Jump to content

User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXXIII

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


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

JAN '10 — DEC '10

Maya Calendar

Happy new Tun!Japf (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

...and happy new tun to you too, Japf! Apologies, have been away and haven't yet made the time on my return to check in on your recent updates to the templates. Had a quick look now, they seem to be coming along nicely. I'll have a better look in the next little while and let you know of any further comments/suggestions/etc. Saludos! --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Project banners on Maya sacrifice page

While I hear what your saying, I fail to see the point of having banners that are patently out of date in terms of the article they are supposed to be assessing. In the the case of Mexico, we just have question marks running through the middle, which reflects poorly on that team. I will leave them for a week, and if nobody has bothered to read and act on this extensively reworked article, I will again delete them. I can think of no other way of getting some action --Johncoz (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. The problem is that when you delete the project banners, the article vanishes from the project's watchlist and remit (disappears without trace from the project's categories), so that if a project member later becomes inspired to review or fix things up they'll have a hard job determining it was ever there in the first place.

WikiProject banners can be used for all kinds of things, whether or not the ratings are kept up-to-date. For eg in WP:MESO we use them to generate & maintain article watchlists (like here) & article talkpage watchlists to keep track of what's going on in the articles we particularly care about; other projects do much the same thing.

While it's true that a lot of projects get behind in keeping up the paperwork, so to speak, having project banners with yet-to-be-assessed ratings does no harm, the ratings are mostly for the benefit/use of the wikiprojects anyways. Most wikiprojects are regularly maintained by only a handful of editors, what with everything else editors are inclined to do it's no general surprise (or concern) if it takes a while before a banner gets updated.

If an article's been recently improved then there's nothing to stop someone not from the wikiproject updating the banner's rating, or if in doubt you could leave a msg at the project's talkpage requesting a review.

Even when a wikiproject appears to have been completely inactive for months & months, someone new with an interest can easily come along at some point and seek to reactivate it. That happens a fair bit, and while a few wikiprojects may never be roused from terminal slumbers, many others do spring back into life. Truly moribund projects can be tagged with {{inactive}} and listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects (probably best to give advance notice first at the project talkpage, just in case. Even if the project pages show little activity, project members may still be watching and working on articles in that field of interest, they are just not needing to update the project pages much).

In the case of WikiProject Mesoamerica it's very much an active one, albeit with only a handful of regular project maintainers like Simon & myself typically online during any given period, like most projects. With nigh-on 1500 articles now to keep track of it can take some time to work through. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that explanation. One could argue of course that the correct solution is to rework the banners so that they don't require ongoing input from the project team, at least in cases where the teams are under-resourced. Just a thought.Johncoz (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR for History of the Australian Capital Territory

I have nominated History of the Australian Capital Territory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.) –Grondemar 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Thanks for getting to the La Venta article before I did. Much appreciated.

I am thinking about putting together an article on the Mesoamerican "sello", more descriptively known as cylinder seals, etc. I have what I need to put the article together, except perhaps time. I'm in a bit of quandary concerning the title of the article. "Sello" seems to be appropriate because it's short and covers both the cylinder seals and (at least according to one author, Frederick Vanderbilt Field) the flat type of stamps. However, not all authors use this term -- I don't find Coe, Diehl, or Pool using it.

Do you have any thoughts? Madman (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Madman, interesting question, I cld go either way really. Something like Mesoamerican cylinder seals is pretty clear and attested, but like you point out wld exclude artefacts with similar purpose but different forms. "Sello", while sometimes used, is maybe a little opaque and you'd have to qualify it anyway (eg Mesoamerican sellos) since there are artefacts of this type from elsewhere (lower central america, Ecuador, Caribbean etc) that are also called sellos on occasion. Probably either of these would do, depending on the scope you are planning. If you're gonna include flat and rocker stamps too, then I guess the latter fits best, but it's not all that intuitive a title. "Mesoamerican seals" & "Mesoamerican stamps" are probably both too ambiguous; "Mesoamerican stamps and cylinder seals" might be too long. I spose if you create the article under one of these (or some other) then it can always be renamed if we can think of something better later on. Look forward to seeing it! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Your thoughts mirror mine. The question was explicitly about the title, but I also want a term to use within the article as well. I do like "cylinder seals" and that seems to be the predominant use in articles, but "sello" is a lot more concise and can/does include the flat stamps as well. Let me see what the article looks like. Thanks, as always, Madman (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Popol Vuh

Could you kindly weigh in on new thread on PV talk page? Thanks. AmericanGringo (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey AG. Sure no probs, have added my 2c at Talk:Popol Vuh. Rgds, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

British Royalty Hi CJLL Wright/Archive XXXIII, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi CJ, thanks for all the help with the Takalik Abaj FA nom, for going through all the refs and cites and tweaking the prose where necessary. It's very much appreciated. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Simon, np. I merely polished up the hubcaps as it was being wheeled into the showroom; 'twas your great ingenuity and dedication that got it designed and built in the first place, so all well-deserved kudos to you, compadre! Top stuff, and cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding Wikiproject stats

Hi CJ. I've got a question about the automatically produced articles by importance/class tables used by wikiprojects. Over at WP Guatemala on the Spanish wiki there's such a table that is not functional and I was wondering how on earth I go about getting it working. Any idea? Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Simon. On en.wiki the WP assessment stats get updated ATM by a hardworking bot, WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs). It trawls through the WP's assessment categories, that it finds 'cos they are subcats of Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments (there's also someplace else that the bot looks at so that it knows to update a particular WP, I forget where right now).

But having a look around es.wiki, I can't find that they have anything similar set up. Although some wikiproyectos appear to have assessment ratings there doesn't seem to be anything operating or organised to compile & update stats for WPs.

Maybe you could ask the folks at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team who coordinate these things for en.wiki if they know of interwiki collaboration or how to setup; automated assessment stats seem to be working on de.wiki (de:Wikipedia:WP 1.0) and fr.wiki (fr:Projet:Wikipédia 1.0) for eg, but can't find anything on spanish wiki. You cld also try at es:Wikipedia:Wikiproyectos to see if anyone on spanish wiki is working on assessments, or prob better at one of their general or techo village pump boards.

ps, looks like soon WP 1.0 bot is gonna be replaced by a bunch of tools & bots located on the toolserver, see this FAQ. I had a look at what they've got running at the toolserver, at Wikipedia Release Version Tools, seems some nifty features avail now that will allow much more granular analyses and cataloguing etc to be done; check it out. I think these tools only work on en.wiki, but maybe there's something being developed for other lang wikis. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks CJ. I'll carry on digging around, at least yo've pointed me in the right direction! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migrationism

Hi - I just ran across this discussion and then found that we have Trans-cultural diffusion, Demic diffusion, Invasion theory andAcculturation [1] (at least), all related aspects of archaeological theory although they don't all link to each other (eg Trans-cultural diffusion despite having an external link to an article with the title "Diffusionism and Acculturation" doesn't have a link to Acculturation and vice versa). I don't know if you feel up to getting involved in the AfD discussion, or with fixing what seems to be quite a mess. I'm not sure I know enough about the subjects. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doug. Thx, have commented at the AfD now, looks to be a safe keep. I note the article was created by Adamsan (talk · contribs), who I recall from a few years ago as a sane and well-informed contributor on archaeology topics, who alas got jack of the place (think it was battling fringe nonsense links at Stonehenge that exhausted his patience) and hasn't edited since.

You are right about the need for some better organising of these paradigms; I think all those you mention are valid as separate articles. What might be needed tho is to summarise and unite them in some umbrella article—I'd reckon culture history wld be the most likely candidate; archaeological theory has claims too. Maybe I'll try to at least start interlinking these, but the way things are ATM I'd be a long way from being able to do all that much substantive about it, at least not in the near term. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe

New Crusader arrived. Please take a look. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Maunus. Yeah, they've been (im)pinging at Codex Escalada too. Funny how new singlepurpose accts who arrive proclaiming "bias!" always seem to end up slanting, rather than righting, the article. Am hoping to string together a solid block of time shortly to be able to address.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk: Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

K, thx for the notice. Will see what I can do over the next 7 days, time is limited ATM. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Our old friend

See 71.81.41.89 (talk · contribs) - adding fact tags to leads which have references in the article, attacking us on their talk page, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Guess they're testing the waters now the ip block expired couple months back. Didn't they have another ip addr they used to edit from? I seem to recall more of the same from other quarters, in addition to their now-abandoned main account. Anyway, will keep a lookout when I can; at least there seem to be a couple of other editors already on the case.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
ps. Dunno if you've much background/source materials on the Guadalupan controversies & documentation; see above issue from Maunus. Not quite WP:FRINGE material perhaps, but if you've time or inclination it could use some attentions. I've been trying to free up some time to help fix, but might be a few days more before I can delve in. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh I think that's a WP:REDFLAG issue. I've taken this to the RSN noticeboard, [2]. I've also told Bellarmino (talk · contribs) to avoid using the IP address as a possible sock puppet, and will tell the IP address the same. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help there, Doug! Have been on the road these past couple days with barely enough time to scratch myself let alone log on, so appreciate you taking the effort to help sort it out. cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting, I love detective work

[3]. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks Doug. I've also commented on it over at Maunus' talkpg. Cheers,--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi CJLL, I was wondering if there was any way we could communicate via e-mail. Is there an e-mail address that I can reach you at? I have a view questions regarding Wikipedia in general. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.123.186 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. My email is enabled on wikipedia. See WP:EMAIL for how to use. But it will only work if you have a registered wiki user account (see WP:ACCOUNT, not as an anonymous ip.
You're quite welcome to try sending me an email that way. I don't check it all the time though, and depending on the content (and my availability, which isn't that great right now) reply may be delayed, or might not reply at all. Messages at my talk page are probably the quickest way, and if it's about specific wikipedia content or general wiki practices then that'd be preferred. But am fine with email corro abt wiki too if it needs to be, although naturally enough with a little more circumspection when the correspondent is unknown to me. Rgds, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy of a letter to Jimmy Wales

Subject: Comments about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancun from an expert authority

I contributed most of this article several years ago. There were some compaints about my self-references. Since I am one of the few English-speaking experts on the history of Cancun, this seemed somewhat difficult to correct, even after consultation with a Wikipedia administrator CJLL Wright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CJLL_Wright. You can see this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Siegel

I stopped contributing to the article, but never removed it from my watch list. Someone eventually changed my journalistic-style references to footnotes pointing to my book on Cancun. Now the footnote references have been replaced by citiation needed requests. One very factual statement on Cancun visitor statistics was removed a few days ago because the citation needed was more than nine months old. If the same thing happens to the current citations needed items, much of the history of Cancun will be gone.

I gave up on editing the page because it was too much work and there was no way that I could be assured that my very accurate information would not be changed to the usual ignorant popular beliefs, which is exactly what has occured in the case of the meaning of the name of Cancun, which is not Snake's Nest, an issue that I discuss in great detail in my book. It may seem a minor point, but calling Cancun Nest of Snakes can be considered an example of negative cultural imperialism. It's demeaning and it's almost certainly false. It's also typical of the way in which Mayan history, like the histories of other colonized peoples, is routinely distorted in the interests of nationalism, among other motives.

There are several problems with my fixing any of this:

[1] It's a lot of work (requiring learning more Wiki markup than I really want to know) and I will still have no assurance that it will not be messed with again, because...
[2] It may be dismissed as original research, a term that is often applied with bizarre justification. I was accused of original research in the Honduras controversy for referring to ... are you ready? ... the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, the ultimate authority on the Spanish language.
[3] Even if it survives the original research charge, I will be accused of self-promotion for referencing my own works. The problem here is that some questions such as the meaning of Cancun required extended discussion and multiple attributions. There is very little scholarly literature on the topic, and some of that is obviously erroneous.
There was a very thorough discussion of the Cancun issue on the Famsi.org list, which is populated by some of the world's leading experts in mesoamerican studies. No consensus was reached on the meaning, but Snake's Nest was at the bottom of the favored translations. I understand, however, that listserv discussions are not considered reliable sources.
As far as I know, I am the only person who has considered this issue in full. That means that I can reference my own existing book chapter or I can either write an extened sub-article on Wikipedia covering my findings with references. I'm sure that you can understand why I would not want to give Wikipedia a very significant and commercially valuable piece of intellectual property like that, especially since I find Wikipedia to be a hostile environment with an annoying population of nitpickers who are very familiar with its procedures and policies and often use them to make unfortunate changes.

I don't what to do about this. I am telling you because it has left me with a bad feeling. I doubt that I am the only expert authority who has gone through something like this. I leave it to you to figure out a way to resolve the dilemma. I see that you're putting together an international conference on improving Wikipedia. Perhaps you could pass my thoughts along.

Best wishes,


Jules

Jules Siegel (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jules, apologies for late response have been offline these past couple of weeks.

FWIW I have no issue in accepting you as a knowledgeable source on Cancun, or of you citing/referencing your own publications on certain points -- with the proviso that it is something published somewhere, unfortunately unpublished info would constitute Orig Research no matter how reasonable it may be. If there's important info you have that's not published but passes a common-sense definition of reasonableness, personally I'd think it ok to keep the statement in the article, but perhaps tagged as needing some verifying cite -- if it's an important fact then one would expect there to be some published reference to it out there.

Re using the AZTLAN mailing list at FAMSI as a cite for something, I'd say it's permissible if the list contributor is an otherwise recognised published expert in the field, as many of them are. It's also however best to try and find additional sources published in more reliably reviewed venues, and if the statement is in any way contentious or uncommon, it would need to be couched in terms like "John Doe, prof of archaeology at <institution>, has stated that ...".

Also FWIW, I think that LibStar's comments & tagging @ your usertalk re 'ownership' is a bit uncalled for, and careless. Don't know if you intend to resume or continue with that discussion now, but if you run into any further probs you can let me know (though my wiki editing time still remains very limited right now, can't guarantee that will be able to respond promptly. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies

Hi, CJLL Wright. There is a discussion concerning a proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies. Beagel (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Have commented. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting slavery among the indigenous people

I'm sorry. That really did slip my mind. I've been really multitasking getting ready to add a whole bunch of new info so I've been trying to get sources and other things together. Thank you for correcting my mistake.Mcelite (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Keep up the good work, cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

P'urhépecha

You wrote "P'urhépecha" is used more so for the contemporary peoples & lang; for the pre-Columbian state, Tarascan remains in general use when editing the article on Tzintzuntzan..... I did not know that. I thought Tarascan was considered disrespectful. Ill keep it in mind when work on other Michoacán articles.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Thelmadatter. While I have seen P'urhépecha used sometimes in the pre-Columbian context (mostly in spanish-language sources), my understanding is that Tarascan is still preferred/continued, esp. in english-language sources (but not only english). Certainly for the modern peoples, culture & language,P'urhépecha has gained wide acceptance & probably predominates in recent publs. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Take on Possible 15th Century Chinese-Mayan Connection

Hello, CJLL Wright,

Do you have any thoughts on the theory of Chinese influences on Mayan culture? I am referring to the relatively recent work entitled "1421" by Gavin Menzie. I also heard that there is a similarity between Mayan writing and Chinese ideographs. Also that a statue at Xculok displays a "Buddhist pose" -- ? Have you come across any reliable DNA studies showing markers shared by the two peoples?

Always impressed with your stuff, especially the renderings of the glyphs.

CrasherbruceCrasherbruce (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crasherbruce, apologies for the delayed response, I've had barely any time free of late to check in on wikipedia.

FWIW, I would say the notion of Chinese or any other trans-oceanic influence on pre-Columbian Maya culture lacks any credible foundation or evidence, not to say plausibility. By contrast, a stack of reliable evidence from multiple disciplines instead supports the prevailing view that pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures are homegrown.

Even if there was anything at all to Menzies' claims, the 15thC would be more than 1500 years too late to have been able to influence Maya writing. The two systems hardly resemble one another, even if both contain ideograms their individual histories and development are well-enough understood to rule out any connection. There are no linguistic links between Mayan languages and any known language of Asia past or present. Menzies' book is rife with unsupported speculative claims and misuse of sources, not taken seriously by any Mesoamericanist researcher.

I don't recall a specific claim re "buddhist" statue in 1421, if it is in Menzies then it'd be treated sceptically like the rest of his 'evidence'. As for genetic studies, I am not aware of any accepted study whose results demonstrate there must have been some degree of pre-Columbian contact.

Regards (posting also @ ur talkpg), --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello CJLL Wright! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 140 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Anthony Aveni - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Help!

How can I become an auto-confirmed user?I must misunderstand what an edit is, as I've got more than ten edits on a page I've been trying to submit since last December, and am still not an autoconfirmed user. What do I have to do to get autoconfirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erafalko (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I count only 9 edits made from your account to that page thus far (your post to my talkpg here would be the 10th in total). So maybe now if you try again..?--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try now, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erafalko (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost Pyramid of Puñay

A new article using dubious sources, do you know anything about this? Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Taken to AfD, clearly a promotional article promoting a tour company possibly owned by the article's creator. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
(discussion carried over at Talk:Puñay) --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mesoamerican Project

I have started contributing some articles, all of which require revision and improvement. Must clarify that I am new in dealing with WP, struggling at times (specially in Spanish WP) but will manage.

I have uploaded some articles, my goal is to have them in both english and spanish.

Thus far in English I have the following.

Oct. 5, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ometepe_(archaeological_site) New

Oct. 01, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3n_Viejo_(archaeological_site) New

Sept. 30, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Placeres_(archaeological_site) New

Sept. 30, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatera_(archaeological_site) New

Sept, 27, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_footprints_of_Acahualinca (minor editing)

In Spanish:

Oct. 01, 2010 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3n_Viejo_(zona_arqueol%C3%B3gica) (deleted again)

Sept. 30, 2010 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatera_(zona_arqueólogica) (deleted again)

Sept. 27, 2010 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huellas_de_Acahualinca (Minor editing)

Sept, 27, 2010 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Placeres New

Sept, 27, 2010 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3n_Viejo_(Zona_Arqueológica) (Borrado)

Sept, 27, 2010 - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatera_(Zona_Arqueologica) (Borrado)

Please see my page, have lots of articles being prepared.

Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cerro de la Estrella

Greetings, just noticed your note on the above mentioned article. Please note I am rewritting, or rather writing an article on the topic, but strictly as an archaeological site. I am debating if I should write over them (english and spanish) or write completely different articles, as for example "Cerro de la Estrella (archaeological site)". The problem with the existing article, is that it was meant (I believe) as an article on the hill and not the site. Will be grateful for your comments.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Grollier redux

Hi. I have some concerns about possible POV problem regarding the Grollier in the Maya codices article. Note I have no particular strong opinion one way or another, but feel the article needs to address any issues in a referenced and NPOV manner. My comments at Talk:Maya codices; your input is appreciated. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJLL_Wright/Archive_XXXIII&oldid=1136202842"