User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive III



=Mar '06 — Apr '06=

Alternative pyramid theories
Posted reply on the great pyramid talk page... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenesisBlade (talk • contribs) 3 Mar 2006.

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * no worries, AY, and congratulations on your successful nomination. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps protection of Olmec is in order
CJLL, I agree with your suggestions on the Olmec talk page that would (a) temporarily protect the Olmec page for, say, a week or two and (b) preface the Olmec Talk page with something to the effect that we've been thru this Olmecs-are-Africans stuff once or twice already and so let's not go thru it again. Madman 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Replying over there.--cjllw | TALK  01:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner  // Tawkerbot2 02:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this notice was placed in error, something apparently to do with an occasional lag in the data processed by the bot resulting in misattribution of the offending edit, as was explained to me here. --cjllw | TALK  21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, apparently the diffs lagged again and caused some problems (thats what everyone is telling me the problem is, it happens so rarely that when we try a fix, we have no idea if it works properly unless it screws up. Thanks for your undestanding! -- Tawker 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, Tawker - and congrats on your fine vandalwhacking bot! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

NorbertArthur
I see you've run into this editor. He seems to have a penchant for making up inflated numbers of Romanians, even in the face of compelling statistics to the contrary. Do you have any ideas on what can be done about this? Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The alterations to these numbers have been going on for over six months now at Romanians and related articles, and the above user a repeated, if intermittent, participant. At least it can be said that Norbert appears to have abandoned making abusive side-comments and personal attacks (like this one for which he later apologised), after some admonishments; but the figure-changing continues unabated. So unless this editor again transgresses into personal attacks, it seems we will just need to continue to argue the case for cited and reasonable numbers. Perhaps one of the first steps would be to make explicit on the article's talk page the policy, that any addition or change to a number must be accompanied by a source citation, and a source furthermore which it can be agreed is a reliable one (or if not reliable, note that in the article itself). Any change not backed up by a source can be reverted on sight.
 * The situation is complicated by there actually being a couple of external sources which do provide high estimates for #s of Romanians, such as RoMedia or the Ro Am network. The former for example is where Norbert gets his 400,000 in Canada figure from, although he seems reluctant or careless to cite it explicitly. But there are problems with these sources, which have been discussed at length on Talk:Romanians- the trickier issue is how to determine what is reliable, what is not.--cjllw | TALK  02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Well, he used to claim over a million Romanian Canadians. User:Jmabel was kind enough to find him a rather dubious source claiming 400,000, and he's been sticking to that since. In any event, given the exact nature of the Canadian census, and the superior quality of its data, any other source, particularly a source which is so hugely at odds with the census, is, by definition, not a reliable source. I'll go to the Talk: page now to see the state of the discussion there, but I'm leaning towards the "revert on sight" policy regardless of what it says. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, he's now posting threats on my Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Well, if Norbert lapses again into uncivil behaviour, there'd be grounds for a temp block or other measures if this persists. Unfortunately, such statements as he (and some others) have made in the past have led to at least one editor leaving the project (User:MBE, who was actually a professional in the field of migration statistics and had made some valuable contributions before leaving under a tirade of nationalistic abuse). Norbert may need reminding of the appropriate conduct policies, and I'd be happy to support any mediation attempts in this area.--cjllw | TALK  01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

El Campello
As I live in El Campello I am aware many of the local populace, who are not English speaking, use Wiki to help improve their language skills, therefore having common words wikified is better for them, have you tried reading the Spanish version?. It is also the general wiki idea to do it that way. So please lets agree to disagree and maintain the status quo for such users rather that start a reverting fiasco.86.3.1.236 13:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since I think that it would be better to bring discussion related to any improvement of the El Campello article to a wider audience, I'll reply with my comments on talk:El Campello, not here.--cjllw | TALK  00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks cjllw, I appreciate it. :) I haven't heard from you in awhile, I guess you've been pretty busy with Spain-related articles. What brought on the interest? Anyways, hasta la vista. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * replied over there.--cjllw | TALK  02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, keep up to good work then! BTW, are you ever thinking of becoming an admin? --Khoikhoi 02:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Location_Dolores.jpg
the image from google earth was deleted -I was not aware that it was subject to copyright-, and replaced with an image not subject to copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepeisho (talk • contribs) 8 April 2006.


 * That new image may indeed be eligible under GFDL for wikipedia to use, but the source and copyright status of that image have not been provided. Added a request for this information at user talk:Pepeisho.--cjllw | TALK  03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The source of the new image is my own picture of an old map (15 years old), the map did not say anything about any copyrights, so I assumed that it's not subject to any copyrights (legally, if a file is subject to copyright, it should mention that this is the case somewhere). Thanks. unsigned comment was added by Pepeisho (talk • contribs) 10 April 2006


 * Unfortunately, copyright status is something which exists by default, and does not have to be explicitly marked as such. In general, the author/creator needs to explicitly amend or release their inherent claim to copyright over a work. At 15 years, that's not nearly old enough for copyright to have expired- the limitation is set to 70 years in many contexts. Perhaps the map's author has released it from copyright, or maybe it is a government product which in some cases are available in the public domain.--cjllw | TALK  03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ro-Am image
Ok,ok, if I didn't chose the correct license because I supposed that a U.s agency created, that doesn't means it's corrupt or something like that. My God, come on... it's small fault and you want to remove it... Stupid wikipedia! NorbertArthur 17 April 2006


 * Unfortunately, copyright is not something which can be dismissed lightly, and observing the correct licensing rules is wikipedia policy, for all sorts of good reasons. Replying in more detail over there.--cjllw | TALK  03:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I gave the sources that claims that there are 200,000 RO in New York City, 120,000 In L.A and 100,000 In Chicago, right? I call this vandalism, and I will reverted back, understood???? What's your problem with this? I don't care if you don't like the truth, but that it, ok?NorbertArthur 18 April 2006 (Ed. note: the above in reference to changes made at Romanian-American).


 * Norbert, firstly don't remove cited census data, and secondly please try not to disrupt the flow of the inline citations. If you are unsure how these work, review WP:FN.
 * The "truth" is that a variety of estimates can be found in a variety of sources, but portraying any one of these as the actual and only figure is misleading. A comment made by the editor of a small-circulation newspaper is not in and of itself conclusive. Nevertheless, I have again rewritten that section including those two sources, but making explicit mention of their nature as estimates. This, I trust, will suffice.
 * Curiously, you seem to be well prepared to challenge high estimates made for populations of other ethnic/national groups, demand sources and to insist upon the primacy of census data- such as at Armenian-American. I don't see why the same rigour should not be applied in this case.--cjllw | TALK  00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, you passed any measure! YOU wrote that I deleted your citations, so you did with mines, about how many romanians are in L.A, Chicago and new York, ok? I did not understand what you meant by writing there 120,000 in the metropolitan area and 100,000 in the city. Do you understand that these are Two different cities??? In the L.A metro. are are 120 thousands RO-Ams and in Chcago 100,000, what's so difficult! The citation on www.ro-am.net are bullshits.  There 's no way that in California there are 56,000 Romanians, pure and simple NO. And about the your sentence thatr a lot odf other minorities are included in the 1.2 mil est., how there can be 20,000 Romanian-Armenians if they were just 15,000 in Romania, or 220,000 Romanian-Jews if at their most were 600,000, 200,000 being killed during the Holocaust and 450,000 emmigrating to Israel after the War? Or, another annoying thing that you wrote, is that among the 1.2 mil there two or third generation of descendats that do not identify as Romanian in primarly. What's this stupid thing? Every other large community in U.S.A (Italians,Poles,Dutch), are counting their figures INCLUDING those of their ancestry of their ancestry included. For example the Poles, they are 9 mil. Do you thing that 9 mil are all pure Poles all born in Poland? No guy, these are those born in Poland, descendats of Polish ancestry or people that have Polish as one of their ancestry. Oh yeah, and about the Armenian-American, excuse me because I was mistaking the Armenian with the Albanian. My fault, there are surely 1 mil Armenians in U.S.A I already accumulate more than 20 sources that shows what's the reality of the Romanian-American community, and I will soon start to post them. Waiting for reply! Regards, Arthur 19 April 2006

Hang on there, NorbertArthur- some of the above appears to be a result of confusion of grammar, and other parts a confusion of sources: Re the Armenians, if you have the sources then go ahead and mention them- but I'd suggest you ensure firstly that the sources are halfway reliable, and to use expressions like "according to ", rather than straight assertions like "there are x Armenians", or whatever. Not every number appearing on the internet is reliable. (also posted on user's talk pg)--cjllw | TALK  23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * re LA and Chicago, my sentence actually reads: "…an estimate of 120,000 in the greater Los Angeles area, while the Romanian museum in Chicago mentions an estimate of 100,000 in that city" (emphasis added). In this sentence, "that city" is meant to refer to Chicago, not LA. I suppose it is grammatically ambiguous, and can easily be amended.
 * The 56,000 figure for CA. and the others mentioned there comes from the 2000 US Census, not Ro-Am.net. Those figures are factual (i.e., it is a fact that those are what the census records), and census data is always quotable, whether you believe those figures or not. I do not state, "there are 56,000 Ro-Ams in California"; instead I say something like "US census figures recorded 56,000 Ro-Ams in California"&mdash; can you see the difference? The sentence does not claim to know what the true figure is, but factually reports what other sources have said.
 * Mentioning that the 1.2M Ro-Am Network estimate for the US includes some other ethnic groups as well is correct- take another look at the source where they explicitly say that other groups are included in this number. Quoting directly from them: "Therefore, other immigrants of Romanian national minority groups have been inlcuded [sic] such as: Armenians, Germans, Gypsies, Hungarians, Jews, and Ukrainians."
 * The 'other annoying thing' I write is actually this: "…and second- and third-generation descendents, some of whom have not or do not primarily identify with a Romanian heritage (emphasis added). This again is correct- it is clear that not all of the 2nd & 3rd generation descendants estimated by the RoAm source identify primarily as Romanian (else they'd indicate it on their census forms). The statement is also supported by the RoAm source, which says: "…including not just the first generation immigrants that came from Romania and declared their ethnic origin as Romanian." The RoAm study has guessed at the numbers of these descendants and included them, without regard as to whether or not they think of themselves as Romanian- presumably some do, some do not, we simply don't have the information. But I am not removing them from the 1.2M total, just noting explicitly what that number is supposed to be comprised of (the RoAm study does not say how many 2nd/3rd gen. descendants they allowed for, or how they estimated the figure for these).


 * Hi. First thing that I don't understand, is why my sources are halfway reliable ? I mean, I got a lot of sources that proove my affirmations and I want to show them, as everybody see that if I wrote that there are 1.5 mil Romanians in States, is not a stupid estimation made by me. Excuse me for yesterday, but I was very nervous when I saw that. I have many websites about this, could you tell me were to add them in the Romanian-American article?

Cheers, Arthur 20 April 2006

Norbert, not knowing the other sources you have in mind, I have no opinion on them; my suggestion to you above was that you consider whether or not they are reasonably reliable sources, before seeking to add them in. If they concern numbers of particular communities in the US, then the "distribution" section should be fine. (also posted on user's talk pg)--cjllw | TALK  04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kind Request For English Translations
CJLL Wright, I was kindly wondering if you would be willing to translate some Dutch quotes into English for the Sathya Sai Baba article? I must warn you that the this topic is highly controversial and I am looking for a Dutch speaker who does not have a negative POV on Sathya Sai Baba. Would you be willing to help? There are approximately 13 paragraphs that are in need of translation. Thank you. Please let me know on my talk page. You can view the text in need of translating at: User:SSS108/Dutch_Translation_Help Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108, thanks for your enquiry. However, my proficiency in Dutch does not extend very far beyond the rudimentary, and while I could conceivably take a crack at it I very much fear the results would be rough and not up to the accuracy which would appear to be required in this case. The topic is also out of my general area of expertise. Replying in more detail on your talk page. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help and guidance, CJLL Wright! You can remove this section if you like. Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 02:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

_ in user names
I currently do not know of a need to insert _ in spaces in linked. WP:AWB in fact removes them if you set it to apply general fixes. Just wanted to let you know =) --mboverload 01:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, mboverload. I had thought so too, but it appears that user2 requires spaces to be replaced with underscores, according to template talk:User2. Thus-
 * results in, but using an underscore
 * results in.
 * I suppose it's a feature, not a bug....-) --cjllw | TALK  03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians
Hey cjllw! Thanks for your help on the Romanians. I suspect that there is some sockpuppetry involved, so I listed some people at WP:RFCU. Can you also check out the Romanian diaspora page? None of the numbers there are cited, and it would be great if we could improve that article. Thanks. &mdash;Khoikhoi 23:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree re the sockpuppetry, let's see if anything results. Romanian diaspora is a bit of a POV fork as things stand, and needs to be reigned in a little. Replying also over there.--cjllw | TALK  00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bonaparte has returned recently, see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. However, I don't think any of these users are him. Oh well, at least I got it protected. Thanks for your help. &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, I see others are on his trail. I do not think that NorbertArthur is involved in sockpuppetry, based on my dealings with him I think he's a genuine-enough editor (although one concerned with the same subject matter). Regards, --cjllw | TALK  00:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you are correct. BTW, see Mikkalai's comment about Andrei George here, he doen't think it's Bonnaparte. Also see William M. Connolley comment about the same user - One factor was you: you are a "red user" yet you're clearly not new. That makes you someone trying to hide your past, which is obviously dodgy. He suspects that he's a sockpuppet. &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see- most interesting...!--cjllw | TALK  01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, CJLL Wright, for your support in my recent RfA! 8)--Rockero 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Rockero, and congrats on your nomination's success!--cjllw | TALK  00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of refconverter
Unreflective use of refconverter is causing many problems, and in many cases actively harming Wikipedia. The tool is nice to have—in fact, it's the impetus for me creating my own "Citation Tool" (still alpha). But it is nice to have to aid editors who are actually involved in editing a specific article, and who have reached consensus about making a given type of change to an existing article. Unfortunately, the semi-bot is largely being used to make "drive by 'improvements'" to articles where editors either have not considered the citation style, or where they have actively decided on something different from what the tool produces. This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process.

I have not looked at your specific changes made using the semi-bot, but I strongly recommend that you follow a guideline along the lines of: "Use this tool only after consensus for a change has been reached on the talk page of the article to which it is applied!"

You may also want to take a look at User:Evilphoenix/ref conversion. This is a sketch of an RfC that may be filed to try to resolve this problem (I see no reason you might not opine there, even while it lives in userspace). Ideally, Cyde will back off his insistence on changing all articles, even where against editor consensus. But unfortunately, his attitude has only become more belligerent when I have repeated requests in this regard. I think a positive involvment of well-meaning users of the semi-bot might help matters resolve amicably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It may be that the tool has in some instances been used in the manner you describe, but as with any device intended to facilitate (sometimes tedious aspects of) the editing process, whether it is used or abused comes down to the conscientiousness of the individual editor employing it. It is clear that you have not reviewed any specific changes made by me, for my only use of it thus far has been to convert references in an article for which I had written about 98% of the text. I hope that I do know when to step in and be bold, and when to discuss proposed changes first. I've some further comments on this and the style of your note above, which I will continue at your talk page (now no need, since you've replied here first). Regards,--cjllw |  TALK  03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I seemed to insinuate you had performed a misuse. I simply looked through the list of frequent users of the tool, thinking they would have a general interest in the tool and its usage.  I absolutely did not intend to claim any specific change was improper or unreflective (indeed, it is a tool with definite very good uses).  In a way, it really doesn't matter what specific edits in the past were good or bad... I'm interested in establishing a proper sense, and proper guidelines, for restrained use of this tool (or other analogous semi-bots).


 * Whatever is done is done; I just hope for good usage going forward... as such, if you happen to feel like gently nudging Cyde that: "It would be good to urge editors to use the tool with some sensitivity", that would be great! He's pissed off at me, and won't hear that when I write it. But exactly that is the whole of what I'm trying to accomplish here.  Obviously, some individual misuse by some editor needs to (and can be) addressed individually... I just don't want the tool itself to unreservedly advocate its own improper use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, Lulu. I admit that on first reading I was a little nonplussed, but upon closer inspection could see that your aim was to raise awareness of the potential issues. You've raised some valid debating points, but if your intention is to invite comment you might consider rephrasing that invitation. As for the tool itself, I agree that it is quite a useful one; whether it is needed or not to write up some safeguards against potential misuse, I'll have to look into it further and consider. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  04:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter RFC
You are receiving this message because you are on the Ref converter spamlist.

Hello there, I'd just like to make you aware that Lulu has filed an RfC against me and "other users of Ref converter". Since Lulu has previously contacted you regarding Ref converter I think it is safe to assume that you are one of the people named in the "other users of Ref converter" bit, so you may want to get involved. Just a heads-up, Cyde Weys  18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the districts of India
Maybe you like to have a look at Talk:List_of_Indian_districts. I would prefer no to make it too personal there and instead prefer NPOV style analysis. Anything that is not an objective fact, should of course be signed. regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, Tobias. Will look into it, as best my schedule allows. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  13:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)