This is an archive of past discussions with User:CJLL Wright. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for your response at Category talk:Indigenous peoples. No need to apologize for longwindedness, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have replied there. Kind regards, — mark✎ 11:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It looks good; thanks for your work! — mark✎ 19:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Um, what do you mean by "indigenous people"? Because the Tuareg are a good illustration of the term's limits; they are recent and highly successful invaders throughout most of their West African range, but arguably "indigenous" to their northern Libyan areas since possibly Roman times; and their invasions were followed by later invasions, such as the French. I don't see how such a category can be NPOV or well-defined to begin with, but laying that to one side, on what basis are you applying it there? (I reverted already, but then thought I should discuss this first.) - Mustafaa 04:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mustafaa . By indigenous peoples I mean the sense of the term as currently outlined in the main indigenous peoples article. I appreciate that there may be varying degrees of contention in assigning any particular group to a Category:Indigenous peoples designation, however I have elaborated the criteria for doing so at the Category talk:Indigenous peoples page, please refer. These criteria do (I hope) provide a basis for suitably and clearly defining this usage, and also to do this in a NPOV-fashion. In the particular instance of Tuareg, I have relied upon certain references for this, but have not as yet annotated these on the article or talk page. I shall supply these on Talk:Tuareg shortly, to open this up to wider discussion. --cjllw | TALK 05:22, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
I'm trawling for smart people with an interest in American Indian affairs, and if you happen to have anything to contribute to the Peter Matthiessen article, or know someone who does, I think that would be great!
Ben-w, unfortunately I am not at all familiar with this author or his works, so would not easily be able to add anything to that article - cheers. --cjllw | TALK 2005 June 28 23:31 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. Yes that was an error regarding the Amsterdam, sorry about that, will try and be more thorough in future. Yes I am going to expand the ships in future, just doing a bit more research first. It's on my "to do list" :)
Regarding categories, I have tried to categorize all my new articles. Is there anything I have missed?
And of course this is an amazing opportunity to add to a central point of, the way I see it, all human knowledge. I just hope this project will be sustainable and not disbanded due to escalating server or support costs!
Regards
Sandman
Sandman, no problems. There were a couple of articles on some Bantu languages you had started, I added them to Category:Bantu languages. Happy editing! --cjllw | TALK 07:24, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
No problem. The new category should be fine; and perhaps at some later stage further regional Australian exploration subcats can be set up to accommodate this and other entries. Cheers! --cjllw | TALK 00:45, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
WikiProject Writing Systems
Hello! A few days ago I put up a proposal on the talk page of the WS project, regarding the structure of pages dealing with writing systems. Perhaps you'd like to look at it, and make comments.--Siva20:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Siva - you've made some good suggestions. I hope to have time in the next day or two to respond on that talk page with some further suggestions. --cjllw | TALK 07:09, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for the barnstar!
(You're not suggesting my mortar is cracked, are you?)
Hi Kurieeto. I see your point, and the resulting confusion which is possible because in common parlance the political state of Australia is often used synonymously with the contintental region of Australia. I agree that if we take this category to refer to the political entity, "in Australia" is preferable to "of Australia" (and similarly for Tasmania). In addition, there is a further complication arising from the common (or uncritical) interpretation of "geographical" Australia to include not only the main continental landmass, but also its near offshore islands (such as the Tiwi Islands or Groote Eylandt, which have significant indigenous populations).
Another factor to consider is that strictly speaking, the Commonwealth of Australia was established only in 1901 with Federation, before that the states had independent existence as British colonies. But of course, pre-1901 history is still commonly referred to as Australian history.
As for "Tasmania", likewise its unqualified usage can cover both the geographical island (and its own associated smaller islands, such as Flinders Island), and the state (I know that some Tasmanians can get upset if it is omitted in geographical depictions of the Australian region!). The current Category:Indigenous peoples of Tasmania has but four entries at the moment, on individuals rather than peoples, and does not include Tasmanian Aborigines; its current use is more as an "indigenous people" rather than "indigenous peoples" cat.
In short then, IMO Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia has a regional, rather than strict political, sense, and so could remain as "of" rather than "in" (perhaps some text qualifying this could be added to the cat.). But that is just my view, others involved or interested in the Cat. might think differently. Re Category:Indigenous peoples of Tasmania, its interpretation as a region or a state is harder to separate - I could be persuaded either way, and would be open to other viewpoints.--cjllw | TALK 01:46, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to get back to you, I've been sidetracked by various things. I understand your points - For now I've edited the description of Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia to include the word "region" as you've explained above. Kurieeto 03:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Kurieeto, no problem. Thanks for making that change to clarify the category scope! --cjllw | TALK 00:31, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
Thanks, Nowhither, you're most welcome! I must say that your prior copyedits greatly improved the article's utility, on this fascinating and eccentric character.--cjllw | TALK 02:10, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Writing system image
Hey CJ,
The new map for Writing system is just about ready. Do you want to take a look and see if you have any suggestions?
Hi Kwami. Great work on the distribution map for current writing systems! I've responded with only a couple of minor comments at Talk:Writing system. Cheers!--cjllw | TALK 01:06, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm taking some of Nohat's criticisms seriously (though not his complaint about including national boundaries!), so if you disagree with any of them I'd appreciate hearing that too. It would be good to know which criticisms are widely shared and which are individual preference. kwami 19:32, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
Kwami, as far as Nohat's stylistic suggestions go, using rectangular boxes for the Legend's colours instead of circles is fine, as would be spacing out some of the script labels into blank ocean area to balance the overall presentation. As for font & colour selection, I don't have a strong opinion, my own graphic design capabilities leave a lot to be desired. As long as the intended information (what script goes where) is clear, presentational styles will be personal choices.
However, for the bi-scriptual areas, I still think that your outlining is a better presentation than hatching- in the case of Japan for instance, its narrow shape might look odd or confusing if it were hatched. Anyways, I still think that it is a job well done. --cjllw | TALK 02:07, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
Good job.
I just wanted to thank you for all the great work on Andaman Islands related topics that you have done so far. You've really improved the articles. --Hottentot
Thanks, Hottentot, much appreciated. It's an intriguing corner of the world, I hope to do further expansions on the islands and the peoples. I spent a couple of days in Port Blair a few years ago now- unfortunately I no longer have the photos since it is difficult to find PD imgs of the place. There are a few on Indian govt. sites, but I am unsure as to their copyright status...oh well, will hv to keep looking.
Thanks for catching my blunder on numerous Australian cities/towns within the past hour. I was sure I had checked those Page History's for previous content.. perhaps this is a sign I should just call it a night. Kudos for being on the ball, and apologies for the headache. Peruvianllama06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No probs, Peruvianllama- and kudos to you for picking up on that anon's plagiarism spree in the first place- hard to see what their motivation was. Fairfax Digital don't exactly make the copyright status clear, I suppose...the content is reproduced in a few other sites (but with attribution), so p'haps the user was mislead.--cjllw | TALK07:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Spinifex
Hey there, I saw you revised the page to remove the fact that they are the last nomadic people. Just wanted to point out:
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-5-27/29009.html
and "The basis for the Spinifex people’s land ownership (Ngura Tjantu) is of particular interest as a case study, because their relationship to the land is amongst the most nomadic and unsettled of any Aboriginal group." (from http://www.api-network.com/cgi-bin/reviews/jrbview.cgi?n=1863683488).
Your edit may be accurate but IMHO I think it possibly under-represents the uniqueness of the Spinifex way of life in 2005. What do you think? SeanMack06:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sean. I had wanted to avoid the impression that they are the sole remaining Aboriginal people who maintain a continuity with their traditional subsistence and environment, which is how "...the last Aboriginalnomadichunter-gatherer people in Australia" read to me. There are other peoples who lifestyle still involves self-subsistence and are not solely confined to community settlements; but I agree that the Spinifex People are amongst those whose traditions are the least interrupted. It was not my intention to downplay their situation in this regard- perhaps some further additions to the article on the nature of their society &c. would help bring this out. If you can think of a way to re-word so as to indicate that they adhere to traditional subsistence in ways and to an extent which is uncommon in contemporary times, then please do- my phrasing is not necessarily the best.
You'll notice I also toned-down the "harsh and remote" landscape bit- I think these when used unqualified are rather subjective, since the land has evidently been able to support their community adequately enough, and I suspect that the people themselves might view it a little differently.--cjllw | TALK07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why, thanks very much Scimitar, much appreciated! It was quite enjoyable researching this character; now just need to add a summation of his achievements and a note on how his contributions are viewed nowadays. Cheers!--cjllw | TALK23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you keep writing articles I come across and enjoy reading, I'll happily give you one each! Thanks for writing it; I've always been a bit of a history buff, and it's just cool reading about people like Mr. Morley.--Scimitarparley00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
DYK
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sylvanus Morley, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
You're most welcome, Angel- always a pleasure to see good editing at work. Your updates to Maya mythology have similarly improved that article- well done, and cheers.--cjllw | TALK07:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
About unsigned comments
Concerning User_Talk:210.55.230.121, please sign your comments with the usual ~~~~ wiki markup. Thanks. :) // Pathoschild 21:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, in that instance I was a little rushed in adding the vandal warning, and missed clicking the sig button.--cjllw | TALK23:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Bounty Board
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell(talk) (bounties)22:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Quadell. It looks to be an intriguing concept; I'll give it some thought. Cheers.--cjllw | TALK01:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
On reflection, I may have been too precipitous. I was alarmed by your edit comment to the effect that Arguelles is a "primary figure", when in fact not a single one of his "interpretations" has advanced or is accepted by Maya scholarship. There are many more like him who have co-opted what they have read about the Maya calendar and turned it into some mystic, supernatural device of their own choosing. Which I think is rather a pity, since the actual story and structure of the Maya calendar is far more fascinating and remarkable than any of the pop-theories which they have come up with, and serves only to obscure what is a notable human achievement. However, I suppose that fringe ideas such as Arguelles's have their corner in WP, at least insofar as they are publicly-known: I would be concerned however if it were to be represented that these are accepted interpretations, when they are not, or if too many such references clouded the actual story. But in this case, a single "see also" link is not too intrusive, and so I have self-reverted that deletion.--cjllw | TALK00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Martyman- and many thanks to you for the great efforts and research you have put into it. I lived there for a short while as a kid, and have fond memories of mucking about in Weston Park; it was interesting to read of the area's history. I'll be sure to add my vote of support to its FA candidacy. Again, nice work - cheers!--cjllw | TALK03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup
Hi, CJLL.Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson17:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
A pleasure, Brian. My only misgivings re you're new responsibilities would be if it were to impede your ability to continue making such thoughtful and valued contributions - but I am sure that you'll be able to proceed apace, pen poised in one hand, cleaning cloth in the other! Congrats, and cheers--cjllw | TALK22:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi thanks for rescueing that article. I wasn't sure if it was a real musical instrument or not, but I tagged it the basis that is was empty only containing one word. Anyway just saying thanks. I'm all for learning something new and I just did. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 08:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I was a little bored so I decided to bombard you with that useless comment :-D
No worries, KoS- the article's creator didn't exactly make it easy to identify! It sounded like a genuine Nahuatl word to me, so I did some hunting around, found it existed, and also learnt something new in the process. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK09:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks and regards.,
Sarathy.s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suthra (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005
Sarathy.s, I believe that this has already been responded to now (by someone else) on your talk page. As stated there, it would be far preferable for you to add the information in your own words, rather than the text of some other website (which is marked as copyright-protected: to appear in Wiki, the text needs to be released under a rather different licensing agreement, as mentioned). Regards, --cjllw | TALK21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I've read through some of your edits and contributions along with your user page. Just wanted to say I admire your work at Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Thaagenson20:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind words, Thaagenson. I fear I've made somewhat of a rod for my own back with the 'to-do' list on my userpg- it keeps expanding without any end in sight! But that's rather the point, and also the fun, of wikipedia....cheers, --cjllw | TALK23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Ianblair23's RfA
G'day Chris,
It has taken a bit of time I know, but I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. Hopefully, we can meet up again following the success of dinner last night with Angela. Also, could you check the Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney page and add your two cents, that would be great. Cheers! -- Ianblair23(talk)03:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
No worries re the support, Ian. And agreed, the meetup was interesting, and it would be a worthwhile experience to repeat sometime in the future. I'll see if I can think of anything not already covered and add it to the account of the mtg. cheers, --cjllw | TALK04:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
back
yeah, I changed my mind about leaving. I just had to kind of clear my watchlist and remove the racist username. --Khoikhoi01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Khoikhoi. I agree that Category:Native American tribes (and a few others which are related, particularly Category:Native American) is a bit of a problem, all the more so since we split up Native Americans into Native Americans in the United States, indigenous peoples of the Americas, and a few others. The whole indigenous/Native American category schema needs an overhaul and consistency review, and my personal preference is for the "indigenous peoples of..." structure. However, I feel sure that there'd be quite a few people wedded to the "Native American" terminology, and so unilateral action might unintentionally stir things up a bit - perhaps the best approach would be to put up a category rename or reorg proposal on the category talk pg first (and/or a category delete/rename proposal), and see where the discussion takes us. If you see Category talk:Native American, similar proposals had been put forward a couple of months ago, but nothing really came of it.
Another point to note is that "Native American tribe" could be interpreted as having a specific meaning, namely that "tribe" refers to the entities which are recognised by the (U.S., in this case) government, and these entities are not necessarily the same as an indigenous ethnic grouping. So it could be argued that this category intends to be a subset of, and is not necessarily synonymous with, Category:indigenous peoples of North America or Category:indigenous peoples in the United States. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Ed, and well picked up. Curiously, the offending wikipedia indigenous knowledge article and its presumed source text on that blogspot were created on the same day (April 21, 2005), which would seem to be more than a coincidence- it would be quite likely that it was the blog author (Martin Schenke) himself who created that article (under anon ip) and populated it with the duplicated material, a suspicion further supported by the fact the ip used is an address in Sth Africa, as is the blogspot author. Nevertheless, it's more desirable that the wiki article finds its own voice, and now that there is a traditional knowledge article I agree that the two can be combined - at least for now. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK22:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, Mateo. I will put in my 2 cents, hopefully a peer review can help sort out a few of the "difficulties" and more contentious additions that this article has been experiencing of late.--cjllw | TALK23:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for participating on my RfA
one fishtwo fish
Thanks for participating in my RfA. The final vote was 57/4/3. I hope I don't disappoint those who voted support, and that those who didn't won't wish they'd campaigned more strongly in opposition. Tomertalk03:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Tomer, and congratulations on your appointment. Given the strength of support you received, I feel reasonably sure that any qualms and indecision indicated by my neutral vote will in hindsight turn out to be unwarranted; congrats again & I look forward to working with you on some article, somewhere, sometime. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!
CJLL Wright, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)05:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi - you are not away! ;-) Noticed your activity in the aforementioned indicating that you might have some expertise with the 2000 US Census. Is that true or am I jumping to conclusions? Cheers Jbetak07:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
