User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXIII


ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010–11 2012

Jun '08 — Jul'08

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)]

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edits of Long Count page by 76.112.23.57

In this edit [[1]] 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I should have added that I have responded to Marburg72's entry on the BLP Noticeboard at [2] - it doesn't appear that Marburg72 has informed you of this. Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
Ok, have responded via email.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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[3], 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[4], 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)

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)
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)
END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE