User talk:CJLL Wright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leoboudv (talk | contribs) at 05:51, 11 October 2008 (minor addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

₪₪₪ cjllw e n . W i k i   U s e r P a g e  ₪₪₪

( • Main • Talk • Contribs • Worklist • Creations • Projects • Boxes • Toolbar • Sandbox • Gallery • )

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
2009 2010–11 2012
D I S C U S S I O N

Kan Maax

Kan Maax is another Egyptos stub with some copyvio from at least [1] -- redirect to Cancuen where you've been editing and put something in there about him, or? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rewrite it, tomorrow hopefully. I accumulated some sources on Cancuen earlier, the status of Kan Maax is unclear but the find of a mass burial is genuine enough. There's a bunch of newspaper stories mentioning 'Kan Maax' is the name associated with one of the interrments, supposedly read from an amulet glyph. I'd like to find an original arch. report that confirms this, and understand what's the evidence that shows he's the son of the predecessor. At any rate it can be tidied up with the more reliable of those news reports that directly quote Demarest & others from the Vanderbilt project. Meanwhile, I've redirected Battle of Tikal per my comments on its talk page and rewritten and renamed Ruler X (Rio Azul). I think there's one or two more Maya personage articles to go thru, like Fish Face (king). --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tikal and Fire is Born

From Friedel's review of the latest edition of Coe: Updating a perennial debate over the relationship between the great Classic period highland Mexican city of Teotihuacan and the Maya, Coe describes how David Stuart recently showed that the warlord Siyaj K'ahk' ('Fire is Born') likely travelled from the west to conquer the major Maya city of Tikal in January of AD 378. Stuart identified a monument inscription on Stela 15 at the site of El Peru, ancient Waka', some 75 km due west of Tikal, that placed Siyaj K'ahk' there eight days before he arrived at Tikal. My current archaeological research project at El Peru-Waka', co-directed with Hector Escobedo, is confirming the significance of Siyaj K'ahk's arrival there in early January AD 378. Project epigrapher Stanley Guenter's reading of Stela 15 links the arrival of the warlord with the accession of the local king as a vassal. He and I also identified a second Waka' stela that not only discusses Siyaj K'ahk' but also portrays him posthumously as a Teotihuacano warrior some seventy years after the celebrated arrival. Clearly the kings of El Peru-Waka' regarded their vassal status to Siyaj K'ahk' with great pride and as pivotal to their history. We continue to explore for further archaeological evidence relevant to this episode.Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug, v useful. Will come in handy when I get to work on the Teo influences article, and maybe can in the meantime work it into the Tikal & Teo articles as well. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at New Thought?

CJLL, as an admin could you give us your thoughts on the New Thought article?? Thanks, Madman (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madman. Yes, frustrating, I know. Article itself looks in need of an overhaul. It looks like thrashing out the disputed section(s) and identifying the corroborating cites on the talk page first is going to be the way to go. Dunno much about the topic, but shouldn't be that hard to track down some sources- there are prob a few in the public domain. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locations for Maya sites

I added coor coordinate settings for a number of the Maya sites. I tried to be as precise as I could, but in some cases, they are just in the general ballpark. In general all of the satellite photos suck for the Maya region (couldn't one of them get a better resolution for Tikal?). In some cases, the resolution goes down just outside the Maya site in question to give just a gray blur where the site is (e.g. Palenque).

I adjusted a few of the coordinates that were already present in sites that do have good satellite photos to center on the largest pyramid at the site, which is what I'd want to see if I was looking at the site. E.g. Chichen Itza, Teotihuacan, Dzibilchaltun. I also adjusted the zoom level of a couple of them.

If anyone has more precise coordinates, they should refine them. Would it be considered original research if I took a GPS to Palenque, Yaxchilan, and Piedras Negras in July and got accurate locations for them, including altitude? grr (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the good work, grr. Tried out a couple, they are looking good, and agree that centering on the conspicuous structures is a good idea. I suppose that for the purpose of refining the map targets, if you were able to get your own data on a visit there, that cld help.
I believe that Walter Witschey and Clifford Brown have some downloadable .kmz files for quite a few Maya sites at their Electronic Atlas of Ancient Maya sites, here. I think those are pretty accurate and cld be used as a source to obtain coords. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the kmz file for the major sites in their work. Most of them are pretty good, especially when the satellite photos are good. Some of them, though, are not exactly right. Aguateca is off by a bit. I've been there twice, so I know it's at the south end of lake Petexbatun, and on the hill just west of there. They've got it to the southwest by a bit. Caracol is off by a bit, too. I haven't been there--the roads were too muddy the one time we tried, but it should be at the end of the road. El Mirador, I think is a little to the NE of where they sited it. I centered the coordinates on what I'm pretty sure is La Danta from a number of landmarks I found from when I was there. I'm not sure how accurate Dos Pilas is. The roads (if you can call them that; I'd probably use the term mud strips) getting there are hard to find on the photos and the resolution sucks. The resolution sucks for Tikal, Palenque, and Copan, too, but they are close. (The resolution is good on the museum at Copan, but not the site.) Not sure if they got Nakbe right--it may be to the west of where they sited it--I think I may have found it in the photos. But Becan, Comalcalco, Izamal, and Kaminaljuyu are spot on, as you can tell from the photos. I'll update the coordinates in the articles for places that I can identify. Thanks for the link, btw, it will help with something I'm working on now. grr (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Thanks for the work on this, grr. I don't suppose that Witschey & Brown got all their data themselves, they probably had to rely to some extent on site reports and the like some of which may have been compiled pre-GPS. Their methodology may be in one of their online docs, wld hv to look it up. In any case, as long as the coords resolve to an appropriately-scaled map or satellite img near enough to the target, it's a useful effort. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvanus Morley

Hi, I am mywood from zh wiki and have a question of article Sylvanus Morley. I find that chapter "Carnegie Institution and Chichen Itza proposa" changed a lot in last november, see [2], and in the beginning of next chapter, "Morley was to devote the next 18 years working in the Maya region", I get a little bit confused about the next 18 years. Is it from old version 1918 or from new version 1913? Could you please help me to check with it? Thanks a lot.--Mywood2004 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mywood. The original version had Morley becoming an associate at Carnegie in 1918 after the war, and then working on the details for funding for his Chichen Itza proposal, which would take another 3-4 years to organise and put a team in the field (tho' this delay wasn't spelled out in the article). The newer version clarified (from another source) that Morley had orginally submitted a Chichen Itza proposal pre-war in 1913, which was given the green light by Carnegie but the war (and then funding and also local political instability) intervened, and the Chichen digs were not actually started until around 1922-23.
Since Morley left the region (for the last time) in 1940 when the Carnegie Chichen programme was wound up, the "next 18 years" refers to the 18 or so years before 1940, ie starting around 1922-23 when the first Chichen digs began. It's been a little while since I read the sources, so may have to check up on exactly when the first field work (as opposed to the planning, preparation and financing) actually commenced. Will let you know if it turns out any different. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to some sources, most agree that the physical excavation work at Chichen only commenced in the 1923-24 season, though I think Morley was there a year or two beforehand making preparations. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick response.--Mywood2004 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Mywood - best of luck with the translation into zh.wiki. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for "water under the bridge"

Low Sea has decided to take up the demonising on another forum: see WP:VPP#Question on editorial over-focusing. I will attempt to remain WP:COOL on this, but am find it increasingly difficult to see the benefit in extending the courtesy of suspending imposition of WP:V to editors who offer me only gross discourtesy in return. HrafnTalkStalk 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I did say that I hoped we could all now just get on with things.. it looks like that VPP thread commenced before our more recent understanding at that talk pg, so maybe not all the folks weighing in at VPP are up to speed on the proposal. If you're able to continue to hold onto that thought of suspending imposition for just a wee bit longer, I'll try to chime in at VPP and encourage a 'truce'. Have been on and offline moving about recently, will endeavour to do this when the next time I can get a connection. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but note, Hrafn, that you were the last one to post at WP:VPP#Question on editorial over-focusing as well as at User Talk:Low Sea. Madman (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's an inherent momentum to defensive exchanges that may take a few posts before grinding to a halt. In any case, I've put forward a suggestion at the WP:VPP thread, with a view to settling the matter. Cheers all, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piktuns and beyond

Please review my explanation for why I removed the lines about Thompson's explanation for 1.13.0.x.x.x.x.x as the unexpressed higher order units for the Long Count (links to my post in the discussion section).

I have been trying to track down the reason that Thompson thought 1.13.0 were the higher order units, and I think it is a house of cards, and thus has no place in the article. Just because a noted scholar writes something, doesn't mean that it is right--if so we'd still be quoting Thompson's notion that the Maya only used rebus writing and didn't write about history. Citing Thompson is always so tricky because he can be incontrovertibly right in one paragraph, and completely wrong in the next.

I provided a foundation for why I believe that content is wrong, citing my sources and removed the controversial content from the article. I want to make sure that I'm on solid ground here. Your thoughts? grr (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi grr. Sorry, have run out of time to review it in detail this evening, hope to be able to check it out tomorrow or thereabouts. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrstal Skull

I've managed to get another Admin to semi-protect it (maybe I should have asked you but for some reason I didn't think of you, stupid of me) to stop drive-bys as it is getting a lot of attention and will certainly be getting more. I've had some email from the owner of www.crystalskulls.com who tried to add his site twice. I explained to him in detail Wikipedia policy which he accepts, but interestingly enough is unhappy with www.crystalskulls.us/ saying it is basically a commercial site.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. Semi-protection was a good idea, without it no doubt we'd be bombarded by continual "Kilroy was here" -type witticisms. I'd already pretty much given up on trying to retain the original spelling of 'artefact' used in the article, it seems there's an unending stream of USonians out there in a state of bewilderment and disbelief that there could be millions of english speakers beyond their narrow experience who prefer and are used to spelling words a little differently.
Hey, that's not fair! You Brits read. We Yanks just watch the telly, and write however our spellcheckers tell us to.
(Nice to see s.o. use the term 'Usonian', though!) kwami (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
heh ;-) In my book, whoever it was at Microsoft who decided to embed American english as the default spellcheck dict is Public Enemy #1 of the Queen's Orthography, as she should naturally be organised organized... oh bugger. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for those ext links, as far as I can tell the site by AAA-member Tim McGuinness doesn't sell or promote anything, and is certainly non-commercial in nature. He does have some amazon links to various books on crystal skulls, but none of them are his and there's at least a range of pics and other info presented. By contrast, the other site seems to exist only or primarily to cash in on the recent high-profile of these items due to the film. The (dis)information on this site buys into the woo phenomena in a major way, and the site's visitors are likewise encouraged to buy into it (from site owner) in cash terms; such as this incredible (in the most literal sense of the word) special offer: "You can aquire[sic] a new crystal skull that has already been activated by an old or ancient crystal skull. At CrystalSkulls.com, you have the opportunity to purchase crystal skulls that have been charged by Amar, the Tibetan Crystal Skull, available in sets of 7 crystal skulls or 12 crystal skulls to amplify the power of crystal skulls. As a special limited time offer, you can get a individual Indie Crystal Skull that is also activated by Amar".
I find it hard to tell this silliness apart from a calculated scam, and by just about every policy and precept we have the inclusion of links such as these should be resisted — stoutly. Will keep an eye out for attempts at reinsertion. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps. While on the subject of suitable links/refs for that article, I don't think the Morton & Thomas book is a particularly reliable one, from accounts I've read. Since it's not used as a cite anyway, I reckon it cld be safely removed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvanus Morley

Hi again, I have some small suggestions of this article.

  • From chapter "Early life and first expeditions" to chapter "Project completion and final years" are all talked about the life of Sylvanus Morley, and chapter "Influences on other scholars" appears in between is a little bit strange. From my point of view, it is better to move it after chapter "Theories and retrospective assessment", so the achievement and infuelence are linked together.
  • In the end of chapter "Fieldwork in Mexico and Central America", the date is 1930s. Then in the chapter "Excavations at Chichen Itza", the date move back to 1924, and the next chapter is "Project completion and final years" which is talked about 1940s activities. I know "Excavations at Chichen Itza" is the most important project of Morley. But the jump of time may cause readers a little bit confused or lost. Can this chapter be part of achievement? So the chapters are arranged as life-achievement-infuelence-other which looks more fluent. --Mywood2004 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mywood, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I suppose that the current sequence to some extent reflects the order in which it was researched and written, so there is some scope to consider a reorganisation. My thinking in including the paras on Thompson and Proskouriakoff 'in the middle of' his pure biographical sequence was that these gave some context to his contemporaneous works. However, perhaps this could work equally well if the section were moved to the 'Theories and retrospective assessment' portion. I wil give it some serious thought.
The 'Fieldwork' section really begins in the early 1920s, but quickly steps through the next two decades as a sort of overiew. The Chichen Itza subsections serve as a kind of breakout discussion to hone in with more detail on his most significant fieldwork. I'm less inclined to move the Chichen sections into the 'achievements & assessment' area, as I think the Chichen details are more a descriptive narrative of what he did, rather than a retrospective assessment of what he'd accomplished. However, will consider that point too.
Once again, may thanks for your insightful and helpful review comments. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rongorongo, again

Hi CJ,

Rongorongo is up for FAC again. I'd appreciate your input, if you have the time. The only problem I can think of is copyright issues, since some people take the 2D rule-of-thumb to mean photos of 3D objects (such as a wall!) are automatically copyrightable. But to be safe I've removed the thumbs from the table of texts. kwami (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, kwami. Must say I was suprised when it didn't get up last time around - when I compared it to others which were successful at around the same time, it was hard to see how those passed muster when rongorongo didn't. So ist das Leben eben. Shows how much I can tell. Anyway, will be glad to re-review, and add comment to the FAC discussion, FWIW. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology of Spits

Thanks for tidying up the page (Spit (archaeology)) it looks much better now. The reason I put the acknowledgements is because I did a mash up of several posts on the ausarch discussion group and I wanted to acknowledge the contributors. I am glad you had the time to find the links to other pages. Now I hope somebody finds it useful! --Iain Stuart (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iain, no problems. I at least found it useful, so thanks to you & the others for contributing it. Kind Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandals

I want to thank you for reverting the edits at my User page- [Sincerely, Hellboy2hell (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

No probs. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Turks and Caicos Islander athletes

Category:Turks and Caicos Islander athletes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titles/Accents

OK, thanks for the information. If I come across another needed redirect like Xultún, I'll do it the other way. Saludos, Aille (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist Templates

Hi I was wondering if you might be willing to help me with a problem I'm having. I recently installed the same software that Wikipedia uses (MediaWiki), and I don't understand how to get the common templates like {{reflist}} etc to work. Could you point me in the right direction?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MC. Afraid I've no personal experience myself with MediaWiki installations, so not sure if I can give you any salient pointers. The {{reflist}} template is really just a wrapper for the <references/> tag which I gather instances the cite.php extension. Cite.php is documented here on MediaWiki, so that might contain info that cld help out. Failing that, you could try asking on the developers mailing list, or they probably have a discussion board around somewhere, Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of Long Count page by 76.112.23.57

In this edit [[3]] substantial changes were made to the Long Count page. No discussion. I am tiring of trying to make this page coherent. Sections that I wrote on such things as distance numbers were removed, for no apparent reason. A reference I added was removed. All references to CE were changed to AD. The brackets were removed from all dates. etc. It's not like people are making refinements to this page-instead, almost every time I visit the page, there are wholesale changes, usually for the worse. Since there were intermediate edits, I can't just undo these changes, but that's what I think should happen. I'm just not up on the mechanism for doing reversions. Trying to make this page accurate and meaningful is becoming extremely frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grr (talk • contribs) 09:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grr. I can understand your frustration, and those anon edits did pop out from nowhere without any explanation; would have no problem if they were to be revised, redone or maybe reverted (though I haven't analysed them in detail yet to see if anything new/useful was added thereby. The date system change was unwarranted, will change it back to the original if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Afraid that's one of the pitfalls of the wikipedia editing environment. I think those edits were at least well-intentioned, though the lack of prior discussion can make it harder for those such as yourself who have been contributing there for a while now. Appreciate your ongoing efforts to keep that page useful and on track. I can foresee I'll have less time for wiki editing the next couple of weeks, but if I can get some time to focus on it will try to bring it back to a level footing. I agree with you that it's a key mesoamerican topic that we really should bring up to at least GA quality, before too long. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cahokia

I noticed you removed some comments on the discussion page about "vertical fingers" in context of a speculation of a burial in an ancient indian mound under the context of Biographies of Living Persons. Please explain how you connect this with a biography of a living person in any way? Marburg72 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you are only too well aware, as the author of those comments, the portions I removed had nothing whatsoever to do with "vertical fingers". I removed statements made by you that accused a living (AFAIK) and notable scholar of being racist, and spreading falsehoods. Otherwise, I left your comments and deprecations untouched, insofar as they were general cracks not explicitly directed at some individual or corporate entity. Those two remarks, however, were definitely directed, and uncalled for. --cjllw ʘTALK 04:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with accusing a living scholar of being racist. Your suggestion is purely your creation. As I was stating on the talk page: "The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia." (1999) - which states nothing of Young's speculation that vertical finger bones found in Mound 72 were "buried alive" evidence. As discussed on the Cahokia talk page, Racist attitudes should be considered when discussing human burials and making such claims about them - or referencing the claims as a "reliable fact". Why is this sensationalist suggestion so appealing to you? Nothing I stated was directed or uncalled for. You are completely wrong and out of line!Marburg72 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
No, my interpretation and understanding of the clearly-written WP:BLP policies here is sound. How on earth is the statement you made, "Racist attitudes should not be permitted, even if they are printed by the [author and their publisher]", not an (unfounded) accusation of racism against the author? You may have a cavalier attitude towards defamation, but the rest of us here vastly prefer a more circumspect approach. Indeed, this is required as is clearly spelled out in our policies, not to mention by sheer common sense. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation is completely inappropriate and taken out of context. You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of the discussion and any sheer common sense at all about the claim that is being made.The issue is that there is no evidence for burial alive found in Mound 72- None presented by the author in Fowlers book. Later, Young speculated that the vertical finger bones could beItalic text a suggestion of this claim. It again is an unsupported claim, that has racial implications against Amerindians. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Your tone of battle on this topic and on the walam olum page is unacceptable and unsupported by any facts. Marburg72 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a claim not made in 'Young's book' but in a book co-authored by Young and Fowler (the same Fowler who wrote the earlier book you mention). It isn't Young who I quoted, it is Young & Fowler. And in a context where white Europeans have committed far worst atrocities in the last few years, how can such a comment about something that happened centuries ago be racist? Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added that I have responded to Marburg72's entry on the BLP Noticeboard at [4] - it doesn't appear that Marburg72 has informed you of this. Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the notification Doug, and no it seems Marburg72 somehow overlooked that common courtesy. Frankly, at this stage I would welcome some input on this whole matter from some previously uninvolved parties — I think we've just about exhausted all avenues of direct resolution and this may be the only way forward from here to get some traction on this. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a response about his block -- and also that he is raising some serious allegations on the Monks Mound talk page also, I think this is a misuse of Wikipedia but I may be wrong. This stuff can easily get spread outside Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may have already. So far, we have been lucky that the IHPA archaeologists concerned have not chosen to pursue the defamation angle further, as it seems to me that they would have every right to. I left a comment for M72 at the Cahokia talk pg suggesting that the ethical thing to do would be for him to disavow his allegations of illegal activities, since he should surely have realised from the response to his FOIA request that no legal impropriety took place. We'll see if he does. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zelia Nuttall, Crystal skull and Boban

Thanks for the article edits. I wonder if Eugene Boban is being maligned? He did sell several of the crystal skulls, but he also sold several artifacts to reputable museums, such as Pitt-Rivers. I'm not sure that his sales were intentional frauds on his part, but he may have been defrauded. I'm trying to track down a reference, where he warned others of potential fake artifacts. I saw the Mitchell-Hedges skull at a rock show in Detroit. I'm certain it is a fraud, but it is a magnificent work of lapidary skill. Pustelnik (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pustelnik. You may be right, and Boban was more the dupe than the willing accomplice. I suppose we shall never know for sure. The crystal skulls are not the only fake artefacts he purveyed, according to Pasztory (Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art 2005, pp.215-217) fake vases, ceramics and some 'Xipe Toltec' masks also passed through his collection.
On the other hand, it seems that Boban himself is on record as warning and complaining about the proliferation of fake precolumbian artefacts. You may already have seen, but this 2005 Smithsonian paper by Walsh quotes him (p.4) on the topic. This Walsh paper also BTW gives a little info concerning the Boban-Holmes correspondence, that you had been seeking on the crystal skull talkpg. It seems Boban even identified a few of the fabricators who were then working, and who he knew.
Before looking into this I had no real idea that Boban's collection had been so extensive, and that it is now disbursed so widely. Thanks for creating the article on this fascinating character, there's clearly a bit more that could be written on him and the influences of his colllecting on subsequent precolumbian scholarship and art history. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec etc.

yes I did, followed instructions regarding adding to TOC, could not get a result, intended figuring out at a later stage. How do I get the two items to correlate? Semitransgenic (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, I do not have detailed knowledge of the subject matter but the outstanding issues appear to be: factual accuracy disputed since March 08, title appears to be an editors invention, what looks like use of synthesis to forward a point of view, lack of in-text citations. Is the article, as per existing title, WP:SYN based WP:POV? If so, I have issues with it being a potentially misleading article. At the very least is should be merged with the entheogenic article. If you can do something to improve it's current title, and it's tone, that would be good. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK no worries, I could probably change, merge, move, other, the article myself with a bit of clarification. My understanding of the word entheogen relates to psychoactive substances. The following seems to support this (cited quote from the main entheogen page) In a strict sense, only those vision-producing drugs that can be shown to have figured in shamanic or religious rites would be designated entheogens, but in a looser sense, the term could also be applied to other drugs, both natural and artificial, that induce alterations of consciousness similar to those documented for ritual ingestion of traditional entheogens.But, the title refers to a complex which I presume is a group of buildings associated with ritual and shamanic activity; therefore, we now have entheogenic buildings, and in the first sentence the word is used in referring to animals also (because of the use of toad venom I imagine), is any of this correct? or even acceptable? Semitransgenic (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stupidly I have made a mistake, I thought the article was referring to a building complex, and that the sub-headings were archaeological sites, but they are actually substances. However the title still seems problematic in an encyclopedic context. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, Semitransgenic. It was an ambiguous title, another WP:MESO colleague here has renamed it to something clearer. (also posted at User_talk:Semitransgenic#AfD_tag). Regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Wright,

I am writing a book on classic Maya, with a software. The two types of logogramms you published in the wickimedi can be used under GNU license. However a fellow in Washington DC, Mr. Lloyd Anderson, claims to have the rights. The logogramms are free of charge however each individual, who want to use them, has to order them on his homepage and install them. Finding the glyphs on Lloyd´s Homepage is not very easy. This procedure makes it impossible to write a software and using the logogramms you published. What is the situation.

Thankyou for your answer.

Best regards,


Peter Ruppel

peter<AT>starservice.de +49 89 7004280

Haseneystr. 47 D - 81377 München Germany

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.3.219 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I will look to reply to you via email, though it may take me another day or two to respond. Kind regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, have responded via email.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Grove

Gidday RHaworth. I see you've overhauled the disambiguation setup I had implemented for this one. Afraid I would disagree with that approach, and I'd suggest that out of all the David Groves with any presence in wiki articles, the archaeologist is by a considerable margin the most prominent, and the most likely intended target of any general incoming links or searches. I think it makes eminent sense for his article to occupy the simplest unambiguated form of the name, and for the others to be listed at David Grove (disambiguation).

I could only find two other contenders who had articles. Of these, the illustrator's article is the barest 1-line stublet, and has been like this for over three years. The article is also orphaned with no incoming links, nor any unlinked mentions in other articles that I could see. He seems to be a commercial illustrator, designed some book jackets & things like that, and there's nothing to suggest he's in any way above the crowd of many thousands similarly employed, or that there's going to be any real chance to build up a meaningful biographical article; as it stands the article's reach over a notability threshhold is doubtful.

The other one, the late 'Clean Language' David, seems to have been just one more (self-)promoter of hazy NLP pseudoscience, in a crowded field of 'therapists', 'self-helpers', and 'life coaches'. Sure, there may be a couple websites out there namedropping his particular alternative modality, but he's no Tony Robbins. The only incoming link to his article or mention of him on wiki comes from the Clean Language article, and likewise the only article linking to that is his one. Interestingly, both of these articles seem to have been originally created by a WP:SPA and self-admitted PR flack for him/his org, see here and here. COI at the very least, unsubstantiated, advertorial, misleading and biased hagiography at the worst. It hardly seems possible that any independently verifiable info could be sourced on him or his promotions & theories; out on the internet in a search for +Grove +"clean language", pages from his websites, NLP-bloggers and sundry fellow-travellers predominate. His article has had two years to acquire more mentions and incoming links; now that he has met with the choir invisible and ceased producing the situation is hardly likely to improve.

The archaeologist on the other hand, has been an active contributor to his field for about forty years, and has published 80+ well-received research articles, written and edited books (see here for an incomplete biblio). While there are thousands of workaday archaeology profs, by contrast Grove is one of the leading and oft-cited researchers in his field (preclassic Mesoamerican settlements, esp. Olmec) and by virtue of his academic posts, assoc. roles & editorial positions known well beyond the specialty. We have 10 or so articles on individual archaeological sites where his research is or should be covered and cited, and probably as many again that are yet to have articles. He also rates decent mentions across a few cultural and professional related articles. I count about 10 articles linking in to his at present.

To compare these latter two, in a search of "Grove, David" at Worldcat Identities[5], the archaeologist (David C.) easily comes up as the most widely-held author of that name (2684 library holdings), while the NLP promoter (David J.) is way back in the field, 102 library holdings. Even allowing for the inaccuracy of these numbers owing to mis-cataloging and the Beta s/w status, that's a considerable lead.

A Googlebooks search +"clean language" +grove turns up 27 hits, about half of which are irrelevant misidentifications. A Googlebooks search of +"olmec" +grove returns 726, almost all of which are relevant.

As for the other two redlinked entries on the dab pg, the scriptwriter seems to have only a single made-for-TV B-film to his credit[6], don't think there'll be an article on him any time soon. The computer scientist has better claims to eventually obtaining an article, but we may be a whiles waiting.

When I had set up that arrangement with the archaeologist at the name title and created the disambig page, I took care to ensure that all of the various crosslinks were amended where necessary so that they pointed to their intended targets. As of now, following that subsequent change, they no longer all do. What do you say, to having it changed back? Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! You do like chatting don't you? That is a 5 Kbyte essay you dumped on me. Simple fact is, I did have second thoughts after I had done my edits. If you want to revert, I shall not interfere.
One of the things I pick up on new page patrolling is multiply posted articles such as this horror. Unfortunately, a recent change in the MediaWiki software means that a new article followed by a move appears to me like a double posting. That is what I reacted to. I am still learning to check before "merging". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding, I will set things back the way they were. Apologies for the length, but experience has shown that it is just as well to be explicit and up-front with the reasoning behind some proposed action, particularly if it involves reverting a fellow administrator. Can never be that sure around here what reactions a reversal would provoke. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya calendar

I'm curious why the addition of the Mayan calendar image was reverted. From the research I have done, the typical Mayan calendar was circular with the 20 days (each defined by its glyph) around the outer edge, just like the image that was added. That this calendar was created by a modern craftsman does not affect its ability to show what a Mayan calendar looks like. In the absence of another calendar image, I respectfully request that you reconsider the revert and restore the image. If not, would you please locate an appropriate image and add it to the article. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Per the article(s), the 'Maya calendar' is not an actual object, something like, say, a clock, that can be simply illustrated. It is instead a concept, actually a system of many different repeatable counts of various lengths, that in several standard combinations could be used—among other things—to fix events in time in relation to one another. It is no more a circular arrangement of glyphs than a clock is an hour, or your desk calendar is a Western year. These are analogues, ways of representing the concept, and just like with instruments we use to measure time there are a myriad ways that this could be done.
The Maya themselves did not actually represent the 'calendar' in a circular disk fashion (maybe you're thinking of the Aztec Piedra del Sol, a sculpture that's not really a calendar per se either. Modern descriptions of how the system functioned sometimes use and illustrate the interaction of calendric cycles as if it were a set of interlocking circular cogs, with glyphs and numbers at each of the cogs' teeth- you've probably seen those about. These are just graphic devices to give some visual cue how the cycles related to one another, not something the Maya themselves did.
The object in that img shows only the set of haab' month-glyphs (not day glyphs) arranged in a circle. Apart from being highly stylised and therefore difficult to discern which corresponds with what, this can't be used to illustrate how the haab' cycle worked. The haab' worked by combining a progression of the numbers 1-20 with each of the haab' month names, and the plaque or whatever that object is cannot show this. As such, I don't think the img is useful to illustrate the article —it might be well-crafted, but it does not show 'the calendar' and the glyphs are too stylised and removed from actual Maya glyphs to be that recognisable. IMO, anyway. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters for authors' names

Since you implemented {{aut}} in most Maya-related articles, you might consider droping a comment here. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to that discussion, Bender. I will see what comments I can add. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article sweeps: Great Pyramid of Giza

Hello, I am reviewing Archaeology articles as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force GA sweeps. I reviewed Great Pyramid of Giza today and placed the article on hold for a week to allow for my concerns to be addressed. I am contacting you because you have been a major contributor to the article and may be able to help. The reassessment can be found at Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. Please get in touch or comment on the reassessment page if you have any questions. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the notification. Been a little while now since I'd done anything over at that article. If I get the time will see if I can help out. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PIA logo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see some kind bot somewhere has replaced the one I uploaded with a PNG version, image:PIA logo.png. In that case, no need for this original JPG version, so I'll delete it myself as superfluous.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good rewrite on Jaredite section

That was a nice rewrite/copyedit of the Jaredite section within the Olmec alternative origin speculations article. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, Madman. And good luck with the GA nomination for Mesoamerican ballgame, by rights it should deservedly make it. Will give it another read-through and see if there are any tweaks that cld help out...cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

high revision count page deletes

Hiya. A quick note: every time you make a delete or restore action on high revision count pages, it causes a database lock; for, every revision has to be updated each time to mark it deleted or not deleted. So, ideally, unless it's a true emergency, please email oversight instead. Cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the tip, I wasn't too sure what the revision count threshhold might be. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2012

Thanks for restoring the December 22 and 23 entry. Now summerize them, get to it(!). Cheers. -- Orion11M87 (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it could be summarised any more concisely, without losing the important details. Given the amount of interest and general speculation surrounding this event, the factual resume is justified, IMO. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved many lists into main space; could use a hand

Hi Cjll,

Long time no chat. I've moved a total of seven "list of endangered languages in x" lists into main space. They are linked at the newly stripped-down List of endangered languages. However, List of endangered languages in North America still needs a lot of help. There is a lot of (unverified) info at User:Ling.Nut/EthnicList. I also temporarily skipped over the Zapotec, Zoque and Otomi languages as they are larger and need careful attention. Any help you could offer would be deeply appreciated. Thanks Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 10:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling.Nut, how's it going. Thanks for the notice, the stripped-down overall list pg makes sense, given the numbers. Had a quick look, removed one (Chicomuceltec) since I assume extinct langs are not to be included. One comment, for a few entries you give two population figures from ethnologue, I presume one is a # of fluent speakers while the other, larger number is a # of community population (who I guess no longer speak the indigenous lang.) If so, suggest putting these in separate columns, would make it clearer. Another suggestion: given that the dates of the sources varies considerably, from anywhere in the past 30 years or so, it might be useful to have a column like "status as of" for the most recent surveyed date the info is from, to better allow for comparision of the data. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good suggestions... I'll try to do them... but I've already put a couple solid days into those lists (recently, that is; much more time in the dim past of nearly two years ago), and making them perfect would take either maybe four or five more solid days, or a couple weeks of here 'n there work. I'm hoping others will chip in ;-) But I'll bear your suggestions in mind, and will see if I can do them... Unrelated Question: Is it worth the trouble to become an admin, btw? Aside from deleting redirects etc. (which would be very useful in the "languages" area) are there really any meaningful contribs an admin can make to the encyclopedia? later Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies there Ling.Nut, had intended to reply to your Q re adminship, but got distracted along the way—not for the first or last time—and well, here we are a week later.
I suppose the answer is, it depends. While as sysop you have access to some handy tools that make life easier, nowadays a lot of these can be emulated by scripts, widgets, or permissions, like rollback. On the other hand, it can be useful and satisfying to say protect a pg or block a disruptive user on the spot. There's no end of behind-the-scenes activities one could get involved with as an admin, which taken together does rather grease the wheels and so allow you support the project in other, meaningful ways. You can also contribute more substantially to certain debates and processes, if there's some aspect of wiki-life that you find in need of improvement.
There's no quota per se of adminly duties to work thru, so if your interest tends towards content editing then that is not impaired; however, it may not then be worth the trouble going thru the sometimes bruising RFA process. Been some time now since I had a look at how RFAs are being handled, but I suspect not much has changed & if you're going to go thru the process then you need to bring along a thick skin and reserves of patience and forbearance for what will often be a series of niggly challenges. Personally I'd have no trouble supporting your nom shld you wish to pursue, & wld be happy to nominate you myself if you really wanted to do it. But you can be just as productive without sysop tools as with them, so I spose it just boils down to your own personal style and intentions. Let me know if you do decide to go ahead. Best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Thanks! I go back and forth. I have long been opposed to the idea; now I'm looking for reasons (if any) that I should reconsider my stance... BTW, I totally agree with Maunus on that Ray Of Sunshine Award thingie, even though most linguitics- and/or Mesoamerica-related articles have been off my watchlist for a long while (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!)  ;-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see some anonymous IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess.

·Maunus·ƛ· 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maunus, means a lot & appreciate it. And likewise compadre, with bells on! Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decipherment of rongorongo FAC

Hi CJ,

If you're interested, I've nominated the second half of the rongorongo article for FAC. It's at Decipherment of rongorongo. kwami (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kwami. Sure, and look forward to re-reading your fascinating and informative account, will pipe up with any suggestions for tweaking that may occur (doubt there'll be anything major). Will prob not be until sometime next wk before I review, however. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec Good Article, and "perhaps"

CJLL, I have been pondering our GA reviewer's thoughts on the use of "perhaps" and "probably" (see Talk:Olmec/GA1):

":perhaps" sounds like an editor thought! . . .looking for an answer ... [how about] "archaeologist believe / think..." "the evidence leads to the possibility that ..." "geophysicians have found possible evidence for..." "research leads to ..." ?

I guess I like "perhaps" because it's just so short and snappy. Long clauses like those suggested seem to be fluff and not particularly helpful since the "perhaps"s and "probably"s should be qualified by a citation. Rather than saying this to our reviewer, however, I thought I would get a 2nd opinion: yours! Give it some thought, and thanks, Madman (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Feel free to edit the article if you'd like to replace "perhaps"s.
P.P.S. Thanks for cleaning up the references at Olmec. Lots of work.

Hey Madman, no probs. I may not be the best person to ask since in my own writing style I rarely use one word when ten or more will do... ;-)
Personally I don't have too much of an issue with disembodied perhapses and probablys, as long as it's clear from the overall context that the text speaks for verifiable mainstream scholarship opinions — in archaeology or history there are few statements that can be made with certainty, and adverbial qualifiers are standard issue. Anyways, I s'pose we should be able to tweak the prose so the qualifying opinion can be pinned down a little more explicitly without being too wordy; I'll see if I can think of any substitutions. Grazie, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help - I think the article is now approaching "excellent". I'm nearly done working on the reviewer's concerns, and so we're very close to a Good Article status. In fact, the article is so good, I think I'll go ahead and try for a Featured Article.
In contrast, the Mesoamerican ballgame article sailed right thru GA with nary a comment. I believe it has more to do with the reviewer than the article.
Thanks again, Madman (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, guess it can seem a bit of a lottery sometimes. Comparatively I think it ought to readily pass GAC muster. There are probably a few i's and t's to be dotted and crossed before it could be steered thru FAC, but nothing major and should be mostly a matter of progressively tidying and tightening (eg, making sure all the citation calls are formatted alike, & so on) now to make it through a future/imminent FA nom. Top stuff, and cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) eavesdropping here... yeah... I strongly dislike it when folks insult GA (not referring to anyone here), but it is a crapshoot. There's no reviewer training to improve Inter-rater reliability. ... I wanna work on the wiki v 0.7 articles for WP:3K and WP:ETHNIC (including Aztec, if I remember correctly) but I may be able to help a tiny bit with Olmec.. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, Ling.Nut. Sure that neither I nor Madman disparage the GA process, and personally I think it has a very welcome place and valid role on wikipedia. As noted sometimes the end result can seem a little arbitrary, with variance from GAC to GAC in the strength of the criteria that are applied. But then FAC is not immune from this tendency, either. The systems work as well as they can ATM, I suppose.
Yeah, had been thinking should get organised to review the meso/aztec articles to be selected for V0.7, Olmec is on the list. The more hands the merrier I say, so anywhere you can help...I'd like to bring some of the wp:ethnic indigenous articles up to scratch, but time is fleeting...Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

Hi,

I am concerned about properly using and inserting Wikitables into my edit of the Q'anjob'al language page. Any ideas or suggestions for doing this?

DKaufman (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Dave Kaufman[reply]

Hi there Dave, thanks for the Q; have answered with some advice at your talk page. Any more queries, happy to help out if I can. Look forward to seeing your expansions at the Q'anjob'al page. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Work

Hi, just to let someone know that I spent the last two hours of my life working on this Q'anjob'al article only to have Wikipedia not save it. Is there any way that I can prevent this from happening again, because that really sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKaufman (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, just noting have responded at you talk page here. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q'anjob'al edits

Hi, The Q'anjob'al edits look great. Re: the Mateo p.c., this is referring to "personal communication" with a Q'anjob'al speaker, Pedro Mateo, a fellow student here at KU, so no publication is involved here. You were right on about the Variacion Dialectal; I was going to go back to that, but you saved me the trouble! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKaufman (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs Dave. Responded w a comment re published vs unpublished sources at ur talk pg. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Indigenous peoples of Africa

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Indigenous peoples of Africa, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — CactusWriter | needles 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CactusWriter, I appreciate the courtesy of this notification. However, I would agree with my colleague Maunus that the article—while deficient in citations—is a valid one and would dispute a deletion proposal. Will comment further @ the relevant talk page. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, cjllw, and for moving the discussion to Talk:Indigenous peoples of Africa. I should have done that myself. I've replied there. — CactusWriter | needles 10:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of student page

I noticed that one of my students' entries, Sacrifice and Human Trophy Taking in the Ancietn Maya, has been tagged for deletion. The student has a copy of it on his talk page, and I'm hoping to get him some suggestions soon (it needs work!), but it would be nice if some patience could be exercised in the deletion process. Thanks for all you help with this! Hoopes (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoopes, no worries. I removed the prod tag and gave it a work-in-progress sticker. Also renamed the article to Human trophy taking in Mesoamerica, a little more in keeping with the naming conventions around here and reflecting the current scope. Will continue to keep an eye out for any other misunderstandings for the KU pool. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q'anjob'al vowel table

Hi. I'm wondering if you could help me with the vowel table for Q'anjob'al. It came out rather messed up - I was trying to get it like the Kaqchikel one (with High, Mid, Low all on the left-hand side), but without the tense and lax divisions and just representing the 5 basic vowels, not all the variations that are apparently in Kaqchikel. Is this something you can help me do? Thanks.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKaufman (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Dave. This now (hopefully) fixed, if any probs or further tweaks needed pls let me know. Best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vowel chart looks superb! Thanks for your help!

DKaufman (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Dave[reply]

You're most welcome, & thanks for the great expansion and additions to the article! cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Olmec/GA1#GA_second_review

I responded to your comments on the Olmec GA review. No hurry on this, since the GA reviewer is out until the weekend I believe. Madman (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokey, thanks! I see Rsheptak has kindly pitched in there as well. I've now made a couple addl comments. Cheers! --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about photo rights

Hello! I am one of Hoopes' students and have been trying to improve my entry by adding photos. I obtained permission from the copyright holders to post their entries on Wikipedia, however one of my photos was deleted anyway. I'm not sure if I just posted it incorrectly or if I didn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia. If you could give me a little guidance I would appreciate it! Thanks! Phoenixone (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there phoenixone, have responded at your talkpg here. Let me know if that does the trick, all the best --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify & place these images on Commons

Dear Admin CJLL Wright, I stumbled upon this set of flickr images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamidwyer/sets/72157606952714490/?page=2 (page 2 here on display) Its a huge set of images from page 2-4 from a museum that I don't know to page 6-14 which are from the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. Since you have a Commons account, do you think you have the time to upload these badly needed flickr images onto Commons (once you identify them) I apologise but I am not a member of the Mesoamerica project and haven't a clue what they are. The flickr owner licenses her pages and pages of images freely as she says in her profile: [7] I have the impression that Wikipedia is badly in need of many of these images. Please note that to upload these flickr images on Commons, the image license for her images is "Attribution-Share-Alike Creative Commons" ( or 'cc by sa 2.0') This license has no restrictions on their use and can certainly be placed on Commons. This is one image from flickr which I placed on Commons with this license: Image:Temple of Taffeh in Leiden by Paul Garland.jpg Good luck.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJLL_Wright&oldid=244519863"