User talk:CJLL Wright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Hello there. --- hereunder, my current Talk page....
New posts at the bottom of the page, please- for convenience, you can use this link to open up a new topic directly.

₪ STATUS GAUGE ₪   update

as of: 15 March 2008 I am:

G E N E R A L L Y   A C T I V E
OFF ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ON!

...busy in RL, but putting in an appearance most days, even if briefly...

currently resident in Sydney, Australia

  ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

To avoid disjointed threads, if you leave a comment here I will generally reply here, perhaps also alerting you separately.
Likewise, if I have left a comment on your talkpage, I will be watching and so will be happy if you prefer to reply there.

NOTE 1: From time to time, I might possibly rearrange, reformat, archive or otherwise vary the structure of this page.
NOTE 2: My availability to respond may fluctuate somewhat- the status gauge here will generally indicate whether I am around, or temporarily absent.

Contents

[edit] --Talk archives--

ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005 2006 2007 2008
D I S C U S S I O N

[edit] Requested move

Hello CJLL Wright. I noticed that you are an admin who is currently online. I have a problem with the American Basketball Association article. It was unilaterally moved to American Basketball Association (1967-1976) without any discussion awhile back. I believe that it should be moved back to its original title, and if someone wants to move it, they should use WP:RM. However, I believe that admin intervention is needed, because the American Basketball Association article now has an edit history of its own, which will need to be overwritten. If you have a different opinion, maybe you could help out at Talk:American Basketball Association. Thanks, Bash Kash (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Since most inbound links seemed to intend that as the primary meaning, and since there were no substantive edits made to the target since it was first moved, I have moved back the date-delimited title to the plain one. I can't really see this causing too much grief, but you never know. If someone pipes up with an objection, then it should formally go thru RM. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Very much appreciated. Bash Kash (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nahuatl getting into position for FA-drive

I have been working intensively on the Nahuatl article for the past few days - I am intent on taking it to FA status within the next few months. In that regard I'd appreciate all and any copyediting, peerreviwing, additions and suggestions to the article from knowledgeable and careful editors such as yourself. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maunus- sure, be glad to. It's been coming along rather nicely, and is a worthy candidate which hopefully will need just another couple rounds of polishing before it has a fighting chance of passing muster. Will do my best, and have a good think about what the key to-do's are. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi CJJLW. Good work with the references! I hate doing that myself, and frankly don't have that kind of an eye for details. There are still two notes that are bare external links namely note 8 and note 33 - I don't know what is the proper format for those - although I know it needs the acces date and all that jazz. Could you give it a try before sandygeorgia flips over it? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No probs. Done now, converted those 2 external links to inline cites. I think just about all now are formatted consistently and detailed to the nth degree, may still have missed some punc. or other slight details somewhere- I guess can be fixed pretty easily if someone calls for it. We shall see.
In re-reading it, there are a couple of minor clarifications that could be made, have run out of time today but will try to raise these asap and in good time before FAC reviewers start turning it over. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is
Electrical Experimenter
Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

[edit] Arthur Simon

An article you have previously edited, Arthur Simon has been tagged as having "multiple issues". Please see the article page for more details. Any assistance you can provide in fixing the problems listed in the tag would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, User:Refsworldlee has substantially improved the article and removed the tag. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my only contribution to that one was to remove a category I'd deleted from CfD- otherwise have no knowledge of the topic. Good to see it's been cleaned up. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aztlanolagus

Thanks for the improvement on explaining Aztlán. Batfossil (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Batfossil. A nice article you've set up there. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for advice on how to handle...

I suspect the following two ip only accounts are sockpuppets: 67.86.197.182 and 166.217.171.175. First one does a series of edits to a series of pages; I undo their edits since its the usual change in statistics with no source offered; and then the other starts a run at the same pages, adding the same misinformation. They both have multiple warnings on their user talk pages. Any suggestions? This is getting tiresome. Rsheptak (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rsheptak. Yes, I believe you are right, from the looks of it this is Editor652 (talk · contribs), an annoying editor who got themselves indefinitely blocked for much the same series (actually nearly identical) of unsubtantiated edits, using those couple of ip's to avoid the block. I wouldn't trust anything they put down.
I see someone's already opened a sockpuppetry case for these, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editor652. These reports usually get followed up reasonably quickly, and a checkuser investigation may well prove the matter. The ip's will probably end up blocked, if even more pop up then we can semiprotect the pages for a while. If the matter's not resolved in a day or so I'll block'em myself, tho' at least one of those seems to be a shared ip. Suggest we look to see what comes out of the sockpuppet report. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, LaNicoya opened it a while ago. Looks like she's been battling them the last couple of days while I'm out of the country and mostly offline. She's added a couple new IPs to the list of sock puppets as well. Rsheptak (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] long time no chat! ... rongorongo

Hi CJLL!

Long time no chat! A really good Wikipedian, kwami, is shooting for FA with the article rongorongo. I know it's in the middle of the ocean and you're a Mesoamerican guy, but if you have a little free time, could you look at it, and drop a note on kwami's talk (you can mention my name if you like). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait.. what a strange coincidence! I just look at the archived peer review, and you commented on the article almost exactly six hours before I left this note! :-) Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ling.Nut, good to hear from you. No worries, I saw kwami's request for review input on a related talkpg, so was happy to help out someone whose contribs I've long admired. As it turns out, that article is in pretty impressive shape and should only require a few touches around the edges to give it a sporting chance for FA. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a nice change from being insulted by people who think I don't understand them! You two have made my day.

I've started the changes cjll suggested, but just barely, since s.t. else just came up. Actually, the reason I came here was the long count. I haven't been keeping up with the field, but something bothers me.

Currently, the start date is given as GMT, with a note "Although Coe … gives August 13 as the date." That makes it sound as if Coe got it wrong for some inexplicable reason. I thought the reason Lounsbury used Aug 13 was that it corresponded to the count as kept by modern Highland Maya. Granted, it's hard to argue with astronomical dating, and the Maya may have lost count, what with the Conquest and all, but it troubles me to simply sweep it under the rug. Or has this really been resolved in the past few years? kwami (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi kwami. Hmm, I guess that aside about Coe does seem a little gratuitous, and out-of-place. There's no real reason to single Coe out for using the 584285 correlation (Aug 13), his 1994 edition follows Schele and Friedel, and Lounsbury before that, I think. Plenty other contemporaries, like Malmström, Juteson &c. have used 584285, probably the main argument being it's an apparent better fit to astronomical data and lunar synchronisation. However it's the 584283 (Aug 11) correlation that has the better fit to ethnohistorical sources, including with the modern highland counts. And no, I don't think the 584283 vs 584285 debate is resolved, though maybe the preponderance continues to favour the former. As Michael Finley puts it, "While the GMT correlation is almost certainly valid, it seems unlikely that the choice between the '83, '84, and '85 versions can be definitively resolved on the basis of the available evidence." See also this AZTLAN-list posting a bit over a year ago, I think is an informative discussion.
I'm out on the road at the moment, but when I'm back in a week or so I can look up those refs to check whether Coe's always maintained 584285, or if he 'switched sides' after Lounsbury and Schele.
In any case I don't think there's a need for that note re Coe, I think the opening para should just say something like "the Long Count calendar identifies a day by counting the number of days passed since August 11, 3114 BCE[1]," with the footnote saying "according to the GMT-correlation used by a majority of Mayanists; an alternative correlation that is also sometimes used puts this date two days later on August 13". Then later on in the article can go into the details of the correlation question, and who has used which. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I didn't want to mess with something y'all have obviously thought a lot about. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, another point. Why is the turn of an era sometimes dated 0.0.0.0.0, and sometimes 13.0.0.0.0? Am I missing something? — kwami (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi kwami, sorry for the delayed response, have been offline travelling this past week.
I believe that the handful of Maya inscriptions bearing base Long Count dates for the b'ak'tun-cycle "end dates" (both the one in 3114 BCE and the one in 2012) all actually record it with a 13 as the b'ak'tun coefficient, ie 13.0.0.0.0. However, some Mayanists transcribe or interpolate this with the notation 0.0.0.0.0, I suppose really to communicate its "starting point" meaning. Others stick with the 13.0.0.0.0. We should be more consistent (particularly within an article) on the notation to adopt, and maybe make a point of using the actual inscriptional coefficients while making some annotation about the interchangeability of the two ways to write the date in notational form. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How did you ever notice that I got an obscure name like James Park Harrison wrong? Now that's thorough! — kwami (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh- was just curious I guess to find out who he was... ;-) I reviewed those amendments, and as I commented just now on the review pg it's all looking pretty good to me- kudos for a fine effort! Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the last section, Pozdniakov, based on a paper of his I just came across. It probably needs to be trimmed in half, but I need a little time to see it in perspective. Any comments welcome, and thanks for what you've done so far. I'm pretty happy with it overall. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Took a quick look just now at those expansions - wow! I think it'd be a crying shame to cut out such a well-written and clear exposition of the man's work. Maybe there's a little more detail in there than a casual reader might care for, but personally I wouldn't say that's a big issue- let 'em skip over it, and leave the details there for those who are interested... ;-)
At first glance I couldn't see much redundancy, will try to go thru a little more soon and see. But really, this is a superb overall article IMO, shld be ready when you are for FA renom. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I reworded a few things but hardly cut anything. I've now put it back up for FA.[1] Thanks for all your help. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks great, this one should, by rights, sail through the FAC. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Maya collapse entry

Hi CJ. A few comments on the Maya collapse entry. Refs should be updated, e.g., Coe now has a 7th ed out. Second, the writers of the entry do not sufficiently take into account the systemic ecological collapse - not just drought - that is now considered by many if not most sensible Mayanists to have underlain the collapse. There is a bit too much reliance on Gill, in my view. When I get a chance I may want to suggest some new text. Also, I checked the Takalik Abaj entry; this is woefully inadequate.Jonathan K1938 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, apologies for delay in response, have been offline this past week. Yes, I agree the Classic Maya collapse article needs a little counterbalancing or at least a broader, more nuanced survey of published literature and opinion on the topic; and there have certainly been a few interesting developments since Gill's analysis came out- investigations on the Petén bajos by Patrick Culbert and Tom Sever for example. By all means, suggest away for ways to improve and extend the coverage; same goes for Takalik Abaj.
As for using the latest edition of Coe's The Maya - that's fine, particularly on points where he's updated the text. Mind you, those citations which use earlier editions should probably still stand, since page nos etc need to correspond with the statement being cited. If you have his 7th edn and can correlate some statement using the pagination in that edition, then shld be ok to update the cite with the new edn and page nos. Or, if the 7th now takes a different tack on some point then shld update it. I have only up to his 4th edn within my reach, and haven't compared them to see what's been revised. As long as the editions don't contradict one another, shld be no problem to cite multiple editions of the same work if we need to, at least until such time as someone can go thru with the latest edition and synch up all the cites to earlier edns with corresponding passages in the latest. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Crystal Links" and Mayan architecture

Hello there. Glad you noticed my copyvio tags at Maya art and Maya architecture. Is there some sort of action that should be taken against this Crystal Links website? I find it irritating to have wikipedia material mirrored at that sort of site (or any sort of site) without proper attribution. Not incidentally, your entirely appropriate revert still leaves a problem of serious overlap between the Maya architecture and Maya civilization articles. Regards, TriNotch (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi TriNotch, I had responded on your talk page here at the same time as you posting here. I agree it is irritating to find wikipedia material appearing unattributed on that site, particularly when that site serves no other purpose than to promote new age kookery "information", and like products/services.
Re the overlap, that's because the architecture article was originally split off from the main article, but we haven't quite yet gotten around to rewriting the corresponding section in the latter as more of a summary of the subarticle's contents. One of these days... cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nahuatl speakers of Huasteca

I don't agree at all that the article is off topic and doubling content maybe you are becoming jaded ;) (Tezcatlipoca knows I understad why you would). Only the section on religion is repeated in the Aztec religion article, and is off topic because it treats general Nahua topics, but some parts of the Huasteca one were even better and I think about inserting them in the religion article. I think, however, I will move it to Nahuas of La Huasteca and give it some copyedits - but otherwise it should be fine. Nahua peoples should definitely link to it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, much appreciated. Maybe I do need a little break to recharge from trawling through for problematic articles ;)...and make some time to concentrate on some fresh ones. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art

HI CJLL,

Long time no chat... dunno if you got my email.. but if you know anyone reliable who could help with the "Americas" section of User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art, I'd be deeply indebted... thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut- yes, sorry, I did get ur email but have been too lax/too disorganised in responding- ¡disculpeme!
I'll look to do what I can, although it will probably be a little while before I'm able to put some real time in on it, constrained as I am at the moment by a bunch of commitments. Should be able to make a start on some refs, at least.
I'm not quite sure who else to suggest right now, the few real Meso archaeo-types I know of around here, like Rsheptak (talk · contribs), are generally pretty busy in RL. You could try asking TriNotch (talk · contribs), who seems to have a pretty good background and grasp of American archaeology in general. And friend Madman2001 (talk · contribs) has in his time whipped up some pretty good articles on short order.
Perhaps you could put out an APB for assistance at WP:ARCHAEO? You may have done that already.
Externally, M. Ruggeri's collection of american archaeological links[2] can be useful for finding reliable online sources. For Meso, at WP:MESO/REF I try to maintain a directory of all the best ones.
All the best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan: care to join me?

Hi there. You might like to take a look at what I've just done at Talk:Tibetan_grammar and see if you feel inspired to chip in. Best wishes, Alan --A R King (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan- I think it's a good idea and a worthy candidate for improvement and collaboration. Having no linguistic expertise with it, I could probably only assist through revising the article structure, citations, historical context, etc. As and when I can make some time will keep an eye out on it and help out if I can. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Alan --A R King (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Medal

The Featured Article Medal
Upon the promotion of Nahuatl to FA status you have now fully deserved the FA medal which I hereby award you. Thanks for all the help! And lets keep making them! ·Maunus· ·ƛ·

·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Maunus- means a lot coming from you. Appreciated.
Any suggestions as to the next FA target? --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about Aztec or one of its related articles. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abubakari II

Thanks for your recent edit here. I'd see the change but as I'm off to the States tomorrow haven't had time to work on it. By the way, if you ever need any information from Bernard Ortiz de Montellano let me know. I see John Hoopes has been in touch with you, he's a great guy also with a wealth of information about 2012 (from a perspective I'm sure you'd share) etc.Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, will do. If there's some pseudo-countering source I have difficulty in tracking down, I know where to come to for advice, appreciate it.
I had been meaning to get back to that article for a while now, to try and conclude those points I had tried to make that there are considerable doubts the guy even existed, let alone surfed his way ashore at some beach at Rio or Playa del Carmen. I was glad to see at the talkpg there you'd been looking it over, and had quoted from a couple of papers like Levtzion's that I had not been able to access. Unfortunately the earlier discussion kinda got sidetracked by some gratuitous and sarcastic remarks. The other contributor who had been trying to raise the issue didn't help his cause, although I think he actually knew a bit about what he was talking about- if you take a look at the german wiki article de:Abubakari II. he'd worked on, you can see it's a big improvement.
Have been glad also to see you weighing in at the Olmec speculations, pre-Columbian contacts, and sundry other articles in need of some sanity checks against pseudo and questionable 'research'. There's still a chunk of material in the Olmec spec article that was added by Clyde Winters aka Olmec98 (talk · contribs) -the genetics section is one from that quarter I think, that hasn't yet been closely examined.
Anyways- see you round, and cheers. (also posted @ ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested in an RfC

Hi CJLL Wright, You don't know me, but I noticed your work in some FAs on languages and linguistics and wondered if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I'm aware that you might not know anything specific about the language concerned (which I don't either), but the content issue is more general. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fowler- will try to look it over and see if there's anything I can contribute. Probably won't be for a couple of days. cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Megaliths

I could really use some help on the Megaliths article. The Talk page, bottom section on the map, gives a pretty good explanation of my problem, plus the recent edit which in the summary says "Rv deliberate promotion of one narrow opinion". My 'narrow opinion' is the opinion of archaeologists today. I can get more references in a few days when I am back in the UK and have online access to Antiquity, etc and my own library, but I need advice as to handle an editor with a lot of WP:OWN problems. And while I'm at it, have you seen Chronology of Human Prehistory? I'm dubious about the rationale for the article given that there is already a similar one Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures(plus other reasons I've detailed on the talk page), and the creator of the article either doesn't understand or doesn't care about Wikipedia's expectations on sources. (and also see the earlier version and what he wrote about Toba) Thanks. I'm off to the airport in a few hours, won't be online again for at least 24 hours after that.Doug Weller (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure Doug, will see what I can do. Have run out of time today, but will look into it when I get the chance tomorrow. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louvre

Hi, I noticed you edited the Louvre article. I would like to mention that we are currently trying to drive the article to GA and hopefully FA status one day. Considering that you may have an interest in the area, I thought I would invite you to join in the collaboration if you feel so inclined! Thanks again for your help! Lazulilasher (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lazulilasher. Afraid it's a little out of my general area and I've a constantly expanding mental list of things to do around here. However, I may see if I can add anything further relating to the C2RMF institution, which is headquartered in the building. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France

The title of the article is in French. Can it be changed to English i.e. Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums in France. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, but I think it should remain as-is. It might be in french, but in common with many other institutions (such as Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Palais du Louvre, Centre européen de calcul atomique et moléculaire, École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris, Société Mathématique de France, Institut français du pétrole, and so on) these are as often as not referred to by their formal (French) names —if written out in full— in an english-language source. Here, the "most common name used in english" does not itself have to be an english word or translation, if there's also a reasonable appearance of the orig. lang. name across english-language sources. In the case of this institution I doubt it comes up enough times in common english discourse to have achieved a clear "most common [english] name". In any event, most of these institutions are referred to most commonly (in french as well as english) just by their acronyms, which accord with the formal french name and not any english translation.
One other reason to prefer the original language name, besides the precedent of those other fr-institution articles, is the inconsistency in how it can be translated into english: are we talking about the Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums in France, or the Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums of France, or the Research and Restoration Centre of the French Museums..? (all possibilities that have appeared somewhere). --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned about accuracy of new articles

CJLL, I would like to discuss what to do about User:Egyptzo and the several new articles he has created which lack references, citations, and (I believe) accuracy. These articles include: Battle of Tikal and the afore-mentioned Ruler X and Ki (ruler). I was just reviewing Battle of Tikal and it seems to me (ignorant as I am about much of Maya history) that a lot of speculation has been presented as fact. User:Warthog added a citation tag to the article, but Egyptzo removed it.

As an FYI, Egyptzo was recently blocked due to edit warring on the Battle of Kadesh (although Egyptzo subsequently removed that info from his Talk page). I myself have cited a couple of copyvio's he's made. In fact, the quality of his prose is so extremely uneven that I do not doubt that he's lifting entire sentences from written material and clumsily stitching them together.

Although there's undoubtedly correct information in the article, we really can't have unsourced, speculative articles like Battle of Tikal be added to Wikipedia. What can we ( I ) do? Madman (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of copyvio from Battle of Kadesh, and Battle of Tikal is copyvio from http://stage.ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2007/08/maya-rise-fall/gugliotta-text this certainly needs to be stopped.Doug Weller (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gutted Battle of Tikal as it is almost all copyvio. Even where they aren't copyvio, they are pretty bad and need a lot of work.Doug Weller (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This could take hours. Battle of Pelusium (525 BC) is at least in part copied from http://egypt.annourbis.com/AncientEgypt/chapter24.html Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I'll try to check further myself. So, CJLL, this is not the first time he's done this. My 2 warnings were nearly 2 months ago. Madman (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I've noticed is a lot of copying straight from other Wikipedia articles, I am not sure what can be done about that but of course among other things it can perpetuate inaccuracies and unreferenced articles.Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Egyptzo copyvio removed from Chan Chak K'ak'nal Ajaw, Battle of Carchemish, Epulon, Battle of Grobnik field.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks guys, and great work Doug on tracking those down and cleaning up. It's a real pain, and I've shared suspicions abt this user's activities for some time now. A pity, since it seems to me that in the time it surely takes them to scrape text from all over the internet and piece it together, they cld easily rewrite the stuff in their own words. Also share some misgivings re the accuracy of stuff added, whether by copyvio or original. They've been around for a while now, under the current name and also their prior incarnation Harioris (talk · contribs), so there cld be quite an extensive problem out there.

Seems another admin has blocked them now, tho' personally given the persistence and number of vios I'd reckon 48hrs is a light tap. Will keep an eye on further contribs once they resume, and if any more crop up then I'd be quite prepared to place an indefinite protective block on their account.

The Battle of Tikal article had always read like a fictionalised account- it might be OK for folks like Linda Schele and David Freidel to indulge in some imagined narratives alongside their factual material, like in A Forest of Kings, but that style is completely out-of-place here on wiki. In fact, given that there's absolutely no archaeological evidence for such a particular battle, and at best it can only be inferred from the epigraphic record that the coincidence of Chak Tok Ich'aak's demise is due to some military engagement/takeover. And while some are of that view, not all sources see it that way. There's really nothing AFAIK to substantiate an article on some individual 'battle' that may or may not have occurred, and if it did it's anyone's guess what transpired other than the end result. The data in the infobox is pure fantasy. I would/will put the whole thing up for deletion, once I can round up together accessible sources on the epigraphy.

From what I've seen, a lot of the other "Battle of..."articles Egyptzo has put together are in this vein- chatty narratives, almost eyewitness-like accounts very certain of their facts, although they are talking about events for which the documentation is at the very least incomplete and open to multiple interpretations. It's gonna be hard work for someone to go about double-checking everything, maybe a notice at WP:MILHIST or the Wikiproject Ancient Egypt cld summon someone to take a look at all of those. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. Looking into it a little more, I'm beginning to wonder whether Egyptzo and the user account over at commons, commons:User:Crucifixion, are not in fact the same person. Crucifixion has uploaded a number of suspicious photos of artefacts claimed to be their own work but which more likely are just harvested from the internet, and curiously Egyptzo has added at least four of those to articles they have been working on. I think the mire of copyvio may be deepening further... will do a little more investigation to satisfy myself before taking this up at commons. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that commons:User:Crucifixion is the same person as Egyptzo, since I first had a run-in with him over commons:User:Crucifixion's insertion of a faux-Olmec head he had uploaded into the Olmec article. I somehow traced that back to Egyptzo and have been watching him (albeit not closely enough) since that time. I am going to nominate the 3 articles listed above for deletion, as well. Madman (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.geocities.com/vucedol_culture/ where he has stolen stuff and an image for Vucedol culture. I've left the image but am editing the article. He is a menace. I just gutted one article Iuput II and had to put it up for deletion. Haven't done anything but gutted Monkodonja. He should be made to undo all his edits before he can edit again. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, some sort of 'commmunity service' sentencing would be nice...it's a thankless job. As for Crucifixion, whether or not they are the same person, I reckon every img they've uploaded has been swiped from somewhere else and mislabeled as "own work". There seems to have been some attempt over at commons to review their uploads for copyvio, if I find some time will look into how to reinvigorate the process- been a while since I've edited at commons & am prob a bit out of touch about how they do things around there.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interest in Robert H. Barlow

Hi CJLL: I want to know if it is a new theory about of the suicide causes of the great investigator R.H.B. My name is Luis Felipe Cariño Preciado and I`m living in Iguala, gro., México. E-mail luiscarinopathotmaildotcom and luisfelipecarinopreciadoathotmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.134.175.78 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Luis Felipe. Afraid I don't really know of particular validated theories regarding Robert H. Barlow's death, I'd only removed what seemed to be to be baseless and unattributed speculation. Sorry can't help out, saludos. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crufixion again

Image:Orionart.jpg certainly looks as though he stole it from http://www.geocities.com/vucedol_culture/ where he stole material for his Vucedol article.Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kan Maax

Kan Maax is another Egyptos stub with some copyvio from at least [3] -- redirect to Cancuen where you've been editing and put something in there about him, or? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Tikal and Fire is Born

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

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

[edit] Could you look at New Thought?

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

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

[edit] Locations for Maya sites

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sylvanus Morley

Hi, I am mywood from zh wiki and have a question of article Sylvanus Morley. I find that chapter "Carnegie Institution and Chichen Itza proposa" changed a lot in last november, see [4], and in the beginning of next chapter, "Morley was to devote the next 18 years working in the Maya region", I get a little bit confused about the next 18 years. Is it from old version 1918 or from new version 1913? Could you please help me to check with it? Thanks a lot.--Mywood2004 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] So much for "water under the bridge"

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

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

[edit] Piktuns and beyond

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cyrstal Skull

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

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

[edit] Sylvanus Morley

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

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

[edit] Rongorongo, again

Hi CJ,

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

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

[edit] Archaeology of Spits

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)