Jump to content

User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXXI

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


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

SEP '09 — OCT '09

help wanted.. Otomi FAC

Hi Ling. yep, have been following that one, hopefully it'll settle down soon and we can concentrate on improving it w/out the distractions playing out there ATM. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Maunus is withdrawing the nom. Sigh. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
With Maunus gone I need some help as to how to proceed with copyediting. The most recent edits have messed up the formatting, and also seem to introduce in-line reffing, with one sentence beginning with an in-line ref. Shall I mention it to the editor, ignore, wait until Maunus returns, withdraw, or carry on? Advice is welcome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper, responded here. Rgds, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dogs in Mesoamerica/version 2

Just a friendly heads up on Dogs in Mesoamerica/version 2. Wikipedia:SUBPAGE#Disallowed_uses lists this as a disallowed use, and recommends moving the draft to talk space, so I've boldly moved it to Talk:Dogs in Mesoamerica/version 2.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your tireless work and constant vigilance of WP:MESO in general and for your helping me get Quiriguá through FA in particular, I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. Many thanks and keep up the good fight! Simon Burchell (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Simon, thanks very much! The plaudits for Quirigua's deservedly successful FA are yours, a superb contribution and consistent high standard. I'd reckon, any of the other dozen or more Maya sites' articles you've greatly expanded on in recent months are not that far away from being good FA candidates either. After you catch your breath from this effort.... ;-) Thanks again, and congrats on that FA! Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Hi - re: Michael C. Sulivan - it looks like you marked for AFD (and I happen to agree) but there was no AFD page created (perhaps twinkle died?). Just wanted to make sure you knew. Regards.  7  06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7 - yeah thanks, I was in the process of creating the subpg but got distracted, so its creation was a little delayed. It's there now. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I should have noticed you weren't doing it with Twinkle... your AFD comments are way too well thought out.  7  07:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

The more I look at this the less sense it makes as an article. Anything before Clovis is 'pre-Siberian'? I'm not sure what to do about it though, suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug. Yeah, it is pretty unfocussed. I guess the article wants to address the notion that there may have been a population already in the Americas before any Beringian migration took place—whether or not the migration took place at a Clovis or pre-Clovis horizon. Or maybe more precisely, that there were once peoples in the Americas whose ancestry or origins were quite different to that of today's 'Amerindians'.

Is that how you read its intentions?

But if so then a fair amount of the article strays from the topic. Pre-Clovis doesn't mean non-Amerindian, or non-Paleoindian, etc. And of what would be left, I don't know if it would amount to much; unless there are some actual cohesive theories on this out there about a non Paleoindian presence at or before the LGM, stuff like Neve's "non-Mongoloid" morphology might better be addressed elsewhere.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Buzzzshermean has written "To be honest Pre-Siberian American Aborigines and Pre-Columbian are the same thing ..aswell as Origins of Paleoindians andModels of migration to the New World are same topic pretty much. only solution i see is a vast cut back on info and merge them. really not sure though". I think a redirect, merging anything useful, is probably the best way forward also. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the stuff on that page might not have an obvious alternative home, guess we can carry convo over to its talkpg and see what comes out.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maunus

Did you see he's blocked himself and taken a sabbatical? I don't know if Ottava Rima's threat to try to sysop him was part of the cause. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I don't think OR's ultimately baseless and overdramatic threats are the main cause, but they won't have helped. Even if OR did decide to follow through, the case the action wld be so transparently lacking in merit that I can't see it being taken seriously.
I believe it is more to do with the (IMO) quite uncivil and disparaging set of discussions that have played out recently at Talk:Otomi language and its related & derailed FA nomination page, taken together with some prior history and similar remarks at other Meso languages articles, eg talk:Nahuatl. I won't recount it all here, you may read it for yourself and form your own opinion as to the appropriateness of what's been going on. Personally I can see why Maunus has become fed up with it all, and while it's obviously dismaying to see such a valuable and longtime contributor stepping away for a while under those circumstances, I reckon he's at minimum to be lauded for taking a self-imposed (and hopefully temporary) sabbatical instead of batting his head against a wall or escalating the tempo of the dispute. If only the other main involved party would come to a similar self-realisation.
Even so, it has all been an unedifying and unsatisfactory state of affairs, one of those wikipedia situations where something needs to change before much progress can be made, but in the absence of many external/independent eyes giving it some perspective, the remedy can be hard to formulate. I have had only limited & intermittent online access & opportunity of late, so have not been much help. Hopefully will get some more time in the next few days to try out some approaches. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the offensive remark on Talk:Otomi language. This all feels very personal and nasty. It's puzzling, don't you think? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maya calendar glyphs

Hi,

I'm writing a puzzle game and my tileset will consist of some mayan glyphs. I was wondering if I'm allowed to use your glyphs in my game. The glyphs will be slightly modified by:

1. Placed on a stone texture 2. Given an chisel effect as if engraved in stone.

Is this permissible?

Thanks, Ivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryo75 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I guess any reuse so long as it complies with the licenses specified at Commons and at the img pages themselves, would be permissible. I don't assert any control over them beyond that. Maybe if you check up with the reuse conditions at Commons, there's a page for that somewhere but for the moment can't recall where it is. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

R_to_section template usage

Hello cjllw! What is your understanding of the proper usage of {{R to section}}?

I'm doing some maintenance on redirects that link to sections and are thus vulnerable to edits that change sections titles in their target articles. The vast majority (96.5%) of redirects tagged by {{R to section}} do actually link to a section, and that is my understanding of the purpose of this template based on its documentation and usage history. A few editors, however, appear to be using this template to tag redirects that do not target an article section, perhaps intending to denote the fact that the topic indicated by the redirect title receives coverage in only one section of the target article, despite the fact that it is undesirable (for various reasons) to link to a section of that article, or perhaps as a "wish-list" template, marking redirect that they would like to target to a section if only such a section were written.

I understand those usages to be improper, but I wanted to check with some of these editors before correcting it. Below are the 39 redirects of this type that you have added the tag to.

Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing -- Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics -- Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe -- Bilingual Press -- Bloom's Literary Criticism -- British Museum Publications -- Cambridge Educational -- Carmelita, Petén -- Cavendish Publishing -- Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000 -- Chelsea House -- Clásicos Chicanos/Chicano Classics -- Conteo de Población y Vivienda 2005 -- Facts on File -- Ferguson Publishing -- Films for the Humanities & Sciences -- G. Putnam Broadway -- Garland Publishing -- II Conteo de Población y Vivienda 2005 -- II Conteo de Población y Vivienda -- John J. Veronis -- John S. Suhler -- Johnson and Davenport -- Johnson and Payne -- Joseph Johnson and Co. -- Knickerbocker Press -- Public archaeology -- Pueblo de Casas Grandes -- SAR Press -- Talud -- Tauris Parke Paperbacks -- Tauris Parke -- Teotihuacan Valley -- Thomson Wadsworth -- Tres Zapotes Monument A -- University of Tampa Press -- Wiley & Putnam -- XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000 -- XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda

Please pardon the mess, but I thought dumping the bunch would be better than providing one or two examples which might not be typical of your intended usage. -- ToET 10:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi ToE. I suppose that I have generally used the R to section tag (tho probably not consistently) for redirects to articles that contain at least some info on the rdir's subject, in some section in particular or in general, in lieu of there being some equivalent "R to/from related entity" tag. That is, generally where the other alternatives (R from former/alternative name, R from subtopic, R with possibilities, etc) don't really fit; but there is nonetheless somewhere in the target a section or generally at least a mention of the rdir's subject. Some of those might possibly merit their own article one day, but most probably do not or at least it is unlikely one will be created any time soon. I had not really thought of "R to section" as meaning it required an explicit redirect to a named section's heading (tho some of those above probably could also be linked that way).

If it's really meant only for explicit rdirs to section headers, then ok, but I thought those section headers got commented/tagged by some bot if it was the target of some incoming link (and not just rdirs). If you want to change the "R to/from.." template on these to something else then that's ok with me. But there might then need to be some other alternative "R to/from" template set up for related entities/concepts, that are not actual subtopics, former/alternative names or articles-in-waiting. Maybe there is one like that out there, but haven't spotted it myself. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Mardyks (2012)

Excellent work there Shii. We can't have his kind getting us to think about what the Maya actually say about their own prophecies. We insulted him, offended him and abused him and he just had to be ethical and persistant. BLOCK those Mother Fukkers!!! Taking out the entire Santa Fe Public Library system is a great preemptive strike also. There may be others of his kind, that sympathize with those "Indians". These people actually LOVE the Earth and that is without reliable sources! We kicked their asses and have the right to write THEIR history and interpret THEIR sacred teachings however we please. We need more from college students who have been indoctrinated in the Church of Academia. That piece by Stitler is one of the most exaggerated and opinionated and so yeah, use that as the title of the page! And by all means give John MAJOR Jenkins his own section. Not a single scholar or Mayanist agrees with his appropriated theory and this kind of hypocrisy and arrogance is what Wiki is all about. We can get away with it, by continuing to use our power to censor free thinkers like Mardyks and his kind. Sony Pictures is paying us all off with tickets, so let us know how many you want. FREE popcorn, too! Whoopee! Best wishes from Jimini Cricket 97.123.26.228 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-published book

I'm working on compiling a book containing information about almost all Non-indigenous ethnic groups living or working in Pakistan. The population of a particular ethnic group would be obtain respectively from their diplomatic missions in Pakistan including regions with significant populations, languages spoken and religious affiliations. I'm not very good with writing so it would be great, if you would like to collaborate with me.--116.71.53.25 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, don't think I will be able to help out with that, per time, interest and other constraints. Good luck with it anyway. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello CJLL Wright This is CEALIV

You seemed to know quite a bit about Charles Edward Lincoln III, so I thank you for your comment. If I may ask you what do you think will be the future of the eponymous article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CEALIV (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I know nothing about him personally or biographically, but I'm reasonably familiar with the Mesoamericanist / archaeological literature and have come across his Chichen Itza ideas before. The rest I just had to read up about.
What will happen, is that the deletion discussion will run its course (7 days or thereabouts), after which some closing administrator will come along and assess whether to keep or delete. Right now, experience tells that it is not looking good for a 'keep' result, though one never knows. Experience also shows that when several new user accounts not previously involved with anything on wikipedia spring up and start commenting on deletion debates, those comments are pretty much always disregarded (whatever they say). Whenever there is any potential conflict of interest (COI) or involvement by some party, it's usually for the best for that party to be forthright about it up-front, that way any potential misunderstandings and suspicions can be dealt with. The same goes with the undisclosed operation of multiple user accounts, called sockpuppets here on wikipedia. I can't say for sure whether either has been occurring in this particular AfD discussion, but COI and SOCK actions are usually seen in a negative light.
I have made such arguments for keep as I saw fit, though with the caveat that the text be seriously overhauled if not rewritten altogether. See also my further comments/recommendations there (response also copied to your talkpg). Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up to let you know that I evaluated the debate and closed it as delete. While I respect your opinion on the notability of his contributions to Itza studies, I just can't see how we can keep the current article in the spirit of BLP. I'm not sure what's the best place to ask if anyone wants a go at a rewrite so I figured I would see if you had any ideas. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eluchil, thanks for the notice. Under the circumstances, a delete was probably the right decision. While I still think he's sufficiently notable on account of his Maya archaeology work (but doubtful on the subsequent legal career), and there'd be plenty of good sources to build an article on, it would require a total rewrite and I can't see myself being motivated enough to do so myself. Also, after that bizarre cavalcade of recent and mysterious interest in what would ordinarily be a quite obscure AfD discussion, I don't fancy any going through any potential BLP tug-of-war about it either, maybe it was all just wacky coincidence but there seemed to be something behind the flurry of deletes and keeps...

As for where to ask for a rewrite (original authors being out-of-the-question)—dunno the best place really. I suppose the best place is to put a request at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biographies#Archaeologists. I have also put it down as a placeholder at WP:MESO/REQ, maybe someday I or someone else in WP:MESO would pick it up. Can't think of any more appropriate wikiproject that's active; maybe WP:ARCHAEO or there's probably a 'new requests' list at WP:BIO as well. But anyways, it's not exactly an article crying out to be written, there are quite a few more 'missing' articles on more prominent Mesoamericanists I can think of that would make more sense to create first. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GP 120 Robert Redfield BIO Page

I liked it. I was on it. Im still alive. And these people have really given you a rubdown on the whole mayan thing. As a Mayan I have a special resitance to HIV . Any questions. about the Walter Reed Study. Anyways You helped me track down the man who saved my life. Your article was not in vain. Many thanks. Drop me a line Patrick Garza zipper42270 AT yahoo.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.28.168 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Patrick. I was a bit confused abt what you meant there for a while, but have just realised you mean the article I'd created on the virologist and HIV researcher Robert R. Redfield, and not the anthropologist Robert Redfield. Guess the references to Maya threw me off course. In any case, if the article helped you to track him down, then that's gratifying to know, and thanks. One can never know, and can rarely see, whether any given article has anything more than curio value. Thanks for the offer of further info on the study, but as I really know nothing of gp120 or this medical research in general (had created the virologist's article only to disambiguate it from the anthropologist's, medicine's not my area of interest) I'm probably unlikely to do anything with it & don't plan on expanding the article any further. Others may, and if you have any particular verifiable info on it, or his research, you yourself would be most welcome to add it in. Anyways, thanks again, and regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

CEALIV

I would like to say thank you for the comments on trying to keep Charles Edward Lincoln III page up, though it was deleted. I was wondering if you could tell me how to become an administrator, since you yourself are one, I would greatly appreciate any comments, I have become a great afficianado Gordon Wiley lately, if you know him which I suppose you do, and a really big fan of Wikipedia and hope to become an administrator. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by CEALIV (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Re adminship, I'd strongly recommend a careful reading of this Guide to requests for adminship, that maps out the WP:RFA path and the criteria generally used. One needs to acquire a reasonably extensive history of reliable edits and trustworthy contributions before there's any realistic hope for a successful candidacy. There's really no shortcutting of experience + demonstrated commitment + avoidance of troublesome behaviours, while there are no official 'minimum standards' there are practical ones, as this mini-guide indicates. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Adios

Just wanted to say goodbye. I no longer feel its worth my time or effort to continue the struggle on Wikipedia due to the rather stupid and capricious decisions of some administrators. You're not one of them. I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish, and wish you good luck. Bye. Rsheptak (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rus. Damn, I am sorry indeed to hear that. Wish there was something I could say to dissuade you, you will be sorely missed. Unfortunately one of wikipedia's greatest faults is its poor record in treatment and retention of specialists & academic contributors like yourself. There are times and situations when petty and inward-looking mindsets proliferate, and although there are usually well-meaning intentions behind it all the nett effect is blow process and personality out-of-proportion, at the expense of what really ought to matter, ie collegiate development of article knowledge & content.

Often those topic areas that are most in need of expert and knowledgeable participant attention are also those that are most vulnerable to the randomness in quality of contributors and admins. In 'profile' topics where there are many pairs of eyes and willing hands, poor decisions and capricious actions are usually soon dealt with and levels of common sense are more easily maintained. But when there's only a bare handful of folks equipped with a cluebat who bother to tend more neglected topic areas, it only takes one or two misbehaving contribs to cause serious disruption. Fixing or countering it is harder and more time-consuming, persuading others to become interested/informed enough, and to spare the time to assist positively and usefully, is sometimes a battle in itself.

But thanks, sincerely, for all the work you've done here; your contribs have helped enormously and especially in areas we'd otherwise have little or nothing else. And many thanks in particular for the advice, assistance and information passed on to me, and others; I have been very glad of it and it's always been a great pleasure working with you and exchanging views. All the best for the future, if you do decide later on to return to wiki editing, even if briefly or sporadically, it'd always be most welcomed. Take care, and saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos: question

Hi, I was wondering whether you can help with a slight problem. Currently Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos is at FAC, here, and I've been helping Bamse with copyediting. Maunus passed the article for the GAR and at the time added some edits to the first parapgraph of the history section, using Charles Lippy's book as reference. At the FAC, user Savidon made some comments about the section (needs page numbers, and clarification) but we don't have access to Lippy's book. Would you by chance have the book? If not, do you have any advice how to proceed without Maunus, whose expertise is needed? Sorry for bothering you, and thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. You mean Christianity comes to the Americas: 1492 - 1776? I might be able to get access to a copy, but the statements in that section being cited, about jesuit reducciones, seem quite general / background statements; it should be possible to find other accessible sources for that info, in lieu of the Lippy et al book if needs be. Let me look. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the help. Discussion regarding this issue on my talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tekanto

I was interested in knowing why the page that I set up for the Municipality of Tekanto is now redirected to the Municipal Seat of Tekanto. As that page covers Tixkochoh and other localities, I thought it was best as a Municipality page. Many of the numbers like population are incorrect for the town of Tekanto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmes Mike (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. The article is still about the whole municipio, not the municipal seat/cabecera (only), whatever the article is actually called. Since we don't yet have a separate article about the town itself and the only info about it is contained in the municipio's article, common practice is to put the article at the simpler name (without any disambiguating qualifier). That way, searches and incoming links for either the municipio or the township will arrive at the article containing info about either entity. The article's text makes it clear enough what the scope is.

If at some later point enough distinct info is obtained to create a separate article about the town, they can be split out. There's no real well-defined naming convention to distinguish Mexican municipios and localities of the same name, or rather there are in practice several ways it is done currently. Hope that explains, regards (posted also to your talkpage) --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

CJLL Wright,
Thank-you for the clear and logical explanation. This makes sense to me. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this. It is worth noting that this practice (which I do agree with) does not appear to be followed on the Spanish language wiki pages.
Thanks again,
Holmes Mike (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJLL_Wright/Archive_XXXI&oldid=1088709321"