User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXX

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)

JUL '09 — AUG '09

Stop Fucking Up

WAKE UP DUDE ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adminship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd just like to emphasise the need to do it when you have a lot of free time. A very good editor, partially at my urging, went through an RFA when she didn't have the time to respond quickly - you might want to take a look at [2] to see what happened. It's worth reading a few of these anyway to get a flavor of what they are like, the sorts of questions you may be asked, etc. Please someone make sure I'm notified if you run! Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

2012's reason for being

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

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

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

Culture again

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

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

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

Dresden intervals

JQ Jacobs emailed me this new work of his:

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

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

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

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

13-baktun/2012/Dresden connection

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

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

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

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

Hey Mr. Gotta B. WRIGHT,

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

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

Yes. A number of times. What of it?

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

In any case, seems your beef is with JMJ, not me. Don't know why you'd think I'd want to mediate on it, JMJ seems ever amenable to discussing all things 2012, why not take your complaints to him direct? (but I guess you've tried that[3], not much headway I spose).

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

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

new article on Goddess I "unauthorized" and deleted

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

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

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

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

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

Some advice?

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

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

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

Wasted time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refindent

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion request

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

Hi there!

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

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

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

Maya3D -link

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

Thanks very much

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

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

Otomi language

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

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

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

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

New template

Hello cjll

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

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

RFC on category?

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and Otomi language is up for FA

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

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

Postclassic

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

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

More Entries by Students at KU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE

---