User talk:CJLL Wright

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: 20 October 2009 I have: L I M I T E D  A V A I L A B I L I T Y OFF ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ON! ...generally only occasional and limited access and availability right now... usually 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. I may not be too pedantic about following this, however, and every rule needs its own exceptions!
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.

---

--Talk archives--

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)

---

D I S C U S S I O N

---

Sylvanus G. Morley (archeologist)

cjllw, we need to talk!

Some brothers and cousins and I are, as far as we've been able to discover so far, the only remaining family of Sylvanus G. Morley. I'll keep our names out of it for the moment, but will say that Dr. Morley was my great-uncle: my maternal grandmother was Vay's sister. As so often happens, my interest is now sparked long after the deaths of the people who actually knew him. He died in Santa Fe a year after I was born in the East so I never knew him, but grew up hearing stories from my mother, who always refered to him as "Uncle Vay".

I'm aware of descendants of two other siblings who also will likely be interested. What I have not found (yet) is any of Morley's direct descendants. We know he had a daughter by his first wife and that he was close to her even after the divorce. (From a family genealogy compiled in 1949 by either my mother or possibly Vay's brother Henry, partially updated perhaps around 1970 by my mother): the daughter, Alice, married Edwin Brooks in 1931, and they had two children, Ann Eliz Brooks b. 8/23/1932 and Susan Morley Brooks b. 5/26/1935. Admittedly, our search for them only started a couple of weeks ago and not yet in earnest - we plan to proceed. If we can find them, I expect they'll be intensely interested. Or perhaps they know far more than we do.

My interest was sparked about two years ago, when my wife and I took a Spanish class (refresher for me, first exposure for her) in the local community college, to facilitate our trips to Mexico. Each student was asked to do a paper or presentation on any subject that somehow related to anything hispanic, intro en espanol. Naturally, I pulled out the books I had inherited by or about Vay and bought a couple more. I put together a "brief" outline of his life and works, and found the presentation was far too long! This man's life CANNOT be summed up in a 15 minute talk.

We returned last night from my first trip to the Yucatán, this having been planned as a nice relaxing beach vacation on Isla Mujeres. But my wife was happy to allow a couple of days at Chichén Itzá to enable me to find out more about Vay. Back in the 60's, my parents explored the area and found that "doors opened" when Mom introduced herself as Morley's niece. Following in her footsteps, we emailed the Mayaland Hotel where we stayed, about a week before the trip. I thought, even after all these years, that there might still be someone who could spare a few minutes with us. Well, the hotel's owner replied in only a day or two, to invite us to a dinner with a couple of noted archeologists, reporters, and possibly the Governor of the State of Yucatán! Unfortunately, the governor was unable to attend due to a meeting in Mexico City, but tried to get the hotel owner to change the date! So we now know that Vay was far more than merely respected in Yucatán, he was and is still revered.

The dinner was lovely and the people were charming, though our conversational Spanish is still lacking. We were surprised at the lack of resources these people have at their disposal - they need more books! Promises were made to stay in contact (and I will certainly follow through), and the owner is very excited to be planning a library in his beautiful hotel, dedicated to Sylvanus G. Morley. I think this is a wonderful idea and want to support him in any way I can.

I think we all need to be in contact. Please email me if you can share any info with us.

Jimjomac 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Jimjomac- thanks for you kind enquiry, and the information re your experiences makes for very interesting reading. Unfortunately I've not had much time today to do anything other than read it- I'll reply in some more detail when I get a chance, probably in a couple of days. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. This article on Morley is very good. I have written biographical pieces on Morley before, and so I do know couple things about him! I live in Santa Fe, and know the woman who is the heir to the Morley Estate here. She's not related, but still has some Morley material. About the question of other children, apart from his daughter. There have been lots of rumors that he fathered at least one child with a native Yucatec Maya woman. These would have been staff at the Hacienda Chichen, and after 1940, the Hacienda Chenku, in Merida. On one of my research trips to Yucatan I hope to poke around and ask some questions. Let me know if anyone finds the grand daughters.

Also, I am trying to learn what Masonic lodge initiated Morley. It does not seem to be Montezuma #1, here in Santa Fe. I am guessing that he may have been initiated back east, maybe in Cambridge, when he was a student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvillela (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kvillela, thanks for your kind words. At the time I wrote it I didn't have access to sources detailing his personal life, so if you know of some then there may be some interesting info that could be added to the article. Unfortunately I have not heard back from Jimjomac, so don't know whether or not he had any more success in tracking down the family tree. I should probably try and email him again.

I'm curious (but you don't have to answer if you don't wish to, anonymity around here is quite OK): you wouldn't happen to be Khristaan Villela of the CSF, by any chance? If so, your paper "Morley Hires Tatiana Proskouriakoff" published in the PARI Journal was one of the sources I relied upon in writing the article, and I found it most useful. Do you have other biog pieces on Morley published somewhere that might be readily obtainable? One of these days I should revisit the article and beef up the citations and references. Anyways, regards and cheers (also posted at your talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi, CJLL. I tried out some footnotes on the El Castillo page. Could I impose upon you to see if I did them right? Thanks! CoyoteMan31 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi CoyoteMan- no problem, you did good. Also commented there on the couple of other valid points you raised. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

3ware 9500s

Hi, this page was deleted - why? I understand that it was proposed to be deleted, but *why*?

The page itself contained a wealth of USEFUL information concerning this particular RAID card, yet because it was a little untidy - it was simply deleted? No chance for a tidy-up? What's going on with the encyclopaedia anyone can edit?

So long as Wikipedia admins decide to just delete what they don't find useful themselves, or maybe don't understand the value of, then Wikipedia will slowly slip from the face of the earth.

Very disappointed, very disappointed indeed.

87.194.16.76 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Tom

Hi Tom. The page was deleted (by me) per our deletion policies, in particular via the WP:PROD process which allows for articles to be deleted if after being tagged for proposed deletion they remain uncontested after five days have elapsed. After reviewing the article I concurred with the deletion nominator that the article as it stood was suitable for deletion under a number of established criteria. Among these is our No Original Research policy, since the article consisted in the main of 1st-person descriptions of benchmarking tests, review comments etc undertaken by the article's writer. This is not how wikipedia encyclopaedia articles should be constructed (ie based on personal experience & interpretation rather than verifiable and citeable third-party sources). While wikipedia is supposed to be the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit", it is not the "encyclopaedia where anyone can write whatever they want to, whether it's encyclopaedic or not".

In this case, the content was also far removed from the purpose of wikipedia's entries- pls see in particular What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a repository of product reviews, test results, or a substitute for a personal webspace and discussion forum. As the article was largely composed of sentences like "The Battery Backup Unit, (BBU), is a bit difficult to get on. I had to actually remove the metal clip on the side that you screw down to get it on. Then I read the manual and discovered my extreme approach is exactly the right way to do it." and "I wrote this wiki because the performance of the card was far far below what I expected...", coupled with invitations such as "Please contribute your results to this wiki page so that others can gain from your experiences." Hopefully you can see that material such as that, even if useful in some way, is not within wikipedia's scope and is really better suited to some other tech review forum or webspace. If there is to be an article on that particular RAID card, it needs to be a factual description based on external published 3rd-party reliable/notable sources, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE (as well as meeting other criteria, so I'm not saying whether or not an article on this particular product will be deemed eligible for inclusion here). Hope this explains, regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your comments, and I realise why the article wasn't quite appropriate - but the fact remains that no chance was given for the article to be re-written or re-structured.

Once more, if it's ever re-created - surely it will be deleted too?

Is there any archive available from which the information can be retrieved? Even if it is not to be assimilated into wiki-form, I'd very much like to have the reference material for my own future use. I'm sure the original author(s) wouldn't mind their hard-work being put to use, or mirrored elsewhere on the web, given that the appropriate credit is given..

87.194.16.76 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Tom

If you want to look at it, I've copied the deleted text to a temporary space here. Otherwise, you could try to contact the original creator User:Daveseobmcom, although he seems to have not taken kindly to being (reasonably) informed his contributions do not fit in with wikipedia's stated purposes, and is likely no longer around.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mayan Long Count

My mind is boggled, you claim to remove the link I posted because the paged linked to also has a link to a timewave calculator and this bothers you and you consider it misleading - yet you leave a link to John Major Jenkins "end date" which does not exist as well as the link to diagnosis2012 both of which are sites designed to sell books proclaiming 2012 is the end of the world. I am not arguing with your reasoning in removing the link I posted rather I am claiming that you are not being consistent in your judgement here. My position is that at least half of the people who visit the mayan calendar page are looking for information relating to the supposed end date which is a fabrication yet you are not allowing links which attempt to show that this end date is false.

I would like to see such a calculator available on the page, if I copied the javascript used for the calculator and put it on a page unrelated to the timewave stuff would that be acceptable to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aronprice (talk • contribs) 1 August 2007.

Well, at least two others beside myself have not been able to see the value of having that link to your website. Given that your only activity around here so far has been to add links to your website, it's valid to question whether your actions are intended to benefit that external website, instead of wikipedia. The Long Count calendar article already makes the point that it doesn't "end" per se but can be extended in either direction, and I don't see that your calendar converter says this any better.

Re the couple of others you mention, the JMJ link is not a calendar converter but rather his well-known (but not accepted) interpretation of 'galactic centre alignment', which for the moment anyways is better off as a link than being covered in any detail in the text. JMJ incidentally does not maintain it's the end of the world, or even the end of the calendar. The diagnosis2012 page is a collection of many of the dozens & dozens of calendar converters, which actually can be input beyond 2012 although they mostly don't display the higher-order coefficients themselves. I sort of agree that these are borderline relevant as well, and I'm not particularly attached to having them as ext links either.

BTW, the way in which your calendar converter represents dates BCE is erroneous, or at least misleadingly labelled. Although you label it as the 'Gregorian calendar', you are actually using astronomical year numbering to represent the years (ie, you include a 'year zero', which the Gregorian calendar does not have). Thus, the start-date of the b'ak'tun cycle 13(0).0.0.0.0. 8 Kumk'u 4 Ajaw should correspond with 11 August 3114 BCE in the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar by the GMT correlation; but your converter displays −3113 instead (ie, astronomical not Gregorian year number). I realise yours is not alone in this respect, a lot of the others which like yours appear to be based on the Fourmilab one do this.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the best way to present new material for the page itself, not just external links. I have been researching different perspectives on this from the anthropology/archaeology world as well as the new age speculation and would like to share a summary of what I've found (details on third party studies). Would this best be done by just adding material that fits with wikipedia policy and then seeing how other editors react or should I run it by someone first? I've been hesitant to make such contributions based on the reactions I've gotten from folks here, but from what you are saying that would actually be more welcome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.153.119 (talk • contribs) 2 August 2007.

As long as you try to make sure that your contributions are sourced and represent the scholarly consensus in a balanced way, describing the anthropological/archaeological consensus as such and the New Age speculations as such, your contributios are more than welcome. However you must be aware that other editors can change, challenge and edit whatever you choose to add - which is why it is a good idea to provide a sound basis for the inclusion of your material by referring to well established and credible sources.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus, as long as it's cited, presented for what it is, and otherwise in tune with WP:FRINGE and other related guidelines, then no objection to inclusion or mention of more speculative interpretations on the calendar— providing it's notable enough and is not disproportionate to the more standard desc. I tend to think that it might be better in the long run to have a separate article to deal with alternative Maya calendar / 2012 speculations, rather than take up too much space on the Maya calendar article itself. Unfortunately, there is probably a sufficient number of these popular speculations in play to warrant attention in its own right. Open to suggestions as to what the title of that alternative article should be.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Xelha

• My understanding was that Xelha was created as a national park, but that the concession is privately run, much like the concessions at the Grand Canyon and Yosemite. Do you have information about Xelha that contradicts this? --Bejnar 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you consider these two sentences superfluous? --Bejnar 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most of the extant ruins are located on the inland side of the highway, although one island in the lagoon of the water park has remnants of a building. One temple, ten feet from the highway, contains a painted wall mural of the god Tlaloc."

Hi Bejnar. If it were a National Park, I would expect it to have been gazetted as such, but I can't find any mention of it at the CONANP site[1], or see its decree as one of the areas naturales protegidas listed at CONANP's Sistema de Informacion Geografica [2]]. Mexican govt websites are usually pretty comprehensive, so its apparent omission indicates to me that it is not a NP, or at least is not one now.

As for that sentence, I was planning to redescribe the site's layout, so it's not that I have a problem with the sentence, per se. Although, I think it most unlikely that the mural is a depiction of Tlaloc, who is a central Mexican not Maya deity- the sentence probably is intended to mean Chaak, but I was going to wait until I'd found a specific description in one of the archaeological papers before restoring/updating. Regards, (also posted at ur talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD

Hello, I saw that you were closing, and wanted to ensure that you would be aware that the CfD is getting compromised by extensive posting to various forums, all but two by one user, and some of them far less appropriate than others ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). Aside from the violations of AGF and CIV in the posts there and on the CfD, the same user has solicited votes from users on one side of this and the previous discussion ([13] [14] [15] [16]) in direct contradiction to the guideline on canvassing. I hope that this notification is in order, as I'm extremely unsure as to how to proceed from here. Tewfik^Talk 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I will bear the situation in mind, should I end up reviewing those particular ones you are concerned with for closure. At the moment, I have no opinion either way, not having looked into the background as yet.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article with no references

Good morning. A few months back I had an article deleted for lack of references, and I just ran across a similar article which also has no references, and should be deleted according to WP:CSD A7 (also WP:CORP and WP:WEB).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuqa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 18:54, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Marquinho. It seems that another admin has concurred that the Xuqa article meets CSD criteria, and it has been deleted now in any case. I imagine that you've alerted me since I had a while ago now speedy deleted the Yuniti article you'd created, on similar grounds. Now that it's recreated, someone else has nominated that for deletion consideration. It will need to undergo the usual review, let's leave it up to that process to determine the outcome. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

would you please take a look...

Hi CJLL! Would you please take a look at this edit and let me know if it's OK? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gidday Ling.Nut! I'd say one of your best edits to date, even drawn from some pretty stiff competition.... I was gonna slap an {{original research}} tag on it, but couldn't work out the markup, and I s'pose unlike wikipedia these unis actually encourage it ;-) Congratulations, assuredly well-deserved. I'll keep an eye out for the inevitable forthcoming contribs from User:Dr. Ling.Nut, a suspected sockpuppet of the mysterious editor who's always on a break but whose contribs continue to mount nonetheless...spooky! All the best, and cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the mysterious editor who's always on a break but whose contribs continue to mount nonetheless"

---

Glad to be back . . .

CJLL:

Thanks for your welcome back note. Although I'm pretty busy with a number of other matters, there certainly is something satisfying about making a solid addition to a Wikipedia article, (as well as cleaning up existing sentence structure, etc.) so it looks like I'll be around for some time.  : ) Madman 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

excellent Madman, I see that you are already up to your usual standard of well-researched additions, your new Classic Veracruz culture being a case in point! Top stuff!--cjllw ʘ TALK 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CJLL!! I am glad you were keeping watch during my absence and thankful for your cheerleading (cf. your enthusiatic response to the new editor below). Stepping away for a while refreshes my perspective, and honestly I was newly amazed at the quality of some of the Mesoamerican articles. They do not speak down to our readers, but on the other hand they are not filled with techno-speak or obtuse writing. And they are almost always laced with great photos of important structures and artifacts. Lead on, MacDuff! Madman 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Huei tlamahuiçoltica

(in response to my posting at Cleduc's usertalk pg here)

Thanks for the heads up, that is illuminating. I'm starting to get it, but the guy's writing is so bizarre that I have the hardest time just parsing the phrases. I'm going to keep it up, though I usually get tired of repeating V-NOR-NPOV fifty times to the same person (especially when they behave so poorly) and on a subject that I find tedious at best. I'll probably put out an RFC in a few days. Cheers, Cleduc 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Cleduc 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We can only try, but there's only so much latitude that can be given to assume AGF on User:Luisosio's behalf. We've probably gone as far as we need to, and well and truly established that his book and expertise cannot be relied upon. As and when I find the time I'll continue on with pruning out the clearly OR and unsubstantiated passages and dubious refs, but like you it's not an area that deeply interests me. I think your subsequent contribs have been well done. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Classic Maya collapse article

Dear CJLL Wright:

Hello, my name is Galaxy413, real name John, and I have been working diligently to improve the Classic Maya Collapse article. This has been an intellectual interest of mine ever since visiting Tikal in 1974, and I have books, articles, substantial information, and research already in hand (and in my brain). How do I join the working group you referred to? And how would we remove the box at the start of the Classic Maya Collapse article which states, now incorrectly, that no citations or references have been given? Obviously, I am new to Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

Galaxy413 aka John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy413 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(for continuity, reproducing here my response added to your talkpage) Hi there John/Galaxy413. I see that you've worked out how to remove the "needs references" box in that article. I have added the code to the article which makes the inline cites display. There are only a couple of other minor formatting touches and the like, which I am sure you will soon pick up on as readily as you have the other principles of editing here.

That is an excellent job you have done with that article, most impressive! You are most welcome here at WikiProject Mesoamerica- pls look around at the project's pages (not all of which are up to date, alas) for some idea of the scope and types of things we look to do. There's no real formal enrolment in the project, but you can add your name and some info to the project participants' page so others can see who's around and working on the same sorts of articles. At any one time there's usually about half-a-dozen, give or take, folks regularly contributing to Mesoamerican topical articles, depending on external commitments and whatnot. Feel free to ask any of us questions, advice, or add your commentary or suggestions to ways we can improve things here. Your contribs at the Classic Maya collapse article are just the kind of thing one might hope for - many thanks!

I'd be happy to give you a couple of pointers, shortcuts and tips on editing and processes around here. Am just at the end of my day here so won't be adding anything right now, but over the next little while. In the meantime, if any other specific questions occur to you pls do drop me a note on my usertalk page. (By the way, not to worry about messages like that above from SineBot (an automated script that detects whether or not someone used the 'sign' function), just an automated reminder. If you want to vary your signature automatically, you can set it up on your preferences page. There's an instruction somewhere, I'll see if I can track it down. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Spinnaker Sound deletion

Hello, In starting (my first) submission to Wikipaedia, I was perplexed at your decision to so immediately delete it. My first contact with this fine resource was in researching another sound studio in my Metropolitan area. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warehouse_Studio)

I had only gotten through a couple of "non-selling" and very factual statments about the location and function of Spinnaker and found it gone, while the aforementioned studio goes so far as to list their equipment etc, in hopes of raising their profile... and business..

While both studios are heritage buildings (I hadn't gotten to that part yet) I was dismayed by the immediate censoring/deletion of my ( I thought) strictly factual account of an interesting building and enterprise that exists in my small town.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to set me straight... then perhaps I can write my first article and have it be read, edited and hopefully appreciated much like my neighbour's worthy enterprise up the road.

Thank you for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricehoneywell (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rice, apologies your comment here caught me at the end of my day here, hence the slight delay in response.

I deleted that article as it had been tagged by someone else as likely satisfying the criteria for speedy deletion. Although Wikipedia has an extremely broad range of entries, not every entity or topic warrants inclusion here. There are Notability guidelines that an article or topic generally needs to satisfy else risk being deleted. When I reviewed the article I determined that there was nothing compelling to demonstrate a claim to notability, nor did a (non-comprehensive) search turn up any indications.

However, I have decided to temporarily restore the article, to give an opportunity for you to expand upon how it may meet the notability threshholds. Possibly, there are some 3rd-party sources or further information that could be provided that would change the present perception. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at these guidelines on notability inclusion for companies. Note that, "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it."

You might also like to consider 'What Wikipedia is Not', as a further guide to how articles should be structured and what they should contain. Wikipedia is not a business-directory substitute or intended as a means to alert and direct readers towards products and services. Only those products and services that can show a significant notability and appearance in reliable, non-promotional third-party sources are candidates for inclusion.

This restoration does not mean that someone else won't come by later and consider the article for deletion. As it stands now I still think the article would fairly meet the criteria to be deleted. You'd be welcome to argue the point if it came to that, but in the end whether it stays or goes will depend on any overall consensus established (say, if someone were to nominate it for the formal deletion process.

I can make no guarantee that the article will not in the end be deleted, either by me upon reconsideration or someone else. It will depend on the content and demonstration that it meets various criteria for inclusion here. These criteria are not always clear-cut, and in general it is up to the contributors to make sure that the article's content and subject matter fall within our policies and guidelines. Hope this helps. Regards (also posted at your talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: High Mowing Organic Seeds deletion

Hello, You deleted this article only about ten minutes after I created it. I see from this page that you regularly delete articles that don't meet your perhaps narrow interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. I have been slowly adding a few things to wikipedia, and I was actually planning to make a financial donation to the project. But I have lost my good feelings about this site. Please recreate the original page you deleted, and apologize. If you want to mark it for speedy deletion & send me an email, go ahead. I'll defend my page. It's no advertisement, you brown-nose "administrator". You want some sources, I'll come up with some sources. But there is a process, and as far as I can see, you've not followed it properly. If you don't put the page back up, I hope you die.

ps How about you go delete the other content I've made on wikipedia also, you fucking nazi. Think I give a shit about having knowledge available? I used to, but not any more. Fuck you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchristopher (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided my reasons in the edit summary, which you've obviously read. You might also like to read WP:NOT, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL.

If you think the article should be recreated, then take it up at Deletion Review.

If you want to complain about my actions as an admin, take it to WP:ANI.

Childish invective is unlikely to help your cause.

Your demand for apology is, under the circumstances, a little rich.

This response also posted at your talkpage.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the links. I may take it up at deletion review. I am in the mean time trying to first get DrKiernan to undelete the talk page for Tom Stearns, which was deleted along with the Tom Stearns page. How about you people do a web search for "Tom Stearns organic" or "Tom Stearns seeds" - this field isn't as full of computer-geeks as the field of another person who has a legitimate wikipedia page, Seth Schoen. Both are young graduates of NMH; both are experts in their field and have made significant contributions and have widespread name recognition and some independent biography. I look up to both of them, and I think that according to the criteria I read that they are both notable & that their notability is within the guidelines to warrant a wikipedia page. However, in addition, Mr. Stearns has succeeded as a businessman in a field much more known for being a field for losing one's fortune rather than gaining one (agriculture). Mr Schoen works for a 501c3 that is funded by someone independently wealthy; that makes Tom Stearns *more* notable in my opinion. I did read up on your page suggestions. Maybe you should also add something to the civility page about not deleting pages so quickly, especially involving newbies (see the page on not biting newbies), and this goes triple for the talk pages. Frankly, I think that your error is just as much a civility problem as mine. You may have more knowledge of the wikipedia definition of civility, but that does not make you any more an authority on civility itself. Peterchristopher 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tom Stearns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Peterchristopher 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification. It wasn't me who deleted Tom Stearns, but I guess you are considerately informing me since I deleted the related High Mowing Organic Seeds article which you also took exception to. For now I'll reserve my right to comment, and watch to see how other independent admins view those actions. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Oddly enough, aside from your original error of deleting the file & your followup error of not recreating it, you've behaved very responsibly. I take that as an admission of your inner recognition of agreement with my analysis. The rest of the police patrol, however, are just getting caught up in their psychological problems and aren't able to see the issue. But who am I to talk, eh? Cheers. Peterchristopher 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's more to do with my 'inner recognition' that it's best to communicate civilly and maintain equanimity, and not to take too personally the way some things are phrased. However it is quite understandable, even to be expected, that if you couch your arguments in terms practically guaranteed to get someone's back up then you're not going to get a positive response. I don't know what you expected to gain from labelling your editing peers here as 'nazis' etc, and it seems you've now been temporarily blocked for continuing on in this vein. Maybe you were looking to make some kind of point, but if you look at it from the viewpoint that there's already an oversupply of crap and narky attitudes that we deal with then you might at least recognise why we've policies and guidelines to short-circuit unhelpful behaviour.

As for the articles themselves, I still see very little offered that demonstrates that these subjects meet inclusion criteria. Notability criteria are not always clear-cut (though for the version I deleted I'm still comfortable it met the criteria for speedy deletion ) and I'd be quite happy to respect the outcome of any consensus discussion. Unfortunately, I think your chances at reviving a consensus discussion on the topic are hindered by the unnecessary tone. FWIW, other than those admins who (not without reason) took offense at the hectoring tone, there were a couple of comments I saw about the former article contents themselves which were unconvinced that these were sufficiently noteworthy. Possibly not a sufficient showing of consensus, but (IMO) it would take some work and contrition to have it re-examined. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chalcatzingo

In attempting to clarify a citation, I managed to butcher the Chalcatzingo page. Footnote 10 should cite Chapter 14 of the 1987 Chalcatzingo report edited by Dave Grove. The title of the chapter is "Chalcatzingo's Formative Period Figurines" it is authored by me (Mark E. Harlan) and is on pages 252-263. I will attempt to learn more about editing content before I attempt any further edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MEHarlan (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gidday Mark. I had a go at tweaking the inline citation and biblio reference for your chapter in the article, pls take a look and see if that was what you intended.

Don't worry too much about not getting the formatting and style conventions right the first time around. It's no problem, comparatively few wikipedia articles are 100% compliant to our internal style guides (and there are several approaches to choose from as far as referencing and citation presentations are concerned). We can always fix it up later, getting the content improved and some references provided, however formatted, is more relevant. As you go along I'm sure you'll pick up on the (sometimes arcane) methods and conventions of editing. Pls feel free to ask about any aspect that may be puzzling and we'd be happy to help, as there are a few 'tricks of the trade' which are not necessarily self-evident in the way that they work.

Many thanks, BTW, for your helpful additions and expansions to that article. It is always a pleasure to see qualified folks such as yourself contributing here. If (as I hope) you'll be able to continue on editing here at wikipedia, then you might be interested to help out at WikiProject Mesoamerica, a collaboration of like-minded editors who have an expertise and/or general interest in Mesoamerican topics. As you may see from our project pages here, we look to improve the content, coverage and organisation of Mesoamerica-related articles, raise and discuss related issues and news, and generally try to help one another (and the wider editing community) out. At any one time there's generally around half-a-dozen or so folks regularly updating Mesoamerican topics, it tends to come and go as people move between topical interests and dependent on Real Life commitments. Participation is informal and there's no minimum quota or regularity of contributions. So if you're perchance interested then pls take a look around the project's pages (not all up to date, alas), ask a question or offer any comments/suggestions at the project's message board or to one of us directly; and if you wish to, add your name to the participant list.

You might also like to take a look at the listing of Mesoamerican citations and references which we are expanding. This contains a selection of pre-filled citation templates for a few references that might be useful in Mesoamerica-related articles, which can simply be copied and pasted into the 'References' section of the appropriate article (some minor modifications may be needed). These templates format the biblio references consistently, and so makes it easier than coding the formatting "by hand", as it were. For a full range of the generic citation/reference templates available, go to WP:CITET and you can also see how they work.

Anyways, thanks again for your contributions here, and happy editing - cheers! (also posted at your talkpage). --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing issues

(re imgs on Commons in the Ehécatl (airplane) article) Hey Wright, how's it going. I've sended an e-mail to permissions-commonsATwikimedia.org, with the forwarded mail that the contect at Hydra Technologies send me with the permission form. But still, no response from anyone, and the images aren't cleared yet, so I'm afraid that they will remove them tomorrow. What should I do? Cheers from Mexico...

Eldalieva 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

(also posted at your talkpage) Hi Eldalieva. If I'm reading you correctly, you have sent on the email permissions from Hydra Technologies to the Commons OTRS folks, but as yet have not received a reply or confirmation. Not to worry, the OTRS desk may take a few more days to deal with it, as they are typically working their way through a queue of similar requests.

I have added the template {{Otrs pending}} to the image pages at Commons, which should alert any Commons administrator coming by that the formal permissions process is in progress, so hopefully they'll hold of deleting for a while yet.

If you want to follow up with someone who has OTRS access to enquire about the status of the permissions processing, you could try to contact one of the folks listed here.

If for some reason the imgs do get deleted, despite the 'in progress' notification now on the img pages, they can be restored by a Commons administrator upon receipt of the permissions OK from the OTRS desk. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing

Hi WRIGHT. They've erased the Ehécatl (airplane) images. I've sended the e-mail and everything. How can I get them restablished. The images' pages contained the specifications for the pictures but they still tagged and then erased them. What can I do? Thanks for the help, and cheers from Mexico.

Eldalieva 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

Image licensing 2

Hey WRIGHT, still in trouble here. Would be great if you help out, or connect me to other editor than knows more about it. Thanks in advance and cheers from Mexico.

Eldalieva 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

Hi Eldalieva, apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Unfortunately, it seems the note saying OTRS confirmation was pending I left on those images' pages on Commons may have been overlooked, which I guess can easily happen as admins go through a listing of deletion candidates, in good faith. Not to worry, the images can be undeleted.

The images on Commons were processed / deleted by Commons:User:Majorly, who is also active here on en.wiki as User:Majorly. This is the extract from the Commons deletion log:

20:20, September 27, 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Ehecatis45.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 10 September 2007; no permission) 
20:20, September 27, 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Ehecatls44.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 10 September 2007; no permission) 
20:20, September 27, 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Ehecatls43.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 10 September 2007; no permission) 
20:20, September 27, 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Ehecatl1.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 10 September 2007; no permission) 
20:20, September 27, 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Ehecatls42.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 10 September 2007; no permission) 
20:20, September 27, 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Ehecat1.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 10 September 2007; no permission) 

To have these re-examined, it would probably be best to first find out the status of the OTRS permissions requests that you filed. To do this, I suggest that you contact one of the folks who is both an Administrator on Commons, and who has access to the OTRS system. If you provide them with the details of your email request(s) to OTRS (such as the date/time and email header), they should be able to look it up for you and see if there's any hold-up, or perhaps to help out and expedite the permissions assessment.

You can find a list of some people on Commons with OTRS access who may be able to help out here. Looking through that list, one name I recognise is Commons:User:Drini, who is also active here on en.wiki as User:Drini and who I know hails from Mexico himself and a native Spanish speaker to boot. So I would suggest that you leave a note on his user talkpage (either at Commons or here on en.wiki) explaining the situation and request his assistance to look up the status of the OTRS request. If you have any exchanges with the OTRS permissions desk on record that would be helpful, you can also point him back to the info on your talkpage here which would assist in identifying the situation. If for some reason he's busy or unable to respond, you can try contacting one of the others on the list, also the commons admin Majorly (though it doesn't seem they have OTRS access). Unfortunately, I'm neither an admin on Commons nor someone with OTRS access. Hope this helps, let me know if anything else crops up. Regards, (also posted at your talk pg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Izamal cleanup

Hello CJLLW, Mi name is Miguel Covarrubias Reyna, archaeologist, I recently added some information about Izamal, where I've been working for several years. I'm new to Wikipedia and noticed a message about the theed to cleanup what I did, but have no idea on how to do it, can you help me with this? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migcov (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Miguel, it's a great pleasure to have you editing here. Don't worry about the 'cleanup' tag, I think it was added just as a reminder to go back and amend a couple of formatting items. These were soon fixed up, and I've removed the tag. The article can (like all the others here) be polished up as we go along, the key thing will be to make the content and coverage sound, which your recent additions have gone a long way to improve. I hope that you are able to continue editing here, we have a large range (almost one thousand) Mesoamerica-related articles with still many more gaps to fill, and quite a few of the ones we do have are in need of some studious attention. You would be most welcome to take a look around at the project pages of WikiProject Mesoamerica, which is a collaboration forum for contributors with an expertise and/or interest in Mesoamerican topics. Suggestions, comments and participation from new contributors is always welcomed,. If you have any questions, either on the overall structure or on wikipedia editing in general, please feel free to post at the project's message board, or ask one of the active project participants directly on our user talkpages.

Re the Izamal article, one thing we should look to do is to add in a few relevant references and inline citations. Pages such as WP:CITE and Footnotes provide some guidelines on how to go about citing and referencing in articles. Also- if you have any images of the site (or other sites) which you would be prepared to release for use on wikipedia under a compatable license (see the image use policy, that would be great.

Anyways, many thanks for your helpful contributions to date, and hope to see you around continuing the great work. All the best- saludos, (also posted at your talkpg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, I'll try to contribute a long as I can. By the way, concerning your question, all the main buildings at Izamal are still there. Hun Pic Tok can be seen by entrering to the San Miguel Hotel at the main plaza, the pyramid is in the back. The Kabul, at the west, can be seen also from the opposite side of the second plaza. Saludos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.94.230 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Miguel, and good to hear- hope you enjoy your time editing around here. Thanks for the info. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to your note

Thanks for your comment on my Caracol update, as a student of Mesoamerican archaeology with interest in cultural heritage management, I will be doing more, and will be sure to follow proper protocols.--DuendeThumb 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, DuendeThumb- glad to have you around, and I hope your editing experience here will be a fulfilling one. Any issues or questions that crop up, pls feel free to ask. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention Needed

Could you please keep an eye out for these pages, as two users are bent on removing all of the scholarly information that has been added. Pages are: Hurrians, Armenia (name), Proto-Armenian language, Armenian language, Graeco-Aryan language. Also, it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on the Armenia, Mitanni, and Urartu articles.

The two users are User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann

Thank you.--Moosh88 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Moosh, I am going to decline your canvassing invitation. Firstly, at the moment I have neither the time nor inclination to research the matter more thoroughly.Secondly, users Ghirla and dab are both contributors for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I've seen no reason to doubt their judgement. I did notice this issue come up at WP:FRINGE, and I think those who are looking into it are sensible enough to work out the appropriate course of action. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Category:Icons for canal descriptions

Many thanks for your work on renaming Category:Icons for canal descriptions. It is appreciated :) Oosoom ^Talk to me 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Oosoom, and thanks. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Template weirdness

Hi! Do you know what's causing some of the refs on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/S to show up as: "{{Template:Citation}}" or "{{Template:Cite web}}"? When I look at the HTML source, there's a comment: "<!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large -->". I've been working on this list for quite a while, and this is the first I've seen of it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN. I'm afraid it looks like that page has run up against the limitation which restricts the total amount of data/bytes a single page can contain within transcluded templates. See Wikipedia:Template limits for an explanation of the limitation and why it is imposed. Basically as I understand it, as the MediaWiki software goes about 'pre-expanding' the content of data within transcluded templates as it prepares to parse and load the page's overall HTML for viewing, the parser cuts off expanding the templates once the set limit is reached (2MB). That page seems to have over a hundred citation template calls, and unfortunately it's hit the wall.

To remedy the situation, you could either manually format some of the citations to bring it back down under the limit (ie don't use the {cite X} templates to format), or if any of the sources are used more than once you could maybe rationalise the template calls by having the inline cites point to a single (templated) citation. Or, you could break up the entire contents into several (sub-)articles, so that the number of template calls per page is smaller. Hope that helps, regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, cjllw! I'm heading out on vacation, but I've asked a friend to split the page. Much appreciated - hadn't heard about that limit before! Just as a side question, the limit seems to have been hit at (or maybe before) the change to {{citation}} - is there a possibility that change expanded the pre-expanding content? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, SatyrTN. I don't think that the minor change recently made to {{citation}} should have had any effect, as it only replaced the text (retrieved on {accessdate}) with . Retrieved on {accessdate}. ,ie a nett replacement of three chars, total #bytes should be the same. Probably just coincidental. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia about Wikipedia

Regarding the discussion with User:Fluence I am considering whether it is appropriate for wikipedia articles to contain information about wikipedia phenomena. For example fluence has now included a key to the Nahuatl transcription used on the Nahuatl wikipedia to almost all articles concerning Classical Nahuatl. I feel that the arbitrary decision made by the Nahuatl wikipedia community does not diserve to be mentioned in articles about the language - since the Nahuatl wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source on nahuatl language use or about information about the language it self. Is there a policy on this?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Maunus. I think that at the very least this could be seen to go against the spirit of the Avoid self-reference guidelines, but also would arguably run up against the WP:NOR policy. I agree with you about the arbitrary nature of the orthography selected and promoted on nah.wiki, and that it's problematic to use it as if it were some independently referrable style. While orthographical systems that are independently published may also be arbitrary, at least they have the merit of being verifiable according to our policies. I think that we should select one of the common notable and third-party systems, and reference that. Transcriptions within a given article should follow such a system, and at the same time any commonly used variants can be noted as alternatives.

By the way- the Nahuatl article itself is now under Good Article review, and stands in peril of losing its GA status- see talk:Nahuatl. The primary complaint seems to be insufficiency of inline citations. Would you have time to take a look, and see what additional inline cites to pair up with the biblio listing that can be inserted? --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a good mind to make it an FA when I get the time - which is regrettably not now. I don't think it deserves GA status as is either.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right, and it would take more than just inserting a few more cites. Oh well, one day... cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'Jose Arguelles you are a friend of mine' : )

Unsurprisingly, 207.6.93.238 (talk · contribs) returned to Jose Arguelles and again deleted most of the article, also apparently doing so via the sockpuppet 'Caycedgar (talk · contribs).' Irishguy reverted back this time and warned the user, hopefully that will do the trick...but I doubt it. 69.152.169.99 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 69.152.169.99. Thanks for the heads-up, will keep an eye out for any further misdeeds and protect the page if it gets out-of-hand. That was a rather transparent effort of sockfoolery on 207's/Caycedgar's part, which would not stand in the way of meting out a 3RR block if they persist. To venture a Caycean prophesy- our next visitation will come from User:PacalVotan, or some cognomen.... ;-) cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

why?

why did you delete my page DJ Ingram is known by many in virginia and his movies are great —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheechnchang (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was actually the second person to delete it. Someone else has already left a note on your talk page that explains. In short, the reason was "no demonstration or assertion of notability". You are really going to need to provide external sources and evidence of the subject's notability, unfortunately your own assessment is insufficient. Pls refer to our policies, in particular WP:V, WP:CSD and the guidelines WP:NOTE and WP:BAND. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an Academic Resource

As you mentioned in your note about my interests page, it is good that there are people applying some academic standards and rigor to Wikipedia. A paralell to the excessive "geek culture" references, in terms of impediment to Wikipedia's credibility, is the profusion of for-profit tour promotion sites that often get linked to wikipedia entries on important sites; I feel it is important to try and find not-for-profit information sources whenever possible. I'll probably be working towards that goal in the coming weeks. Thanks for welcoming me! --DuendeThumb 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Need advice on Venus of Dolní Věstonice

There is an anon editor at Venus of Dolní Věstonice who is insisting on referring to as a " pottery statuette". I have been changing this to ceramic statuette. Could you weigh in on this question, sir?? Madman 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madman. It's odd what some folks fixate upon. I've added my reversion to the pool, looks like there are one or two other eds. besides us who think the proposed usage by that anon is, well, idiosyncratic. If they really want to put a link to pottery in there, I don't see what's preventing them from coming up with a simple non-redundant sentence to add in there, rather than trying to bang that peg in the square hole. Will keep an eye out. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Huei tlamahuiçoltica

It looks like it might be time for an RFC. Thoughts? Cleduc 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's at least close to needing one. I had been thinking to put up a notice at WP:FRINGE for some assistance; not only that article, but also several other Guadalupan ones like Juan Diego are entirely creduluous, and in need of a critical review. Will look to do that (haven't quite got the time today). But yes, if no improvement over the next coupla days, then I'd agree that some independent arbitration may be called for. Appreciate your continuing efforts to keep the article in shape; it's hard-going and there's a lot of minutae that really needs to be dealt with properly. Is gonna probably take a little while to gather up the resources, hopefully several others will pitch in along the way. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Luisosio's conduct

An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct. All interested parties are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio. As a contributor who has had interaction with Luisosio, your certification is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks, Cleduc 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cleduc, I'll be adding my comments in the next day or so.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now listed myself as the second nominee for the dispute resolution, so I guess it will be made 'live' soon. I will look to flesh out the scenario at the page when I have a chance, I hope within the next 24 to 48 hrs. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite journal

		The Original Barnstar
		To CJLL Wright. With thanks for adding a publisher field to cite journal. -Susanlesch 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the weirdest or funniest Wikipedia facts was that the publishers were missing. Thank you for taking care of it! -Susanlesch 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Susanlesch, and many thanks. That omission had bugged me for a little while, so I thought I'd just go ahead and fix it. Can't foresee any objections. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Graham Hancock Edit

Respectfully disagree. This was a historic lecture at a very prestigious conference that presernts original, ground breaking work. Read the website carefully and you will discover that Hancock's lecture, as are all the FortFest lectures, is also sold as an individual lecture at a nominal price by this non-profit educational corporation. If you link to or cite a book the book does not have to be available for free. The same goes for an individual lecture. Suggest that you WIkify and revert your revert in order to keep NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.118.234 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2007

Hi anon 209.163, I'll reply here as it seems yours is a dynamic ip, which makes it a little difficult to reply directly. I beg to differ with your positive appraisal of the value of his thoughts, but that's just my opinion and not the essence of whether or not that particular external link is appropriate.

Does that Fortean site have any linkable pages or detailed info concerning Hancock? It doesn't appear so, only a link to his own site and a freetext mention advertising a tape of his for sale (via mailorder, it doesn't seem to be downloadable). As such, I have a very hard time seeing how linking to that (your?) site adds any value to the article. The only benefit would be to the sellers of the audio, and wikipedia is not in the business of being a promotional conduit. Your analogy with citing or mentioning books is not valid, since we properly do not link to particular booksellers or online marketplaces like Amazon etc; instead ISBNs and OCLCs are used and its up to the reader to work out where to track down a copy should they be interested in reading/purchasing the work for themselves. And NPOV doesn't come into it, no-one's talking about removing all pro-Hancock refs and links, there are plenty enough already there in the article.

If it's regarded as such a 'ground-breaking' talk in Fortean circles, I'd be surprised that Hancock doesn't cover it or mention it somewhere on his own site. I would think that his site would be the natural place for someone to start looking around if anyone wanted more of his material, and I see he maintains a schedule of his "lectures" and many pointers to outlets selling his wares.

All in all, that ext link you are suggesting meets a number of the criteria in WP:EXTXLinks normally to be avoided. Suggest you read the guidelines and policies on external linking, hopefully you will see where I'm coming from. I do not propose to reinstate that link, although I appreciate your efforts to discuss the matter. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJLL- Respectfully disagree again. Your points are well taken though. It is not my website and I know that INFO sells individual lectures of FortFest talks for under ten bucks and it is such a pain for them to produce individual tapes that no profit is realized by this non-profit education society. This material is not available at a library and I do want to make the pooint that not all information about a subject is available for free. Just because a book or tape is not available at no charge does not invalidate its' worth nor does it means that it is information from a seller who is trying to tout his product. I bought the tape after seeing Graham Hancock's lecture at FortFest. It was a groundbreaking talk that went beyond his book and the Q & A period was amazing. Wiki is about putting together all the information that is available to the public if it adds to the subject matter and this tape really did. Cheers-Anon````

Classical unities

You've asked for the quotes in classical unities to be cited. However, I'm at a loss to know what to do about this: all the quotes are already correctly cited and the article has links to the works in question. So what exactly are you asking for? Gdr 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gdr. I just thought that the blockquoted texts could do with explicitly identifying their source, though I admit I missed that the source works were given in the 'External links' section. Anyways, I've gone back now and added in the specific inline cites for the respective passages. Feel free to tweak the formatting/presentation if you prefer a different style.

I do still think that the opening statement saying they are "derived from a mistaken interpretation" of Aristotle's Poetics needs some kind of reference and attribution, so I've left that 'cite needed' tag in. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aztlan revert contretemps

CJLL, User:FreeBSD4Me and I are presently "discussing" the proper wording for the Aztlan article. I have left my thoughts on the proper approach both on his Talk page as well as on the article Talk page. I noted that you had weighed in earlier on his Talk page as well, when he was more ardent than he is now, and I'm thinking your participation in this latest exchange might be useful. TTFN, Madman 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)