User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXVIII

ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005	2006	2007	2008
I (May–Dec)	II (Jan–Feb) III (Mar–Apr) IV (May) V (Jun) VI (Jul) VII (Aug–Sep) VIII (Oct–Nov) IX (Dec)	X (Jan) XI (Feb) XII (Mar) XIII (Apr) XIV (May–Jun) XV (Jul–Aug) XVI (Sep) XVII (Oct) XVIII (Nov–Dec)	XIX (Jan) XX (Feb–Mar) XXI (Apr) XXII (May) XXIII (Jun-Jul) XXIV (Aug-Sep) XXV (Oct-Nov) XXVI (Dec)
2009	2010–11	2012
XXVII (Jan-Feb) XXVIII (Mar-May) XXVIX (Jun) XXX (Jul-Aug) XXXI (Sep-Oct) XXXII (Nov-Dec)	XXXIII (2010 Jan-Dec) XXXIV (2011 Jan-Dec)

Mar '09 — May '09

Alfred Tozzer, "Zelia Nuttall" link in the Reference section of the Codex Nuttall article

Hi CJLL,

I edited the link in the Codex Nuttall article because the link that was there 1) did not point to the article it referenced (it points to the web pages of the General Anthropology Division at AAA's web pages), and 2) the article referenced in the link is freely available to everybody (not only JSTOR subscribers and academics associated with universities, colleges and other JSTOR associated institutions) at American Ethnography Quasimonthly's web pages. I am the editor of said web page, but I don't see that this, in this case, makes my edit weaker? --Ultramartin (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ultramartin. You were right, it seems that that URL for the full-text article at AAA website no longer points to the right place. However, Tozzer's article can be freely accessed at AAA site, just at a different URL now. I have amended and reformatted the reference, giving the link to the updated URL at AAA. General best practice is to link to the version of the text that is as close as possible to the original source, to avoid potential reproduction discrepancies and also to minimise any copyvio concerns. In this case, I'm also not 100% certain that Tozzer's article could be considered as being in the public domain — I think it may depend upon whether it was published w/out a copyright notice, or with a notice but was not renewed (in which case shld be PD), or whether it was published with a notice and was renewed (in which case it is not yet PD). IANAL, though. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, CJLL! Excuse the confusion. At least I got to find a broken link. :) --Ultramartin (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how copyvio concerns relate to a link from a Wikipedia page to an AAA webpage. In general, though, the American Anthropology Association writes that "AAA article content published before 1964 is in the public domain and may be used and copied without permission." (They ask that a complete reference to the original publication and a link to AnthroSource is included.) AAANET Reprints & Permissions --Ultramartin (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a questioning of whether AAA could reproduce online their own published works, but rather whether you or anybody else could. Given that copyright statement at AAANet you've unearthed, in this case there would seem to be no issue for your website or another republishing Tozzer's 1933 obituary for Nuttall. Per our external links guides, we shouldn't be linking to sites if the site may be reproducing material that's in violation of copyright. Happily, no problem here.

As per our discussion/agreement on its talkpage, I have now deleted the article American Ethnology Quasimonthly after you've copied it into your userspace, as insufficiently notable for article space inclusion, but ok for userspace information. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about presentation of references

Hi CJLL Wright, I had changed the style of references in Kukulkan as per the policy on how to present citations. You reverted the edit, but, although I realize this whole issue is rather pedantic, would you kindly point me to the right policy I should follow? Thank you, Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Hi Idunno. I don't believe there are any wikipedia policies that dictate how references should be presented and formatted. WP:CITE, WP:MOS and related pages are guidelines, describing (mostly) sensible and common ways that article components such as cites/references can be presented. Like it says on WP:CITE, "Citations are usually presented within articles using one of the methods described in the How to present citations section of this guideline. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it." [emphasis mine]. The guideline subsection WP:CITE#HOW describes several cite/ref presentational methods that may commonly be found, & notes there is no single preferred system. As far as the style that was used at the Kulkulkan article goes, it is really an implementation of the so-called "shortened notes" method, albeit with one or two quite minor stylistic variations that are intended to make it a little easier for the reader to identify the reference keywords (ie authors' names) in what would otherwise be undifferentiated blocks of text. There's nothing I have seen that forbids such a presentational style, and since it was consistent within the article itself and does not hamper anything, I don't see there's any merit to changing it. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CJLL Wright, thank you for the excellent clarification, and for your help. Also, my apologies for the edits I had made to Kukulkan. Regards, Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's quite OK Idunno, no need to apologise. I realise there are many articles out there where the citation/referencing is poorly executed, inconsistently applied, and without any thought about whether the presentation helps or hinders the reader if they want to find something. For those, cleanups such as yours are definitely worthwhile. But when some attempt has been made to apply within the same article some particular and consistent presentation, & the presentation is readable and makes sense, then it should not really matter if that style deviates in some minor way from the plain-vanilla examples at WP:CITE#HOW. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maya mythology

Hi. Thanks for the "artist" but the image I uploaded on Commons is just a scrap of the real bassorilievo representing Xbalanque and his brother. We have no image on Commons about the Twins. I didnt mean to add an artistic value to the image, I just added some (automatic) shadows and colors to help the reading of the original 3D artwork that is a multilayer composition, hard to define in a 2 dimensions fashion. We have other drawings (symbols, glyphs..) in Maya category but they're black and white. --Waglione (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Waglione. Unfortunately, the bas relief in that image you have based your rendered version on is not a real or authentic pre-Columbian Maya sculpture. Instead, I believe it to be a creation by the guy who illustrated the (rather silly) 2000 esoteric "Maya oracle" book, Wisdom of the Maya: An Oracle of Ancient Knowledge for Today by Ronald Bonewitz. In fact, that image is used for the book's front cover illustration (see here), and images of this that you may find on the internet clearly come from this source. The illustrator of this book (and its accompanying "oracle card" set) has designed a series of Maya-themed pictures with the appearance (but only the appearance) of being "real" sculptural reliefs. While the illustrator has obviously been inspired by combining elements from genuine pre-Columbian Maya iconography, his illustrations are not actually faithful reproductions of authentic sculptures but rather are overlaid with a design concept to suit the faux shamanistic purposes of the author's 'retelling' of supposed 'ancient Maya wisdom'.

As such the illustrations of his creations are under copyright, and so incidentally I'd presume that derivative works such as your renders are at risk of copyvio.

Even if the originals were to be faithful reproductions of authentic precolumbian Maya bas reliefs, I don't think that your version would be useful illustrate authentic Maya iconography. For eg, a number of the elements visible in the original are obscured/altered in your version, such as the descending bird figure and the headdress bundles—elements with iconographic meaning. IMO at least your version is too impressionistic/non-realistic to have much value in depicting the subject.

I'd be suprised if there was not already out there on wiki some img that (authentically) depicts the Hero Twins, at least in part. In any case it shld not be that difficult to locate usable genuine reproductions, such as codex or out-of-copyright reproductive drawings. Regards (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much fot this clear answer. As I'm not into Commons procedures, could you please delete the unuseful image or ask for deletion? Thanks in advance! --Waglione (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I'll nominate it for deletion at commons. Cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sirius Mystery

The pov editor put his version back and I missed it, after I reverted his edits he's been back, we both need to keep an eye on this if possible. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug - have been away this past week, but in interim seems that this editor got themselves an indef block. Maybe that will be the last of it. If not, hv it on closer watchlist. Cheers. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Yes, but Wikipedia Manual of Style specifies that lists should always have bullets, which instead you omit in your list style; secondarily, I wonder why, if 90% of lists are formatted in a way here, you must choose a different style. Good work and see you soon! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Attilios, thanks for your replies.

Re lists and bullets: afraid I don't see where in the MOS it dictates that bullet markers must always be used, either at MOS:LIST or elsewhere. Indeed, in the List styles section several different example types of lists are given, some without bullet markers. In any case, following the overarching MOS general principles for styles and formats, these need only be consistently applied within articles, not necessarily between them; sensible departures from MOS guidelines/suggestions are perfectly fine and any departures on their own are insufficient grounds to alter a deliberate chosen style from one to the other, without consensus.

As for why in this particular case bullet markers are not desirable- the reasons are twofold (although technically speaking, the colons [:] are bullet markers, just 'invisible' ones—they generate underlying HTML code as list elements in the same way that an asterisk [*] or hash [#] does).

Firstly, a bibliography is not a run-of-the-mill list, although it technically may be a list. Since the chosen style uses hanging indents to offset the bibliography elements one from the other, using bullet markers also to do this would be redundant. The indentation is the bullet marker, if you prefer.

Second reason is a technical one. It so happens that browsers treat bullets differently, wrt to how they align the bullet marker with the indentation level. MSIE moves the bullet marker to the right if this indent is applied, whereas Firefox, Opera etc do not. So if we're using indents, when viewed in an MSIE browser the bullet gets shifted hard up against the first character of the text, which is not a good look (other browsers can cope with this kind of layout). Since a great many folks use MSIE, it's best to just make the bullet marker invisible (which is what the colon [:] does), and the output then looks the same across browsers. As mentioned, the hanging indent already does the job of providing a demarcation between each element, so visible bullet markers aren't needed anyway.

Hope that explains things. I have reset all those now again to the chosen presentation format. Thanks for your attention anyway. Best, (this reply crossposted at ur talkpg), --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And a happy Wiki-anniversary from me too! Glad you're still around. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks both! Time sure does creep up on you....--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Wollumbin. Mt Warning is Wulambiny

We would appreciate your assistance to alter the false information on Wikipedia about Mt Warning. The name Wollumbin was stolen from my families Mountain and applied to Mt Warning as a false Dual name.

We have the anthropological studies from the Elders, 50 year old tapes, the 1977 NSW NPWS anthro study and the false transcripts used by national parks, dictionaries from the language speaking elders and hundreds of supporting documents, but cannot upload them to wiki and I am new to wiki. Apologies that references were not included but I am unsure how to include reference links. Professor Sharpes dictionary has the correct name for Mt Warning (Wulambiny) and is on the net. NSW Geo names board site shows that the name Wollumbin was stolen from Mt Wollumbin in 2005. We have the minutes from NSW GEO names board meetings where lie after lie was told to the board. The Elders are furious at this false info on Wikipedia.

Wollumbinmountain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs)

Hello there Wollumbinmountain. I see that by now a couple of other editors are already reviewing the situation at talk:Mount Warning, to see if there's any information that needs changing or updating. Not sure I am able to add much to what's already been undertaken there, by Bruceanthro & others. But it looks like it's going down the right track for wikipedia, and I hope also for your community. Best regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Article issues for Theun Mares

Hi CJLL,Please let me know if the changes made in the article are in tune with the terms & conditions of Wikipedia, or you feel that additional changes require. Practical suggestions will be appreciated. Regards,Courier 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courier 21 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Courier 21. That is a start at least, but I still think the majority of the concerns listed need to be addressed. I have made some further comments at Talk:Theun Mares. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi CJLL,I would like to request full deletion of my Article, File Uploads, Photos and User Account. Regards, Courier 21 —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Now deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Doug. Not quite the result I'd been looking for, & had no intention to see Courier 21 remove themselves altogether from contributing. Still, in the absence of any confirmatory information re Mares' notability for inclusion, I think the deletion as things stand make sense. If Courier 21 would like to come back and continue contributing within our standing guidelines, they'd be welcome still. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maize

Hello, CJLL Wright. You have new messages at Talk:Maize.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

I was wondering, are you still planning to write about the 21 vs 23 December date for the 2012 doomsday prediction? Right now the article is really confusing and this clarification is really needed, and I don't have the background to provide it. Also, I would really appreciate it if you could provide some genuine scholarly responses to Jenkins's galactic alignment theory. Sorry to prod you :-) Serendi^podous 09:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous. Yeah, I still have good intentions to do some substantial revisions to the 2012 article, incl. clarifying the rationales behind choice of 'end date'. Thanks for the prompt, will see if I can at least make a start this week.

As for Jenkins, one of the probs is that so far he has failed to publish his ideas abt the Maya calendar in a scholarly context (although he's been invited to do so), and so actual Maya scholars have not really devoted much space in sources that we might use, to debating his proposals. There's been considerable discussion and exchange between him and Mayanist academics on mailing lists like AZTLAN for eg, but not that much in print. Still, I think there are a couple of published rebuttals or appraisements, which I'll see to track down and reference/incorporate. One other point, while it is focused on the 2012 date, Jenkins' 'galactic alignment' theory is not particularly concerned with any millenniarian significance for the date. It's not all that clear to me just exactly what transformation he thinks will ensue, or if it really is supposed to be a transformative event at all. Wld need to read up a bit more on what he's actually said abt it. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm sorry to bother you but could you please please please try to get some info into the article about the 21 vs 23 Dec. date? I know you want the article to improve its citation methodology but that's going to take a a while and I'm still angling to get another article merged into that one. But the 21/23 Dec. thing is already causing confusion and it really does need to be addressed (readers are logging in to change 23 to 21). And I can't do it alone :-( Serendi^podous 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Serendipodous, no worries. I haven't forgotten, just been a bit distracted as per usual with other matters/commitments, and also on the side tracking down some more reliable sources that could be used. I fully intend to make a few revisions to that article, including repurposing it to something like 2012 millenarianism as I'd suggested couple months back, but hv not got around to act upon. Gimme another day or two at the outside, shld be able to commence some revisions by then. Keep up the good work, cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Diego de Landa Calderón

Hi. I only noticed that the Diego de Landa article had been moved to Diego de Landa Calderón; I'm not sure about that as it seems to me he's by far more commonly simply called "Diego de Landa". I brought this up at Talk:Diego de Landa Calderón; if you have any comments they'd be appreciated there. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Infrogmation. Sure, agree that Diego de Landa is most common, and sufficiently unambiguous- article would be better under that name. have commented at the talkpg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance

Hi Cjllw. I need admin assistance to move the page Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and its related page history and talk page tothe better title Linguistic relativity. I've discussed it with the oher main contributor and he's ok - noones objected.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Sure no problem, consider it done. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE

---