Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Level 4

Low to moderate level of vandalism.

[viewpurgeupdate]


3.35 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 06:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Another RfCEdit

Hey, I hope you are doing well. In case you are interested, there is another ongoing RfC at Talk:Beyoncé#RfC:_Should_the_subject_of_this_article_be_defined_as_a_songwriter_in_the_lead? Feel free to join the discussion, (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Caral CivilizationEdit

The legal name is Caral Civilization stated by the Peruvian Government (Ministry of Culture). There is no consensus needed anyone can not change the legal name.Jjrt (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The most common name is Caral Civilization because it's used in any translated materials for tourist who came to Peru.
    Moreover, before to done my changes I read the talk page about, there I got many section referring to this topic:
    Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#Archaeology
    Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#An_issue_with_the_title_of_the_english_version_of_this_article
    No one has pointed out any argument in opposition to those points even though a long time passed, I guess you had no way of knowing that. According to Wikipedia:Consensus#In_talk_pages: Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Therefore, my changes could not be considered as a "No consensus". Consequently, I did it again but I couldn't move the page, I would appreciate it that you to respect that I followed the rules and help me to move the article again. Jjrt (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There was consensus, because no one had pointed out any argument against in the previos sections, in Talk:Norte_Chico_civilization#Caral_Civilization I summarized that situation. I explained in detail my actions, nevertheless you persist in arguing that your reversion was right.
On the other hand, I removed this note that you keep removing because it was wrote as it were personal opinion blog, something that Wikipedia is not, I will rewrite that reference properly.Jjrt (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your attacksEdit

I kindly ask you to read and check the references, there is not defamation. Everything that was written in the note happened and was supported by the proper sources: News (one of the most read in Peru),formal Peruvian government claims and public apologized by Haas/Creamer, which follows Reliable, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is not my point of view, every adjective I wrote was taken from the sources (news and formal communications). I kindly ask you to stop your personal attacks, use the proper talk to argue something about is wrote in the article. Your are breaking most of those rules Disruptive editing:

  1. Is tendentious: repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors. The note I submitted was supported by reliable sources
  2. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources The note you submitted don't have any source.
  3. Does not engage in consensus building: You don't ask explanations or complaing before to act.
    a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
    b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.Jjrt (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I ask you to clarify what you mean, up to now I assume good faith about this phrase : Y no te la vas a acabar perro.
Regarding the article, before taking drastic actions, I prefer to reach a consensus. I kindly ask you that you pointed out which part or parts you consider defamatory or disruptive edits:

Ruth Shady was surprised by Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer, (Redacted) based on that, they renamed Norte Chico civilization as it were their investigation when it was not, also they placed and parallel investigation to Shady's investigations most of what is based on Shady's investigation without giving her the credits. Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer apologized to Shady, nevertheless, they persisted without recognizing the credit of Shady's investigation. Shady was supported and Haas/Creamer were firmly questioned by the Peruvian government, descendants of ancient cultures in question, Peruvian and USA societies of archeology and culture.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

It started between 1999 and 2000, Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer offered to help her to get financial support from USA organizations in favor of Shady's investigation in Caral, in that way, Haas proposed to Shady wrote a joint article arguing that this article would become a short way of getting financing. Unfortunately, the article was published (2001) only mentioning Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer, when the media covered the event of the presentation about the article they did not mention Shady as the chief of the project and co-author of the article, moreover, they let the media supposed that they were the discoverers of Caral. Shady protested about this (Redacted), consequently, the article was amended but the damage was done.Ruth Shady, openly denounced in 2005 the (Redacted) actions between Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer, because they tried to appropriate the authority of the Caral investigations. Immediately, she was supported by the Peruvian government (owner of any historical place in Peru) which sent official letters to the Society for American Archeology claiming punishment to Haas/Creamer because of their unethical behavior, also press communication was released from Peruvian Ministries of Education and of Foreign Relations.Haas and Creamer apologized to Shady about the (Redacted) Caral investigations, nevertheless, they persisted in a parallel investigation in surrounding places based on Shady jobs without given her the credits. Regarding this situation Betty Meggers (Smithsonian Institution) in an official mail to the National Geographic Society sentenced: "The fact that Haas and Creamer are accessible to the media and speak English has facilitated their usurpation of credit for identifying early urbanism on the coast of Peru, with its revolutionary implications for theories of the evolution of complex society."Local Institutions that supported Shady, rejected Haas/Creamer behavior and their publications:- Barranca Province (Peruvian regional government, geographically comprehended by Supe and Pativilca)- Supe Port District (Peruvian city government)- Board of Users of the Supe Valley (Heirs and descendants of an ancient culture placed in the north of  Peru)- Peruvian archeologist society.
-->Jjrt (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you to clarify the meaning of this phrase : Y no te la vas a acabar perro.
On the other hand, regarding Haas and Creamer the Peruvian government firmly wrote[8]:
* ILLEGAL: "intento de apropiación ilicita de la propiedad intelectual" "the attempted illicit appropriation of intellectual property"
* UNETHICAL: "Nuestra posición es de total rechazo a este tipo antiético de comportamiento." "Our position is of total rejection of this type of unethical behavior.".
By the time of this communication Haas and Creamer were in Peru and did not take any legal action against no one (the Peruvian government or some else).
As I explained the terms follow: Reliable, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jjrt (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ruth Shady made a public denouncement in January 2005, because Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer appropriated her investigations[9], she admitted that was surprised by them. It started between 1999 and 2000, Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer offered to help her to get financial support from USA organizations in favor of Shady's investigation in Caral, in that way, Haas proposed to Shady wrote a joint article arguing that this article would become a short way of getting financing, the input to the article from Haas/Creamer was only radiocarbon dating of ancient rest. The article was published (2001) only mentioning Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer, when the media covered the event of the presentation about the article they did not mention Shady as the chief of the project and the main author of the article, moreover, they let the media supposed that they were the discoverers of Caral. Shady protested about this situation, consequently, Haas/Creamer apologized to Shady by letter and the article was amended[10], but the damage was done the press published as if Haas were the discover[11][12] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] [21][22]. As a consequence, the professional relationship between Ruth Shady and Haas/Creamer was broken.

After those events, Haas/Creamer received financial support, and based on Shady's investigations, they renamed Caral Civilization as Norte Chico civilization as it were their investigation when it was not, also they placed and parallel investigation to Shady's investigations most of what is based on Shady's investigation without giving her the credits[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer apologized to Shady again, nevertheless, they persisted without recognizing the credit of Shady's investigation[30]. Shady was supported and Haas/Creamer were firmly questioned by:

  • The Peruvian government (owner of any historical place in Peru) on 06 January 2005 claimed "our position is of total rejection of this type of unethical behavior"[31] and claiming punishment to Haas/Creamer.
  • Betty Meggers to the National Geographic Society on 10 January 2005 wrote in an official letter "The fact that Haas and Creamer are accessible to the media and speak English has facilitated their usurpation of credit for identifying early urbanism on the coast of Peru, with its revolutionary implications for theories of the evolution of complex society. They deserve the opportunity to defend themselves, but the damage has been done."
  • Descendants of ancient cultures in question, 25 January 2005 claimed "It is not possible that offensive behavior, we reiterate our most energetic rejection of such publications."[32]
  • Barranca Province (Peruvian regional government, geographically comprehended by Supe Puerto and Pativilca) on 12 January 2005 claimed "We reiterate our strongest rejection of those publications (Haas/Creamer)"[33]
  • Supe Puerto (Peruvian city government) to Shady "our solidarity support ... regarding the actions and versions issued by Haas / Creamer"
  • Peruvian Society of Archeologists on 22 August 2005 argued "rejection of any kind of appropriation of the intellectual property of Shady's discoveries and censors any improper attempt of the results of her research."[34]
  • Michael E. Moseley from the University of Florida wrote to Shady: "Unfortunately, Haas et al, as newcomers with parallel data, are gaining international credit for work, data, and interpretations that you pioneered. Unfortunately, what is happening here in general is that Haas with his considerable resources has launched a massive Public Relations Campaign in the English press and journals to claim the basics of your discoveries as his own. This is Academic Imperialism of the first order!."[35]

-->Jjrt (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) The proper explanation needs that too long.
2) As you notice the problem is not only about the name, the new name was the way for Haas/Creamer for financial support and later parallel project, without recognizing Shady's investigation. The investigations are the only valid input to Caral civilization article.
3) The section Norte Chico civilization#Research should be the proper place for this text, considering that this text is detailed.
I re-wrote the text considering most of yours, avoiding the repetitions (notice that Haas/Creamer apologized 2 different times and persisted 3 different times, something near to "el chavo")


Ruth Shady said that Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer had appropriated her investigations saying she felt "surprised" by their actions. The dispute started in 2000[36] when Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer offered to help her to get financial support from USA organizations in favor of Shady's investigation in Caral, in that way, Haas proposed to Shady wrote a joint article arguing that this article would become a short way of getting financing, the input to the article from Haas/Creamer was only radiocarbon dating of ancient rest[37]. The article was published in April 2001 only mentioning Jonathan Haas y Winifred Creamer as authors, when the media covered the event of the presentation about the article they did not mention Shady as the chief of the project and the main author of the article, moreover, they let the media supposed that they were the discoverers of Caral. Shady protested about this situation, consequently, Haas/Creamer apologized to Shady by letter and the article was amended[38], but the damage was done the press published as if Haas were the discover.[39][40] [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] [49][50] As a consequence, the professional relationship between Ruth Shady and Haas/Creamer was broken.
After those events, Haas/Creamer received financial support, and based on Shady's investigations, they placed and parallel investigation and renamed Caral Civilization as Norte Chico civilization, but most of what is based on Shady's investigation and theories without giving her the credits[51][52][53][54][55][56][57].
In January 2005, Shady openly denounced the actions between Haas and Creamer, because Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer appropriated her investigations and theories of the evolution of complex society[58], Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer apologized to Shady again, nevertheless, they persisted without recognizing the credit of Shady's investigation[59].
Shady was supported and Haas/Creamer were firmly questioned by the Peruvian government (owner of any historical place in Peru) on 06 January 2005 claimed "our position is of total rejection of this type of unethical behavior"[60] and claiming punishment to Haas/Creamer, also Ministry of Foreign Relations released a press cable. many other Peruvian institución did the same:
  • Barranca Province (Supe Puerto and Pativilca) supported Shady: "We reiterate our strongest rejection of those publications (Haas/Creamer)"[61] "our solidarity support ... regarding the actions and versions issued by Haas / Creamer"[62]
  • Peruvian Society of Archeologists argued "rejection of any kind of appropriation of the intellectual property of Shady's discoveries and censors any improper attempt of the results of her research."[63]
  • Descendants of ancient cultures in question, claimed "It is not possible that offensive behavior, we reiterate our most energetic rejection of such publications."[64]
Michael E. Moseley from the University of Florida supported Shady: "Unfortunately, Haas et al, as newcomers with parallel data, are gaining international credit for work, data, and interpretations that you pioneered. Unfortunately, what is happening here in general is that Haas with his considerable resources has launched a massive Public Relations Campaign in the English press and journals to claim the basics of your discoveries as his own. This is Academic Imperialism of the first order!."[65]
Regarding this situation, Betty Meggers (Director of Smithsonian Institution for Latin American) in an official mail to National Geographic Society wrote "The fact that Haas and Creamer are accessible to the media and speak English has facilitated their usurpation of credit for identifying early urbanism on the coast of Peru, with its revolutionary implications for theories of the evolution of complex society. They deserve the opportunity to defend themselves, but the damage has been done."[66]
Jjrt (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I reasonably followed your all your recommendations, but here we have a majority who claimed their support to one side, moreover, I can't invent any support to Haas that don't exist.
On the other hand, there are lots of books and scientific quotations in English that uses "Caral Civilization" or "Caral-Supe Civilization" I'm not inventing nothing, you can check by your self.Jjrt (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there many news and books which refer "Norte Chico Civilization", Betty Meggers in her mail let readers know that the damages take long time effects. But, if you do the same research:
"Caral-Supe Civilization"[[67]] 2,040 results for Shady.
"Caral Civilization" [[68]] 31 results for Shady.
"Norte Chico Civilization"[[69]] 25 results for Haas/Creamer.
So it's largely clear which author has the most used term in English, an inmediately title change is needed.Jjrt (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding which title, as a standardization it would be preferable Caral Civilization as it was named in Spanish, but with redirection Caral-Supe Civilization :-| .Jjrt (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that Wikis are independent, for this reason, I wrote it would be preferable. The official goberment page on english calls it "Caral Civilization" referring to the civilization, "The Sacred City of Caral-Supe" to the place, and "Caral-Supe Archaeological Project" to the project name.[[70]], in that way I'm in favor of "Caral Civilization" title, which you support Caral Civilization or Caral-Supe Civilization and why?.Jjrt (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Decade End ChartEdit

Hello!

So, for example, the Wiki album page for Taylor's Fearless has it listed in the Decade End Chart, but its source is no longer visible, even under archive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_(Taylor_Swift_album)

https://www.billboard.com/#/charts-decade-end/billboard-200-albums?year=2009&begin=41&order=position

https://web.archive.org/web/20100913150859/http://www.billboard.com/#/charts-decade-end/billboard-200-albums?year=2009&begin=41&order=position

Should those broken sources be deleted on Taylor's? Or could we use them on Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad. If you could find a Billboard archive that actually works, that would be great! I tried. Piratetales (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Hailee SteinfeldEdit

Hi Tbhotch! I wanted to tell you about something that is happening in Hailee Steinfeld's article. There is an IP address that you have edited 12 times in 3 days so far. The issue is about her height, I put a font in which she claims to measure 5'6 "and he is determined that it is 5'8" since that's the official. She herself affirms 5'6, therefore she does not stop adding false information repeatedly, I think that has a crime in Wikipedia. She now she says that her height should not be listed. Steinfeld is a model, therefore she knows her height and is relevant. I wanted to tell you, because I think that measures should be taken with that IP, maybe it should be blocked some week. I don't know how it will be done here, but in Spanish Wikipedia when you make 3 false edits in less than 24 hours, that person ends up blocked. Greetings Tbhotch :)

Paul Polimero (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Thanks Tbhotch! I hope it arrives soon, because the article still does not have the semi-protection, and the IP continues to insist with the false information. Can you give it to yourself? Or block that IP?

Paul Polimero (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Tbhotch! Hopefully that works out now. Cheers:)

Paul Polimero (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tbhotch! Sorry to bother you again, but there is a Wikipedian "it seems" who is accusing me of being a troublemaker in the "Hailee Steinfeld" article and that the real problem is me and not the IP ... You see, I put two sources of truth from "Hailee Steinfeld" herself that they already made it clear that he is not 5'8 One from her Twitter: https://twitter.com/haileesteinfeld/status/978785185910026240 And the other you already know what it is: She says this is where she lies and says 5'7, when she is actually 5'6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSfjCG4V2GM

Well, apparently the true sources of the mouth and handwriting of "Hailee Steinfeld" herself are not worth it.

She prefers to put in the biography that she is 5'8, since there is a magazine that simply gives her the official height that she has never claimed to measure ... That is false information Tbhotch, it could be considered a disinformation campaign, and that is serious. Okay, it is simply a height, but in Wikipedia you should not lie with the height or anything, the sources have to be true.

Tbhotch, I need your help, I've been looking for real sources, like Twitter and that YouTube interview, working on it, and it turns out that all the work is going to be thrown away. Just because of a disturbing IP and a Wikipedian who has seen the discussion after quite some time, and decided to give it the fake 5'8 ... These things should not be allowed.

Tbhotch you know I have great respect for you, and if you yourself advise me to cease trying to get the truth out, I will cease.

I will give up the subject for lost, because the official tentacles are too long, big and strong 😔

But she believed that the idea of ​​wikipedia was to be as authentic as possible. Tbhotch if you can help me, help me🙏 It is clear that I alone can not against this😔

Paul Polimero (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Spitting ImageEdit

Dear Tbhotch,

Many thanks for assessing the Spitting Image article and raising it from a "stub" to a C-level article. However, I also noted that you checked the article against the B-level qualifications and noticed that you believed that there were either not enough or inadiquate citations used. I've done a fair bit of research (watched interviews, QnAs, official spotify statistics, tour diaries etc) and am unsure as to where you find an issue with the references. If possible, could you get back to me on what you found to be problematic with the citations and/or which citations were inadequate and I will try to find more/better replacements for them.

Much Thanks,

Mandatorymist77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandatorymist77 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky SPI againEdit

I know there was edit-conflicts in the most recent case, but I want to clarify that you shouldn't add new socks to closed cases. If an SPI clerk or admin marked it as closed, then there's nothing you can do about that, so go ahead and open a new case report. But if it's still open, then add new socks to it. Please don't reopen cases that were closed. The only time you should be changing a case status on any SPI is if you want to requst CU on an open case (an example would be here). Sro23 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch 08:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Mulyadi TamsirEdit

This individual's status is cited in the article, and it was cited before I edited in the first time. Kindly read the BLP policy instead of introducing incorrect information ("is") despite a citation to the contrary. You may also do well to read WP:DTTR. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Tbhotch. Given your repeated abuse of the rollback tool in the last hour, I have requested that your rollback rights be removed. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

AnswerEdit

Hi! To answer your question, speaking of Beyoncé, Drake and Mariah Carey used the term writer as short for songwriter. Israell (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)