User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XIV

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)

May '07 — Jun '07

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)

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 2

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)

---

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE

---