Jump to content

User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XX

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


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

Feb '07 — Mar '07

Requested move

Hello CJLL Wright. I noticed that you are an admin who is currently online. I have a problem with the American Basketball Association article. It was unilaterally moved to American Basketball Association (1967-1976) without any discussion awhile back. I believe that it should be moved back to its original title, and if someone wants to move it, they should use WP:RM. However, I believe that admin intervention is needed, because the American Basketball Association article now has an edit history of its own, which will need to be overwritten. If you have a different opinion, maybe you could help out at Talk:American Basketball Association. Thanks, Bash Kash (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Since most inbound links seemed to intend that as the primary meaning, and since there were no substantive edits made to the target since it was first moved, I have moved back the date-delimited title to the plain one. I can't really see this causing too much grief, but you never know. If someone pipes up with an objection, then it should formally go thru RM. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Very much appreciated. Bash Kash (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Nahuatl getting into position for FA-drive

I have been working intensively on the Nahuatl article for the past few days - I am intent on taking it to FA status within the next few months. In that regard I'd appreciate all and any copyediting, peerreviwing, additions and suggestions to the article from knowledgeable and careful editors such as yourself. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maunus- sure, be glad to. It's been coming along rather nicely, and is a worthy candidate which hopefully will need just another couple rounds of polishing before it has a fighting chance of passing muster. Will do my best, and have a good think about what the key to-do's are. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi CJJLW. Good work with the references! I hate doing that myself, and frankly don't have that kind of an eye for details. There are still two notes that are bare external links namely note 8 and note 33 - I don't know what is the proper format for those - although I know it needs the acces date and all that jazz. Could you give it a try before sandygeorgia flips over it? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No probs. Done now, converted those 2 external links to inline cites. I think just about all now are formatted consistently and detailed to the nth degree, may still have missed some punc. or other slight details somewhere- I guess can be fixed pretty easily if someone calls for it. We shall see.
In re-reading it, there are a couple of minor clarifications that could be made, have run out of time today but will try to raise these asap and in good time before FAC reviewers start turning it over. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is
Electrical Experimenter
Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

Arthur Simon

An article you have previously edited, Arthur Simon has been tagged as having "multiple issues". Please see the article page for more details. Any assistance you can provide in fixing the problems listed in the tag would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, User:Refsworldlee has substantially improved the article and removed the tag. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my only contribution to that one was to remove a category I'd deleted from CfD- otherwise have no knowledge of the topic. Good to see it's been cleaned up. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aztlanolagus

Thanks for the improvement on explaining Aztlán. Batfossil (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Batfossil. A nice article you've set up there. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

request for advice on how to handle...

I suspect the following two ip only accounts are sockpuppets: 67.86.197.182 and 166.217.171.175. First one does a series of edits to a series of pages; I undo their edits since its the usual change in statistics with no source offered; and then the other starts a run at the same pages, adding the same misinformation. They both have multiple warnings on their user talk pages. Any suggestions? This is getting tiresome. Rsheptak (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rsheptak. Yes, I believe you are right, from the looks of it this is Editor652 (talk · contribs), an annoying editor who got themselves indefinitely blocked for much the same series (actually nearly identical) of unsubtantiated edits, using those couple of ip's to avoid the block. I wouldn't trust anything they put down.
I see someone's already opened a sockpuppetry case for these, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editor652. These reports usually get followed up reasonably quickly, and a checkuser investigation may well prove the matter. The ip's will probably end up blocked, if even more pop up then we can semiprotect the pages for a while. If the matter's not resolved in a day or so I'll block'em myself, tho' at least one of those seems to be a shared ip. Suggest we look to see what comes out of the sockpuppet report. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, LaNicoya opened it a while ago. Looks like she's been battling them the last couple of days while I'm out of the country and mostly offline. She's added a couple new IPs to the list of sock puppets as well. Rsheptak (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

long time no chat! ... rongorongo

Hi CJLL!

Long time no chat! A really good Wikipedian, kwami, is shooting for FA with the article rongorongo. I know it's in the middle of the ocean and you're a Mesoamerican guy, but if you have a little free time, could you look at it, and drop a note on kwami's talk (you can mention my name if you like). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait.. what a strange coincidence! I just look at the archived peer review, and you commented on the article almost exactly six hours before I left this note! :-) Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ling.Nut, good to hear from you. No worries, I saw kwami's request for review input on a related talkpg, so was happy to help out someone whose contribs I've long admired. As it turns out, that article is in pretty impressive shape and should only require a few touches around the edges to give it a sporting chance for FA. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a nice change from being insulted by people who think I don't understand them! You two have made my day.

I've started the changes cjll suggested, but just barely, since s.t. else just came up. Actually, the reason I came here was the long count. I haven't been keeping up with the field, but something bothers me.

Currently, the start date is given as GMT, with a note "Although Coe … gives August 13 as the date." That makes it sound as if Coe got it wrong for some inexplicable reason. I thought the reason Lounsbury used Aug 13 was that it corresponded to the count as kept by modern Highland Maya. Granted, it's hard to argue with astronomical dating, and the Maya may have lost count, what with the Conquest and all, but it troubles me to simply sweep it under the rug. Or has this really been resolved in the past few years? kwami (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi kwami. Hmm, I guess that aside about Coe does seem a little gratuitous, and out-of-place. There's no real reason to single Coe out for using the 584285 correlation (Aug 13), his 1994 edition follows Schele and Friedel, and Lounsbury before that, I think. Plenty other contemporaries, like Malmström, Juteson &c. have used 584285, probably the main argument being it's an apparent better fit to astronomical data and lunar synchronisation. However it's the 584283 (Aug 11) correlation that has the better fit to ethnohistorical sources, including with the modern highland counts. And no, I don't think the 584283 vs 584285 debate is resolved, though maybe the preponderance continues to favour the former. As Michael Finley puts it, "While the GMT correlation is almost certainly valid, it seems unlikely that the choice between the '83, '84, and '85 versions can be definitively resolved on the basis of the available evidence." See also this AZTLAN-list posting a bit over a year ago, I think is an informative discussion.
I'm out on the road at the moment, but when I'm back in a week or so I can look up those refs to check whether Coe's always maintained 584285, or if he 'switched sides' after Lounsbury and Schele.
In any case I don't think there's a need for that note re Coe, I think the opening para should just say something like "the Long Count calendar identifies a day by counting the number of days passed since August 11, 3114 BCE[1]," with the footnote saying "according to the GMT-correlation used by a majority of Mayanists; an alternative correlation that is also sometimes used puts this date two days later on August 13". Then later on in the article can go into the details of the correlation question, and who has used which. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I didn't want to mess with something y'all have obviously thought a lot about. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, another point. Why is the turn of an era sometimes dated 0.0.0.0.0, and sometimes 13.0.0.0.0? Am I missing something? — kwami (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi kwami, sorry for the delayed response, have been offline travelling this past week.
I believe that the handful of Maya inscriptions bearing base Long Count dates for the b'ak'tun-cycle "end dates" (both the one in 3114 BCE and the one in 2012) all actually record it with a 13 as the b'ak'tun coefficient, ie 13.0.0.0.0. However, some Mayanists transcribe or interpolate this with the notation 0.0.0.0.0, I suppose really to communicate its "starting point" meaning. Others stick with the 13.0.0.0.0. We should be more consistent (particularly within an article) on the notation to adopt, and maybe make a point of using the actual inscriptional coefficients while making some annotation about the interchangeability of the two ways to write the date in notational form. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How did you ever notice that I got an obscure name like James Park Harrison wrong? Now that's thorough! — kwami (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh- was just curious I guess to find out who he was... ;-) I reviewed those amendments, and as I commented just now on the review pg it's all looking pretty good to me- kudos for a fine effort! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the last section, Pozdniakov, based on a paper of his I just came across. It probably needs to be trimmed in half, but I need a little time to see it in perspective. Any comments welcome, and thanks for what you've done so far. I'm pretty happy with it overall. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Took a quick look just now at those expansions - wow! I think it'd be a crying shame to cut out such a well-written and clear exposition of the man's work. Maybe there's a little more detail in there than a casual reader might care for, but personally I wouldn't say that's a big issue- let 'em skip over it, and leave the details there for those who are interested... ;-)
At first glance I couldn't see much redundancy, will try to go thru a little more soon and see. But really, this is a superb overall article IMO, shld be ready when you are for FA renom. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I reworded a few things but hardly cut anything. I've now put it back up for FA.[1] Thanks for all your help. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks great, this one should, by rights, sail through the FAC. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Classic Maya collapse entry

Hi CJ. A few comments on the Maya collapse entry. Refs should be updated, e.g., Coe now has a 7th ed out. Second, the writers of the entry do not sufficiently take into account the systemic ecological collapse - not just drought - that is now considered by many if not most sensible Mayanists to have underlain the collapse. There is a bit too much reliance on Gill, in my view. When I get a chance I may want to suggest some new text. Also, I checked the Takalik Abaj entry; this is woefully inadequate.Jonathan K1938 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, apologies for delay in response, have been offline this past week. Yes, I agree the Classic Maya collapse article needs a little counterbalancing or at least a broader, more nuanced survey of published literature and opinion on the topic; and there have certainly been a few interesting developments since Gill's analysis came out- investigations on the Petén bajos by Patrick Culbert and Tom Sever for example. By all means, suggest away for ways to improve and extend the coverage; same goes for Takalik Abaj.
As for using the latest edition of Coe's The Maya - that's fine, particularly on points where he's updated the text. Mind you, those citations which use earlier editions should probably still stand, since page nos etc need to correspond with the statement being cited. If you have his 7th edn and can correlate some statement using the pagination in that edition, then shld be ok to update the cite with the new edn and page nos. Or, if the 7th now takes a different tack on some point then shld update it. I have only up to his 4th edn within my reach, and haven't compared them to see what's been revised. As long as the editions don't contradict one another, shld be no problem to cite multiple editions of the same work if we need to, at least until such time as someone can go thru with the latest edition and synch up all the cites to earlier edns with corresponding passages in the latest. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Crystal Links" and Mayan architecture

Hello there. Glad you noticed my copyvio tags at Maya art and Maya architecture. Is there some sort of action that should be taken against this Crystal Links website? I find it irritating to have wikipedia material mirrored at that sort of site (or any sort of site) without proper attribution. Not incidentally, your entirely appropriate revert still leaves a problem of serious overlap between the Maya architecture and Maya civilization articles. Regards, TriNotch (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi TriNotch, I had responded on your talk page here at the same time as you posting here. I agree it is irritating to find wikipedia material appearing unattributed on that site, particularly when that site serves no other purpose than to promote new age kookery "information", and like products/services.
Re the overlap, that's because the architecture article was originally split off from the main article, but we haven't quite yet gotten around to rewriting the corresponding section in the latter as more of a summary of the subarticle's contents. One of these days... cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl speakers of Huasteca

I don't agree at all that the article is off topic and doubling content maybe you are becoming jaded ;) (Tezcatlipoca knows I understad why you would). Only the section on religion is repeated in the Aztec religion article, and is off topic because it treats general Nahua topics, but some parts of the Huasteca one were even better and I think about inserting them in the religion article. I think, however, I will move it to Nahuas of La Huasteca and give it some copyedits - but otherwise it should be fine. Nahua peoples should definitely link to it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, much appreciated. Maybe I do need a little break to recharge from trawling through for problematic articles ;)...and make some time to concentrate on some fresh ones. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art

HI CJLL,

Long time no chat... dunno if you got my email.. but if you know anyone reliable who could help with the "Americas" section of User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art, I'd be deeply indebted... thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut- yes, sorry, I did get ur email but have been too lax/too disorganised in responding- ¡disculpeme!
I'll look to do what I can, although it will probably be a little while before I'm able to put some real time in on it, constrained as I am at the moment by a bunch of commitments. Should be able to make a start on some refs, at least.
I'm not quite sure who else to suggest right now, the few real Meso archaeo-types I know of around here, like Rsheptak (talk · contribs), are generally pretty busy in RL. You could try asking TriNotch (talk · contribs), who seems to have a pretty good background and grasp of American archaeology in general. And friend Madman2001 (talk · contribs) has in his time whipped up some pretty good articles on short order.
Perhaps you could put out an APB for assistance at WP:ARCHAEO? You may have done that already.
Externally, M. Ruggeri's collection of american archaeological links[2] can be useful for finding reliable online sources. For Meso, at WP:MESO/REF I try to maintain a directory of all the best ones.
All the best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan: care to join me?

Hi there. You might like to take a look at what I've just done at Talk:Tibetan_grammar and see if you feel inspired to chip in. Best wishes, Alan --A R King (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan- I think it's a good idea and a worthy candidate for improvement and collaboration. Having no linguistic expertise with it, I could probably only assist through revising the article structure, citations, historical context, etc. As and when I can make some time will keep an eye out on it and help out if I can. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Alan --A R King (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJLL_Wright/Archive_XX&oldid=221795480"