User talk:ThaddeusB-public

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, ThaddeusB-public! I am Calaka and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calaka (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed....[edit]

I am hoping to get back to lessons now that you have the time. Interestingly enough, at a recent failed RFA, some folks were far more concerned with ancient history than with checking my knowledge of processes. That some let a few past errors seem to outweigh the bulk of some decent editing was a lesson all in and of itself. It did give me plenty to consider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fix[edit]

Thanks for that, I hate messing up a citation like that. How do you fix it? Also, good cleanups on that page. ValenShephard 15:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You typed <ref> <ref name="Kathimerini protest"/></ref> but what you actually wanted to write was just <ref name="Kathimerini protest"/> ... A the slash (/) in the named reference means the full ref is elsewhere in the article. You only need.<ref> ... </ref> when there is something to put in inside such as <ref>http://www.example.com</ref> --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued lessons?[edit]

I am definitely wishing to continue lessons if you have the time. The information and education will be always useful, admin or not. My recent failed RFA showed a number of folks far less concerned with my knowledge and a whole lot more worried about my success rate in saving articles at AFD... and some of the most vocal were editors with I disagreed at AFD and/or proven wrong by saving articles they wanted dumped. Following more recent RFAs, I did not find those editors even visiting or commenting on others... so it was definitely me who caught their attention. At least my work IS improving the project... and those who dislike it are entitled to their opinion and their fears. And as frustrating as it was that some used ancient history as a tool to divert attention from the bulk of some decent editing... it was a lesson all in and of itself, and it gave me plenty to consider. So yes, let's keep educating me, as such knowledge is useful for any editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly haven't forgotten about you, and plan to continue the lessons. :) I have simply been too busy to do much of anything important on Wikipedia. The good news is that I will definitely have more free in 2-3 weeks. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear prog. of Iran.[edit]

The editor in question has already crossed 3RR in 24 hours. I don't know if we should report him or just continue with his ascertation of the status quo which was the unremoved version (since he doesn't have support). Even the noticeboard has not affirmed anything. Instead of removing info we can tag it and if nothing is forthcoming then we can pursue its removal. Does that sound fair?Lihaas (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already gone ahead fair enough. But on the RS noticeboard none of the 3 sources have been questioned by anyone (only to add 2 sources on press tv)Lihaas (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Song has promised to block him for an extended period if he continues the edit war after the protection expires, so that situation should resolve itself one way or another shortly. However, that doesn't really address the root problem. IMO, Nutriveg has some serious issues with WP:OWN and WP:NPA, among other policies. He appears to operate by bullying people off "his" artciles. (See his talk page for many previous incidents, and Special:Contributions/ThaddeusB for a sampling of how much of my time he has wasted on personal vendetta to attack me in every forum he can find, all because I refused to let him have his way on the Iran article.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happens on a lot of a israel-related articles. (and i even had a tag-team revert with 2 Irish Republicans on the RIRA/Cira pages (a year or so ago) and then List of terrorist incidents, 2010 page where my addition was taken off but the "rules" were not discussed or enforced elsewhere.Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to bring your attention to another editor who seems not to want to publish info and removes versions instead of editing/improving them.

[1] + [2]. Then [3] [4] (could be moved to another sections instead of wholescale removal); [5] (POV edit w/o summary) and [6] (censorship) and [7] (neutral to POV); [8] (censorship) and [9] (censorship) and [10] (censorship) and [11] (removed a source for his analysis)

I ask because this editor removed sourced info on another Iranian nuclear article. (although he has since started discussing as per my talk request) Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism[edit]

can you see Antisemitism. As per WP:Bold i challenges an ascertation and sensing controversy went straight to talk to explain my reverts yet no one has been even willing to discuss the changes let alone gather consensus before reverting. Of course i haven't censored anything, i still kept their predominant meaning the page had yet the editors seem to want to have exlusively their meaning.

One editor says "I've reverted these edits, all of which suffer from the etymological fallacy and ignore the history of the use of the term." The other editor was far more helpful but he says "you are on both the factually incorrect side of and the incorrect side of as far Wikipedian consensus is concerned." adding taht "Yes, consensus can change; and if you can develop a consensus." But i have tried to develop consensus the only replies were the 2 above that i am wrong and it doesn't stand without attempt to discuss it. (also the revert was another blind revert of everything in the edit, controversial or not.

There seems to be a whole lot of "tag-team" reverting on such articles which makes it impossible to beat the agendas of editors with 3RR. Can you help or recomment an admin to ask about this? Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]