This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Mar '06 — Apr '06 1.1 Alternative pyramid theories 1.2 Thank you for your support of my RfA 1.3 Perhaps protection of Olmec is in order 1.4 Tawkerbot2 1.5 NorbertArthur 1.6 El Campello 1.7 Reply 1.8 image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Location_Dolores.jpg 1.9 Ro-Am image

ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005	2006	2007	2008
Archive I (May–Dec)	Archive II (Jan–Feb) Archive III (Mar–Apr) Archive IV (May) Archive V (Jun) Archive VI (Jul) Archive VII (Aug–Sep) Archive VIII (Oct–Nov) Archive IX (Dec)	Archive X (Jan) Archive XI (Feb) Archive XII (Mar) Archive XIII (Apr) Archive XIV (May–Jun) Archive XV (Jul–Aug) Archive XVI (Sep) Archive XVII (Oct) Archive XVIII (Nov–Dec)	Archive XIX (Jan)

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. [1] 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 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"— 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).

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