User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXVIX



=Jun '09 =

Re: Felipe Solís Olguín
Nomination withdrawn. Thanks, MacMedtalk stalk 21:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. The book section was not there when I nominated, and I neglected to do my own research. Thank you for notifying me of the error, MacMedtalk stalk 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite understand how these things can come about - none of us have enough time do to all the background checks every occasion may require, and the article was in a pretty unprepossessing state when you came across it. Once again, thanks for rescinding the deletion nom. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2012
Apparently not all new age aficionados are gentle hippies. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * heh! so it would appear. This one seems more akin to Vyvyan than Neil, tho' guess there are elements of each... ;-) --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Check your email
I've emailed you. Dougweller (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thanks Doug. Duly noted, saludos --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing of Dr. Ivan Van Sertima's Wiki Profile
Hello,

I am Dr. Van Sertima's oldest daugther. Thank you for updating his Wiki Profile, reflecting his recent passing. However, my family finds that many of the items in his profile are inaccurate or incomplete. I would like to have access to updating his profile, so it shows a complete picture of his life. Please let me know. If you would like to make some of the updates from his website, you can. Please note that Van Sertima is with a capital "V". One of the other major changes is that he has been remarried for 25 years to Jacqueline L. Van Sertima and has 4 children, LaCheun (myself), LaSarah, Lawrence, and Michael.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vansertima (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi LaCheun. I should like to offer condolescences for your recent loss. Thanks for the tip regarding the orthography of his surname. His article is not presently protected, so you or anyone else may edit there. However, and as with all our articles, any such edits need to be measured in terms of wikipedia's standing policies and guidelines, some of which specifically address items like conflict of interest (real or potential), neutrality, reliable sourcing and placing undue weight on claims and viewpoints held only by a distinct minority in the relevant field of inquiry. While one can certainly appreciate your desire to see info to be accurate and more complete, we do need to apply our stated rules and standards as equally for this article, as any other.
 * The problems with your additions have been twofold: firstly, your edits removed sections of text and citations, that was critical in some regard to prof Van Sertima's work, and of some of the conclusions he drew from that work. You would be aware that his proposals have generated controversies within the relevant scholarly fields, and that whatever intrinsic value his work may or may not possess, those conclusions are not shared by a great majority of researchers in those fields. Hence, it is entirely appropriate for the article to reflect and state those controversies and critical views; removing them out of hand won't do, I'm afraid.
 * Secondly, the material that you did insert had been published previously elsewhere, namely at the Journal of African Civilizations website. With very few exceptions we discourage the verbatim reprinting of material from other sources: partly out of copyright violation concerns (and even if we did have explicit written permission from the author to reuse, our licensing conditions can often make that problematic anyway). And partly because material written for other sources typically is neither suitable nor amenable to wikipedia's purpose, tone and intent. For example, wikipedia is not a memorial and is not supposed to be written with the style and content of obituary notices, or the like. Our articles are supposed to cover in neutral fashion the individual's notable accomplishments or other aspects of their contributions and life that are, well, encyclopaedic in nature; other accompanying information and details that are not directly relevant to the individual's notability are not usually dealt with here. In particular we avoid eulogising or valedictory statements, no matter who the article's subject is.
 * Hope you can understand the situation and reasoning here. As mentioned, as long as conflict of interest, neutrality, and balance guidelines are observed, someone connected with the article's subject can contribute here, if reliable and independent verifiable sources are used to substantiate statements made. If there is still missing or incomplete information you think ought to be covered, it ought firstly to be written specifically for the article (and not just reproduced from elsewhere), and in a tone and style harmonious with wikipedia's house rules and aims. If in doubt, you can suggest the amendments on the article's talkpage, and other editors here may review and either agree, modify, or otherwise deal with, the suggestion. Best regards, (also posted your talkpage), --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Runestones in North America
I have nominated runestones in north america for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I went 'click' on my mouse and it sent the above message, to my chagrin. I ran across this just now when someone added it to L'Anse aux Meadows, which of course has no claimed runestone, and the Bat Creek Stone, which isn't claimed to be a runestone either. It has a couple of other odd entries. But I don't think we should have a category which suggests we think there are runestones in North America (outside of Greenland). What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Doug no worries. Have added my 2c. Had created that cat when going thru some adminly duties at CFD; at the time I'd wondered whether it was a viable one anyway, but never got around to doing anything about it. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jose Arguelles
Greetings CJLL,

This is Melody Morningstar. I had made some changes to the Jose ARguelles entry. The entry as it is seems highly outdated. I have read all of his works and this seems like a very inaccurate representation. Not sure why my entry was deleted. Can you please advise how to update this correctly?

Thanks! Melody Morningstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody morningstar (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Melody. Thanks, your most recent edit there is more like it, closer to achieving balance of neutrality that our policies here are directed towards. I've since made a couple of amendments, while retaining some of the other added material. Hope you'll be able to appreciate, regardless of whether that recent biog of Arguelles is an authorised one or not, as an encyclopedia it's not appropriate for us to give undue weight to claims that in realistic terms lie well outside of prevailing current consensus in relevant fields. For example, despite Arguelles' modest characterisation of his "Law of Time discovery" as being a fundamental law on par with Newton's laws of gravity, it would not be appropriate for the article to describe it as such (no-one else does), or to represent it as an actual 'discovered law' at all. Instead the claim needs to be qualified and couched as Arguelles' own notion, not some general principle he's stumbled upon. In short, insofar as what Arguelles has to say remains unsupported or ignored by standard consensus, wikipedia in turn can only say "Arguelles claims" or "Arguelles believes", and not "Arguelles discovered", "Arguelles illustrates", etc. Best regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your substantive linguistic suggestions for Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6, really the only fresh idea for the problem. -- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi William. No worries. Whatever else eventually arises from that debate, it should hopefully be clear to most by now that the current category system of surnames by country is unsustainable. One practical problem with my suggestion to refocus these cats and articles to linguistic rather than nationalistic/citizenship origins, is that it would take someone a reasonable amount of effort to go through them all and fix up. Dunno about you, but I for one do not really feel like going thru 'em myself. However, have recently stumbled across an active wikiproject WikiProject Anthroponymy where it would seem this work would be a natural fit. Doesn't seem they've been specifically aware of this CFD debate till now, or very recently anyway. I've just posted a msg on the project's talkpage about it, so maybe with some luck they will (a)agree with our concerns and proposed solution(s), and (b)have the cycles and expertise to go about fixing up the articles and categories. Let's see what transpires. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The closer Good Olfactory suggested posting at Category talk:Surnames, so that's what I'm doing. See you there?


 * Hi William. Sure. Since they also expressed an interest and motiviation in cleaning up the mess afterwards, hopefully the folks at WP:Anthroponymy will be pitching in too. Best, --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below: --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Limited geography model
 * Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
 * Archaeology and the Book of Mormon


 * Hi Descartes. Sure, have commented there, thx for the notice cheers.--cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 00:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuelap, Peru
Hi, I noticed you are an experienced editor of this article. Is there a way to make the graphics of Wikipedia articles accessible to Facebook? I wanted to post the article to drive traffic to Wikipedia, and as it is, only the editorial warning icon can be used. Thanks uriel8   (talk)  02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Uriel. Actually I don't recall doing much editing at that particular article, mine is prob just the most recent edit to the page.
 * Anyways - AFAIK there is no facility to have images that are stored on wikimedia servers (eg at commons) appear directly on external websites like facebook. Is that what you mean?
 * But I'm no techo in this regard, so you needn't take my word for it. Maybe you could ask at VP:technical. If your ext site was running MediaWiki software then I think you can link directly to a commons img and have it appear, at least according to this. And I guess mirror sites may be able to do this, although they go off an entire dump of the DB so that's prob not applicable. Looking at the licensing of the pics in that article, it seems their creator has released them into the public domain, so I guess you should be able to simply save the imgs as a local copy then upload/insert them to the facebook page you want to create. But again, I'm prob not the person to ask on the details. Sorry not to have been much help. Cheers, --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 07:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive CSD:A7s
You've deleted at least one article (Prashant Bhatkar) which was tagged for CSD:A7 after I'd previously rejected the A7 claim. I tag such articles for ProD when I notice that CSD:A7 is being abused, and the fact that the article has since been deleted prior to the expiration of the ProD indicates that an editor struck my ProD, the article was tagged with another CSD:A7, and you apparently didn't research the imrpopriety of the CSD re-tagging prior to deleting the article. Your deletion comment of "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" indicates that you may not be aware of the common abuse of CSD:A7. To avoid being deleted by an A7 claim, an article merely needs to state importance, which is "a lower standard than notability". I maintain that the article in question did assert importance, and while I question the subject's notability as well, it is proper to give an article's editors the duration of a ProD as an opportunity to improve the article and establish notability which we were otherwise unaware of. I'd like to ask you to be more conscious of this in the future. &mdash;  X   S   G   08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi XSG. Thanks for the advice, but I respectfully disagree; the article was more job application than informative article. I was at the time aware of the history of CSD'ing and PROD'ing (it still had your PROD tag on it when I deleted it). But regardless, I made my own assessment that it easily qualified under A7, if not also G11 (unambiguous [self-]promotion, necessitating complete rewrite to approach anything like encyclopaedic material).


 * Having looked at it again just now I am satisfied with my original determination to delete. At most, the article simply stated "Prashant Bhatkar is founder of Pune based Company Beam Inoftech, located at Satara Road Pune". There is no assertion of notability or importance in that statement. No claim about the significance or otherwise of the company is asserted (for all we know, Prashant is the sole proprietor, director, and employee of the company—anyone can set themselves up as a company, IT contractors do it all the time for eg). Founding such a company is not in and of itself a notable claim.


 * The entire remainder of the 'article' was in fact nothing more than a straight résumé, listing projects they'd been employed on, etc. It even had their phone, address and email contact details. Any one of us might put up our own CV on wikipedia also; but there'd be nothing encyclopaedic contributed in doing so. The claims put forward in the Prashant's CV were nothing that millions of other folks might not also record..


 * That was the extent of the article. I have no insight into why the creator thought that info would be useful to wikipedia; most probably they had no such thought at all. Nothing in the material indicates it. Who knows, maybe Beam Inoftech [sic] is, or will be, a notable company, and perhaps the young Prashant is on his way to becoming the next Jamsetji Tata. But if either the company or the person ever merit an article in the future, there was nothing at all in the one that got deleted, that could conceivably be of use. Cheers, --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you went back to review your decision and thank you for doing so. I think the deletion process should afford novice editors the time they might need in order to establish that an article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially in light of the fact that we have no idea why the creator thougth the info would be useful or encyclopedic.  My stance is that if the article is truly non-notable, it is easily taken care of through the ProD or AfD process, and having the article on Wikipedia for an extra week in order to give the editor an opportunity to teach us something harms nobody.  I think this is why passing an A7 is by design a lower bar than meeting notability. &mdash;   X   S   G   09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Maya Calendar
Hello CJLL

I made this template with some of your drawings. It needs a little more figures such as the corresponding to Haab' months. Since you are an editor of Maya Calendar I need to know your opinion about it, and how can it be improved, since I post it yesterday in Maya Calendar, and may edition was almost immediately removed.Japf (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)(Sorry, I forgot to sign)


 * Hi Japf. Apologies, have been offline these past few days. Have not been able to look into it yet, but will endeavour to do so as soon as I can. Cheers, --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance at greenland related articles
I need some admin assistance on Greenland, Template:Prime Ministers of Greenland, Prime Ministers of Greenland and Kuupik Kleist where an POV warrior USER:Jægermester is crusading against Greenlandic independence and adding unsourced defamatory material and ethnic slurs against the Greenlandic Prime Minister.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. No worries, will monitor. --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Protect Maya Calendar Articles?
Once again the articles about the Maya calendar, Tzolk'in, etc. are under attack by drive-by editors in Guatemala who want to change them to reflect their particular language and interpretation. This will only get worse as we approach 13.0.0.0.0. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to edit/revert these to one of the stable, neutral versions and protect or semi-protect them. You're an admin, no? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * Hi there SC. Just had a quick look, seems those edits are from the same ip that tried adding more of the same plastic shaman stuff a couple months back. Yes, I could semiprotect the pages, tho now they are back to their orig versions I'd rather wait'n'see if they try to have another crack at it first. The norms of applying protection are not to over-use it, with only two such episodes, widely spaced and from the same address, it may be hard to justify. But if more attempts crop up, I'd be more inclined to temp semiprotect. Since they seem to be editing from the same ip addr all the time, and no-one else uses it, they can at least be warned on the ip's talkpage to desist. If that's ignored then will look into blocking the ip as an option. Saludos, --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country
The discussion for Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6 in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the notification Alansohn.--cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
Hi CJLL Señor Cuete has some doubts about the copyright of these drawings I made. These glyphs were my interpretation of some glyphs in the sites. Can you see the discussion in Template talk:Maya Calendar. Since you have contributed with the tzolkin veintenas can you give us your opinion?Japf (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Ref indent
Template:Ref indent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * thx, appreciate the courtesy of the notice. --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> ʘ TALK 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<CENTER>END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE</CENTER>