User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 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
ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005 2006 2007 2008

Jan '07

cutting back to near zero participation...

CJLL,

I'm cutting back my Wikipedia participation to nearly zero for an extended period. It will be at least 6 months before I take it up seriously again; perhaps longer. I need time to study for my comprehensive exams (sometimes called "prelims") for my PhD.

Unfortunately, there's an extremely high probability that Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages will be shut down. If anyone wants to ramrod the wikiproject (that is, take charge of it; become its leader), please tell them it's definitely OK!

And thanks for your words of encouragement! I sincerely appreciate them!

I may bump into you from time to time before then, but it's a bit unlikely. Good luck with all your projects! --Ling.Nut 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ling.Nut, your absence will be sorely felt around here. Don't worry, we'll try to keep WP:ENLANG ticking over, until you (hopefully) return. Many thanks for all of your great and enterprising work around here, and the best of British luck for your studies and PhD - presumably in a few years' time we'll be able to reference articles with papers bylined with your moniker (any ideas what your dissertation will cover?) Take care, and best wishes for your future endeavours- kind regards, --cjllw | TALK 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi CJLL (and a Happy New Year to both you and Ling.Nut). Apologies for barging in on the conversation. Would you like to add your name to the list in my comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Endangered languages page? Cheers, --A R King 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no worries Alan, and Happy New Year to you too. I've added my name, I'd hope those others currently signed up at the participants list will also provide what time they can.--cjllw | TALK 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up, CJLL! --A R King 08:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed you were interested in adminship. Are you looking for someone to nominate you? >Radiant< 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my vote — and you don't even need to kiss any babies! :-) --Ling.Nut 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Radiant!, thanks for your enquiry (and your voice of encouragement, Ling.Nut!) I suppose that yes, I have been considering it. Will reply in full on your talk page.--cjllw | TALK 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, Radiant - will look to do it in the next 24hrs or so. Regards,--cjllw | TALK 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
ok, 'tis done. Thanks again!--cjllw | TALK 02:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Cjll, i just wanted to quickly thank you for the kind message, the invite, and your help with the Chunchucmil page. I've been dabbling on-and-off with working on Meso and Mexican pages, still trying to get my feet wet here, while attempting to contribute to WikiProject Mesoamerica. My colleague and I (the editor known as Chunchucmil) have found contributing here to be quite addictive. Oaxaca dan 06:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi dan, you are most welcome. The work you and Chunc have been doing on that article has been quite fantastic, and your other related updates have been equally informative and highly useful. I am glad that so far you've had a gratifying experience editing here- there can be from time to time some frustrating experiences and trying encounters, but in the main it's usually pretty good. As you will have seen as you look around the Meso-related material, there's an endless amount of improvement and expansion to be done, so we are very glad for any time you can spare! If there's anything about wikipedia arcana I can help you out with, I'd be pleased to try.
Re the Chunchucmil article itself, when you guys are finished with it I'd say it would be just about ready for nomination as a Featured Article, or if not certainly as a Good Article. If you wanted to take it in that direction (not that you have to), then one thing which would help would be to add a few more inline citations or footnotes at pertinent junctures in the text to specific references; this may help those who are not as familiar with the background material. You could either do the inline cites Harvard-style as at present, or use footnotes/refs (see WP:CITE, also Mayan languages for an example of the latter in use).
Anyways, certainly appreciate your great work. Kind regards, (will also post this reply at your talk page) --cjllw | TALK 07:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article sizes

(I posted this in the Meso talk page as well, but thought I would place it here too in case you saw it sooner): Quick question cjll, what is the recommended size for an article? I only briefly looked for it, but had no luck. Thanks in advance! Oaxaca dan 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi dan. The article size guidelines are at WP:SIZE, I've also posted my take on them at your talk page. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 03:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Got it - again, thanks for your response cjll. That gives me a good target for article size. I'm working my way towards getting it shorter and more succinct, but first have to deal with rewording some of the language that's currently up there. After that, I'll start moving material out (e.g., the Cacao section, as was discussed on the Meso talk page) and condensing other sections. The page needs a lot of work, but, as it is likely the first stop for anyone doing any general research on the topic, it deserves to be done. Oaxaca dan 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No problems, dan, glad to have been of some help. I'm glad you're going to tackle that particular article, I agree with its importance and a cleanup there has been overdue for quite some time. Looking forward to seeing your revisions, kind regards --cjllw | TALK 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

dunno if you rec'd

Hi CJLL,

I dunno if you rec'd my email. I was asking about various redirects, etc. I have been bugged by that little detail for many months (it is inconsistent with all the other articles; sticks out like a sore thumb), and would get a feeling of satisfaction if I could straighten it out now, while I'm sweeping up my Wikipedia house & leaving it vacant... thanks --Ling.Nut 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gidday Ling.Nut- yes I did get it, though ran out of time for a reply yesterday. I'd be happy to do that bit of housekeeping if and when I'm given dominion over beast and fowl. Any other tidy-up jobs you have, just let me know. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to update, I've now completed the deletions & remergers of edit histories for Ami, Ami people, and Ami (disambiguation). Pls take a look & check I understood the request.--cjllw | TALK 13:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, and I appreciate your help! I fixed some links to disambig pages etc. I'm not sure, but I doubt that most admins would've gone ahead and fixed those. Perhaps that's something you can do only if you wanna be extra-extra diligent.
Thanks! --Ling.Nut 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'd fixed up at least the main dablinks at any rate. I don't think that any of the edit histories got lost, though I don't suppose it matters too much to preserve edit history of dabs and redirects. If you've more housekeeping stuff like that to complete, just let me know. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA!

Congratulations!
Congratulations!

Well done on your 92% support vote for your RfA - you must be pleased with that! A Bureaucrat will be along in a few hours to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you need any help with applying them then please ask and I will do my best to answer you. Regards and happy mopping! (aeropagitica) 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words, (aeropagitica)! I guess there's an hour or so to go, but barring any last-second surprises I'll probably take a while in familiarising myself with the how-tos- but will surely take advantage of your generous request for assistance as and when I need it. See you around, and thanks again, --cjllw | TALK 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, at least some of us wait until the appointed time. :) Congratulations, the community has placed it's confidence in you, and I'm sure you'll do well. Re-read the policies as needed, and definitely do follow up on asking for advice if you're unsure. But also, we need good articles, so don't drop that! Have fun. - Taxman Talk 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Taxman- I'll do my best to use these shiny new buttons I can suddenly see with discretion and care, after poking around a bit more with the instruction manual. Appreciate it, and regards --cjllw | TALK 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself — dude, you rock!
I couldn't find Aussie beer...but here's one served on Australia day...
--Ling.Nut 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh- that looks mighty good, will certainly be appreciated come the long weekend! And thanks again to you and all who commented on my RfA- I'll be doing what I can to be useful around here with the sysop mop you've been so good to entrust me with. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 06:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good job! Happy mopping! Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your support and the kind msg, Sd.--cjllw | TALK 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spooky ...

It was very odd to see the redundant addition to the Bartolomé de las Casas article, write a polite Welcome message to the new editor who made the addition, go back and remove it, and refresh my watchlist ... only to find that someone else had made the same removal at the same time! So if they overlap somehow, please know I wasn't correcting you. :) Lawikitejana 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Lawikitejana. And I couldn't have written a better explanation than yours to the anon contributor- thanks for doing that! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Monte Alban

Gidday dan - once again, some great work by you in improving the Monte Albán article. A quick question- would you be able to confirm, or know of any sources for, the statement in that article which claims the site's name in some Zapotecan dialect is/was Danipaguache, and if so whether or not the glossed meaning given is ok? It's not that I really doubt it, but when I had a look at it last time I was unable to track down sources to confirm. I presume also that it's at least a post-conquest attribution, ie the contemporary name(s) are unconfirmed..? --cjllw | TALK 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hey Cjllw - i actually don't know any sources that state that - in fact, I don't believe I'ver heard that name before I took a look at the MA page. I would agree with you on it being a colonial period attribution... actually, now that I think about it, perhaps there might be a reference to it in The Cloud People, that Flannery and Marcus edited tome from 1983 or so. I don't have the volume, so I can't check (when I was looking to buy it, it was always over $90). I just checked the other various books I have concerning the Zapotec, which aren't very many, and can't seem to find it. If anything, its probably an ethnographic source. I know very little about Oaxacan ethnography, so I wouldn't even know what the prime places to check would be.
Anwyay, thanks for the compliment concerning my work! - I've been trying to go through the various Start and Stub class Meso articles and add to them, hopefully getting them to bump up a level. Both Monte Alban and Zapotec, at least I think, are important enough topics that they should be worked on. And my plight on the Mesoamerica article continues - I've gotten the chrono section into decent shape, began working on the subsistence section, and am slowly working my way down. I'm not really looking foward the latter sectiosn of the article, as they'll need some major reorganization. By the way, congrads on the admin-ship! Anywho, the fight contines!-- Oaxaca dan 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, not to worry- I might ask Infrogmation about the etymological source, I think he may have been the one to add it some time ago. Keep up the great work on the Mesoamerica article, thanks to the efforts of you and a few others around here, recently there's been a significant improvement in our coverage- much more to do, of course! Take care, --cjllw | TALK 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a look in Arthur Miller's Painted tombs of Oaxaca (1995) and on pages 33,34 he has a discussion of the derivation of a zapotec name for Monte Alban. Wilfredo Cruz (1982) argues Danibaan "Sacred Mountain" was the zapotec name, with Monte Alban being a hispanicization of that. Gordon Whittaker (1980) rejects that because his term lacks sufficient time depth, 'baa' according to Whittaker means "tomb or place of rest". Miller admits he doesn't understand Wittaker's objections to Cruz's derivation. I could find nothing in Flannery and Marcus's Cloud People to support the 'Danipaguache reading. Marcus (cited in Miller) found a glyph she thinks may be a "place" glyph for Monte Alban with a cognate for the nahuatl name for the hill on which its located (nahuatl name is ocelotepec - hill of jaguar) and glyph is in Lise stela and glossed by Marcus as "Hill of 1 Jaguar" (article is in Cloud People).Rsheptak 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow- thanks Rsheptak, that's some mighty fine and quick research! With that info we should be able to expand a little more on it in the article. I'll also copy this discussion to the article's talk page, for wider reference and record. Thanks again.--cjllw | TALK 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugly Font/Color in cite macro?

Is it just my browser (firefox 1.5.0.9, macOS 10.4.x) or is the font and style (color) used in the cite macro references for Author's names UGLY. See, for example, the Monte Alban page. Its a hideous font in my browser, and the use of a differnt color for each author affects legibility. Does it look good on Windows? Rsheptak 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK to me in Internet Exploder (v6), my installation is a pretty much vanilla one. I think all that the {{aut}} template involved here does is to wrap a <span style="font-variant: small-caps;"> around the authors' names, and your browser does the rest, so I guess it may depend on the available/default font you may have, or maybe your css. I haven't checked how it looks in other browsers as yet, and it does seem odd if they are displaying in different colours.
I tend to apply the {aut} template by default these days as to me at least the smallcaps makes the authors' names easier to pick out, particularly in a long biblio listing. Otherwise there's no indentation or other visual cue to set these off. But I'm not really wedded to that style, if you think it looks too crappy there then it could be removed, there's only a few refs there at present anyway.
Do you get the multi-colour effect on other pages- how about at Mayan languages for eg, which has an extensive biblio using {aut}? (also replying at your usr talk)--cjllw | TALK 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm running firefox on windows xp, and it looks fine to me as well. What Rsheptak might be seeing is the system trying to wiki-link some of the authors - for example, Michael Coe is in blue, because he has a page, Joyce Marcus is in red, because there is no page for her, and the rest are regular because its not trying to link to anything. Don't know why it would try to link in some cases and not in others though. Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Oaxaca dan 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
My word, Holmes- I think you have it! Indeed, the text will either appear Hyperlinked, Redlinked, or be just plain 'ol default, depending on whether there's an article at the end of the link, or not, or we haven't yet seen a need to hyperlink. I suppose that if it was thought desirable to have a consistent-looking presentation we could remove the links, or at least to those authors who do not presently have articles and appear in red (better maybe, would to start off an article on them so they turn blue!) Generally when adding or formatting references I'll wikilink those authors who I know there are articles for, and also those who notionally at least could or should have articles (ie they've published fairly extensively and there'd be some chance of finding some biographical data on them, and also of course they would probably pass some subjective threshhold of notability so their articles wouldn't get deleted..) However it is reasonably commonplace to wikilink authors (and their works, sometimes) in the biblio section, particularly if they are not mentioned directly in the article text. I would agree that too many redlinked authors' names in the biblio does look untidy, and in such cases I guess we'd remove the links if not at that time prepared to at least start stubs on them. I'm open to differing opinions, though.
Speaking of mesoamerican researchers with their own articles- when I was writing the stub for Karl Taube, I mentioned in it that his father was the Chemistry Nobel Laureate Henry Taube, based on the latter's obituary which mentioned he had a surviving son named Karl at Riverside CA. It's been in the back of my mind that it was really only a presumption on my part that this was the same Karl Taube- dan, or Rsheptak maybe you know or could confirm (hey, quite possibly you've met the guy in person..)? --cjllw | TALK 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have met Taube - Unfortuntely, it was at the SAA hotel bar late at night as we (the archaeologists) were drinking the bar dry - needless to say, I'm pretty sure we didn't talk about his father, and if we did, I don't remember it ... :) Anywho, sorry I'm of no help here. By the way, Cjll, have you checked your user page lately? It seems someone has vandalized it. Oaxaca dan 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks- no I didn't see that. It seems that vandalism of my userpg is going to be one of the hazards of adminship, most likely the work of some malcontent who I'd either blocked or deleted their hard-thought efforts in creating articles consisting of "hey wozzup isnt dis kool" sentiments. Excuse me while I go and block 'em again...--cjllw | TALK 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA thanks

Hey, congrats! :-) You might find it especially useful to move pages that are locked due to an existing edit history. Please let me know if you need help with anything by the way. Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Khoikhoi, thanks. Being able to complete obstructed moves was one facility I had planned to get involved with as a sysop. If I run across any probs in working out how to do it I will drop you a line. Thx again, and cheers- --cjllw | TALK 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, and if you ever want to learn how to merge the edit histories of two pages, Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves is useful for that. Khoikhoi 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I created Sentinelese language by copying some of the stuff from Sentinelese and Andamanese languages. The article however is still unreferenced. Would you be able to help me by adding some? Khoikhoi 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Will see what I can track down and add in when I get the chance. Given that almost nothing is known about the Sentinelese language there may not be a lot of scope for further improvement, though. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An apology concerning your RfA

Hi, in your successful RfA I was one of the 4 people who opposed your nomination on the basis of your apparent lack of edits in the XfD space. I looked at your last 500 edits and didn't see a thing. I remember opposing very early in the !voting and always had it in mind to return and see if there was something I had missed. Unfortunately I never did revisit and missed your eloquent response regarding your participation. If I had read this, and the other answers you gave subsequent to your initial responses, I would have shifted to support. Of course it didn't matter in the end with your overwhelming support, but if you want you can always imagine it passed at 47/3/3! --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve, that's quite alright! No need to apologise, and I appreciate you taking the time to comment both at the RfA and now here. I'll do my best to improve and brush up on the finer policy and procedural points as I give the sysop tools a whirl -having looked into it now 'from the other side', I can see it can be at times a trickier business than first impressions revealed... thanks again, see you around the traps somewhere. --cjllw | TALK 13:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Edgar's fall

Why!! did you deleted it was hard to finish it So tell me a Good reason!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.57.15.219 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I deleted Edgar's fall since it had been nominated for speedy deletion on the basis that it did not demonstrate the notability of the article's topic, the criteria for which (specific to web sites/materials) are described here. At the time I agreed with the assessment, and the article's content and tone did nothing to show it merited inclusion here- see what wikipedia is not; there are untold zillions of videos on YouTube and like-minded sites, and wikipedia is not the place to promote or link them. To warrant inclusion here it would have to be something which is extremely well-known and independently referenced.
However, I did some further looking around and have noted that there are at least a sizeable number of independent references to it, and so it at least has some chance of meeting WP:WEB notability requirements. It could I guess be argued that it is as 'notable' as others on the List of internet phenomena. So I have restored the article, for the moment anyway, as perhaps not being quite so clear-cut a case for speedy deletion. It could still be deleted or proposed to be deleted by someone in the future, particularly as the article reads quite poorly- if you want to have it kept I suggest that you look to rewrite it and provide the references to why this particular video is notable for inclusion here. (also posted at anon's talk pg)--cjllw | TALK 09:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE