other than the infringement of GFDL.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I blanked it and left an explanation at his talkpage. I doubt it was anything but an experiment with the editing interface. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably being stupid...bnut well know o in 2 months...;) Lihaas (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

London marathon

Lol you and your MPs! MP's arent really considered celebrities in the UK, but its ok. It works.

Can we not have sadly for the guy who died? I know its wikipedia, but theres gotta be a way to inject some note of misfortune among the cheer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To be a celebrity, one only has to be famous, not popular, yes? Feel free to take "other" out if you like though. As to "sadly" if I didn't take it out, someone else would have done so with a reason of such as "meaningless commentary" or "all deaths are tragic". --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thad. I moved it around a little bit, but i'm happy with it now, if you are. trust me on the members of parliament/members of public thing. Its the best way of expressing it, keeping your entry and reference, without creating an elitist dynamic in a traditionally mixed race. MPs arent by definition famous here, and are not celebrities by definition, and the race is a public mix in tradition. Essentially the MPs and Celebrities are mps and celebrities for the day. All 3 categories are distinct things, and are essentially treated as mixed on the day. The MPs are running as public as are the celebrities essentially. when discribing them together and making separate reference, it looks weird to have MPs/celbrities and members of public in this context. It is most accurate how ive left it, if acceptable to wikipedia. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yah, looks good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ITN golf item

I'm not particularly familiar with golf (or sports in general), so please bear with me.
Is there another golf event with the name "Masters Tournament" or similar? Our article indicates that it's sometimes called "The US Masters" and links to Master#Sport (where several major sporting events designated "Masters" are mentioned), but I see no other golf-related entry on that list. Thanks! —David Levy 14:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed the related WP:ITN/C discussion. Please disregard the above. —David Levy 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Blood Moon Prophecy

slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for April 2014 lunar eclipse

slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow!

Your Blood Moon Prophecy + April 2014 lunar eclipse hook surpassed all other all-time record hooks! See WP:DYKSTATS. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you need to subtract "background views". It should still be the #1 non-picture hook and #2 overall after doing so. Of course the eclipse itself attracted a lot of the attention, but I think the hook was pretty good too. (The subject itself getting outside attention drives most top DYK hooks, incidentally.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by background views? I just copied the one-day total from Henrik's stats (click on the blue-linked number). Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

When the amount of views the day before and day after the appearance are non-trivial, you have to subtract the average off of the DYK number (see 3. on the rules). These are referred to as "background views". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I took care of it. Thanks for pointing out that rule. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Eclipse

Please post the article now. There is no opposition, so your doing the honors would not be a conflict of inteterest (as there is no conflict) and unanimous consensus is early posting is warranted. Also, the blurb can simply stay in the present, as that covers the immediate future. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Stephen took care of it before I saw your message. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I started an ANI about user IP77 from ITN. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Andise1 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Given the user has indeed shown to be a sock with at least one prior proxy account here obscenely evading a block, isn't an indef block of both accounts warranted? μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure the 103. is a public place (see random contribution history) and so not appropriate for a long-term block unless seriously abused... I wouldn't say one pissed off comment from a new IP is the kind of socking that would lead to an indefinite block. If/when 77 returns to editing it will be obvious enough (under whatever name) to know it's her and escalating blocks given as needed. Hopefully she either leaves on her own or comes back ready to contribute in a more effective manner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was proxies could be blocked at will, and the fact that IP 77 went straight to one to launch a rather obscene attack at least merits a longer block for evasion, no? I won't keep hounding you on this. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct - open proxies can be blocked indefinitely. I checked and it turns out 103.16.26.83 is indeed an open proxy. (I assumed otherwise and didn't check before.) I have now blocked it indefinitely. You are also right that one could extend the 77 block for evasion, but I am willing to let it go in this case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the welcome message :) Isa (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing and thank you for saving me a bunch of time on 2014 Pulitzer Prize format fixes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Pulitzer Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Taylor (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) 08:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vaginal transplantation

Hello! Your submission of Vaginal transplantation 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! Orlady (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Holcim

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

quick side chat?

Hi, thanks for the discussing at human cloning. that was the first time i have interacted with editors who work on, and think, WP's front page. for me it was kind of disconcerting. i work mostly on health-related issues, along with ag stuff (GMOs) and in general in those fields, anything that appears in the popular media is very likely to be inappropriate for inclusion in WP because it is uncertain whether what is being reported is reliable information. Things take time to understand and weigh, in the biomedical sciences (not by us editors, who do not do this kind of weighing, but by other scientists in the field) and we source as much as we can from 2ndary sources - reviews - which are never big news items. it is scholarly slow work. Short story - other editors and I spend a ton of time fighting off hype-ish content that people want to push into the encyclopedia - especially people who are Advocates for X or Y and some news story comes out that inflames them. To me as a wikipedia editor, "news of the day" is my enemy! It brings little that is relevant, and lots of distraction from building durable, npov, reliable content. I hope that makes some sense of where I am come from, in my work here. So... how things look from your perspective! You and others actually work the front page, and the "in the news" section. And as happened with the ACT study, you actually go to articles that will get attention via INT and get them ready to receive attention. This is so, dramatically opposed to how I think about my work here and I am just struck by how different it is. I am interested to hear, if you want to take time to say, (and please don't be insulted - I am asking a real question to learn as much as i can) - how you think about your work on ITN - and the pre-publication work on target articles - in light of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper.... you seem to be a thinker and i am hoping you have a way you articulate this. a new discourse about WP for me. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll start with the good news - ITN very rarely publishes medical content. Like you say, analysis of cutting edge (medical) science takes time before its importance can be understood. I'll admit I may have blown it by nominating the cloning story. It had been a while since I worked on a medical story and I forgot about the extra care such stories require. (In fairness no one objected at ITN, and we do have some regulars who object to hype-ish science usually, so it wasn't just me.) I am more used to other fields of science where a new idea is generally considered correct until challenged. For example, I recently wrote Tetrophthalmi, a newly identified suborder of harvestmen (aka daddy long legs). The way biological/paleontological classification works any scientist with the proper credentials who gets their work published is considered a valid authority to make such judgements. If later analysis shows the original author was wrong, the classification can be revised, but until that occurs the analysis is considered correct. This system works well for all but the most hot-button topics (e.g. human ancestors, first birds) because findings are rarely challenged anyway.

I was surprised me to read that 75% or more of medical study results are unverifiable upon retesting (per MEDRS). My father is a physiologist and I've worked in a medical research lab before, so I had some appreciation for how common poor studies are, but still that number is shocking to me. I certainly have a greater appreciation for the care required on medical articles after this incident. (I was aware of, and had read, MEDRS before for the record, although not recently.)

I am well aware that news media often make mistakes (in all sorts of subjects, not just medical stories). There is a wide range in quality of coverage, however. Some sources are excellent fact checkers, while others just churn about stories with as little effort as possible. Reading/using multiple sources also helps identify errors a lot of times (because only one version makes sense in context.) For the vast majority of what we cover (disasters, sports, and politics dominate) on ITN, "instant analysis" provided by popular media are good enough, and indeed often the best sources even with the benefit of time.

As to the appropriateness of "instant coverage" in general, I will cite the ITN introduction: "Many Wikipedians are motivated to create and update encyclopedic articles of timely interest. ITN originated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when entries were created and put on the main page within minutes of the attacks. The entries led to an infusion of interest by editors in creating a main page section that linked to articles providing readers the context behind the news." We decide what to post on the basis of the story and the article quality, or as I like to say "ITN is not for featuring high importance news that happens to have articles, but rather featuring high quality articles that happen to be in the news." Today, many readers turn to Wikipedia for up-to-date unbiased coverage of big news stories precisely because we do a better job of covering such news that most other sources. (Check out the page view jumps of a subject that is in the news, whether listed on the mainpage or not.) When an article is featured on ITN it tends to be improved by editors who might never see it otherwise, furthering the quality of our coverage even more. (I believe this happened even on human cloning.)

If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this long and careful reply! I worry that you took my question as an attack and i am sorry about that, as i tried hard to not to make it attack-ish. I am sorry about that. I really just wanted to understand where the ITN ethos came from and how it fits in us being an encyclopedia (which you provided, so thanks!). I guess WP:RECENT catches both sides of the perspective on that. Thanks again for your careful answer, and for your great work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to worry - I did not view your question as an attack in the slightest. RECENT does indeed do a good job of explaining the need to balance "up to the minute coverage" with "long term perspective" from both sides of the fence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC Question

I was wondering what the purpose of that was? Is it to block people determinesd to violate or was it to get consensus on how to change as an editor? Per the latter can you do one on yourself.Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to WP:RFC/U... It is used for a variety of reasons, but most often when a user is "problematic" but not it such a way as an immediate block is needed. The hope is generally that the user will change after seeing uninvolved editors agreeing that their behavior is problematic. Think of it as a form of admonishment; only rarely does it lead to a block directly, but it does establish a need for a block if the bad behavior continues afterwards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What if one were to just generally seek consensus as to the opinion WP thinks of one? In other words, if I were to seek opinion of my editing habits in order to change...whats that protocol?Lihaas (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Editor review may provide what you are looking for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thx.  Done feel free to commentLihaas (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Editor Review is in the process of dying, or maybe being overhauled... I will take some time to review you myself within the next few days. I may also try to save the process in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic of Odessa

Can you have a look at the deletion discussion for the People's Republic of Odessa. Notable that this involved User_talk:Ymblanter#People's Republic of Odessa. Seems to have been a partisan move. At least deletion discussion should last 7 days.

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk status referendum, 2014Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think new information has emerged to suggest it isn't a hoax, then try WP:Deletion review. Make sure to carefully explain why you think the original discussion is no longer valid. In general hoax articles can be deleted on sight so a quick discussion is not reason enough to invalidate the conclusion, but may have contributed to the truth (that it wasn't just a joke, etc.) not emerging. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

GISHWHES GAN

Hi, ThaddeusB.

It's been a little while since you commented over at Talk:GISHWHES/GA1. I've attempted to resolve all your concerns. Please let me know if you have any more or if you feel the article now meets the Good Article criteria. Many thanks, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wing-assisted incline running

ThaddeusB, I was wondering what was left to be done on this nomination. Your last comment doesn't include an icon, tick or otherwise, so I'm assuming there's more needed. Can you indicate the current status of the review with an appropriate icon and comment? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's ready, I just forgot the icon. Now fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is just to say thank you for all you have done from start to finish to make this article 2014 Chibok kidnapping to come in the homepage. Cheers! Ashish Lohorung (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very much welcome. It is always nice to hear people appreciate my efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neotrogla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tarsus (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) 08:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Everest 2014

Hi Thaddeus, Could you please keep an eye out on the edits to this page by E. Manatee? Some of these are admittedly improvements, but the last edit introduced so many errors, misspellings, removals of important "the"s, US spellings etc, that I've reverted the entire edit, which is not ideal. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that his edits are not very helpful. I should point out, however, that the article actually started out using American English and was switched (largely by you) I believe. Since there are no strong national ties to one version or another, it should stay with the first version used... Now that it has been changed, there is no need to change back, but keep that in mind for the future. I am definitely still watching the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. I assumed that since the article began by using Brit dd/mm/yy dates it used Brit Eng tout court. I have no particular preference either way; just trying to keep things consistent. Thanks for watching -- I'm away for three weeks. Ericoides (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just out interest and for future ref, would you mind pointing out in what way this article started out using US Eng and where I changed it to Brit Eng? This was my first edit, with no Brit Eng. The very next edit, by you, introduced the word "hospitalisation" into the article, and thereby Brit Eng, which I subsequently retained. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, my memory was incorrect. I knew I wrote the original, which would normally mean Am. Eng., but I guess I chose to make it Brit. Eng. to match the date style already chosen by the stub creator. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the explanation; and also for keeping the page tidy. Ericoides (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Outbreak

Hi, Thaddeus. Considering the state of the article as of this edit will you please post it? Note references for the material in the chart re in the left column, not attached to the prose in each section. The section which had been moved out of the chart, then marked unreferenced had indeed been referenced in the chart, but that is moot. The text requirement was met last night and is far exceeded now. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/I Gave You Power

ThaddeusB, I was hoping you'd be willing to revisit your review of this nomination now that the QPQ has been supplied and Launchballer says he has addressed the other issues. If not, please let me know and I'll call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, both for this one and the other one below. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN - Egyptian sentences

Greetings,
I removed the orange tags on Mohammed Badie's article because one of the issues appears to have been already addressed. The other was there for too long and because it is unclear why it still remains. Another editor did the same on Islamist unrest in Egypt (2013–present). About the proposal to create a new article for the mass trials: I am currently very busy in life and i'm afraid I won't be doing much about this, so do you know someone who is up for the task? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither article is updated in the slightest, so they definitely can't be posted. The bare minimum would be one paragraph explaining the situation - otherwise there is no reason to post. For a new article, the bare minimum would be 3 paragraphs. (We aren't a news ticker - we expect users to find additional information about the subject at the article in question.) Normally, I would be a candidate to update the articles/create a new ones, but I also am very busy. Maybe I can get to it tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tetrophthalmi

Hello! Your submission of Tetrophthalmi 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) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Choo Seng Quee

ThaddeusB, if you're still around and filling preps, I've just approved this one, which you had asked about earlier. Since I have approved it, I can't promote it, and this looks like it would fit nicely into Prep 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I wasn't going to fill the last two prep spots, but I guess I can squeeze it in before bed. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing it! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Kentucky Derby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange County (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) 08:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for ITN credit

Thanks for credits and your help at ITN. Regards -Nizil (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for helping to get Gulzar up to ITN standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

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!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 476th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the acknowledgement! --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tetrophthalmi

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Chrome!

Just an FYI that I tweaked the hook on the DYK nom for Art Sherman, thanks for including me on it! I also did a run through the article, you are doing terrific work there! It's such a great story, isn't it? #Chromie ! Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the article - it is often hard to spot my own mistakes as I tend to read things back as I intended to write them, not as I actually did (if that makes sense). I agree, it is a very inspirational story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No kidding. I presume you've watchlisted California Chrome. It's had almost 70,000 hits since the first of the month (25K of them the day after the Derby). We need to watchlist against vandals. Also, be aware that User:Greensodagal, who edits the article sometimes, is NOT a vandal, but is an inexperienced user; she has very (VERY!) accurate information, but sometimes needs to have stuff cleaned up; be super nice, she's a good faith editor and is good at finding new articles that add useful info. Also watchlist Lucky Pulpit if you haven't already. Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Onward, Christian Pilgrims

I've fixed your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Onward, Christian Pilgrims. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cassey Ho

I was inspired by you to look deeper into sources for User:I am One of Many/Cassey Ho. I found six more sources that I think when taken with the rest clearly establish notability as a social media entrepreneur. She has been used in two "How To" book on social media as an example of how to use it for success. I think I should run this by User:Drmies too because he was kind enough to userfy the article for me. Also, if I happen to end back up in AfD with this, I want it to be a pretty clear Keep. Thanks again for you encouragement. I am One of Many (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. If it does go to AfD, I am prepared to defend it vigorously. The previous arguments were pretty much nonsense and were probably based on just reading the DYK hook more than anything. I agree asking Drmies opinion would be wise before making a move. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No no no, don't ask me. I merely closed the AfD, by dope demand and as a clear example of SNOW. I can't say that I would have agreed with 1E or lack of notability or whatever--I was just making the obvious admin call. There's a lot of references now, so that's good, but if you want anyone's advice, ask one of the nay-sayers on the second AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassey Ho (2nd nomination). But calling their arguments nonsense is probably not a wise thing to do. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It was my idea to ask you. Two of the delete votes are not regulars. The AfD nominator is an established editor, but doesn't edit much any more. He/she returned to edit on April 28th for the AfD, but hasn't edited since. An IP edited twice on the 28th and that is all. I could contact the other two see whether their opinion had changed. I am One of Many (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Or ask someone else you know. User:TonyTheTiger has written a bunch of those articles... Drmies (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have only written 1 internet celebrity (iJustine). You need articles in the mainstream press in which she is the main subject, not things like her exercise techniques, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Tony--I thought you were prolific in that area as well. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi TonyTheTiger, I believe there are about a half a dozen article in the mainstream press in which she is the main subject. There are also a couple of books that user here as an example of a successful social-media fitness entrepreneur. In your opinion, is this ( User:I am One of Many/Cassey Ho) enough? Your advice is deeply appreciated. I am One of Many (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Beef up her article with those.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I already have them in (I added four today). Is that good enough?.I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

After looking through the sources in iJustine, I think Cassey Ho is notable too with the sources available for her. I am One of Many (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to try to beef up the content some more. That is, add more material as opposed more references for (mostly) the same material. Specialist sources (such as the two entrepreneurial magazines) are OK as long as they are reliable. Despite what people said at the AfD, those two sources are most likely reliable - it would be up to doubters to prove otherwise given they are print publications and have editorial oversight. (Such coverage predates the thigh gap thing; that is why I said BLP1E was nonsense.) Forbes is undeniably reliable and significant coverage. Two reliable sources with significant coverage is generally considered sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, there is no requirement that a source be primarily or eclusively about Ho to establish notability. Per WP:N, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'll beef it up this weekend with the material in the sources and let you know when I'm done. Again, thanks of much for your encouragement on this! I am One of Many (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The key getting this kept is encyclopedic content from WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to beef it up from reliable sources. There is a lot more content from the reliable sources that can be added. Thanks! I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:I am One of Many/Cassey Ho is ready to move back to article space. I have expanded it over three fold. I found several more in-depth reliable sources using Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The "thigh gap" incident is now embedded in a section on her view of body image. I eliminated the awards section and incorporated her awards in her Internets status section. Now, I don't think these will distract from what she is actually notable for. Again, thanks for all your help. I am One of Many (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Really nice work. Would you like me to make the move? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes I would! I am One of Many (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Let's hope that is the end of it. If a 3rd AfD does occur, the article should certainly survive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks good and I like the talk page too! Again many thanks. I am One of Many (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to understand something

Why are you so determined to have a longer discussion of the blood moon nonsense in April 2014 lunar eclipse? It's a fringe belief, even among the apocalypse believing fringe of the fundamentalist fringe of Christianity. There's no credible evidence of significant belief, people have not been selling up and appearing on a mountain top like they did with the last lot of rapture prophecies. I'm at a loss to understand why we would big this up. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me assure you I have no desire to promote the Blood Moon idea... I wouldn't say I am determined to have a "longer" discussion, but rather one of the "correct length". The idea is certainly FRINGE in terms of plausibility, # of believers, etc. However, it also attracted a lot of media attention. This creates a (uncommon) situation where an idea is both fringe and significantly notable. (A mini-2012 phenomenon of sorts.) The reliable source coverage has dictated some level of coverage in the eclipse article. As you know, when a fringe subject is covered in (as part of a larger article or as a standalone) it is important to achieve balance. It is much better to handle to subject in sufficient detail to provide context and refutation than to make the text as short as possible just for the sake of short text. Tetx that is too short can artificially elevate the plausibility of an idea by letting it go unchallenged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely accept that you're not promoting it, of course. In an article on a reality-based subject, I favour a very short description with a link to the main article, unless there are enough different bonkers theories to have a section on them all. It jars, for me. Though the gallery also does: it's clumsy, I don't recall galleries usually being clunky like that. As to the main, I stated my issue there: competing cranks duking it out is amusing but not my kind of sourcing. I trust you of course, but I have seen articles such as Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) drift off into laa-laa-land as the quotes from the mad sources are incrementally expanded by believers. Then you have to pull it back, and a few months later have the whole fight again. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with gallery is too large... I would say what we have now is a "short description" (3.5 sentences) although perhaps not a "very short description". My original idea was something longer, but Scottywong sucessfully persuaded me that I was refuting it in the wrong way (presenting arguments against instead of saying few believe it). That made it shorter and then your comments resulted in a bit more chopping. I don't really think it can be any shorter and still convery a) what it is; b) why its notable (press coverage); and c) why its fringe (few believe it). The (sensational) reliable source coverage of the idea is what drew my attention in the first place. As such, I feel we are better served by properly showing the idea is fringe than simply cutting the words to the minimum. For what its worth, I don't think it is likely to bloat up in the eclipse article as no one insterested will really have a reason to go that article first (since teh eclipse is out of the news).

While we are discussing this, you never did answer my question on the Blood Moon Prophecy mainpage. Will you have some patience if I try to rebuild the main article using (actual) mainstream Christian publications, such as [4]? I think you probably assumed I was the typical whackjob promoting some crap (dealing with that all the time must be exhausting), and that was the cause of the semi-hostile response. In reality, I am only trying to document the history/response because I myself wondered how it came to prominence, and figured others would want to know as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

GAN Review

Hi! I was wondering if you wanted to do a Good Article review exchange. I would like Alfred V. Verville to be reviewed and I see you need April 2014 lunar eclipse to be reviewed. Agreed? Nasa-verve (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty interesting article, so I will probably start a review within the next couple days. I encourage you to do a GA review in return, but it doesn't have to be my article - pick out any article you like to review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Great idea. I will start on a GA review right after I finish with the Alfred Verville work. Nasa-verve (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! Do you add the {{Good article}} template or can I? Nasa-verve (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A bot will add it shortly, or feel free to add it yourself if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

An apology

Dear Thaddeus, just a quick note to apologise for disparaging your comments on the Main Page talk. I understood the IP was saying that 'first' was of less certainty than 'first ever' and that you were supporting that by saying it is an ENGVAR matter. I now realise that you were in fact referring to the OP's assertion regarding skepticism. (For what it's worth, I think that is more of a context issue. If I tried to sell you the 'First ever' drug to cure every ailment known to man, you'd be far more skeptical than if I said Neil Armstrong was the first ever man to walk on the moon.) Anyway, I know that whatever egg I cast at you has hit me between the eyes. So if you will excuse me, I will go away and try to figure out why I butted into a 2-day old conversation in the first place. Athomeinkobe (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, misunderstandings happen... As an aside, there actually is a context where "first ever" would have a different meaning than "first". Let's say a group of hikers had a race to the top of Mount Everest and were asked who was the first person to reach the summit. Naturally, they would name someone in the contest. But, if the question who was the first-ever person to reach the summit, the only answer possible would be Edmund Hillary. Thus, "first ever" is more precise... That said, to me it is just an ordinary way of saying "first" with no added connotation of any kind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Whilst I have your attention, may I ask for your feedback and advice?

I've tried to make myself useful by opening a random article and improving it. The unfortunate victim happens to be Dhani Bandhwali.

First of all, I have worked on the opening section. Do you have any suggestions regarding the changes I've made?

Secondly, looking at the rest of the article, is there anything in there worth trying to save? Deleting it might annoy the fans of some very important personalities, but I am not particularly keen on trying to find notability for all of those retired soldiers.

Then again, the portion I worked on is also entirely unreferenced.

This is not of extreme urgency to the fate of Wikipedia, but your comments would be appreciated whenever you can spare a moment. Thanks, Athomeinkobe (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you landed on an article written by a non-native speaker. It often happens with populated place articles like this one that that grammar is terrible and the article is filled with junk... The copy edits you made are a very good start. I would try to rearrange the material in the more natural paragraphs - right now it seems fairly random where the breaks are. The festivals section seems like random info & the food section seem like one person's opinion. There is nothing worth keeping, IMO. The informal "rule" on lists of "notable" people is anything that is a red link and unreferenced can go. While not the case here, usually such entries are added by the people themselves or their friends. I say remove the list as there seems to be nothing of value. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mazzaroth

I noticed your comments on "Blood Moon Prophecy" and thought you might be prepared to take a look at the Interpretations section on the Mazzaroth Talk page and provide some input. There seem to be two areas of dispute: (1) Is it appropritae to include an Interpretation section in the article (2) What sources are acceptable. The other editor has raised it 3 times on the fringe noticeboard without any response. Rev107 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Hafey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kevin Bartlett and Kevin Sheedy (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) 08:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For reviewing 2 GAN's (for a total of 14 points) during the March 2014 Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For being part of the Review Team during the March 2014 Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for closing the controversial Jews and Communism AfD before the debates concerning it got out of hand. I think you made the right decision Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I am always willing to make the tough calls. I appreciate the recognition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit

Matty.007 07:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Art Sherman

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The World's Billionaires

ThaddeusB, it's been over two weeks since you last stopped by here. At the moment, what's stopping this from progressing is the final two QPQs. Please supply them as soon as possible; this could be closed by someone at any time, and I'd hate for that to happen. Do you think you can finish them before next weekend? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Will do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Chrome

Hey ThaddeusB, would you care to take a glance at California Chrome for me? I just added more material to the article and am at that too-bleary-eyed-to-see-my own typos stage. Feel free to make any minor tweaks, post any comments about bigger stuff on the article talk page, and if you move anything, be SUPER careful that the source goes with it, this is a GA. Many thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'll give it a good once over sometime this week. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Groovy, any time before June 1. I'd like to use the week of June 1-7 before the race to be sure the article is close to FAC quality other than any new-breaking stories that will hit, I anticipate a shitload of vandal trouble (article has had over 200,000 hits since its creation last month (!) and want to be sure that a stable, clean version (there's that pun again...) is embedded for reverts as needed. Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In that case, would you like a formal Peer review (often done ahead of FA, but certainly not required) or an informal review on talk. (Content will be largely the same either way & I will do trivial/copyediting changes myself.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Soccer

[5] I thought about this when I added the FA Cup; we'll now have to look at the Premier League for another week making it rather stale at the end. I'm not sure anyone would have cared that the FA Cup wouldn't have been there for a complete cycle. Stephen 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Feel free to remove the Premier part when it would otherwise have fallen off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Vaginal transplantation

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for List of national quality awards

Thanks for looking at it—I had assumed it had aged out! -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientists

By creating the new category - but saying that nothing could be put in it until subcategories were created, but saying that everything must be removed from Category:Pseudoscientists immediately, you have effectively blown up all the work put into categorization before letting it be rebuilt from the rubble.

It is almost impossible to find out what used to be in a category, so slow, careful guidance is needed if you wish to not throw out years of categorization work. You did not do this in your closing decision

A sensible way would have been either to leave the category in place during the recategorization, or keep a list of pages to be categorized. Now? Information has been lost that will have to be ereconstructed. Please behave in a more sensible manner in future. I agree recategorization is reasonable, but there was no reason whatsoever to do it in a manner that basically deleted the work needed to find pages tat should be categorized into the new tree. Hell, they could have been auto-moved into the container category temporarily with a deadline to recategorize. That the most destructive abnd stupid option - to blow the category up and start over - was taken shows a severe lack of judgement.

I don't think there was any malice here, but you need to be far more careful in future. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not recall any demand that things be moved immediately. The CFD close is the goal state, no deadline for implementation was specified, nor was there are restriction on how the goal state was arrived at. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Winter Sleep (film)

I wanted to expand the article's plot section, but I'm not sure what kind of source would be appropriate for such things since I have never created/edited a film article before. I noticed the use of IMDb as a source there even though I had the impression it was non-reliable. But in case it was, I still don't see a plot synopsis yet in the film's page there. Do you know any good website to rely on for stuff like that? Your advise would be very helpful and appreciated, since I am planning on future film projects for Wikipedia. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Usually in these situations, the press articles on the film winning have a brief summary of the movie, so that would be one option. IMDb is indeed of questionable reliability, but would probably be OK for a plot summary. Critic reviews are another good source - IMDb usually links to several, or try Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. MichaelQSchmidt may have some additional/better advice - he is well versed in the best sources for movie-related articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

For User:Fitzcarmalan: Visit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film to better understand the format for film articles. WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM advise on the parameters for plot sections and tells how plot sections relay on the film itself and need not be cited. Feel free to ask for input or help over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or with any of the projects coordinators or active members. Welcome aboard. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, dear colleagues. Highly appreciate it. :) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that the first part is summarized, I'm afraid I can't find any source depicting the later developments in the film. Did you find anything relevant lately? Maybe I can help finish it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Try [6] --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I expanded the plot section using the source you provided (which I already came across) along with two others, but I'm still not sure if the events are properly sequenced, since the film's developments are randomly mentioned within the three reviews' context and I'm not sure whether what I wrote is chronologically arranged or not. Can we still consider ourselves done with this part? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. If you made a mistake on chronology, its probably not a big deal & I'm sure someone will fix it at some point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN for Mahafarid Amir Khosravi

--Spencer^T♦C 04:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN for 2014 Cannes Film Festival

--Spencer^T♦C 04:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Soraya Post

Please take a look at the Soraya Post article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what is desired? Do you want feedback on the article? or help expanding it? or help resolving a dispute? or something else? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sherman

Hey Thaddeus, you might want to add some stuff from this source to the Art Sherman article. I'll post the link at the talk page there too, just in case someone else wants to add it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Verville

Hi Thaddeus! I've addressed your 3 comments. I would love to proceed with the GAN! Thanks! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Isla Vista killings in ongoing events section

Was there a discussion regarding this being posted to ongoing events? (Rather than it being added there unilaterally.) Especially since the event itself is not ongoing; rather what's ongoing are debates such as Gun violence in the United States or Gun politics in the United States, rather than new actions that the currently featured article would cover. Spencer^T♦C 22:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Per the ongoing instructions: "An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s)." I would say new information (not just gun debate) is still appearing daily and the article is certainly still being updated.

Ongoing is designed to a lightweight process and was created to give items a few extra days of attention in high turnover periods. That is what we have here. Had it lasted the normal ~5 days, I doubt I would have placed it on ongoing. If you really want to dispute its placement on ongoing for a couple days, feel free to start a discussion on ITN/C - that is the agreed upon procedure for contesting a choice (use or non-use of ongoing). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. It wasn't that big of a deal to start a discussion or anything, I'm still figuring out all of the Ongoing procedures/rationale. Thanks for the explanation! Spencer^T♦C 11:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vukosav Nikolić

Hi, I just promoted this nom to the Prep Queue. I just noticed that you approved ALT3, but there are two ALT3's on the page. Did you mean the first or the second? As I'm checking out for the night, if I promoted the wrong one, you could make the switch at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed the "wrong" one. I made the switch. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (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.

International Institute for Species Exploration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to National Geographic, Santa Catalina and Taxonomy

Dracaena kaweesakii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dracaena

Imre Gedővári (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Olympic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN for 2014 Indianapolis 500

--Spencer^T♦C 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2014

Hello Thaddeus. In between all the rantings and ravings at ITN, DYK etc, I'm trying to get a few (i.e. all) of the Boat Race articles up to a decent level, and thought, having recently nominated The Boat Race 2012 at WP:GAN, I'd like to expand a little on the 2014 edition and take it there as well. I suppose this is a courtesy note really to let you know that I'm doing it, and if you'd like to help, that'd be marvellous. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can help if you like. What would you like me to add to the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Well if you have a look at the 2012 article, where, admittedly, more controversy happened, I expanded quite a bit on the crews, their selection etc. For the 2014 race, as it's all current, I'd imagine this info would be easily extracted from the web, but I also think it wise for anything we do use that we archive at webcite or similar just in case URLs are re-used in the future (or simply die). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Neotrogla

Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The World's Billionaires

Hello! Your submission of The World's Billionaires 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! v/r - TP 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Imre Gedővári

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfication request that does not seem automatic

You are listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and since I don't want to inundate the people whose names start with the letter a, I have jumped to the Ts (given my username). I have made a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Userfication of deleted and salted content. The article has been deleted through AFD twice and the first time was upheld at DRV. The first version was 49KB readable prose, while the second version was 33KB readable prose. Although many have argued the second was a recreation of the first, two separate admins reversed their own WP:G4 deletions upon further review. It seems that a third admin speedily declined another G4 although I am unable to see the history right now and did not notice this during the second AFD. I have a long history at successful recreations (12 articles now at WP:GA are formerly deleted articles that I have recreated, including "Cat Daddy" which was deleted 4 previous times). The second AFD seems to be an indictment against any future recreation of the article, which is befuddling to me. I would like to learn something from this seemingly odd result. I have requested a userfication that includes history and talk page so that I can investigate policy/guidelines. So far the best userfication offer was by Floquenbeam to restore it for a fixed 2 week expiry. I have stated that 2 months would be more appropriate than 2 weeks because no policy discussion can be guaranteed to conclude within 2 weeks and I have several that I would like to pursue. Floquenbeam, has stated his hesitance is based on assumptions of bad faith regarding my intentions and that I have made a phantom "refusal to agree not to bug people about tagging or edits they made to the article prior to deletion" which I never made (I was actually concerned about the 2 week expiry and forgot to assent to the request). I am unable to discuss things with Floquenbeam who has not edited in 3 days (since 20:43, 28 May 2014). As a frequent recreator of content, I would like a chance to become a better editor by examining the various policies related to this outcome with the content available for illustration and instruction.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I have fulfilled your request. The article can now be found at User:TonyTheTiger/Jabari Parker's high school career. I'm not going to set a time table, but of course the page is subject to WP:MfD if "abandoned". I would highly suggest seeking third party input before moving it back to mainspace. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that some of the talk page history is missing. Could you double check that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There aren't any other revisions at Talk:Jabari Parker's high school career - was it at a different title at some point perhaps? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey ThaddeusB. I just wanted to let you know that prior to your userfication of this article, Tony has forum-shopped this request at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_6 and then Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Userfication_of_deleted_and_salted_content where he received answers he disliked. He has since requested on 9 different admin talk pages, including: User_talk:TParis, User_talk:Thingg, User_talk:Titoxd, User_talk:Thespian, User talk:Tawker, User talk:The Placebo Effect, User talk:Thehelpfulone, User_talk:Toon05, & finally you, who restored the page. I apologize for spamming this message, but since Tony has failed to let you know that he has forum-shopped to successfully get the outcome he wanted, I felt you deserved to know that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

TLSuda, That was not a forum shop. I sent to all 10 T admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles simultaneously after Floquenbeam went offline for 3 days. The previous userfication was for a DRV. This userfication is to investigate policy as I have stated above and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Userfication of deleted and salted content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP: "Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." You copy and pasted the exact same request to 10 administrators (adminshopping) after not getting your way from the DRV and 9 admins chimed in at WP:AN all giving you specific terms or a specific process to go through. You didn't get your way, so now you are adminshopping/forumshopping. This needs to stop. TLSuda (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think posting at 10 admins pages to request a userification simultaneously is itself forum shopping. I did look at the ANI discussion which was closed as "Try DRV again if you want it undeleted Tony, or take up Floquenbeam's reasonable offer to userfy." I did not read that as "only Floquenbeam may userfy". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I contact a handful of admins simultaneously to get a response all the time. Of the 10 you don't know how many have retired, gone on wikibreaks, have no interest in the issue, etc. When I encounter an issue like this I contact a lot of admins. Not that the AN discussion was closed hours after ThaddeusB granted my userfication request. In truth the request will cause no harm to WP. I just need to illustrate some queries in order to learn about policies and become a better editor. This is a very confusing set of circumstances.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Contacting a bundle of admins the way you did is the exact definition of adminshopping. Especially after being done when you didn't get your way on two forums. TLSuda (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that RHaworth reverted your userfication because he does not understand WP:USERFY. He said he thougth that an article had to have a chance at mainspace to be userfied.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)