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. I may not be too pedantic about following this, however, and every rule needs its own exceptions!
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

---

Taiwanese Aborigines edits

That looks good! Thanks! If you have any more suggestions, please feel free to fire away :-)Maowang 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No probs. As chance would have it, only about 15 mins ago I made some further comments/suggestions at the FAC nomination page. I'll do some further reviewing, though it may take a few more days. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the wording and copy edit. It looks good.Maowang 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll finish reviewing hopefully tomorrow, and then look forward to formally supporting the FAC nom, as there are only relatively minor quibbles remaining as far as I can see. Again, a great article by you and Ling.Nut.--cjllw ʘ TALK 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Amin Morshed

Just thought I'd let you know that while I was RC patrolling I found User:Amin Morshed vandalising List of terrorist organisations. --Nitchell 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to have abated. If it flares up again, you can report it to WP:AN/I, or in case of outright vandalism WP:AIV.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylvanus G. Morley (archeologist)

cjllw, we need to talk!

Some brothers and cousins and I are, as far as we've been able to discover so far, the only remaining family of Sylvanus G. Morley. I'll keep our names out of it for the moment, but will say that Dr. Morley was my great-uncle: my maternal grandmother was Vay's sister. As so often happens, my interest is now sparked long after the deaths of the people who actually knew him. He died in Santa Fe a year after I was born in the East so I never knew him, but grew up hearing stories from my mother, who always refered to him as "Uncle Vay".

I'm aware of descendants of two other siblings who also will likely be interested. What I have not found (yet) is any of Morley's direct descendants. We know he had a daughter by his first wife and that he was close to her even after the divorce. (From a family genealogy compiled in 1949 by either my mother or possibly Vay's brother Henry, partially updated perhaps around 1970 by my mother): the daughter, Alice, married Edwin Brooks in 1931, and they had two children, Ann Eliz Brooks b. 8/23/1932 and Susan Morley Brooks b. 5/26/1935. Admittedly, our search for them only started a couple of weeks ago and not yet in earnest - we plan to proceed. If we can find them, I expect they'll be intensely interested. Or perhaps they know far more than we do.

My interest was sparked about two years ago, when my wife and I took a Spanish class (refresher for me, first exposure for her) in the local community college, to facilitate our trips to Mexico. Each student was asked to do a paper or presentation on any subject that somehow related to anything hispanic, intro en espanol. Naturally, I pulled out the books I had inherited by or about Vay and bought a couple more. I put together a "brief" outline of his life and works, and found the presentation was far too long! This man's life CANNOT be summed up in a 15 minute talk.

We returned last night from my first trip to the Yucatán, this having been planned as a nice relaxing beach vacation on Isla Mujeres. But my wife was happy to allow a couple of days at Chichén Itzá to enable me to find out more about Vay. Back in the 60's, my parents explored the area and found that "doors opened" when Mom introduced herself as Morley's niece. Following in her footsteps, we emailed the Mayaland Hotel where we stayed, about a week before the trip. I thought, even after all these years, that there might still be someone who could spare a few minutes with us. Well, the hotel's owner replied in only a day or two, to invite us to a dinner with a couple of noted archeologists, reporters, and possibly the Governor of the State of Yucatán! Unfortunately, the governor was unable to attend due to a meeting in Mexico City, but tried to get the hotel owner to change the date! So we now know that Vay was far more than merely respected in Yucatán, he was and is still revered.

The dinner was lovely and the people were charming, though our conversational Spanish is still lacking. We were surprised at the lack of resources these people have at their disposal - they need more books! Promises were made to stay in contact (and I will certainly follow through), and the owner is very excited to be planning a library in his beautiful hotel, dedicated to Sylvanus G. Morley. I think this is a wonderful idea and want to support him in any way I can.

I think we all need to be in contact. Please email me if you can share any info with us.

Jimjomac 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Jimjomac- thanks for you kind enquiry, and the information re your experiences makes for very interesting reading. Unfortunately I've not had much time today to do anything other than read it- I'll reply in some more detail when I get a chance, probably in a couple of days. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. This article on Morley is very good. I have written biographical pieces on Morley before, and so I do know couple things about him! I live in Santa Fe, and know the woman who is the heir to the Morley Estate here. She's not related, but still has some Morley material. About the question of other children, apart from his daughter. There have been lots of rumors that he fathered at least one child with a native Yucatec Maya woman. These would have been staff at the Hacienda Chichen, and after 1940, the Hacienda Chenku, in Merida. On one of my research trips to Yucatan I hope to poke around and ask some questions. Let me know if anyone finds the grand daughters.

Also, I am trying to learn what Masonic lodge initiated Morley. It does not seem to be Montezuma #1, here in Santa Fe. I am guessing that he may have been initiated back east, maybe in Cambridge, when he was a student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvillela (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, aquarius- have no doubt you'll do a fine job, and there'll be no need for chastisement! Cheers,--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines

hey thanks for your help! I know you're busy ...

We made FA — but I'm expecting it to go through FAR after a brief respite. That may be good.. maybe more copyediting might help.. but..anyhow.. thanks again! :-) Ling.Nut 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut- great to hear, and deservedly so. There were a couple of minor clarifications I had intended to get around to asking, when I do I'll drop them on the article's talk pg now that the FAC is closed. And I'd be happy to help out in case of any future FAR, just ping me here if one eventuates. Once again, congrats to you and Maowang & any others- a great achievement! Hope the study's going fine - I suppose with this out of the way for now you can relax a little more! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice

When should I use WP:PT over {{deletedpage}} and protection, as you just did to Young NOLA? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. AFAIK either method is OK, although I guess that WP:PT has the advantage that it makes cleaning up after the article recreation firestorm abates easier, and it's easier to release the protection en masse when the coast is clear. Otherwise, there'd be later manual one-by-one work involved to release the protection, say if for eg the article could at some point validly exist (just not with the content that caused it to be deleted). It's also attractive because the deleted article still shows up as a redlink in the deletion log and on other lists, so it's easier to check that the article has not been recreated. If {{deletedpage}} is used, the article link is blue and you need to go in and check whether it was recreated, or another admin's protected it.

I would suppose that if for some reason you suspect that the article is at risk of continual recreation —eg a hate or attack topic— then you might use {deletedpage} as a more permanent enforcer. There are probably other instances where that would be preferable, can't point to any offhand at the moment.

In that particular case, it was just that I had gone to add it to WP:PT at about the same time as you SALTed it via {deletedpage}; once added to WP:PT a little "delete me" alert pops up if the article has been recreated, which I noticed then went back to re-delete it. I typically would not go about replacing {deletedpage} SALTs with listings on WP:PT just for the sake of it. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all makes sense. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No probs.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Apocalypto origins

The current page for the film "Apocalypto" contains a range of items that are inventions. There is already one infringement lawsuit pending and both the Writers Guild and the LA Times are currently looking into the matter. Could you please tell me what kind of substantiation would be necessary to satisfy an amended Wiki citation? Truth is a solid defense against libel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjboffoli (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007.

Cjboffoli, part of the problem here is that (counter-intuitively, perhaps) wikipedia does not or should not deal in absolute truths, per se, but like any encyclopaedia is concerned with statements verifiably attributable to independent third-party "notable" sources. I would strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with the key policies in place here, particularly Biographies of Living Persons, Verifiability, Reliable Sources, what wikipedia is Not and Neutral Point of View, if you haven't done so already.

We also need to be particularly careful in an open-source enterprise like this one about presenting material that could be defamatory - it doesn't matter how certain you or I may personally be of the "facts", unless there are specific, independent and verifiable citations and references supplied there is no way that allegations like that are going to fly here. It's probably best to continue and centralise the discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Apocalypto, I invite to to explain your reasoning and supply your backup sources there.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese aborigines

hey – if you're online, Taiwanese aborigines is on the main page.... Ling.Nut 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut, looks like I'll just be catching the tail-end of its appearance. Will watch for any untoward changes in case you are now offline.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now. Hope you got to see its moment of glory :-P Ling.Nut 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, witnessed last 5 mins of its reign. Looks like it survived the celebrity exposure reasonably intact- even if only a small %age of visitors had their curiosity piqued and knowledge broadened, it would have been well worth the long haul it took you, Maowang and others to get it there! Congrats, again. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I read it! It was good. OlYeller 05:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad renaming

I've just been on my regular clean-up of the Australian companies categories, and i've noticed on 31 May that you flipped some categories over as the result of a CFD discussion. Great you did it, but you put in the incorrect cat name which was non-existant. I've fixed it all up, but it might be an idea to check your AWB work beforehand next time :(. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the catch.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

huracan

thanks for the word construction in Talk:huracan. OlYeller 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Still need to incorporate into the actual article itself, one of these days....--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Chichen Itza page link ...

Hello, CJLL Wright,

You deleted the link to my Web site, www.americanegypt.com. As the page links to other content of mine (although I did not put the links up), what gives? Is there some protocol I failed to follow. Did you click on the link and look at the site?

Cheers,

-- EJA

Hi EJA. On closer inspection it seems I was too hasty, there's more useful info there than was first apparent to me; my bad. I've now restored the link. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

CJLL Wright. Just a heads up that I took out the editorial adjective "some" from your description of my Web site. As the site currently is almost exclusively about Chichen, with an extensive section on each of the monuments, not to mention a blog that goes back to September of last year, the word "some" would lead one to think there was only a little information, when it contains much more information than any of the other links listed above, with the possible exception of the excellent Mesoweb site. Cheers. EJA, aka User:coyoteman31

np, that's fine.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Olmec hieroglyphs

The external links to Winter's texts are now in Epi-Olmec as u says. His opinions may be not soundable but the texts and images help someone to know more about the scripts. Thx.Gaia2767spm 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Winters' interpretations are more likely to mislead than assist anyone's understanding of the scripts- IMO, at least. The 'African-origins' speculations of Winters et al. are in any case covered in Olmec alternative origin speculations, which I think is the most appropriate place for their mention.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page would be a better place for this "alternative theory" site.Gaia2767spm 12:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up

What I bone headed thing for me to have done! Regarding the category deletion nomination for Mormon Mythology and Mythological languages, initially I just felt that the categories were misapplied, but then realized it was actually an entire category that was designed to be POV. I went back and repopulated the category so that other editors could see the thought process of the creator. Thanks again for your note. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider- no problem, can quite understand that it became apparent to you after the fact the entire cat was suitable for deletion nomination. Thanks for taking the trouble to go back and restore those entries.

While I too think it's reasonable (based on the creator's associated comments) to question the POV-intention behind creating those cats, I don't agree that using the term mythology necessarily implies a POV that the cat's contents are false and fictitious, for reasons I've explained further at the CfD discussion. However, looking around there don't seem to be all that many articles which could be placed in the nominated cat —under the term's NPOV usage, which is established by similar cats—, and given there's already a broader cat to cover those that could be, it's by no means a necessary categorisation. Hope you will understand that my lukewarm countering to the deletion proposal is not in any way an endorsement of tagging LDS articles with 'negative' categories- it's just that in the wider scheme of things I recognise a valid and neutral usage of the term mythology, even if the category's creator may not have intended it to be so. Cheers, (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you and I have the same understanding of the term mythology; however, usage on Wikipedia is what guides my position. In truth, all religion is rightly put under the category mythology, but that is not how the term is used for other Christian churches on Wikipedia. I can support the cause, but if it is to be enforced then we should start with the largest Christian churches and after succeeding move to the smallest. In this situation, it is obvious that the editor is attempting to implement his POV. Thanks again. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Amphitere

Hi. You seemed to have tried to sort out the amphitere and jaculus articles previously, so I wondered if you might come and give an opinion on their current state. I cleaned up amphitere, but it seems jaculus was renamed to Amphiptère (which is odd, as the discussion looks like a merge wasn't agree on) and expanded with more fictional info. I left a comment on the talk page there about the issues. Polenth 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Polenth. I agree that the move of jaculus to Amphiptère was odd, and I've now moved it back- while there appears to be some conflating of these two in a number of sources, more rigorous ones seem to make it clear these two are distinct. Also reapplied the redirects for all the alternative spellings to point to the more appropriate targets, and began a disambig from the genus of rodent also called jaculus. There's a bit more to do, but I see you've made a good start in clearing out the dragonology inspired 'fiction-as-fact' stuff. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi, CJLL. I tried out some footnotes on the El Castillo page. Could I impose upon you to see if I did them right? Thanks! CoyoteMan31 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi CoyoteMan- no problem, you did good. Also commented there on the couple of other valid points you raised. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

3ware 9500s

Hi, this page was deleted - why? I understand that it was proposed to be deleted, but *why*?

The page itself contained a wealth of USEFUL information concerning this particular RAID card, yet because it was a little untidy - it was simply deleted? No chance for a tidy-up? What's going on with the encyclopaedia anyone can edit?

So long as Wikipedia admins decide to just delete what they don't find useful themselves, or maybe don't understand the value of, then Wikipedia will slowly slip from the face of the earth.

Very disappointed, very disappointed indeed.

87.194.16.76 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

Hi Tom. The page was deleted (by me) per our deletion policies, in particular via the WP:PROD process which allows for articles to be deleted if after being tagged for proposed deletion they remain uncontested after five days have elapsed. After reviewing the article I concurred with the deletion nominator that the article as it stood was suitable for deletion under a number of established criteria. Among these is our No Original Research policy, since the article consisted in the main of 1st-person descriptions of benchmarking tests, review comments etc undertaken by the article's writer. This is not how wikipedia encyclopaedia articles should be constructed (ie based on personal experience & interpretation rather than verifiable and citeable third-party sources). While wikipedia is supposed to be the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit", it is not the "encyclopaedia where anyone can write whatever they want to, whether it's encyclopaedic or not".

In this case, the content was also far removed from the purpose of wikipedia's entries- pls see in particular What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a repository of product reviews, test results, or a substitute for a personal webspace and discussion forum. As the article was largely composed of sentences like "The Battery Backup Unit, (BBU), is a bit difficult to get on. I had to actually remove the metal clip on the side that you screw down to get it on. Then I read the manual and discovered my extreme approach is exactly the right way to do it." and "I wrote this wiki because the performance of the card was far far below what I expected...", coupled with invitations such as "Please contribute your results to this wiki page so that others can gain from your experiences." Hopefully you can see that material such as that, even if useful in some way, is not within wikipedia's scope and is really better suited to some other tech review forum or webspace. If there is to be an article on that particular RAID card, it needs to be a factual description based on external published 3rd-party reliable/notable sources, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE (as well as meeting other criteria, so I'm not saying whether or not an article on this particular product will be deemed eligible for inclusion here). Hope this explains, regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your comments, and I realise why the article wasn't quite appropriate - but the fact remains that no chance was given for the article to be re-written or re-structured.

Once more, if it's ever re-created - surely it will be deleted too?

Is there any archive available from which the information can be retrieved? Even if it is not to be assimilated into wiki-form, I'd very much like to have the reference material for my own future use. I'm sure the original author(s) wouldn't mind their hard-work being put to use, or mirrored elsewhere on the web, given that the appropriate credit is given..

87.194.16.76 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Tom

If you want to look at it, I've copied the deleted text to a temporary space here. Otherwise, you could try to contact the original creator User:Daveseobmcom, although he seems to have not taken kindly to being (reasonably) informed his contributions do not fit in with wikipedia's stated purposes, and is likely no longer around.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mayan Long Count

My mind is boggled, you claim to remove the link I posted because the paged linked to also has a link to a timewave calculator and this bothers you and you consider it misleading - yet you leave a link to John Major Jenkins "end date" which does not exist as well as the link to diagnosis2012 both of which are sites designed to sell books proclaiming 2012 is the end of the world. I am not arguing with your reasoning in removing the link I posted rather I am claiming that you are not being consistent in your judgement here. My position is that at least half of the people who visit the mayan calendar page are looking for information relating to the supposed end date which is a fabrication yet you are not allowing links which attempt to show that this end date is false.

I would like to see such a calculator available on the page, if I copied the javascript used for the calculator and put it on a page unrelated to the timewave stuff would that be acceptable to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aronprice (talk • contribs) 1 August 2007.

Well, at least two others beside myself have not been able to see the value of having that link to your website. Given that your only activity around here so far has been to add links to your website, it's valid to question whether your actions are intended to benefit that external website, instead of wikipedia. The Long Count calendar article already makes the point that it doesn't "end" per se but can be extended in either direction, and I don't see that your calendar converter says this any better.

Re the couple of others you mention, the JMJ link is not a calendar converter but rather his well-known (but not accepted) interpretation of 'galactic centre alignment', which for the moment anyways is better off as a link than being covered in any detail in the text. JMJ incidentally does not maintain it's the end of the world, or even the end of the calendar. The diagnosis2012 page is a collection of many of the dozens & dozens of calendar converters, which actually can be input beyond 2012 although they mostly don't display the higher-order coefficients themselves. I sort of agree that these are borderline relevant as well, and I'm not particularly attached to having them as ext links either.

BTW, the way in which your calendar converter represents dates BCE is erroneous, or at least misleadingly labelled. Although you label it as the 'Gregorian calendar', you are actually using astronomical year numbering to represent the years (ie, you include a 'year zero', which the Gregorian calendar does not have). Thus, the start-date of the b'ak'tun cycle 13(0).0.0.0.0. 8 Kumk'u 4 Ajaw should correspond with 11 August 3114 BCE in the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar by the GMT correlation; but your converter displays −3113 instead (ie, astronomical not Gregorian year number). I realise yours is not alone in this respect, a lot of the others which like yours appear to be based on the Fourmilab one do this.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the best way to present new material for the page itself, not just external links. I have been researching different perspectives on this from the anthropology/archaeology world as well as the new age speculation and would like to share a summary of what I've found (details on third party studies). Would this best be done by just adding material that fits with wikipedia policy and then seeing how other editors react or should I run it by someone first? I've been hesitant to make such contributions based on the reactions I've gotten from folks here, but from what you are saying that would actually be more welcome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.153.119 (talk • contribs) 2 August 2007.

As long as you try to make sure that your contributions are sourced and represent the scholarly consensus in a balanced way, describing the anthropological/archaeological consensus as such and the New Age speculations as such, your contributios are more than welcome. However you must be aware that other editors can change, challenge and edit whatever you choose to add - which is why it is a good idea to provide a sound basis for the inclusion of your material by referring to well established and credible sources.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus, as long as it's cited, presented for what it is, and otherwise in tune with WP:FRINGE and other related guidelines, then no objection to inclusion or mention of more speculative interpretations on the calendar— providing it's notable enough and is not disproportionate to the more standard desc. I tend to think that it might be better in the long run to have a separate article to deal with alternative Maya calendar / 2012 speculations, rather than take up too much space on the Maya calendar article itself. Unfortunately, there is probably a sufficient number of these popular speculations in play to warrant attention in its own right. Open to suggestions as to what the title of that alternative article should be.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Xelha

• My understanding was that Xelha was created as a national park, but that the concession is privately run, much like the concessions at the Grand Canyon and Yosemite. Do you have information about Xelha that contradicts this? --Bejnar 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you consider these two sentences superfluous? --Bejnar 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most of the extant ruins are located on the inland side of the highway, although one island in the lagoon of the water park has remnants of a building. One temple, ten feet from the highway, contains a painted wall mural of the god Tlaloc."

Hi Bejnar. If it were a National Park, I would expect it to have been gazetted as such, but I can't find any mention of it at the CONANP site[1], or see its decree as one of the areas naturales protegidas listed at CONANP's Sistema de Informacion Geografica [2]]. Mexican govt websites are usually pretty comprehensive, so its apparent omission indicates to me that it is not a NP, or at least is not one now.

As for that sentence, I was planning to redescribe the site's layout, so it's not that I have a problem with the sentence, per se. Although, I think it most unlikely that the mural is a depiction of Tlaloc, who is a central Mexican not Maya deity- the sentence probably is intended to mean Chaak, but I was going to wait until I'd found a specific description in one of the archaeological papers before restoring/updating. Regards, (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD

Hello, I saw that you were closing, and wanted to ensure that you would be aware that the CfD is getting compromised by extensive posting to various forums, all but two by one user, and some of them far less appropriate than others ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). Aside from the violations of AGF and CIV in the posts there and on the CfD, the same user has solicited votes from users on one side of this and the previous discussion ([13] [14] [15] [16]) in direct contradiction to the guideline on canvassing. I hope that this notification is in order, as I'm extremely unsure as to how to proceed from here. Tewfik^Talk 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I will bear the situation in mind, should I end up reviewing those particular ones you are concerned with for closure. At the moment, I have no opinion either way, not having looked into the background as yet.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article with no references

Good morning. A few months back I had an article deleted for lack of references, and I just ran across a similar article which also has no references, and should be deleted according to WP:CSD A7 (also WP:CORP and WP:WEB).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuqa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 18:54, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Marquinho. It seems that another admin has concurred that the Xuqa article meets CSD criteria, and it has been deleted now in any case. I imagine that you've alerted me since I had a while ago now speedy deleted the Yuniti article you'd created, on similar grounds. Now that it's recreated, someone else has nominated that for deletion consideration. It will need to undergo the usual review, let's leave it up to that process to determine the outcome. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

would you please take a look...

Hi CJLL! Would you please take a look at this edit and let me know if it's OK? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gidday Ling.Nut! I'd say one of your best edits to date, even drawn from some pretty stiff competition.... I was gonna slap an {{original research}} tag on it, but couldn't work out the markup, and I s'pose unlike wikipedia these unis actually encourage it ;-) Congratulations, assuredly well-deserved. I'll keep an eye out for the inevitable forthcoming contribs from User:Dr. Ling.Nut, a suspected sockpuppet of the mysterious editor who's always on a break but whose contribs continue to mount nonetheless...spooky! All the best, and cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the mysterious editor who's always on a break but whose contribs continue to mount nonetheless"

---

Glad to be back . . .

CJLL:

Thanks for your welcome back note. Although I'm pretty busy with a number of other matters, there certainly is something satisfying about making a solid addition to a Wikipedia article, (as well as cleaning up existing sentence structure, etc.) so it looks like I'll be around for some time.  : ) Madman 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

excellent Madman, I see that you are already up to your usual standard of well-researched additions, your new Classic Veracruz culture being a case in point! Top stuff!--cjllw ʘ TALK 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CJLL!! I am glad you were keeping watch during my absence and thankful for your cheerleading (cf. your enthusiatic response to the new editor below). Stepping away for a while refreshes my perspective, and honestly I was newly amazed at the quality of some of the Mesoamerican articles. They do not speak down to our readers, but on the other hand they are not filled with techno-speak or obtuse writing. And they are almost always laced with great photos of important structures and artifacts. Lead on, MacDuff! Madman 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Huei tlamahuiçoltica

(in response to my posting at Cleduc's usertalk pg here)

Thanks for the heads up, that is illuminating. I'm starting to get it, but the guy's writing is so bizarre that I have the hardest time just parsing the phrases. I'm going to keep it up, though I usually get tired of repeating V-NOR-NPOV fifty times to the same person (especially when they behave so poorly) and on a subject that I find tedious at best. I'll probably put out an RFC in a few days. Cheers, Cleduc 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Cleduc 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We can only try, but there's only so much latitude that can be given to assume AGF on User:Luisosio's behalf. We've probably gone as far as we need to, and well and truly established that his book and expertise cannot be relied upon. As and when I find the time I'll continue on with pruning out the clearly OR and unsubstantiated passages and dubious refs, but like you it's not an area that deeply interests me. I think your subsequent contribs have been well done. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Classic Maya collapse article

Dear CJLL Wright:

Hello, my name is Galaxy413, real name John, and I have been working diligently to improve the Classic Maya Collapse article. This has been an intellectual interest of mine ever since visiting Tikal in 1974, and I have books, articles, substantial information, and research already in hand (and in my brain). How do I join the working group you referred to? And how would we remove the box at the start of the Classic Maya Collapse article which states, now incorrectly, that no citations or references have been given? Obviously, I am new to Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

Galaxy413 aka John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy413 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(for continuity, reproducing here my response added to your talkpage) Hi there John/Galaxy413. I see that you've worked out how to remove the "needs references" box in that article. I have added the code to the article which makes the inline cites display. There are only a couple of other minor formatting touches and the like, which I am sure you will soon pick up on as readily as you have the other principles of editing here.

That is an excellent job you have done with that article, most impressive! You are most welcome here at WikiProject Mesoamerica- pls look around at the project's pages (not all of which are up to date, alas) for some idea of the scope and types of things we look to do. There's no real formal enrolment in the project, but you can add your name and some info to the project participants' page so others can see who's around and working on the same sorts of articles. At any one time there's usually about half-a-dozen, give or take, folks regularly contributing to Mesoamerican topical articles, depending on external commitments and whatnot. Feel free to ask any of us questions, advice, or add your commentary or suggestions to ways we can improve things here. Your contribs at the Classic Maya collapse article are just the kind of thing one might hope for - many thanks!

I'd be happy to give you a couple of pointers, shortcuts and tips on editing and processes around here. Am just at the end of my day here so won't be adding anything right now, but over the next little while. In the meantime, if any other specific questions occur to you pls do drop me a note on my usertalk page. (By the way, not to worry about messages like that above from SineBot (an automated script that detects whether or not someone used the 'sign' function), just an automated reminder. If you want to vary your signature automatically, you can set it up on your preferences page. There's an instruction somewhere, I'll see if I can track it down. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Spinnaker Sound deletion

Hello, In starting (my first) submission to Wikipaedia, I was perplexed at your decision to so immediately delete it. My first contact with this fine resource was in researching another sound studio in my Metropolitan area. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warehouse_Studio)

I had only gotten through a couple of "non-selling" and very factual statments about the location and function of Spinnaker and found it gone, while the aforementioned studio goes so far as to list their equipment etc, in hopes of raising their profile... and business..

While both studios are heritage buildings (I hadn't gotten to that part yet) I was dismayed by the immediate censoring/deletion of my ( I thought) strictly factual account of an interesting building and enterprise that exists in my small town.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to set me straight... then perhaps I can write my first article and have it be read, edited and hopefully appreciated much like my neighbour's worthy enterprise up the road.

Thank you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricehoneywell (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rice, apologies your comment here caught me at the end of my day here, hence the slight delay in response.

I deleted that article as it had been tagged by someone else as likely satisfying the criteria for speedy deletion. Although Wikipedia has an extremely broad range of entries, not every entity or topic warrants inclusion here. There are Notability guidelines that an article or topic generally needs to satisfy else risk being deleted. When I reviewed the article I determined that there was nothing compelling to demonstrate a claim to notability, nor did a (non-comprehensive) search turn up any indications.

However, I have decided to temporarily restore the article, to give an opportunity for you to expand upon how it may meet the notability threshholds. Possibly, there are some 3rd-party sources or further information that could be provided that would change the present perception. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at these guidelines on notability inclusion for companies. Note that, "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it."

You might also like to consider 'What Wikipedia is Not', as a further guide to how articles should be structured and what they should contain. Wikipedia is not a business-directory substitute or intended as a means to alert and direct readers towards products and services. Only those products and services that can show a significant notability and appearance in reliable, non-promotional third-party sources are candidates for inclusion.

This restoration does not mean that someone else won't come by later and consider the article for deletion. As it stands now I still think the article would fairly meet the criteria to be deleted. You'd be welcome to argue the point if it came to that, but in the end whether it stays or goes will depend on any overall consensus established (say, if someone were to nominate it for the formal deletion process.

I can make no guarantee that the article will not in the end be deleted, either by me upon reconsideration or someone else. It will depend on the content and demonstration that it meets various criteria for inclusion here. These criteria are not always clear-cut, and in general it is up to the contributors to make sure that the article's content and subject matter fall within our policies and guidelines. Hope this helps. Regards (also posted at your talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: High Mowing Organic Seeds deletion

Hello, You deleted this article only about ten minutes after I created it. I see from this page that you regularly delete articles that don't meet your perhaps narrow interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. I have been slowly adding a few things to wikipedia, and I was actually planning to make a financial donation to the project. But I have lost my good feelings about this site. Please recreate the original page you deleted, and apologize. If you want to mark it for speedy deletion & send me an email, go ahead. I'll defend my page. It's no advertisement, you brown-nose "administrator". You want some sources, I'll come up with some sources. But there is a process, and as far as I can see, you've not followed it properly. If you don't put the page back up, I hope you die.

ps How about you go delete the other content I've made on wikipedia also, you fucking nazi. Think I give a shit about having knowledge available? I used to, but not any more. Fuck you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchristopher (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided my reasons in the edit summary, which you've obviously read. You might also like to read WP:NOT, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL.

If you think the article should be recreated, then take it up at Deletion Review.

If you want to complain about my actions as an admin, take it to WP:ANI.

Childish invective is unlikely to help your cause.

Your demand for apology is, under the circumstances, a little rich.

This response also posted at your talkpage.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the links. I may take it up at deletion review. I am in the mean time trying to first get DrKiernan to undelete the talk page for Tom Stearns, which was deleted along with the Tom Stearns page. How about you people do a web search for "Tom Stearns organic" or "Tom Stearns seeds" - this field isn't as full of computer-geeks as the field of another person who has a legitimate wikipedia page, Seth Schoen. Both are young graduates of NMH; both are experts in their field and have made significant contributions and have widespread name recognition and some independent biography. I look up to both of them, and I think that according to the criteria I read that they are both notable & that their notability is within the guidelines to warrant a wikipedia page. However, in addition, Mr. Stearns has succeeded as a businessman in a field much more known for being a field for losing one's fortune rather than gaining one (agriculture). Mr Schoen works for a 501c3 that is funded by someone independently wealthy; that makes Tom Stearns *more* notable in my opinion. I did read up on your page suggestions. Maybe you should also add something to the civility page about not deleting pages so quickly, especially involving newbies (see the page on not biting newbies), and this goes triple for the talk pages. Frankly, I think that your error is just as much a civility problem as mine. You may have more knowledge of the wikipedia definition of civility, but that does not make you any more an authority on civility itself. Peterchristopher 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tom Stearns (talk). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Peterchristopher 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Chalcatzingo

In attempting to clarify a citation, I managed to butcher the Chalcatzingo page. Footnote 10 should cite Chapter 14 of the 1987 Chalcatzingo report edited by Dave Grove. The title of the chapter is "Chalcatzingo's Formative Period Figurines" it is authored by me (Mark E. Harlan) and is on pages 252-263. I will attempt to learn more about editing content before I attempt any further edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MEHarlan (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gidday Mark. I had a go at tweaking the inline citation and biblio reference for your chapter in the article, pls take a look and see if that was what you intended.

Don't worry too much about not getting the formatting and style conventions right the first time around. It's no problem, comparatively few wikipedia articles are 100% compliant to our internal style guides (and there are several approaches to choose from as far as referencing and citation presentations are concerned). We can always fix it up later, getting the content improved and some references provided, however formatted, is more relevant. As you go along I'm sure you'll pick up on the (sometimes arcane) methods and conventions of editing. Pls feel free to ask about any aspect that may be puzzling and we'd be happy to help, as there are a few 'tricks of the trade' which are not necessarily self-evident in the way that they work.

Many thanks, BTW, for your helpful additions and expansions to that article. It is always a pleasure to see qualified folks such as yourself contributing here. If (as I hope) you'll be able to continue on editing here at wikipedia, then you might be interested to help out at WikiProject Mesoamerica, a collaboration of like-minded editors who have an expertise and/or general interest in Mesoamerican topics. As you may see from our project pages here, we look to improve the content, coverage and organisation of Mesoamerica-related articles, raise and discuss related issues and news, and generally try to help one another (and the wider editing community) out. At any one time there's generally around half-a-dozen or so folks regularly updating Mesoamerican topics, it tends to come and go as people move between topical interests and dependent on Real Life commitments. Participation is informal and there's no minimum quota or regularity of contributions. So if you're perchance interested then pls take a look around the project's pages (not all up to date, alas), ask a question or offer any comments/suggestions at the project's message board or to one of us directly; and if you wish to, add your name to the participant list.

You might also like to take a look at the listing of Mesoamerican citations and references which we are expanding. This contains a selection of pre-filled citation templates for a few references that might be useful in Mesoamerica-related articles, which can simply be copied and pasted into the 'References' section of the appropriate article (some minor modifications may be needed). These templates format the biblio references consistently, and so makes it easier than coding the formatting "by hand", as it were. For a full range of the generic citation/reference templates available, go to WP:CITET and you can also see how they work.

Anyways, thanks again for your contributions here, and happy editing - cheers! (also posted at your talkpage). --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing issues

(re imgs on Commons in the Ehécatl (airplane) article) Hey Wright, how's it going. I've sended an e-mail to permissions-commonsATwikimedia.org, with the forwarded mail that the contect at Hydra Technologies send me with the permission form. But still, no response from anyone, and the images aren't cleared yet, so I'm afraid that they will remove them tomorrow. What should I do? Cheers from Mexico...

Eldalieva 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

(also posted at your talkpage) Hi Eldalieva. If I'm reading you correctly, you have sent on the email permissions from Hydra Technologies to the Commons OTRS folks, but as yet have not received a reply or confirmation. Not to worry, the OTRS desk may take a few more days to deal with it, as they are typically working their way through a queue of similar requests.

I have added the template {{Otrs pending}} to the image pages at Commons, which should alert any Commons administrator coming by that the formal permissions process is in progress, so hopefully they'll hold of deleting for a while yet.

If you want to follow up with someone who has OTRS access to enquire about the status of the permissions processing, you could try to contact one of the folks listed here.

If for some reason the imgs do get deleted, despite the 'in progress' notification now on the img pages, they can be restored by a Commons administrator upon receipt of the permissions OK from the OTRS desk. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)