User talk:Madman2001/Archive2

Red Palace (Olmec site)?

Hey Madman - I was procrastinating over here and trying to track down a couple of articles for this page: User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Archaeology and Paleontology. One page this guy Skysmith is looking for is an Olmec site called "Red Palace" - I've never heard of it (which doesn't mean much), and seeing how you seem to be our resident Olmec expert, I thought i would throw it your way. Have you ever heard of a site called Red Palace? or perhaps its an architectural complex within another site? Perhaps its an english translation of spanish or something... dunnno... Anyway, not a big deal, as I was just curious. Take care -- Oaxaca dan 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Palace is a structure at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan that was likely an elite residence (at least according to Richard Diehl). Google "Red Palace" "San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan" for some mentions. I haven't seen anything exhaustive on the Red Palace - it always seems to be mentioned but never fully explored. Maybe you could write an article on it. : ) Madman 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my man. According to this article (Flannery et al. 2005 - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/32/11219), its even less then an architectural complex:

A second example involves architecture. At the moment, our only confirmed Olmec residence is a modest wattle-and-daub house found at the site of La Venta by W. F. Rust (figure 2.3 of ref. 30). BNG, however, wish to give the impression that whereas highland chiefs lived in wattle-and-daub houses, Olmec leaders lived in palaces (ref. 12, p. 1068). Their reference to a "Red Palace" at San Lorenzo clearly implies a residence with the ground plan of a palace, such as the early example found by Spencer and Redmond (28) at Tilcajete, Oaxaca. In reality, however, Red Palace is simply the excavator's nickname for an amorphous patch of hematite-stained sand on which Monument 57, a broken basalt column, was found (24). A stone column that once supported a roof (if that is what Monument 57 was) is more likely to have been associated with a temple or other public building than a chiefly residence. It is ironic, indeed, that the most hyperbolic descriptions of San Lorenzo's architecture come from authors who have not actually excavated there. The less hyperbolic view of the site's current excavator is that "monumental mounded architecture arranged around plazas does not appear at San Lorenzo in the Early Preclassic period" (i.e., before 2800 B.P.). She adds that later Middle Preclassic architecture in the site center was not superimposed on any impressive earlier buildings (ref. 31, p. 98).

You should check out the article - written by Flannery, Marcus, and pretty much everyone else - it puts the smack-down on one-way trade models (espoused by Blomster, Neff, and Glascock [BNG]) between the lowland Olmec and highland areas. At the least, it serves as a good citation for the Olmec Influences article, and might be of interest to you (if you haven't seen it already). Peace -- Oaxaca dan 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read thru most of this, as well as the BNG paper, and the BNG response to this paper. I It does get rather contentious.

Here's what Diehl, who literally wrote the (most recent) book on Olmecs says: "Cyphers' recent excavations in the area have revealed the reason for such wealth of sculpture: this was San Lorenzo's "Royal Compound", home to its rulers. It included a residence dubbbed the "Red Palace, a workshop where artisans carved sculptures and utilitarian tools from basalt and several ritual settings that included monumnets and an aqueduct. The Red Palace is a large structure with red gravel floors and mud walls plastered with red sand." It goes on to refer to a "huge columnar roof support" and other features. I'm not ready to sign on to this being a "palace", but Flannery and Marcus have their own agenda as well.

Thanks for the lowdown. I will add that reference to the Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures article. Madman 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flannery and Marcus have an agenda? Surely you jest my friend! -- Oaxaca dan 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit from that other 2005 Flannery et al. paper in the article. Thanks for the input.

Getting back to the original issue, I personally don't think that the "Red Palace" is an important (enough) article topic. Madman 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture candidates

Could you please vote in my image?

--Ricardo Ramírez 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Las Limas Monument 1

It could be just me, but isn't that first note in there missing a page number? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q'anjobal

Hi Madman. I may be the one guilty of inadvertently deleting the Q'anjobal section from the Maya language article, which I am in the midst of cleaning up. I had already noticed its absence and was hollering at Maunus about it! Thanks for restoring it, and I'll try not to commit any more accidental "vandalism" (assuming I was the one). Alan --A R King 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hey Madman - you seem to know your way around images quite well, and was wondering if you could lend me a hand or point me in the write direction - I'm currently tooling around on the Maya diet and subsistence article, and was hoping to throw in some food related images - in particular codex, carvings, monument depictions, etc. Do you know of any decent ones? or perhaps you could show me where to search for them... Thanks in advance, and I'll talk to you later. -- Oaxaca dan 03:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW Template

About once a month someone decides to remove the template in spite of the explanation below it. If you look at the history of the WP:CHICOTW, you will see we transform pages every week. I don't understand your explanation  I believe a {{underconstruction}} would be appropriate for the CHICOTW, but this specific one is better. That is why it is there. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it comes down to policy on using the templates found here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Articles_undergoing_major_edits

There are two types of templates. {{inuse}} templates are for pages you are editing at that moment. Suppose for the next hour I am editing a page and don't want conflicts the various inuse templates are appropriate. However, if I am going to be changing a page significantly over the next few days in a way that the perception of the information will be drastically different, a {{underconstruction}} tag is appropriate. The underconstruction tag is not for copy editing. It is for pages where a person who reads the page today will take away completely different information than if he/she came back a few days later. It is an indication that if you are using this page as a resource, you should check back after this reconstruction is finished because it is anticipated that it will be a different resource at the conclusion of the reconstruction. In the case, of a COTW or an ACID it depends on the purspose of the collaboration. If it is a joint copy edit then, it should not have a template. If it is a joint research effort, it should, IMO. The WP:CHICOTW focuses on redlink and stub articles in need of research. For example, the Good Article collaboration theoretically should not have one. Their objective is to take a Good Article and turn it into a WP:FA. If you look at WP:WIAGA 3(a) suggests that research may not change the perception of the reader gets of the resource. I believe most COTWs are more copy edit focussed than ours. Thus, they will not use the templates that WP:CHICOTW will use given its current objective. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of SNAFU (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on SNAFU (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There is already a disambiguation page, Snafu.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 72.75.73.158 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spanish wiki

Hi Madman 2001,

A Latinamerican wikipedian is looking for trouble when he pov tagged the Spanish article of es:Sacrificios humanos en la América prehispánica. He is jealous since the article was nominated "good article" yesterday and he is saying that we have to listen to those who deny the historicity of the sacrifices.

I am only asking you to tell me the source of this sentence wuich I believe you placed:

Some researchers have also associated infant sacrifice with Olmec ritual art showing limp "were-jaguar" babies, most famously in La Venta's Altar 5 (to the right) or Las Limas figure. Definitive answers will need to await further findings.

The said editor placed a citation needed tag and I would like tu supply it. Thanks!

—Cesar Tort 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one:

"Larger-than-life humans emerging from interior spaces occur on large retangular thrones . . . at La Venta, San Lorenzo, Laguna de los Cerros, and elsewhere. According to Beatriz de la Fuente they depict the widespread Mesoamerican origin myth that marks humankind's emergence from the cave of the earth at the beginning of life. Seated persons holding a baby occur on small, portable greenstone objects, monumental thrones, and freestanding sculptures. The baby frequently lies in an inert, death-like pose, suggesting the offering of a sacrificed infant, reminiscent of the remains of sacrificed infants uncovered at El Manati." Richard A Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization, p 109-110.

I can look for others, too. Madman 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan languages to appear on main page on May 21

The date is set for Mayan languages to appear on the main page on May 21! Finally we are harvesting the fruits of our labour!·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Corporate Center GA

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
1908 Chicago Cubs season is the current Chicago COTW You were a contributing editor to AT&T Corporate Center during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Editorial contributors: ChicagoPimp, TonyTheTiger, (Daniel Case, Korg, Madman2001, MisfitToys)
	Good Article

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Calico Early Man stone 1.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Calico Early Man stone 1.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back...

Hey there Madman- great to see your name coming up against edits on the watchlist again- you've been missed. Hope your wikibreak was enjoyable. Saludos amigo! --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus of Dolní Věstonice

Hi. I am not sure why you revert the decription of pottery. I agree the item is ceramic but this is a very large group of materials. Pottery is more specific: it is a subset of ceramics. Pottery is fired clay, with cermaics including many others such a silicon nitride, silicon carbide and alumina - hardly the type of material from which the Venus is made.

"Ceramic" is the preferred adjective in archaeology. In fact, a "pottery figurine" does not make sense, since pottery is a noun which generally refers to vessels of some sort or another. While today "ceramic" includes all sorts of materials in addition to clay, in 50,000 BPE, clay was the only ceramic. Madman 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

happy halloween

...that the unusual Mexican ball game of Pelota mixteca is thought to be a development of real tennis? by Madman2001. Nice article - hope you like the short hook. I think it needs a picture to show whats involved. Ive looked on Flickr to see if I could find one. Yes! .... but not "free"... Ive asked a few to change licenses which may happen. Anyway. See you soon Victuallers 08:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Kuo image

I found the source for the image, and posted it on the discussion page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcatzingo ref

Hey there Madman. The good folks at FAMSI have just made available online the entire text of David C Grove (ed.), Ancient Chalcatzingo (1987), which has a bumper-load of essays on the site & the broader regional & Olmec perspective. Some bits are a little dated, but another key and now-accessible resource to be aware of. Cheers!--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec map

Hi, I saw your Olmec heartland map pop up on FPC. Can I recommend using the color #9EC7F3 for your rivers and bodies of water? The dark blue river color is clashing. One other thing that slightly detracts from this nice map is the boxy label in the upper right corner; may I suggest using the words only without the box, or some other way to make it less dominant? If you can fix these I'll happily support your nom; that and your DYKs recently have been outstanding! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments. Another editor also commented on the title box, so I removed it entirely, as you can see from the Featured Pictures nomination page. Let me know your thoughts on that.

Regarding the river color, this is a bit of dilemma, since I am using the standard (English) river color, as can be seen here on the Maps project page. All my maps use this color for rivers, as do many other mapmakers. Let me think on this a while. Thanks again, Madman 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts: On your title boxes of the series- It's ok to label, I would just make the labels less obtrusive by removing the box/white bg and play around with position, size, color, etc.

The scalebar on the FPC says 25, but 25 what? Both miles and km need a number label to go with the hash.

Hmm, I thought that the scalebar was understandable. The upper one is for 25 miles and the lower one for 25 kilometres. Is this confusing? Would you put 25 on each scale??

River color: I see #1821DE listed (proposed) as a standard river color, but I still think the blue is too dark and saturated. For comparison, google maps uses #99B3CC for rivers, which is a much lighter color. The main reason I didn't like #1821DE is because it's clashing with the text-labels. (If you wanted to change this on a large number of .svg files, you could save time by editing the XML tree directly or even use an automated script.) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I don't feel I can back off using the standard blue color on this map today. Above and beyond the work involved, I would at least want to raise this issue at the Maps project page first, rather than just change this one map (or all my maps). I note that the proposed standard for Wikipedia Commons is #27AAEA --still darker than what you suggest. If I were to change to a brighter color, I think I would have to change to that one, rather than trying to set out on my own. I think map-makers here in Wikiland need to follow standards. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer #27AAEA over #1821DE as the former is much less saturated. However even prolific wikigraphist commons:user:Sting's excellent Corfu map departs with his own suggestions and all these others, by using #0978AB! I abide by the (proposed) standards where applicable, but where the standards are unclear, nonexistent, poorly documented, self-conflicting, or unsatisfactory, I happily go my own way. As for the scalebar, I was confused, so possibly others will be too. If other maps are using this strategy, it's probably OK, but I can't say I remember seeing it before. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirect

You recently created the redirect Mictlantechuhtli, which redirects to ... Mictlantechuhtli. (You'd be surprised how often this happens.) Unfortunately, I can't figure out what title you were trying to redirect this to, so it would be appreciated if you could fix the redirect. --Russ (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the west coast of North America

Would you be kind enough to take a look at the Mesoamerican history part of History of the west coast of North America, which is a pet project I've been working on and off for a while now. I expect that I've made a hash of the pre-1492 portion, and any assistance/clean-up you can offer would be appreciated!

As you can see, the focus of that article is the Pacific coast drainage area of North America, and any cultures which had settlements which were physically located in that area - even if their largest settlements and cultural heartlands were elsewhere. Thanks! NorCalHistory (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to look at this. Here's my question: how far inland should I go?? For example, I wouldn't think that the Valley of Mexico should be included in the article since it's equidistant from the coast. I believe I should concentrate on the true coastal areas. In any case, I'm interested. Thanks for the offer, Madman (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, without getting too formal about it, the thought would be to focus on cultures within the drainage area of rivers that drain to the Pacific (with some wiggle room here and there). I agree with you about the Valley of Mexico - This image suggests that the Valley of Mexico is not in the Pacific drainage. However, having said that, I think that it would be fair to include some (small amount of) discussion of pre-1492 cultures which had their heartlands outside the Pacific drainage area, but still had a presence in the drainage area. NorCalHistory (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]