Jump to content

User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XVII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010–11 2012

Oct '07

Huei tlamahuiçoltica

It looks like it might be time for an RFC. Thoughts? Cleduc 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's at least close to needing one. I had been thinking to put up a notice at WP:FRINGE for some assistance; not only that article, but also several other Guadalupan ones like Juan Diego are entirely creduluous, and in need of a critical review. Will look to do that (haven't quite got the time today). But yes, if no improvement over the next coupla days, then I'd agree that some independent arbitration may be called for. Appreciate your continuing efforts to keep the article in shape; it's hard-going and there's a lot of minutae that really needs to be dealt with properly. Is gonna probably take a little while to gather up the resources, hopefully several others will pitch in along the way. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Luisosio's conduct

An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct. All interested parties are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio. As a contributor who has had interaction with Luisosio, your certification is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks, Cleduc 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cleduc, I'll be adding my comments in the next day or so.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've now listed myself as the second nominee for the dispute resolution, so I guess it will be made 'live' soon. I will look to flesh out the scenario at the page when I have a chance, I hope within the next 24 to 48 hrs. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite journal

The Original Barnstar
To CJLL Wright. With thanks for adding a publisher field to cite journal. -Susanlesch 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the weirdest or funniest Wikipedia facts was that the publishers were missing. Thank you for taking care of it! -Susanlesch 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Susanlesch, and many thanks. That omission had bugged me for a little while, so I thought I'd just go ahead and fix it. Can't foresee any objections. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Graham Hancock Edit

Respectfully disagree. This was a historic lecture at a very prestigious conference that presernts original, ground breaking work. Read the website carefully and you will discover that Hancock's lecture, as are all the FortFest lectures, is also sold as an individual lecture at a nominal price by this non-profit educational corporation. If you link to or cite a book the book does not have to be available for free. The same goes for an individual lecture. Suggest that you WIkify and revert your revert in order to keep NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.118.234 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2007

Hi anon 209.163, I'll reply here as it seems yours is a dynamic ip, which makes it a little difficult to reply directly. I beg to differ with your positive appraisal of the value of his thoughts, but that's just my opinion and not the essence of whether or not that particular external link is appropriate.
Does that Fortean site have any linkable pages or detailed info concerning Hancock? It doesn't appear so, only a link to his own site and a freetext mention advertising a tape of his for sale (via mailorder, it doesn't seem to be downloadable). As such, I have a very hard time seeing how linking to that (your?) site adds any value to the article. The only benefit would be to the sellers of the audio, and wikipedia is not in the business of being a promotional conduit. Your analogy with citing or mentioning books is not valid, since we properly do not link to particular booksellers or online marketplaces like Amazon etc; instead ISBNs and OCLCs are used and its up to the reader to work out where to track down a copy should they be interested in reading/purchasing the work for themselves. And NPOV doesn't come into it, no-one's talking about removing all pro-Hancock refs and links, there are plenty enough already there in the article.
If it's regarded as such a 'ground-breaking' talk in Fortean circles, I'd be surprised that Hancock doesn't cover it or mention it somewhere on his own site. I would think that his site would be the natural place for someone to start looking around if anyone wanted more of his material, and I see he maintains a schedule of his "lectures" and many pointers to outlets selling his wares.
All in all, that ext link you are suggesting meets a number of the criteria in WP:EXTXLinks normally to be avoided. Suggest you read the guidelines and policies on external linking, hopefully you will see where I'm coming from. I do not propose to reinstate that link, although I appreciate your efforts to discuss the matter. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJLL- Respectfully disagree again. Your points are well taken though. It is not my website and I know that INFO sells individual lectures of FortFest talks for under ten bucks and it is such a pain for them to produce individual tapes that no profit is realized by this non-profit education society. This material is not available at a library and I do want to make the pooint that not all information about a subject is available for free. Just because a book or tape is not available at no charge does not invalidate its' worth nor does it means that it is information from a seller who is trying to tout his product. I bought the tape after seeing Graham Hancock's lecture at FortFest. It was a groundbreaking talk that went beyond his book and the Q & A period was amazing. Wiki is about putting together all the information that is available to the public if it adds to the subject matter and this tape really did. Cheers-Anon````

Classical unities

You've asked for the quotes in classical unities to be cited. However, I'm at a loss to know what to do about this: all the quotes are already correctly cited and the article has links to the works in question. So what exactly are you asking for? Gdr 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gdr. I just thought that the blockquoted texts could do with explicitly identifying their source, though I admit I missed that the source works were given in the 'External links' section. Anyways, I've gone back now and added in the specific inline cites for the respective passages. Feel free to tweak the formatting/presentation if you prefer a different style.
I do still think that the opening statement saying they are "derived from a mistaken interpretation" of Aristotle's Poetics needs some kind of reference and attribution, so I've left that 'cite needed' tag in. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aztlan revert contretemps

CJLL, User:FreeBSD4Me and I are presently "discussing" the proper wording for the Aztlan article. I have left my thoughts on the proper approach both on his Talk page as well as on the article Talk page. I noted that you had weighed in earlier on his Talk page as well, when he was more ardent than he is now, and I'm thinking your participation in this latest exchange might be useful. TTFN, Madman 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Madman. It looks as if you've managed to engineer what is a sensible compromise or outcome, and that FreeBSD seems OK with the strategy to move most of the chicano mvmt material elsewhere. Hopefully now the article won't be so beset by factional edits, and can concentrate on the primary topic. That approach is quite ok by me and I presume others, so well done! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the Epic Barnstar, CJLL!! Very cool.

As I mentioned when I returned from my Wikibreak, I am continually (and pleasantly) surprised at the quality of the Mesoamerican articles here. By way of contrast, I was recently doing some editing on European prehistory articles and I found several of them somewhat clumsily worded, missing key information, and not well integrated with one-another. Thanks in large part to your leadership and cheerleading (of which this Barnstar is a prime example), Mesoamerica is a bright spot indeed here in Wiki-land. I am proud to continue in that tradition. Sincerely yours, Madman 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

always a pleasure. We're getting there... Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

2012 and the end of the universe, and the long count not being vigesmal

The discussion of 2012 as the end of the universe (or whatever) is only going to get worse in the next five years. I think a page where the wackos can vent all their theories would be good and keep it off the Long Count page. I think the section as it currently exists is alright, even though it removed some material that, while correct, encouraged edits with wild speculation in it.

But let me get it off my chest how I am sure that the calendar worked:

The end of the last creation was: 13.13.13.13.13....13.13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk'u (13s in all higher order units; the date from Coba confirms this). This was usually abbreviated to just 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk'u. The next day was probably 0.0.0.0.0...0.0.0.0.0.1 5 Imix 9 Kumk'u (0s in all higher order units). Unfortunately we have no known long count dates (just distance numbers) within the first baktun to confirm this. There is an outside chance that dates within the first baktun of this creation were of the form 13.13.13.13.13.13...13.13.1.2.3.4.

This creation doesn't have a known end date. The date from the Temple of Inscriptions in Palenque, 1.0.0.0.0.8 5 Lamat 1 Mol calendar round only works if the baktuns 13-19 exist in between. The Maya might have some idea that this creation will end in a flood (as indicated in the Dresden Codex), but there is no date associated with that.

I'm fine with the Maya articles (in particular, the Long Count page) not having this information, or only alluding to it, but if there is any information that contradicts it, I will change the article, as I have several times in the past.

One other note, in several places the articles say that the Long Count is not purely vigesimal. I beg to differ. The Maya considered the tun to be the primary unit of measure in the Long Count, not the kin. If the kin and winal units are considered a count within the tun, then the Maya have a purely vigisemal system. Thompson writes in Maya Heiroglyphic Writing (1971:141):

The Tun as Basis of Maya Calculations

For the manipulation of these calculations into past and future the Maya used the tun (approximate year of 360 days) and its multiples in the vigesimal system, just as we use the year and its multiples in the decimal system. Fractions of a tun were expressed in terms of uinals (20-day periods) and kins (single days).

Students of Maya epigraphy have been divided on the question of what is the Maya chronological unit. Some writers (e.g. Spinden, 1924, pp. 8-9; Morley, 1915, p. 37, and 1937-38, 5:274) consider that the unit of Maya time was the day; others (Goodman, Gates, Teeple, and Thompson) have expressed the view that the unit was the tun, and that the uinals and kins are mere fractions of the lowest unit, just as our periods are reckoned in multiples of years with the mons and days are fractions thereof.

Evidence in support of the second view is, I think, overwhelming...

He then goes on to explain why. I think passages within Wikipedia that contradict Thompson on this need to be revised or at least allow for the tun as the main unit.

--grr 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Grr. I suppose that we could shunt off all the apocalyptic 2012 flim-flammery into some separate article. However, I've no great desire at the moment to create such an article. For the moment, I try to direct and monitor the more notable woo-woo ideas to the 2012 article itself, and we can continue policing the LC articles to keep them on track and specific to genuine and relevant interpretations. I suspect that you are right and as we draw closer to the time there'll be an increase in the nonsense to be dealt with; maybe then a separate article would be worthwhile. I've no strong objection if you or someone else feels like putting a separate article together, though the fewer places we have to monitor, the better, IMO.
As for 13's vs 0's in the LC, I think given that the LC calendar was devised long, long after any date falling in the first b'ak'tun-cycle after 3114BCE, and there are no historical events to record in that cycle, I dunno whether the calendar's creators gave that much thought about how to represent LC dates falling within that period- a little reminiscent of the Y2K coding issue, perhaps ;-). I too am unaware of any inscription with a full LC date falling in that period, other than via DNs as you say, so it is speculative to say how they "would" have annotated such a date.
I confess I have not given much thought to the implications of base LC unit choice, so let me ponder a little more on it before responding. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split the Aztec article

Your opinion on the proposed split would be much valued.

--Richard 07:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, you caught me just as I'm about to head off, so will not be responding right away. I had seen that discussion developing, and will try my part in reaching some consensus there once I've another editing window. CHeers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

O Admin Dude

  • I really should start learning the nuances of Wikipedia rules/guidelines etc. :-)
  • So I've been removing stuff from Talk:Hawaiian language that is.. it wouldn't be stretch to call it racism, it certainly is linguicism. But then I recalled something about only being able to redact stuff that is obvious vandalism... I don't have time to track down the rules.. so O Admin Dude, would you please:
    1. Let me know if it's OK to delete really vile shtuff, and
    2. Do something to give this IP editor a slap on the wrist, if possible...
  • Thanks! --Ling.Nut 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Ling.Nut. Even discounting the unpleasant tenor of that anon's comments, simply filling up talkpage space with their own personal views on a topic, whatever they may be, would contravene talkpg usage guidelines. As prominently displayed there, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Why, indeed, should anyone care what someone's personal attitude may be, if their comments have no relevance or make no contribution towards developing the article itself. I'd say you'd be within your rights to remove such irrelevant and unhelpful comments, by my reading of this.
If you get any further grief over the removal, or cries of "censorship!", then a reminder of the proper purpose for talk pages and wikipedia (not a soapbox, not a battleground for personal exchanges, not a blog or discussion board, & other core policies) would be in order. Any persistence beyond such a reminder would invite an assessment as being disruptive or troll-like, and attendant consequences. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Pelota mixteca a Mesoamerican article?

CJLL:

Despite having sworn off new articles, I just now published one on pelota mixteca, a path I was led down as a result of my refurbishment of the Mesoamerican ballgame article. Pelota mixteca is a present-day Oaxacan ballgame similar to the Mesoamerican ballgame but, it seems, descended from an early version of tennis. So, would you say that this should be categorized as an Mesoamerican article? Curiously yours, Madman 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madman. Hey, another neat and informative article there you've pulled from your armoury- kudos!
I guess it would be a borderline call- I don't know much about it, but it does seem unlikely that the modern game has an authentic continuity with pre-Columbian practices; I could be wrong, tho'. However, there do seem to be reasonable sources of that view, so I think we could (a) put it under WP:MESO scope, and (b) apply a suitable Mesoamerican category- at least, it could be added to Category:Mixtec. Again, nice work. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you work fast. Thanks for the link and your kind comments. I had also seen the Ruth Hardinger rubbings online and may reference those and some photos (e.g. from the Delanges' Dainzu website) to do my own drawing for some eventual Dainzu article (but then I've sworn off new articles, haven't I?). In any case, I have some emails out to Flickr folks asking for permission to use their photos for the pelota mixteca article (can't have an article without an image!). Madman 03:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent deletion

The article you deleted at "HobbyZone Millennium PTU" was neither unnotable nor an ad. I used to be an administrator and was de-adminned by my own choosing, I continue to tag inappropriate articles and I know the difference between an ad and an article. What could I possibly hope to gain by advertising this model? I wrote a lot of similar R/C articles under a previous username, including:

I would greatly appreciate it if you were to restore the article and give me a chance to finish it. I had just completed the article at another wiki and was in the process of adding external links when I got blown out of the water. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of HobbyZone Millennium PTU. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PMDrive1061 07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PMDrive. Unfortunately, by the time I read your earlier post above asking for deletion reconsideration, the DRV was already in progress. I have added my comments/explanations to the DRV discussion here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Category:Novels by W. G. Sebald

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Category:Novels by W. G. Sebald, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Category:Novels by W. G. Sebald has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Category:Novels by W. G. Sebald, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Was created in error; I've deleted it myself.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJLL_Wright/Archive_XVII&oldid=204448391"