User talk:CJLL Wright

Hello there. --- hereunder, my current Talk page.... New posts at the bottom of the page, please- for convenience, you can use this link to open up a new topic directly.	₪ STATUS GAUGE ₪   update as of: 20 October 2009 I have: L I M I T E D  A V A I L A B I L I T Y OFF ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ON! ...generally only occasional and limited access and availability right now... usually resident in Sydney, Australia   ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
To avoid disjointed threads, if you leave a comment here I will generally reply here, perhaps also alerting you separately. Likewise, if I have left a comment on your talkpage, I will be watching and so will be happy if you prefer to reply there.
NOTE 1: From time to time, I might possibly rearrange, reformat, archive or otherwise vary the structure of this page. NOTE 2: My availability to respond may fluctuate somewhat- the status gauge here will generally indicate whether I am around, or temporarily absent.

---

--Talk archives--

ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005	2006	2007	2008
I (May–Dec)	II (Jan–Feb) III (Mar–Apr) IV (May) V (Jun) VI (Jul) VII (Aug–Sep) VIII (Oct–Nov) IX (Dec)	X (Jan) XI (Feb) XII (Mar) XIII (Apr) XIV (May–Jun) XV (Jul–Aug) XVI (Sep) XVII (Oct) XVIII (Nov–Dec)	XIX (Jan) XX (Feb–Mar) XXI (Apr) XXII (May) XXIII (Jun-Jul) XXIV (Aug-Sep) XXV (Oct-Nov) XXVI (Dec)
2009	2010–11	2012
XXVII (Jan-Feb) XXVIII (Mar-May) XXVIX (Jun) XXX (Jul-Aug) XXXI (Sep-Oct) XXXII (Nov-Dec)	XXXIII (2010 Jan-Dec) XXXIV (2011 Jan-Dec)

---

D I S C U S S I O N

---

Alfred Tozzer, "Zelia Nuttall" link in the Reference section of the Codex Nuttall article

Hi CJLL,

I edited the link in the Codex Nuttall article because the link that was there 1) did not point to the article it referenced (it points to the web pages of the General Anthropology Division at AAA's web pages), and 2) the article referenced in the link is freely available to everybody (not only JSTOR subscribers and academics associated with universities, colleges and other JSTOR associated institutions) at American Ethnography Quasimonthly's web pages. I am the editor of said web page, but I don't see that this, in this case, makes my edit weaker? --Ultramartin (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ultramartin. You were right, it seems that that URL for the full-text article at AAA website no longer points to the right place. However, Tozzer's article can be freely accessed at AAA site, just at a different URL now. I have amended and reformatted the reference, giving the link to the updated URL at AAA. General best practice is to link to the version of the text that is as close as possible to the original source, to avoid potential reproduction discrepancies and also to minimise any copyvio concerns. In this case, I'm also not 100% certain that Tozzer's article could be considered as being in the public domain — I think it may depend upon whether it was published w/out a copyright notice, or with a notice but was not renewed (in which case shld be PD), or whether it was published with a notice and was renewed (in which case it is not yet PD). IANAL, though. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, CJLL! Excuse the confusion. At least I got to find a broken link. :) --Ultramartin (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how copyvio concerns relate to a link from a Wikipedia page to an AAA webpage. In general, though, the American Anthropology Association writes that "AAA article content published before 1964 is in the public domain and may be used and copied without permission." (They ask that a complete reference to the original publication and a link to AnthroSource is included.) AAANET Reprints & Permissions --Ultramartin (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a questioning of whether AAA could reproduce online their own published works, but rather whether you or anybody else could. Given that copyright statement at AAANet you've unearthed, in this case there would seem to be no issue for your website or another republishing Tozzer's 1933 obituary for Nuttall. Per our external links guides, we shouldn't be linking to sites if the site may be reproducing material that's in violation of copyright. Happily, no problem here.

As per our discussion/agreement on its talkpage, I have now deleted the article American Ethnology Quasimonthly after you've copied it into your userspace, as insufficiently notable for article space inclusion, but ok for userspace information. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about presentation of references

Hi CJLL Wright, I had changed the style of references in Kukulkan as per the policy on how to present citations. You reverted the edit, but, although I realize this whole issue is rather pedantic, would you kindly point me to the right policy I should follow? Thank you, Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Hi Idunno. I don't believe there are any wikipedia policies that dictate how references should be presented and formatted. WP:CITE, WP:MOS and related pages are guidelines, describing (mostly) sensible and common ways that article components such as cites/references can be presented. Like it says on WP:CITE, "Citations are usually presented within articles using one of the methods described in the How to present citations section of this guideline. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it." [emphasis mine]. The guideline subsection WP:CITE#HOW describes several cite/ref presentational methods that may commonly be found, & notes there is no single preferred system. As far as the style that was used at the Kulkulkan article goes, it is really an implementation of the so-called "shortened notes" method, albeit with one or two quite minor stylistic variations that are intended to make it a little easier for the reader to identify the reference keywords (ie authors' names) in what would otherwise be undifferentiated blocks of text. There's nothing I have seen that forbids such a presentational style, and since it was consistent within the article itself and does not hamper anything, I don't see there's any merit to changing it. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CJLL Wright, thank you for the excellent clarification, and for your help. Also, my apologies for the edits I had made to Kukulkan. Regards, Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's quite OK Idunno, no need to apologise. I realise there are many articles out there where the citation/referencing is poorly executed, inconsistently applied, and without any thought about whether the presentation helps or hinders the reader if they want to find something. For those, cleanups such as yours are definitely worthwhile. But when some attempt has been made to apply within the same article some particular and consistent presentation, & the presentation is readable and makes sense, then it should not really matter if that style deviates in some minor way from the plain-vanilla examples at WP:CITE#HOW. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maya mythology

Hi. Thanks for the "artist" but the image I uploaded on Commons is just a scrap of the real bassorilievo representing Xbalanque and his brother. We have no image on Commons about the Twins. I didnt mean to add an artistic value to the image, I just added some (automatic) shadows and colors to help the reading of the original 3D artwork that is a multilayer composition, hard to define in a 2 dimensions fashion. We have other drawings (symbols, glyphs..) in Maya category but they're black and white. --Waglione (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Waglione. Unfortunately, the bas relief in that image you have based your rendered version on is not a real or authentic pre-Columbian Maya sculpture. Instead, I believe it to be a creation by the guy who illustrated the (rather silly) 2000 esoteric "Maya oracle" book, Wisdom of the Maya: An Oracle of Ancient Knowledge for Today by Ronald Bonewitz. In fact, that image is used for the book's front cover illustration (see here), and images of this that you may find on the internet clearly come from this source. The illustrator of this book (and its accompanying "oracle card" set) has designed a series of Maya-themed pictures with the appearance (but only the appearance) of being "real" sculptural reliefs. While the illustrator has obviously been inspired by combining elements from genuine pre-Columbian Maya iconography, his illustrations are not actually faithful reproductions of authentic sculptures but rather are overlaid with a design concept to suit the faux shamanistic purposes of the author's 'retelling' of supposed 'ancient Maya wisdom'.

As such the illustrations of his creations are under copyright, and so incidentally I'd presume that derivative works such as your renders are at risk of copyvio.

Even if the originals were to be faithful reproductions of authentic precolumbian Maya bas reliefs, I don't think that your version would be useful illustrate authentic Maya iconography. For eg, a number of the elements visible in the original are obscured/altered in your version, such as the descending bird figure and the headdress bundles—elements with iconographic meaning. IMO at least your version is too impressionistic/non-realistic to have much value in depicting the subject.

I'd be suprised if there was not already out there on wiki some img that (authentically) depicts the Hero Twins, at least in part. In any case it shld not be that difficult to locate usable genuine reproductions, such as codex or out-of-copyright reproductive drawings. Regards (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much fot this clear answer. As I'm not into Commons procedures, could you please delete the unuseful image or ask for deletion? Thanks in advance! --Waglione (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I'll nominate it for deletion at commons. Cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sirius Mystery

The pov editor put his version back and I missed it, after I reverted his edits he's been back, we both need to keep an eye on this if possible. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug - have been away this past week, but in interim seems that this editor got themselves an indef block. Maybe that will be the last of it. If not, hv it on closer watchlist. Cheers. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Yes, but Wikipedia Manual of Style specifies that lists should always have bullets, which instead you omit in your list style; secondarily, I wonder why, if 90% of lists are formatted in a way here, you must choose a different style. Good work and see you soon! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Attilios, thanks for your replies.

Re lists and bullets: afraid I don't see where in the MOS it dictates that bullet markers must always be used, either at MOS:LIST or elsewhere. Indeed, in the List styles section several different example types of lists are given, some without bullet markers. In any case, following the overarching MOS general principles for styles and formats, these need only be consistently applied within articles, not necessarily between them; sensible departures from MOS guidelines/suggestions are perfectly fine and any departures on their own are insufficient grounds to alter a deliberate chosen style from one to the other, without consensus.

As for why in this particular case bullet markers are not desirable- the reasons are twofold (although technically speaking, the colons [:] are bullet markers, just 'invisible' ones—they generate underlying HTML code as list elements in the same way that an asterisk [*] or hash [#] does).

Firstly, a bibliography is not a run-of-the-mill list, although it technically may be a list. Since the chosen style uses hanging indents to offset the bibliography elements one from the other, using bullet markers also to do this would be redundant. The indentation is the bullet marker, if you prefer.

Second reason is a technical one. It so happens that browsers treat bullets differently, wrt to how they align the bullet marker with the indentation level. MSIE moves the bullet marker to the right if this indent is applied, whereas Firefox, Opera etc do not. So if we're using indents, when viewed in an MSIE browser the bullet gets shifted hard up against the first character of the text, which is not a good look (other browsers can cope with this kind of layout). Since a great many folks use MSIE, it's best to just make the bullet marker invisible (which is what the colon [:] does), and the output then looks the same across browsers. As mentioned, the hanging indent already does the job of providing a demarcation between each element, so visible bullet markers aren't needed anyway.

Hope that explains things. I have reset all those now again to the chosen presentation format. Thanks for your attention anyway. Best, (this reply crossposted at ur talkpg), --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And a happy Wiki-anniversary from me too! Glad you're still around. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks both! Time sure does creep up on you....--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Wollumbin. Mt Warning is Wulambiny

We would appreciate your assistance to alter the false information on Wikipedia about Mt Warning. The name Wollumbin was stolen from my families Mountain and applied to Mt Warning as a false Dual name.

We have the anthropological studies from the Elders, 50 year old tapes, the 1977 NSW NPWS anthro study and the false transcripts used by national parks, dictionaries from the language speaking elders and hundreds of supporting documents, but cannot upload them to wiki and I am new to wiki. Apologies that references were not included but I am unsure how to include reference links. Professor Sharpes dictionary has the correct name for Mt Warning (Wulambiny) and is on the net. NSW Geo names board site shows that the name Wollumbin was stolen from Mt Wollumbin in 2005. We have the minutes from NSW GEO names board meetings where lie after lie was told to the board. The Elders are furious at this false info on Wikipedia.

Wollumbinmountain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs)

Hello there Wollumbinmountain. I see that by now a couple of other editors are already reviewing the situation at talk:Mount Warning, to see if there's any information that needs changing or updating. Not sure I am able to add much to what's already been undertaken there, by Bruceanthro & others. But it looks like it's going down the right track for wikipedia, and I hope also for your community. Best regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Article issues for Theun Mares

Hi CJLL,Please let me know if the changes made in the article are in tune with the terms & conditions of Wikipedia, or you feel that additional changes require. Practical suggestions will be appreciated. Regards,Courier 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courier 21 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Courier 21. That is a start at least, but I still think the majority of the concerns listed need to be addressed. I have made some further comments at Talk:Theun Mares. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi CJLL,I would like to request full deletion of my Article, File Uploads, Photos and User Account. Regards, Courier 21 —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Now deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Doug. Not quite the result I'd been looking for, & had no intention to see Courier 21 remove themselves altogether from contributing. Still, in the absence of any confirmatory information re Mares' notability for inclusion, I think the deletion as things stand make sense. If Courier 21 would like to come back and continue contributing within our standing guidelines, they'd be welcome still. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maize

Hello, CJLL Wright. You have new messages at Talk:Maize.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

I was wondering, are you still planning to write about the 21 vs 23 December date for the 2012 doomsday prediction? Right now the article is really confusing and this clarification is really needed, and I don't have the background to provide it. Also, I would really appreciate it if you could provide some genuine scholarly responses to Jenkins's galactic alignment theory. Sorry to prod you :-) Serendi^podous 09:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous. Yeah, I still have good intentions to do some substantial revisions to the 2012 article, incl. clarifying the rationales behind choice of 'end date'. Thanks for the prompt, will see if I can at least make a start this week.

As for Jenkins, one of the probs is that so far he has failed to publish his ideas abt the Maya calendar in a scholarly context (although he's been invited to do so), and so actual Maya scholars have not really devoted much space in sources that we might use, to debating his proposals. There's been considerable discussion and exchange between him and Mayanist academics on mailing lists like AZTLAN for eg, but not that much in print. Still, I think there are a couple of published rebuttals or appraisements, which I'll see to track down and reference/incorporate. One other point, while it is focused on the 2012 date, Jenkins' 'galactic alignment' theory is not particularly concerned with any millenniarian significance for the date. It's not all that clear to me just exactly what transformation he thinks will ensue, or if it really is supposed to be a transformative event at all. Wld need to read up a bit more on what he's actually said abt it. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm sorry to bother you but could you please please please try to get some info into the article about the 21 vs 23 Dec. date? I know you want the article to improve its citation methodology but that's going to take a a while and I'm still angling to get another article merged into that one. But the 21/23 Dec. thing is already causing confusion and it really does need to be addressed (readers are logging in to change 23 to 21). And I can't do it alone :-( Serendi^podous 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Serendipodous, no worries. I haven't forgotten, just been a bit distracted as per usual with other matters/commitments, and also on the side tracking down some more reliable sources that could be used. I fully intend to make a few revisions to that article, including repurposing it to something like 2012 millenarianism as I'd suggested couple months back, but hv not got around to act upon. Gimme another day or two at the outside, shld be able to commence some revisions by then. Keep up the good work, cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Diego de Landa Calderón

Hi. I only noticed that the Diego de Landa article had been moved to Diego de Landa Calderón; I'm not sure about that as it seems to me he's by far more commonly simply called "Diego de Landa". I brought this up at Talk:Diego de Landa Calderón; if you have any comments they'd be appreciated there. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Infrogmation. Sure, agree that Diego de Landa is most common, and sufficiently unambiguous- article would be better under that name. have commented at the talkpg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance

Hi Cjllw. I need admin assistance to move the page Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and its related page history and talk page tothe better title Linguistic relativity. I've discussed it with the oher main contributor and he's ok - noones objected.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Sure no problem, consider it done. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop Fucking Up

WAKE UP DUDE ...

HEY WRIGHT ... the long count is a modern interpretation of maya calendar cycles that COMES DIRECTLY from the Dresden Codex: Forstemann came up with it, as in formulated/discovered it; his commentary on the dresden is free at Google books ... EDUCATE YOUR STUPID ASS ... what's the source of the long count if not? you just do not know WTF you are talking about ... back off until you have more knowledge about this subject ... in other words stop being an asshole and let people be informed about the real 2012 deal 67.164.151.35 (talk) Raymond Mardyks

On the contrary, Mr Mardyks, I think it is you who needs to better educate themselves about what is actually in the Dreden Codex, and how the functioning of the Maya/Long Count calendar was worked out. The Dresden Codex is not a "deeply cryptic" mystical work (at least, not in the sense you clearly intend), and nor does it contain explicit information abt the Long Count. Sure, it contains a couple of (what transpire essentially to be) LC dates, and Förstemann identified them, but not before he had to use other sources to actually work out how the system functioned. That is to say, The Dresden was not the only source Förstemann used in his studies of Maya calendrics.

First, Förstemann had to use statements in Landa's Relación about numbers, daysigns and time periods, and then compare with Juan Pío Pérez's earlier calendric treatise, Antigua cronologica yucateca (written in 1846, and as republished in an appendix to Stephens and Catherwood's Travels). Pío Pérez had already worked out and explained many of the basic particulars, some recapitulating Landa's statements, others he'd derived—such as, arrangement of 20 days into groups of 5, the trecena, the haab, the 'katun-cycle' of 52 years, and a greater cycle ("ahau-katun") of 312 years (13 x [20 + 4]).

Förstemann was able to use Landa and Pío Pérez to establish that the numeral base was indeed vigesimal, that place-notation was used and to identify symbols for zero/completion, among other deductions. He was then able to go to the Venus tables in the Dresden to validate and extend his understanding on how place notation and period sequences worked. But he next had to go back explicitly to Landa's discussion on how katuns and "ages" were calculated, before he was able (by 1886) to pull it all together and propose the structure of Long Count functioning, using the appearances of LC-type date notations in the Dresden as examples.

But merely identifying those few LC date notations in the Dresden was insufficient to validate his theory. It was only after Maudslay published his research and reproductions of Copan stelae inscriptions, that Förstemann (in 1894) was able to check and prove his methodology, by successfully identifying and reading seven of the initial series LC dates.

So you see Mr Mardyks, Förstemann did not simply stare at the Dresden in his library for years before divining how the LC worked- he used a range of sources and other Maya date inscriptions, and relied upon the efforts and understandings already advanced by others such as Pío Pérez, and even earlier sources like Veytia and Boturini. There is nothing special abt the few LC dates in the Dresden. Förstemann could just as easily used some other example sets of LC inscriptions to arrive at the same conclusions, if they were to hand and the Dresden was not. His achievement (and it was an achievement) required him to cross-reference from multiple lines of evidence, and diverse sources—no one piece of this alone could have led to a solution. And I repeat, the Dresden itself does not contain or encode any explanation of how the LC (or any calendar part, for that matter) functioned. It is not properly described as some mystical or cosmic 'key' to Maya calendrical knowledge. And the Dresden says nothing, of course, about 2012.

Whatever coverage of the "real 2012 deal" on wikipedia may involve, I don't think your personal astrological interpretations will be a part of it. You've got your own website, go and use that if abiding by the few and common-sense principles and policies (WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, etc) is too difficult for you. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WRIGHT. Mildly impressive. Thanks for acknowledging Forstemann's "achievement", formulating the MODERN so-called Long Count. We have no proof that this is what the Maya intended or were doing. Now IF the so-called Long Count is grounded in ASTRONOMICAL cycles that work WITH the other esoteric cycles in the Dresden (the so called Venus, Eclipse & Serpent) AND a number of these VERIFIABLE ASTRONOMICAL CYCLES do indeed CULMINATE in 2012, we have put together more pieces of the puzzle than I'm sure YOU are ready to accept. I doubt you UNDERSTAND these cycles in the Dresden. The Maya were not using 40,000-year cycles (Serpent #s) to make their "corn" grow better. If you are indeed familiar with Forstemann's commentary, then you know that he concluded by interpreting what he thought was the last page as THE END OF THE WORLD. Since this is Wiki's angle on 2012, then this gives deeper historical roots to your Doomsday thing, way prior to Waters and the ass-sucking JMJ. Wiki would be responsible by including the origin of the Long-Count speculation and the late 1880's Maya calendar/End of the World forecast (add a picture, too!). Also you guys should release the block on the Santa Fe Library system. If you continue to offer "some" respect than I won't have to play like an angry punk rocker, just because you guys are acting like assholes. As far as giving away what I'm hinting at, you're just going to have to read the book or watch the movie. I'm offering to contribute to the collective understanding of 2012 and you can take your solicitious suggestions of what I should do and shove them where the Sun don't shine. Peace brother!

This page: <[1]> lists TWENTY FIVE (25) Long-Count dates from the Dresden Codex ... that's more than a "few", Wright. xoxox MARDYKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.248.7 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? None of 'em are the 2012 date. The number of LC counts in the Dresden is hardly germane to the question, was the codex the source of our information about the LC, or even, does the Dresden tell us anything at all about what what the precolumbian Maya thought about the 2012 date.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So what you ask? A simple point to demonstrate how easily you pass along misinformation to justify your position and how little you seem to care about the facts around 2012 and the real Maya calendar. What's in the Dresden are cycles that CONCLUDE in 2012 and give support to the fact that it is the END of something real. These facts are the responsibility of an encyclopedia to bring to the public eye. I've taken some time off from the "War on 2012 Stupidity" to work on the biggest breakthrough in explaining the Dresden Codex in the last 104 years, since Forstemann's commentary was published in English. I'll be back! Mardyks out 97.123.25.191 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Felipe Solís Olguín

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks, MacMed^talk_stalk 21:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. The book section was not there when I nominated, and I neglected to do my own research. Thank you for notifying me of the error, MacMed^talk_stalk 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite understand how these things can come about - none of us have enough time do to all the background checks every occasion may require, and the article was in a pretty unprepossessing state when you came across it. Once again, thanks for rescinding the deletion nom. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2012

Apparently not all new age aficionados are gentle hippies. [2]·Maunus·ƛ· 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

heh! so it would appear. This one seems more akin to Vyvyan than Neil, tho' guess there are elements of each... ;-) --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

adminship

Hi, Cjjlw. User:Richardshusr asked on my talkpage whether I would like to be an admin. My immediate response was that I don't know whether I'd use the tools much, since I am mostly interested in improving content, but then I thought that being able to delte speedys instead of tagging them and protecting pages instead of asking for help might make somethings easier. What do you think about being an admin, does it make a difference? I would hate to be so bogged down in administrative tasks that I wouldn't have time to add content. How does the balance work out for you?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Some admins avoid getting bogged down in admin work. If you do a few adminly things over the next month or so, you'll pass with flying colors. The people who don't pass are either n00bs, WP:DICKs or people who work in FAC and piss people off by denying folks their preeeeshusss bronze star. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Maunus. First of all, if you did decide to go thru with an RFA, you'd naturally enough have unqualified and enthusiastic support from me and anyone else fractionally familiar with your contribs. And as far as achieving balance btw admin-ly and editing duties goes, that'd be pretty much up to you—AFAIK there's no formalised expectation for an admin to rack up a certain number of deletions or blocks, although at RFA those folks who are !voting and aren't familiar with your contribs may want some good feelings that you'd be pitching in from time to time. Personally I keep my hand in with sporadic episodes of various admin cleanups, as and when I feel up to it. Otherwise, I do find it handy having the tools to hand when going about contributing—protecting pages under attack, resolving article moves that are blocked by nontrivial edit histories, rolling back at a touch sequences of mindless vandalism, updating protected templates, zapping copyvios & patent nonsense, &c &c. And it can be interesting, or at least diverting, to work on weighing up deletion arguments or category renames in areas and topics on wiki that otherwise one wouldn't think to come across. In short, in balance it is a pleasantly convenient added dimension and I do find it useful even when in full contributor-mode, but not indispensible.

Only real question to consider is, whether going thru the RFA audition appeals to you. I haven't checked in at RFA for some time now, but it probably is not changed that much- can be bruising sometimes, but you've no skeletons in your tumuli so at most there'd be querying whether or not you've done enough wikipedia namespace edits, commented at enough deletion debates, and other (sometimes arbitrary) fossicking about in your edit history. And like any job interview, there'll be questions where the tone is more important than the content of the reply, and questions where you'll be expected to have swotted up on some policy minutiae. After all that, some proportion of !voters will decide on basis whether they liked the tie you wore to the interview, while others give it some deeper consideration. But I'm not telling you anything you wouldn't already know, I'm sure.

So if it does appeal to you, my only other, probably needless advice would be to do it when you've got enough free time and are maximally available to deal with the questions, comments and response updates it will need - particularly in the first couple of days. It is generally time-consuming.

Like the estimable Doctor_:-) Ling says above, spending some time pitching in at deletion debates and what-have-you, for recent visibility, tends to help. Not sure tho' Dr Ling captures all the scenarios of missing RFA, unfortunately there can be some arbitrary snowballing effects where perfectly acceptable candidates get overlooked 'cos they don't often hang out at the cool end of town—and vice versa.

Good luck anyways whatever u decide- will be there if and when you do.... saludos --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to emphasise the need to do it when you have a lot of free time. A very good editor, partially at my urging, went through an RFA when she didn't have the time to respond quickly - you might want to take a look at [3] to see what happened. It's worth reading a few of these anyway to get a flavor of what they are like, the sorts of questions you may be asked, etc. Please someone make sure I'm notified if you run! Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have filled out the nomination form, maybe you could take a look at it and comment if it looks alright? Then I think we are about ready to go.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Maunus. Possibly u cld tweak response to Q1 to avoid a potential misreading that you're seeking to use in cases you're directly involved in. Other than that, when you are ready, add your signature to the end of the "Candidate, please indicate.." para/acceptance statement, then let me know and I will transclude it to the rfa list.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok Maunus, your RfA is now transcluded, discussion is live. Held og lykke / ¡Buena suerte! --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Check your email

I've emailed you. Dougweller (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thanks Doug. Duly noted, saludos --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing of Dr. Ivan Van Sertima's Wiki Profile

Hello,

I am Dr. Van Sertima's oldest daugther. Thank you for updating his Wiki Profile, reflecting his recent passing. However, my family finds that many of the items in his profile are inaccurate or incomplete. I would like to have access to updating his profile, so it shows a complete picture of his life. Please let me know. If you would like to make some of the updates from his website, you can. Please note that Van Sertima is with a capital "V". One of the other major changes is that he has been remarried for 25 years to Jacqueline L. Van Sertima and has 4 children, LaCheun (myself), LaSarah, Lawrence, and Michael.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vansertima (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi LaCheun. I should like to offer condolescences for your recent loss. Thanks for the tip regarding the orthography of his surname. His article is not presently protected, so you or anyone else may edit there. However, and as with all our articles, any such edits need to be measured in terms of wikipedia's standing policies and guidelines, some of which specifically address items like conflict of interest (real or potential), neutrality, reliable sourcing and placing undue weight on claims and viewpoints held only by a distinct minority in the relevant field of inquiry. While one can certainly appreciate your desire to see info to be accurate and more complete, we do need to apply our stated rules and standards as equally for this article, as any other.

The problems with your additions have been twofold: firstly, your edits removed sections of text and citations, that was critical in some regard to prof Van Sertima's work, and of some of the conclusions he drew from that work. You would be aware that his proposals have generated controversies within the relevant scholarly fields, and that whatever intrinsic value his work may or may not possess, those conclusions are not shared by a great majority of researchers in those fields. Hence, it is entirely appropriate for the article to reflect and state those controversies and critical views; removing them out of hand won't do, I'm afraid.

Secondly, the material that you did insert had been published previously elsewhere, namely at the Journal of African Civilizations website. With very few exceptions we discourage the verbatim reprinting of material from other sources: partly out of copyright violation concerns (and even if we did have explicit written permission from the author to reuse, our licensing conditions can often make that problematic anyway). And partly because material written for other sources typically is neither suitable nor amenable to wikipedia's purpose, tone and intent. For example, wikipedia is not a memorial and is not supposed to be written with the style and content of obituary notices, or the like. Our articles are supposed to cover in neutral fashion the individual's notable accomplishments or other aspects of their contributions and life that are, well, encyclopaedic in nature; other accompanying information and details that are not directly relevant to the individual's notability are not usually dealt with here. In particular we avoid eulogising or valedictory statements, no matter who the article's subject is.

Hope you can understand the situation and reasoning here. As mentioned, as long as conflict of interest, neutrality, and balance guidelines are observed, someone connected with the article's subject can contribute here, if reliable and independent verifiable sources are used to substantiate statements made. If there is still missing or incomplete information you think ought to be covered, it ought firstly to be written specifically for the article (and not just reproduced from elsewhere), and in a tone and style harmonious with wikipedia's house rules and aims. If in doubt, you can suggest the amendments on the article's talkpage, and other editors here may review and either agree, modify, or otherwise deal with, the suggestion. Best regards, (also posted your talkpage), --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Runestones in North America

I have nominated Category:Runestones in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went 'click' on my mouse and it sent the above message, to my chagrin. I ran across this just now when someone added it to L'Anse aux Meadows, which of course has no claimed runestone, and the Bat Creek Stone, which isn't claimed to be a runestone either. It has a couple of other odd entries. But I don't think we should have a category which suggests we think there are runestones in North America (outside of Greenland). What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug no worries. Have added my 2c. Had created that cat when going thru some adminly duties at CFD; at the time I'd wondered whether it was a viable one anyway, but never got around to doing anything about it. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jose Arguelles

Greetings CJLL,

This is Melody Morningstar. I had made some changes to the Jose ARguelles entry. The entry as it is seems highly outdated. I have read all of his works and this seems like a very inaccurate representation. Not sure why my entry was deleted. Can you please advise how to update this correctly?

Thanks! Melody Morningstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody morningstar (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Melody. Thanks, your most recent edit there is more like it, closer to achieving balance of neutrality that our policies here are directed towards. I've since made a couple of amendments, while retaining some of the other added material. Hope you'll be able to appreciate, regardless of whether that recent biog of Arguelles is an authorised one or not, as an encyclopedia it's not appropriate for us to give undue weight to claims that in realistic terms lie well outside of prevailing current consensus in relevant fields. For example, despite Arguelles' modest characterisation of his "Law of Time discovery" as being a fundamental law on par with Newton's laws of gravity, it would not be appropriate for the article to describe it as such (no-one else does), or to represent it as an actual 'discovered law' at all. Instead the claim needs to be qualified and couched as Arguelles' own notion, not some general principle he's stumbled upon. In short, insofar as what Arguelles has to say remains unsupported or ignored by standard consensus, wikipedia in turn can only say "Arguelles claims" or "Arguelles believes", and not "Arguelles discovered", "Arguelles illustrates", etc. Best regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your substantive linguistic suggestions for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country, really the only fresh idea for the problem.
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi William. No worries. Whatever else eventually arises from that debate, it should hopefully be clear to most by now that the current category system of surnames by country is unsustainable. One practical problem with my suggestion to refocus these cats and articles to linguistic rather than nationalistic/citizenship origins, is that it would take someone a reasonable amount of effort to go through them all and fix up. Dunno about you, but I for one do not really feel like going thru 'em myself. However, have recently stumbled across an active wikiproject WikiProject Anthroponymy where it would seem this work would be a natural fit. Doesn't seem they've been specifically aware of this CFD debate till now, or very recently anyway. I've just posted a msg on the project's talkpage about it, so maybe with some luck they will (a)agree with our concerns and proposed solution(s), and (b)have the cycles and expertise to go about fixing up the articles and categories. Let's see what transpires. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• The closer Good Olfactory suggested posting at Category talk:Surnames, so that's what I'm doing. See you there?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi William. Sure. Since they also expressed an interest and motiviation in cleaning up the mess afterwards, hopefully the folks at WP:Anthroponymy will be pitching in too. Best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

• Limited geography model
• Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
• Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Descartes. Sure, have commented there, thx for the notice cheers.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuelap, Peru

Hi, I noticed you are an experienced editor of this article. Is there a way to make the graphics of Wikipedia articles accessible to Facebook? I wanted to post the article to drive traffic to Wikipedia, and as it is, only the editorial warning icon can be used. Thanks  uriel8  (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Uriel. Actually I don't recall doing much editing at that particular article, mine is prob just the most recent edit to the page.

Anyways - AFAIK there is no facility to have images that are stored on wikimedia servers (eg at commons) appear directly on external websites like facebook. Is that what you mean?

But I'm no techo in this regard, so you needn't take my word for it. Maybe you could ask at VP:technical. If your ext site was running MediaWiki software then I think you can link directly to a commons img and have it appear, at least according to this. And I guess mirror sites may be able to do this, although they go off an entire dump of the DB so that's prob not applicable. Looking at the licensing of the pics in that article, it seems their creator has released them into the public domain, so I guess you should be able to simply save the imgs as a local copy then upload/insert them to the facebook page you want to create. But again, I'm prob not the person to ask on the details. Sorry not to have been much help. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive CSD:A7s

You've deleted at least one article (Prashant Bhatkar) which was tagged for CSD:A7 after I'd previously rejected the A7 claim. I tag such articles for ProD when I notice that CSD:A7 is being abused, and the fact that the article has since been deleted prior to the expiration of the ProD indicates that an editor struck my ProD, the article was tagged with another CSD:A7, and you apparently didn't research the imrpopriety of the CSD re-tagging prior to deleting the article. Your deletion comment of "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" indicates that you may not be aware of the common abuse of CSD:A7. To avoid being deleted by an A7 claim, an article merely needs to state importance, which is "a lower standard than notability". I maintain that the article in question did assert importance, and while I question the subject's notability as well, it is proper to give an article's editors the duration of a ProD as an opportunity to improve the article and establish notability which we were otherwise unaware of. I'd like to ask you to be more conscious of this in the future. —  X  S  G  08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi XSG. Thanks for the advice, but I respectfully disagree; the article was more job application than informative article. I was at the time aware of the history of CSD'ing and PROD'ing (it still had your PROD tag on it when I deleted it). But regardless, I made my own assessment that it easily qualified under A7, if not also G11 (unambiguous [self-]promotion, necessitating complete rewrite to approach anything like encyclopaedic material).

Having looked at it again just now I am satisfied with my original determination to delete. At most, the article simply stated "Prashant Bhatkar is founder of Pune based Company Beam Inoftech, located at Satara Road Pune". There is no assertion of notability or importance in that statement. No claim about the significance or otherwise of the company is asserted (for all we know, Prashant is the sole proprietor, director, and employee of the company—anyone can set themselves up as a company, IT contractors do it all the time for eg). Founding such a company is not in and of itself a notable claim.

The entire remainder of the 'article' was in fact nothing more than a straight résumé, listing projects they'd been employed on, etc. It even had their phone, address and email contact details. Any one of us might put up our own CV on wikipedia also; but there'd be nothing encyclopaedic contributed in doing so. The claims put forward in the Prashant's CV were nothing that millions of other folks might not also record..

That was the extent of the article. I have no insight into why the creator thought that info would be useful to wikipedia; most probably they had no such thought at all. Nothing in the material indicates it. Who knows, maybe Beam Inoftech [sic] is, or will be, a notable company, and perhaps the young Prashant is on his way to becoming the next Jamsetji Tata. But if either the company or the person ever merit an article in the future, there was nothing at all in the one that got deleted, that could conceivably be of use. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you went back to review your decision and thank you for doing so. I think the deletion process should afford novice editors the time they might need in order to establish that an article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially in light of the fact that we have no idea why the creator thougth the info would be useful or encyclopedic. My stance is that if the article is truly non-notable, it is easily taken care of through the ProD or AfD process, and having the article on Wikipedia for an extra week in order to give the editor an opportunity to teach us something harms nobody. I think this is why passing an A7 is by design a lower bar than meeting notability. —  X  S  G  09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Maya Calendar

Today's glyphs in the Maya calendar B'ak'tun K'atun Tun Winal K'in Tzolk'in Haab'

Hello CJLL

I made this template with some of your drawings. It needs a little more figures such as the corresponding to Haab' months. Since you are an editor of Maya Calendar I need to know your opinion about it, and how can it be improved, since I post it yesterday in Maya Calendar , and may edition was almost immediately removed.Japf (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)(Sorry, I forgot to sign)

Hi Japf. Apologies, have been offline these past few days. Have not been able to look into it yet, but will endeavour to do so as soon as I can. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance at greenland related articles

I need some admin assistance on Greenland, Template:Prime Ministers of Greenland, Prime Ministers of Greenland and Kuupik Kleist where an POV warrior USER:Jægermester is crusading against Greenlandic independence and adding unsourced defamatory material and ethnic slurs against the Greenlandic Prime Minister.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. No worries, will monitor. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Protect Maya Calendar Articles?

Once again the articles about the Maya calendar, Tzolk'in, etc. are under attack by drive-by editors in Guatemala who want to change them to reflect their particular language and interpretation. This will only get worse as we approach 13.0.0.0.0. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to edit/revert these to one of the stable, neutral versions and protect or semi-protect them. You're an admin, no? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Hi there SC. Just had a quick look, seems those edits are from the same ip that tried adding more of the same plastic shaman stuff a couple months back. Yes, I could semiprotect the pages, tho now they are back to their orig versions I'd rather wait'n'see if they try to have another crack at it first. The norms of applying protection are not to over-use it, with only two such episodes, widely spaced and from the same address, it may be hard to justify. But if more attempts crop up, I'd be more inclined to temp semiprotect. Since they seem to be editing from the same ip addr all the time, and no-one else uses it, they can at least be warned on the ip's talkpage to desist. If that's ignored then will look into blocking the ip as an option. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notification Alansohn.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi CJLL Señor Cuete has some doubts about the copyright of these drawings I made. These glyphs were my interpretation of some glyphs in the sites [4][5]. Can you see the discussion in Template talk:Maya Calendar. Since you have contributed with the tzolkin veintenas can you give us your opinion?Japf (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Ref indent

Template:Ref indent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

thx, appreciate the courtesy of the notice. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2012's reason for being

Let's be reasonable and rational for a few minutes here, boys and girls. December 21, 2012 is a date in a CALENDAR. It comes from the so-called Maya CALENDAR and specifically the Long-Count CALENDAR. Possibly ALL the CALENDARS that exist are based on astronomical cycles and usually some combination of cycles, such as solar (years) and lunar (months). Now what is the astronomical basis of the Long-Count? Seem's like no one knows. (I KNOW!) If we collectively knew this, then 2012 would have a factual basis and maybe we'd have an antidote to the hyperbolic stupidity now spreading through the collective mind of humanity. I use the term stupid because it implies RESISTANCE to understanding! Hollywood is soon to scare the $%#@ out of [people with the 2012 movie later this year. Millions will be looking for answers and Google will get like a BILLION hits for 2012. So Wiki Ads & Eds, gonna perpetuate the "stupidity" or seriously consider what will bring down the 2012 house of cards? I'm being kind and not even talking astrology here. The mysterious "galactic alignment" is meaningless until understood with the other FACTUAL astronomical cycles that underlie the Maya Calendar and 2012. Raymond Mardyks <earthlove2013 AT gmail.com> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Mr Mardyks, we can agree that there is some growing hyperbolic silliness on 2012, and that the best remedy is to counter with factual information about what reliable scholarly sources have to say. Evidently where we depart is in the assessment of what constitutes reliable sources with relevant information on the topic. I'm afraid original syntheses and research, not reputably published, is not going to fit in with the [[WP:RS], WP:NOR, and WP:SYN conditions for editing here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Mr WRIGHT. I appreciate the facsimile we have of a respectful dialogue. I must point out the extreme hypocricy of your stated position though. John Major Jenkins has paragraphs of his personal opinion/belief/unsupported theory under the galactic alignment section, ONLY to have references from his OWN web pages! Can you get past your bias? Here's someone else's voice offered to expand your horizons: Quoting Bruce Scofield & Valerie Vaughan from Mountain Astrologer Magazine, Issue April 1999, titled Mesoamerican Astrology Resources: "Now on the other hand, why wasn’t the fact that the winter solstice was about to cross the galactic equator recognized by the larger astrological community? Astrologers have long had the data and a few (eg. Michael Erlewine, Phillip Sedgewick) have been doing various kinds of galactic astrology for decades. But I don’t recall any of them drawing attention to this alignment. Ray Mardyks was doing his own brand of galactic astrology (several of his articles appeared in this magazine in the 1990’s) and he was aware of it as early as 1987, but it didn’t seem to be an item picked up by the larger astrological community. In short, mainstream astrologers have either not been aware of this alignment, or they have not thought it of much importance. Perhaps they have been blinded by the equinoxtial focus engrained in our traditions. And so, it has been left to others outside the field to study and promote and they have not identified it as within the province of astrology. To them, it’s simply a connection between mythology and cosmology. Let’s all think about this for at least a minute." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture again

Hey, I am hoping to convince you to help out at this article, but in a very specific way I hope you will find rewarding and easy. It is just this section. Right now the article has a section on culture change which frankly I would like to do away with since culture change has been ofinterest to veritually every kind of anthropologist, and is not separable from how we conceptualize culture itself. I have created this new section, on local versus global orientations in the study of culture, as a way to address this. I am hoping you can develope this section by saying something about how the debate between Redfield and Lewis involved a debate over different views of culture and how to study it, and how both of them viewed culture as dynamic and as non-isolated i.e. existing in a larger regional/national/global context. It is pretty specific stuff but I think it will really help the article Thansk, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein. Oops. Yes, I owe you some comments and a help out at that article don't I, it was a few months ago now when you first asked but I've been slow/neglectful in getting on with it. Apologies for the tardiness, let me try to review what sources I have on redfield and see what can be done. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I do not consider it a personal obligation! But you do seem to be one of the few people qualified to write intelligently on the topic. Needless to say if you see other ways to improve the article (the section on language and culture is still just a collection of quotes) feel free. I am sure that like everyone else you have real-life commitments, and also other priorities at Wikipedia. I appreciate your just keeping this in mind for when you have time. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dresden intervals

JQ Jacobs emailed me this new work of his:

The Dresden Codex Lunar Series and Sidereal Astronomy http://jqjacobs.net/archaeology/maya_astronomy.html

Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug, thanks a lot, appreciate it. He maintains a pretty useful site doesn't he? One of these days, we should really do proper justice to our articles on Mesoamerican codices, there's some good recent information out there.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"proper justice" sounds like it has good intentions ... but is it in your power to accomplish? MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

13-baktun/2012/Dresden connection

If I may contribute to making this topic a bit more lucid: The synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn averages out to a mean of 7254 days. This is 54 days more than a katun (7200). On pp.71-73 of the Dresden Codex, there is what has been called the 54-Series (Forstemann 1905). These pages contain a compilation of multiples of 54, up until 702 (13 x 54). There continues multiples of 702, until 14040 is reached (20 x 702 260 x 54). Higher multiples of 14040 are suggested. The numbers 54, 702 and 14040 are emphasized on these pages. These are the necessary number of additional days from the mean Jupiter/Saturn synods for cycles of 1-katun, 13-katun and 13-baktun,respectively. This indicates a verifiable astronomical basis for what the Mayanists now call the "Long-Count" and specifically also the 13-baktun cycle, such as the one anticipated to conclude on December 21/23,2012. We also now have strong supportive evidence from an authentic Maya document, the Dresden Codex. If there is a reputable "scholar" out there good enough to "verify" and "document" this, I'd be more than pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raymond, on the off chance that it is not already abundantly clear by now: no statement, calculation, observation, or pet theorising inserted by you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) that is not verifiably documented and directly attributable to a reliable, notable and relevant source, is going to go unchallenged on wikipedia. Our policies for verifiability, reliability ought to be self-explanatory, likewise the reasons why we prohibit original, unpublished research. It's just going to continue to be reverted on sight (on talk pages as well as articles), and with justification.

Personally I'm not inclined to discuss (on- or off-wiki) speculative claims on any astrological/astronomical/numerological/mathematical proposed basis for Maya calendars. There's enough to be done in distilling and setting out information on Maya calendars drawn from qualified and recognised sources, I don't propose to while away the limited time I can make available for editing here to fruitless and unending discussions, that can have no bearing or input to the useful development and improvement of these articles.

Seems that your recent attempts on the aztlan list to draw out rounds of discussion on calendar/2012 abstruseness is going to go nowhere, too. There must be dozens and dozens of 2012-oriented discussion boards, blogs and the like out there on the web; if you are so keen to swap tales and notes on 2012 millenniarism and maya calendar mysticism you should easily be able to find like-minded folks at these boards only to willing to listen and argue with. But I don't think you are going to get much joy out of trying it on here, or at aztlan. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Gotta B. WRIGHT,

Let me S-P-E-L-L this out for you. I know y'all will edit my contributions away. I expect that. I sometimes watch to see how long it takes. I make copies and then post it on my CENSORED FROM WIKI page and blog. If I am smart enough to understand the Maya calendar, I can figure out the Wiki rules. I play by my own guidelines and inspirations, as Wiki's "structuring" of itself makes for a less than mediocre medium of information sharing. For example: The astronomically correct "galactic alignment" is my original research, "idea", theory or whatever you want to call it. First published in 1987 and then 1991. When I read about it on Wiki, filtered through JMJ, who just does NOT know WTF he is talking about, and then further watered down by whomever wrote it up, someone who knows even less ... all I see is a stupid mess, which is helping confuse, mislead and generally fuk with people's heads. Now if we had an "encyclopedia" that worked with the most qualified and informed individuals about it's topics, then we would see what the best of the human mind has to offer. But no, we have a low common denominator, where something is only valid when a critical mass of stupid people believe it. I don't believe the reasons you are giving me for editing me away are TRUE. Whether you do or not is not my concern. I believe I made it clear that your telling me what to do is not appreciated or needed. Discussing my activity on another site is way past the boundary of consideration and respect, Mr. Wright. I know it's your TALK page and you can say whatever you please. I am still feeling harassed. I am assisting you to do a better job here. I'm not posting for my own selfish benefit. Since you understand so little of my motives, then we should wait before feeling it's okay to address me on a first name basis. I like Mr. Mardyks, as it shows some respect. MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Felt I just must, must tell you about my favorite vest. It's a purple FRINGE one. I got it for $10 at a thrift store in Hawaii. I wear it around Sante Fe when I'm feelin' the Native vibe. I always get compliments when I wear it. EVER been to America? MARDYKS 67.164.151.35 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A number of times. What of it?

Sheesh, only takes a couple of days of being away, and the inbox is knee-deep in querulous posts. Never mind, not that I plan to spend time in responding. For you see Mr Mardyks, if I had any great inclination at all to discuss at any length novel calendar/2012 propositions by yourself, JMJ, Calleman, Vollemaere, or anyone else, I'd go over to diagnosis2012 or 2012.tribe.net, or some such. But I haven't, so I don't. Pointless doing it here on wikipedia.

In any case, seems your beef is with JMJ, not me. Don't know why you'd think I'd want to mediate on it, JMJ seems ever amenable to discussing all things 2012, why not take your complaints to him direct? (but I guess you've tried that[6], not much headway I spose).

Anyway, 'nuff said. I've little enough free time right now as it is to edit/respond on wikipedia, unfortunately. Engaging in evidently fruitless discussion about items that are hardly relevant or substantive for the articles is way, way down at the bottom of my list of priorities.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If ur goin' to bring up JMJ, then it's only fair to mention my response: [Let's Get Stupid About 2012 at http://www.geocities.com/heartystar/2012].

new article on Goddess I "unauthorized" and deleted

Dear CJLL, today I wrote a new article on Goddess I (Maya), which was apparently deleted and marked as "unauthorized" as soon as I tried to get a preview. I had logged in, although obviously, something may have gone wrong at this stage. Just deleting a new article in this way is terribly demotivating, and I hope you can help me in restoring the article.77.162.130.139 (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there R. Very odd; I've had a look thru the deleted contributions history for this ip, and also your logon. I can't see anything that looks like Goddess I, and the logs show there's never been an article (whether deleted now or not) at that title. Couldn't see anything in the daily deletion log either (though there are 100s of deletions daily, might have overlooked).

Could it be possible, that you meant to save it, but somehow it didn't actually make it? Every now and then you can get logged out if the editing pane has been open a while. Dunno why that happens, but if you got unknowingly & temporarily logged out before saving, that wld prevent it fm being saved.

About what time (UTC) was it? Had you made multiple edits, or only the one with which you intended to create it? Could it have been named something different? It was when logged in as R, right? (also posted at ur ip's talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading how you described it a bit more attentively now, I think it is likely that you got logged out somehow, in between when you started and when you went to hit the save button. The wiki software would have seen you as an ip not a registered user, thus blocking the article from being saved. When you made the comment at Talk:Goddess I (which I guess was only minutes after?), you were logged out. If that's what's happened, then afraid there's no way to get it back, it was never saved in the 1st place...--cjllw ʘ TALK 12:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some advice?

I need some advice from someone more versed in wikipedia procedures. There's an IP address based user (190.53.244.15) who has defaced my user page and written abusive messages on my talk page. Seems like he's coming from a fixed ip. Should I just ignore him, or report him, and if report, how? Thanks for your advice. Rsheptak (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rus, had a look thru the edits & have blocked that ip for a wk for disruptive editing, 3RR, and ill-tempered vandalism.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasted time

I stumbled across some vandalism, added the warnings to one already on the user's talk page, and reported it at AIV. It disappeared almost immediately from AIV. On further investigation I find the user had already been warned and blocked but you had deleted the user's talk page.

(Deletion log); 10:29 . . CJLL Wright (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:75.66.49.218" (G3: Vandalism)

Why did you delete the notices? I'm hacked off at wasting time chasing down a vandal only to find it was pointless work. Bazj (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. No warning notices were deleted by me. At the time I deleted it, User talk:75.66.49.218 contained no warnings whatsoever. In fact there had only ever been a single edit to that ip's usertalk page, and that was made a few minutes before I deleted it.

That single edit came from another anon user ip 69.30.227.98 (talk · contribs), all they did was to create the talkpage with only a speedydelete tag. Both of these ips, and quite a few others, apparently belong to the same open proxy that some adolescent joker has recently been using to vandalise wikipedia, often by randomly slapping speedydelete notices around (usually with the edit summary: "rukewl" ).

That's what user 69.30.227.98 had been doing, including their edit to 75.66.49.218's talk page. As soon as 69.30.227.98 got blocked, they immediately started editing from 75.66.49.218 (these are the edits you stumbled across). But just as you were reporting it to AIV, another admin had blocked 75.66.49.218 and so your report was as swiftly removed by AIVhelperBot as no further action required. So you weren't really wasting your time, it's just that semi-automation & pattern detection allows admins & bots to react quite fast to vandalism sprees like this one, sometimes just as fast as you can undo, tag, warn and report them.

Hope that explanation's clear. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for humouring me. Bazj (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

no probs. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Refindent

I am apalled by the outcome of that TfD. There were NO valid arguments for deletion based in policy whatsoever - it was all IDONLIKEIT. And there was an even spread between keep and delete votes - how can that be a consensus for deletion? I would fight this. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have to take it to DrV anyway, the closing admin is not willing to explain to me how he weighed the arguments. Or maybe it is better to make a RfC on the MOS. I am afraid that if we don't the delete verdict will be used against the usage of the indent parameter within the reflist template in the future. We need to establish that the MOS allows indented reflists once and for all, and it would be a great side effect if we could also get a consensus that bullet points in biblographies impede readability. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the decision here either, please let me know if you take it to DRV because I think the closing Admin got it wrong, particularly giving his unwillingness to explain. I'm not sure about an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support guys. If it does come to DRV or similar will definitely let parties expressing an interest know. I hope to avoid going down that road, so long as the migration of the functionality into the other template is not impeded. I would like to try addressing the larger issue on refs/cites as I'd outlined here, am prob a couple weeks off from getting organised to attempt it. Once I am, and if you guys are interested, wld value your inputs. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I respect your judgment. Please keep us in the loop when something happens.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

I was bold and closed a deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunglish - then I realized I can't delete it myself. Would you be so kind?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

I reviewed the text from Xcaret Ecopark. I think it is better. Sorry, this is my first time as a wiki editor, and I love tourism, but I will try to be neutral. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelaptero2 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angelaptero. Don't worry about being new around here, once you've read through the main policies and guidelines it should become clearer what our aims are, and what kind of content and quality we're working towards.

I appreciate that you've made some efforts to tone it down, but I'm afraid a lot of Xcaret Eco Park is still rather too much like a travel brochure. Will try to set aside some time in the next few days to point out some of the concerns in more detail. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maya3D -link

Hi, i've read, you've lastly edited the chichen itza page. Because i'm a new user in wikipedia, i would be very glad, if you could add my website www.maya-3d.com, which exactly deals with the topic, to the external links.

Thanks very much

Mathias Kohlschmidt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmaya3d (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mathias. Thanks, had a quick look, from what I cld see your site (liked the interface, BTW) would comply with external link guidelines, so at the moment I'd have no particular issue with having the link in the article, and have added it.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Otomi language

Hi Cjjlw. If you get a little extra time I would appreciate it if you could take a look at Otomi language with your keen eye. I want to take it to GA and I expect it to be about ready contentwise. But copyediting for style, language and grammar is needed. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, it would be a pleasure, sure. Have run out of time today, but when next online will see to make a start.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could do what you just did to the Yolanda Lastra bbliography to the references at otomi language that would be AAAWESOME!·Maunus·ƛ· 01:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, will do.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New template

Hello cjll

Please see my proposal for the stella of maya calendar in Talk:Maya_calendar#New_template. I think this is important for the Maya Calendar and Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar, so I need some replies.Japf (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Japf, have made comment/suggestions at the talk pg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC on category?

Hi Cjll How do I file a request for comment or nominate for deletion the category Category:Terrorism in Guatemala that currently seems to be applied only to articles having to do with the rebel side of the Guatemalan civil war? It has even been applied to legal political parties. The main argument for deleting it would be WP:TERRORIST.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I guess WP:CFD would be the place to go if you wanted to seek cat's deletion, although since the "Terrorism in country" schema appears to be well-established I don't think a category deletion proposal would go very far.

I suppose the main issue is whether the cat is being used appropriately, or or rather what to do about inappropriate articles being added/included in the category (such as an article on a legal, non-blacklisted political party). Are there any in particular that someone is disputing, or are there editor(s) maintaining some should be included/excluded?

If there's multiple articles involved, an RFC held on one's talkpg but advertised on the others' might help, but that might not attract enough folks for constructive discussion. Maybe something cld be put forward at WP:TERRORIST's talkpg itself. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

addendum. See also this recent CfD discussion, that ended up in the deletion of 'terrorist' cats (but not terrorism cats). "Terrorism" cats had their own CFD a year ago, resulted in a keep. The arguments/directions in these discussions might help. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Otomi language is up for FA

If you want to chip in. I realize that you are busy at the moment but any help will be appreciated.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sure. Will try to complete the biblio checking & expansions I'd started there asap. Also see what else I can help out with. Thanks for the notification! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Postclassic

Thanks for the revert. I wasn't sure about that so took a chance (which is the problem with a copyeditor who knows nothing about the content, but of course that also alleviates other problems when copyeditors know too much!). The one that surprised me was pre-Columbian vs. Pre-Columbian, though it makes sense. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper, sure no worries. Have responded also @ ur talkpg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More Entries by Students at KU

Well, I'm at it again. I'm teaching a course called "Ancient Central America" this semester and the first class assignment is for each student to create a new Wikipedia entry on a relevant topic. The course's scope is not strictly Mesoamerica, but rather the Isthmo-Colombian region (in which I specialize). Information on this region is significantly under-represented on Wikipedia, so I like to think that we'll be making some significant and worthwhile contributions.

I learn how to manage this assignment a little bit better each time I undertake it. Students have widely differing levels of comfort with the online environment, research and writing skills, and even willingness to spend time in Wikipedia, so the results can vary quite a bit. However, I'm going to try to monitor them more closely this time around and provide as much helpful feedback as I can.

Needless to say, any assistance from the usual (or unusual) crew would be greatly appreciated. Overall, I think these assignments have been a very positive experience for my students. I hope Wikipedia benefits, too! Hoopes (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hoopes. That's good and welcome news, & sure it'll be as productive and beneficial exercise for all, as it was last time. I'd seen recently one of those students Archaeochica preparing the way for a new article, so glad there'll be others. We will do our best to help out and advise where we can, without intruding on their composition before it gets marked & published to mainspace. Just tell your students they'd be welcome to contact any of us directly for wiki-editing how-to's, or leave a msg at the Mesoamerica project's discussion board WT:MESO. Once you have all of their usernames maybe you could list them at WT:MESO so we know who to look out for.

One suggestion for this time around: instead of developing their article on their main userpage or user talkpage, it would prob be better if they set up a dedicated user subpage for it. Easiest way would be for them to save a link on their main userpage, consisting of a backslash followed by the proposed article title (or "Draft" or any text, really), like this: [[/Article title]]. Then they just click on that link to create the new subpage, which will be created at User:Student username/Article title. They then just add some text, save it, and away they go. Once they're all set up you could just save a list of these links somewhere so you can flick between them. To give them in-progress feedback, use their user talkpage (or even the draft's talkpage, as long as they know to look for the comments there). For convenience, they could transclude their working draft subpage onto their main userpage so it's visible from there, by adding {{User:Student username/Article title}} to the main userpage somewhere.

I've probably made that sound more complicated than it is, would be glad to help out any who might be confused by the explanation.

One other thing I would suggest is for them to start out using the referencing system wikipedia calls WP:CITESHORT, it's what we mostly use for meso articles and should also be quite familiar to the students. They build a separate bibliography of sources towards the end of the article, while citing individual statements to entries in the biblio involves only them adding cites like <ref>Smith 2008, p.123</ref> after the statement.

ps. Agree it would be great if some of those covered Isthmo-Colombian/Intermediate/Lower CA region, which is woefully under-represented. Fantastic, in fact, have long wanted to expand stuff in that area. Look forward to it, cheers! (reply also added to ur talkpg). --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

help wanted.. Otomi FAC

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otomi language/archive1 Ling.Nut (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. -- ToE^T 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)