User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive V



=Jun '06=

Substance Abuse - Indigenous Australians
I was making a new point about the fact that the measures that have been taken to alleviate the problem have not worked so spare me the triteness of accusing me of repeating the "incidence of alcohol" remark please. If you do insist on removing this contribution, I reserve the right to reinsert it again (and again), It's a point which needs to be made despite your prevarications. Bazzajf 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You were not being accused of anything, tritely or otherwise. The very real issues involved with substance abuse among indigenous (not to mention, other) communities is rather more complex than admitted to by the (unreferenced) generalisation which I had removed. Firstly, the level of alcohol abuse amongst indigenous Australian communities is not "very high", if you consider that the proportion of high-end drinkers is actually about the same as for the non-indigenous community, according to several well-qualified sources. The second part is not particularly accurate either. I've now expanded the section and included appropriate statistics and references. Much more could be written, if you wish to add anything then go right ahead, using WP:RS of course. A bit more of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL wouldn't go astray either.--cjllw | TALK  08:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Spare me your smugness please, I am a good person and I won't tolerate any such attitudes from the likes of you. The point I raised is widely accepted, that there is a high level of alcohol abuse amongst indigenous Australians and the fact that the measures taken to alleviate the problem have generally not worked. Citation will follow in due course when I have completed my research so less of the personal asides and deal with the issue at hand and please do not be petty enough to continue removing my insert. Bazzajf 11:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no personal attacks (direct or implied) have been offered in your direction, so not sure what that's all about. My point simply is that generalisations on this quite complex issue are not going to be very helpful, particularly when there is a good deal of misunderstanding and presumption about in the wider community already. Actual citations and review of the data and reports on the problem are what is required here, and I encourage you in your research activities. As things stand at the moment, the sentence you have again restored to the article is IMO still out of place, and not accurate. It is not a case of being 'petty' to remove it (such actions are not done to spite you personally), instead as part of consensus-building you will need to start explaining (on the article's talk page is best, not here) why you think it should stay. Just noticed that that sentence has now been removed once more- by someone else, not me, so there's at least two people who don't see the value of keeping it in there.--cjllw | TALK  00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your points are fair and reasonable, my accusation of personal asides was based on you referring me on to guide pages "A bit more of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL wouldn't go astray either." which I found condescending. Your contentions are fair in your latest contribution and I accept them. Bazzajf 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is quite alright, Bazzajf, appreciate your position, and if anything came across in a less-than-cordial way I do regret it- 'twas not intentional, and let's not allow any temporary misunderstandings here to stand in the way of finding some consensus on what is best for the article. Regards,--cjllw | TALK  09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ok

Municipalities in Galicia
Hi CJLL,

Ok, I think you are right. Municipality is as good as borough or City Council. Still, the reasoning behind my doing was, that all those areas (i.e.: municipalities) they have municipal status, but they rely-on and depend-on Ferrol to exist. And I wanted to express that. In addition in the past, those areas did not have mayors of there own nether. They used to be kind of “parroquias” (parishes) of Ferrol.

The situation is very similar to what happened with the rest of the world when the former colonial empires retreated in the mid 20th century and the “3rd World” appeared. And that was because those newly emancipated nations they failed to have the essential elements to exist on there own.

Well, since the transition to democracy in Spain, Galicia, and the rest of Spain has been re-divided (or shall we say re-organized) for administrative purposes. The thing is that because Ferrol, is the place where the former dictator was born, has been punished by being divided within itself as “Ferrolterra” is one single body. Some of the municipalities which exist today in Ferrolterra did not exist in the past, and those which existed in the past even today very often are dormitory settlements for commuters travelling to Ferrol for jobs. And because of that, when Ferrol sneezes, every one caches a cold in Ferrolterra, even the Capital city of A Coruna which has no much industry of its own, just services, caches a cold. And I wanted to reflect that reality in this encyclopaedia.

Please, don’t get me wrong and believe that the only place where money is being generated in the region is through Ferrol, as there are other sectors, but Ferrol is where most of the heavy industry is.

Charles Wessex


 * Thanks Charles, and I do think that "municipality" is the most apt term to use for these articles- it is how they are incorporated in the administrative structure (municipios), how all Spanish entities at this level are described in wikipedia for other autonomous communities and provinces, and while terms like "bourough" and "city council" could be considered rough equivalents, they mean different things in different regions.
 * I agree that for these specific ones their common association and dependence on the Ferrolterra region can be highlighted in their respective articles, I just think that we need to keep the repetition of the same text across articles to a minimum. The details of what Ferrolterra consists of, its history and so on are best explained in its own article (although presently Ferrolterra redirects to Ferrol, and so might need to be separated once more from the article on the city itself). Whether the region is being 'punished' by the subdivision, I can't really comment- but these are valid and recognised administrative subdivisions, whether or not they have an independent governmental / economic structure of their own.--cjllw | TALK  00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture El Ferrol del Caudillo 1961 .jpg
Hi Feyday,

I understand that you want to delete my picture. You are claiming this thing of the problems with the copyright, but in reality I think that the problem you have with the picture is that you just don’t like it, and I bet is for political reasons. I didn’t take the picture myself, true, but I own the original and the picture was taken over 40 years ago for a Spanish postcard. No copyright!!!

So, just be honest, say I think the quality of the picture is not 100% so we better delete it. But, don’t tell me stuff about the copyright because that is “L.O.B.” and both of us are aware of it.

Yours truly,

Charles Wessex


 * Possibly you intended this post for someone else you have had a dialogue with on this topic. I'm responding to your comment on this topic below.--cjllw | TALK  00:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:El Ferrol del Caudillo 1961.JPG
Hi again,

You can delete the picture “Image:El Ferrol del Caudillo 1961.JPG” I don’t think is that pretty in any way, but saying that If you have a 40 years old postcard with no copyrigh legally, the picture can be used for any purpose.

Charles Wessex


 * Charles, I'm afraid that 40 years is generally not long enough for a photo's copyright to have expired. Although there's some room for debate as to which jurisdiction's copyright laws apply for material published here on wikipedia, in most instances for images the copyright expiry is at least date of publication + 50 years, and for many life +70 years or even longer. It would be difficult to say without knowing the publisher of that postard or where it was published, but at the very least US copyright laws need to be observed (where wikipedia's servers are running from), and it seems quite doubtful that use of this img (and similar) would be permissable. Unfortunately, the general trend among governments updating their respective copyright laws is to extend the copyright term further and further. --cjllw | TALK  00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Vallarta External Links Modification
Hello! Thank you for you contribution to Puerto Vallarta external links. I'd very much appreciate if you could review the content of the external links on this page, since I've noticed that most of the sites are for-profit travel sites. In my opinion, the only two unbiased and non-profit sites are the Puerto Vallarta Official Site (www.visitpuertovallarta.com), and the Puerto Vallarta Comprehensive Guide (www.virtualvallarta.com). However, I'd like to leave this at your discretion.

Thanks! David Correa 6 June 2006


 * Hi David (replying also to your talk page), I tend to agree with you that many of the ext links on this page are there more to advertise the linked sites' wares, than to be informative to the wikipedia reader. This is a problem for many articles on locations in Mexico- the way some of these articles read, these places only exist as American tourist holiday destinations, and any aspect of the location as a place where people actually live and have a history is ignored. Will go through the others in addition to the ones I removed and see which others could do with deletion as well. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  00:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded!!!



 * Hey, thanks Kukini!--cjllw | TALK  05:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferrol - FERROLTERRA
(re my earlier comment on naming of Ferrol, A Coruña at Charles' talk pg) Ferrol - FERROLTERRA

I think you are right,

Charles Wessex

Java
Hi. I saw you just reverted my edit. I changed this on the basis of a request on the WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks (see history of the article). I'll put time in correcting links via "What links here" (of Java. Best regards, Brz7 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Brz7. Please see my comments at talk:Java (island) re the proposed move. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the proposal, but it should be done via the WP:RM process so that edit histories and associated talk pages are not lost.--cjllw | TALK  23:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maya
Wondering if you'd noticed my changes to Maya civilization as well as the note on talk. I want to leap into it more but I think we need to be clear about sub-pages first. Marskell 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Marskell, yes I'd seen those changes, look good. Replying in more detail on your talk pg.--cjllw | TALK  23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the timely reminder, BD. I've been meaning to get around to it for a while now, it's long overdue as you note. Will do it in the next day or two. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK  13:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no time like the present, so have begun....--cjllw | TALK  13:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)