User talk:Goldenrowley/archive (001)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Goldenrowley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Merovingian {T C @} 07:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] David Alter

Welcome to Wiki and hope to see amny more artcles from you.Congratulations on your article about David Alter.Actually I had created the stub and it is rewarding to note that someone has expanded it so soon.I have suggested that this artcle be listed on the main page to highlight this very great scientist who is not that well known.Congratulations once again(Vr 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

  • Thank you this is one interest we have in common. Goldenrowley 21:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myth

Great work getting all those myth articles stubbed! You might be interested in the Myth and folklore missing articles project. --Bookgrrl 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I am still at it. I had to create missing myth stubs. I just received approval this week to make stub types for myths from the middle east, north america, central america, south america and Australia so have been sorting myths from those continents all weekend. Goldenrowley 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comments

REGARDING I ASKED ADMIN IF I CAN EDIT MY TALK PAGES:

It's usually cool to do whatever you want with your talk page (with only one exception that doesn't apply). — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to Persian

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something Persian, please do not link to Persian, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Persian people, Persian language, or Iran, by writing out [[Persian language|Persian]] or [[Iran|Persian]]. Regards, Jeff3000 06:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I had a message from you not to link to the Persia page, because it is a disambig page (which works like a table of contents), but I politely disagreed. Why can no one can link to 'Persia' or "Persian'? Just because it is a disambig pages does not mean it is useless as a reference, the opposite, it is very useful. I think on the articles I am working with (the orphans) they use the word Persia in a way that people just want to be referred to a general list of Persian topics to pick from, and not have me hand-pick the articles for them. Goldenrowley 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. From that page "Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article.". There are certain exceptions to this rule, but for a very large marjority of links, the links should not be to disambiguation pages. In specific sentences when one is using the word Persian, I cannot think of a good reason to link to Persian, because usually it is used as a specific adjective, such as language, architecture, cuisine, and thus it should be linked to that specific article, or the Iran, as the source of that characterititic. Regards. -- Jeff3000 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
OK Jeff now I see the disamb. policy is to avoid the linkage... thanks for the help. Going forward, I think I will send most of the orphan articles to "Persian Empire" instead of "Persian" , etc. ... Thanks!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff3000"

[edit] Great work on the dead-end T section!

I was wondering where I'd find the patience to look at the rest of the pages there again.... --Alvestrand 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note to others -- when you write an article please please please give it a few links the very first day, so that it does not appear on the dead-end pages for volunteers to add links to the next month. This is on behalf of the volunteers trying to add links to 1000 of articles, especially those starting with the letters: S and T. Goldenrowley 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ohlone population numbers

Goldenrowley, I saw your reference to population for Ohlone. Those numbers are not supportable. I have moved your entry to the comment section, and bookmarked my own notes. Could we discuss them there? meatclerk 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Done, probably in greater detail since I have a source at hand. Goldenrowley 07:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the pages are promised are now online. here. Let me know if you need anything else. meatclerk 05:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology

There are two criteria a project has to meet to be listed as active and/or remain ineligible for deletion or movement. They are to have activity on the page in the past 3 months and to have at least one listed member. Right now this project has no members. It looks like it has a wealth of useful data and I would welcome seeing it remaining where it is. Badbilltucker 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I added myself immediately upon hearing it was in danger with no members. It is a good project with a great templates, calling others to join me. Goldenrowley 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub Macro...?

I'm assuming you mean StubSense. A link in the "header" of WP:WSS/P sounds like a good idea, certainly. Alai 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

-->to be done asap Goldenrowley 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd-looking edit...

I do hope your browser hasn't contracted whatever's ailing Grutness's. [1] Alai 07:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

--->keeping an eye on my browser now! reply sent to Alai Goldenrowley 19:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My notes

Goldenrowley, just to let you know on my notes - I just completed the software that takes my notes, written in wikipedia style (I call wikitype) and they spit out HTML. The purpose is to take the dozen or so page of notes and make the publicly avialable. I still need to write a master (or index) page creator, but I see that as easy - as soon as I get a bit of sleep. BTW, could you use Milliken? or another source? -- meatclerk 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My original notes on population are cleaned up. You can see them here -> The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. Sorry I don't have any numbers south of Santa Clara County, but I think I can handle that and give you totals next week. -- meatclerk 08:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub proposal archives

Hi there! The archived discussions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive, summarized in sections and linked to the archive itself. I only discovered the archives a while back by seeing the "A" next to "Proposals" in the small blue WikiProject Stub Sorting menu on the right. Let me know if you can't find something. Cheers, Her Pegship 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{US-art-museum-stub}}

Hi, I'm a little confused about this one. You listed it on speedy deletion as a "very short article with no context" and the edit summary said all links had been moved (it's still used in a couple of articles though), so I turned it back into a redirect instead. I also see you listed it in the "to be deleted" section on stub types for deletion. However I can't seem to find a record of any debate to delete or rename it logged anywhere. All I find is the sucessfull proposal to create it. Mind cluing me in on where the consensus to delete this was reached? --Sherool (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, finaly found it here I was just looking in the wrong place. Sorry to have troubeled you. --Sherool (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I took care to investigate of course and do it right from now on, of course. Goldenrowley 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thank you

No problem, I just got a little confused when it was listed under stub deletions with no actual deletion debate in sight. For future refence when merging stuff just redirect the old title to the new one like you originaly did. The exception is categories, redirecting them doesn't quite work as expected so we delete those. It helps to use a more spesific deletion template though, either {{db-catempty}}, or something like {{db|Category merged with <some other category>, no longer used please delete}} or whatever to make it more clear why it should be deleted. Tagging it with a template that says it's an article with little context is just plain confusing ;) --Sherool (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I thanked Sherool back.

[edit] syncing work

Goldenrowley, we step on each other's work. If you can, please use {{inuse-section}}. I've already almost wiped out your edits. Would hate to loss good work. --meatclerk 07:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Goldenrowley, don't worry too much over the syncing. Use the tag when you can please. Also, not too many appoligize either. My work in a grocery store gets me many appologize for things people never should appoloigize for; sometime it irriates me.

On Ishi, we should just forget about that until I have time for the bio on Kroeber and Merriam, sometime next year. BTW, Milliken does a brilliant job of avoiding many subjects, population, hunter-gather as examples. Nonetheless, still very good material, a cut above Margolin.

On other issues, I have had some sleep now, so I'm better. My typing might show it. Today, I need to finish some things before I get to the topic of hunter-gather. This includes two (2) flats on my bicycle. --meatclerk 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The normal fashion...

When something's been tagged for deletion via one of the "*FD processes", it'll be deleted (or otherwise) by someone working their way down the process page. If you remove the *FD tag, and replace it with a "speedy" tag, it gives the impression it's not been through the "process" at all, which will cause untold confusion when an admin dealing with "speedies" sees it, on the basis of that categorisation. At which don't they're either likely to conclude it's not speediable, i they don't look at the history, or wonder why someone is removing *FD tags, if they do. (And SFD is a relative "quiet backwater": if you did that at AFD, you'd be speedily lynched.) So in short, don't. Alai 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What we say on "speedies" is probably neither clear nor consistent, since the only "official" CSDs we have are those for categories, and for "nonsense". But under no circumstances does it make sense to change the tagging of something to a "speedy" after a SFD nomination has concluded, which is rather to graft one process onto another, in a rather misleading way. (If you want is to gently poke an admin into completing the closure, you can list the affected template/category in the "to delete" section, if it's already been closed, and you've completed the "emptying" process.) Alai 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Note I encapsulated the above instructions, in newbie language, and proposed it on the Stub instruction page discussion page today. Goldenrowley 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ohlone, current work

GR, I see you working at a fever pitch. Just a few notes. In the opening paragraph, "40 different tribal names" is difficult to support, especially when you are adding all the names. As you might have noted, I try to stay clear of such numbers. Hence, the reason I challenged Bruce on 1300 years. It may be true, but no one we know was around 1300 years ago. Anyhow, I should buy you a beer, or coffee, or fruit juice (in case you are Mormon), because you do such a nice job on my sloppy writing. --meatclerk 05:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You know I just feel I am organizing things, if nothing else I put things in historical date order. Then at least we have an order. Goldenrowley 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of Traditional Narratives

Hi, Goldenrowley.

I'm in the process of contributing sections on traditional narratives for all of the California groups. Initially I had thought of making them separate articles, but because I don't anticipate that they will contain extended discussions of the contents of the narratives (at least for now), their content seemed a little thin to stand alone. So I decided to go with sections in the general articles for the ethnic groups. Because I'm keying them through a template in the general "Traditional narratives (Native California)" article, it's probably desirable to be consistent, one way or the other. I'm open to discussion as to which way would be better, and I'm willing to change the ones I've already posted. Let me know what you think.

As to the title, I think "traditional narratives" is preferable to "mythology". Many of the narratives involved (for instance, many of the trickster stories) technically aren't myths; they're tales or legends, in the terminology of folklorists, anthropologists, and Wikipedia itself....RhymeNotStutter 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

oK thanks its not a bad idea to separate religion from folklore here. I am thinking it over, and mythology pages I imagined were going to cover religion, spirituality, the creation myth and stories of the world order... the basis of the group's philosophy and religion. I can't call them folklore and narratives, thats downsizing them, but I did not do a good job of it yet. i.e. The Miwok belived Coyote created the world, so did the Pomo so to them coyote is "ancestor" and a "creator god" not just "folklore". However I read the article your referring to and its very good. what I suggest is you add the narrative sections as new material but don't overwrite the headings of mythology, just add the topic narratives as a new topic....does that sound good? Goldenrowley 04:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to continue burying these listing in one article after another, I guess I'll have to start moving all the discussions of traditional narratives out of the main tribal articles and into separate articles. I really don't think you understand the purpose of presenting these sources -- they're not citations for purposes of documentation or recommendations for further reading. I also think you may be missing the nonlinear character of an on-line encyclopedia -- users aren't necessarily expected to read an article from top to bottom, but they need to be offered a clear flow leading them on to related information. RhymeNotStutter 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rhyme! I respectfully have to disagree in some respects, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout . Goldenrowley 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put the traditional narratives material in separate articles now. I haven't deleted redundant material or put in "See also" references in the articles you're actively editing (Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok, Lake Miwok, Valley and Sierra Miwok, Miwok Mythology, Ohlone, and Pomo). Feel free to do so, or let me know if you want me to do it.RhymeNotStutter 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ryhme! I like the new pages it works for now and for any future expansion. Sorry I did not explain myself very well the other day, what I've been is using the ethnic templates as my guide for the native groups in the Bay Area Region, also using the Wikipedia style guide, and the A+ article called Mandan as an example for these pages. I will make a short summary sentence and link to the new narrative pages. Here is a good category you could put them into: category:Native American culture Goldenrowley 19:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoned at my young age

Hey what's up. Just teasing you. Are you done, for now with Oholone? If so, that's okay. Just checking. You see: I add, you edit. :-), but if you are on to other things, that is fine too. --meatclerk 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since, I did not hear from you, I assume you went to bed. On the intro, I started over. Here is the general outline.

  • The three (3) terms (Costanoan, Ohlone, Muwekma), past, current confused and future.
  • Condensed article.

Encyclopedic forms start with a condensed paragraph, not always, but mostly. Please look into this.

Done:

  • Archive of most old conversations.
  • Archive unresolved issues.
  • some notes to book reviews and research aids.

Off Thursday, first task: get CHSQ article on A.S. Taylor, and write wikiarticle. That's it. --meatclerk 08:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Take your time. I'll be working on my version of wikipedia on my personal machine. --meatclerk 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Going to bed early, if you have something. Message in the next 10 minutes please. --meatclerk 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll admit I made up the word. I thought it existed. As in, ethologist, ethnolinguist, etc. I assumed that a general term had to exist for all these people doing the same thing. That's what I was writing. --meatclerk 04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Watch your edits

I've fixed a variety of things you've somehow "rubbed out" or distorted (by accident). For instance, Ohlone in the current introduction is distorted; three or four times when you've moved things around the footnotes break and you've distorted titles of books and article by reducing the original. Anyway, I fixed some. --meatclerk 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also note your are not wholey familiar with HTML and floating dialogs. So, may I suggest that you not make any fancy layouts on the page. You may note, mind are simple. Intentionally so; for instance Native words lines up nicely if the browser is at full screen, but if the browser window gets reduced in size, then the Legend disappears below the text. One solution is to create an invisible outer box, the top holds the visible table and the bottom holds the legend; which now never floats away under some text.

In closing, I don't want to discourage what you are doing, but for try not to get too fancy. :-) --meatclerk 07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As you can tell, I can't sleep (two nights in a row). BTW, here are my notes on salmon myths, so far.

http://www.didgood.com/community/historic/books/2%20-%20RWC%20Library%20-%20Historical%20Room/TheNativeRaces.html

--meatclerk 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response is: Thanks for the sources you don't happen to have Theodore Kroeber Almost Ancestors do you? I need to verify the creation myth. I am curious why you decided to take out the quote from Brown on the burnt fields after you spent so much time researching it, it is specific to the Ohlone, did notyou want it? Also curious why you felt necessary to put back Cook's quote. Cook was a generalist. In any case I'll leave it up to you (but I suggest the Brown quote is specific to Ohlone and interesting while Cook quote is generic).Goldenrowley 04:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travelers' Accounts

Goldenrowley, as you know I make notes in the library and if I find anything interesting you are welcome to it. My notes on this article are for my use, but I did note that the traveler did take accounts of religion, traditions and myths. My notes may be of no use to you, but you might take note of the volume and title. Here it is. --meatclerk 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On Theodora Kroeber, I only have Ishi and it has no index, or TOC.

On Cook, I believe that his quote noting "white men" as the culprits was important. Your right; as soon as a California Indians article is written I will move it over. Till then it needs a home, perhaps a shallow home, but home none the less. But also on that, might recall one of my message about over trimming, or editing. On that, I see this as thrashing on an article that if far from complete. Bruces actions on this are about the same.

On Brown, I have removed the quotes (perhaps more than one) until the article settles. Currently, there is quite a bit of thrashing, especially the intro (perhaps my fault on that). But really I don't recall removing a quote, if I did. In any case, if I see something majorly wrong I will speak up.

More on overediting. I'm currently cleaning up my database and book collection. I have perhaps 50 books that need entry so I can track them. I have perhaps just as many notes in electronic format. So, on one of the last editing points, where you added my reference(La Penninsula), but I did not have my notes in order, I needed to spend 2 hours to fix my notes for online viewing. Note: I am not complaining or critizing your actions, it's just that I need to put my notes in order - Which is what I am doing tonight. --meatclerk 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for proof reading A.S. Alexander. I will always appreciate it, as writing is not my strong point. I was always better at reading and math, but writing was a chore - perhaps because of my MSG intolerance. Anyway thanks. meatclerk 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population of Native California

Excellent work. Feel free to move the quote over. If you don't have time, I will get to it in a few days. Thanks to both of you. --meatclerk 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More pointers to myths

I'm cleaning up my notes and I see more notes on myths. The Notes are here. Take note of 4. Myths and Legends, pg. 297¥. The scanned page is linked. Once you see what you want go back to the main page and on the top half you'll see Literature cited. From there the links (or scanned pages) are the Bibliography for the book. Lastly, I need to add the minerals for Ohlone to the list. Right now it is just San Mateo County. --meatclerk 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you /re Cook

Hi thnak you for the new myth notes, is super organized of you. On giving a full citations on the Ohlone page starting with Cook: are you taking the initiative on that one, or should I? Goldenrowley 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New team Member

I going to revert the article (Ohlone) again. But before I do, I thought it would be useful to write why I am doing so.

For this person I have left two (2) message (See User_talk:Aleventh) Both message acknowledge the good work and accuracy of the citations. However, if you look at the contributions, you will note, as I have, this person has only added to this article. Likely, this person is closely related to the Ohlone. How so, I am not sure. Even so, additions show more recognition of the subject than we do. However, this person's knowledge of wikipedia is poor - as shown by the edits.

It behooves us to teach this person how to make proper edits, else we will be making corrections - without communications, and possibly errors in our corrections. If you have a counter-point, I will reduce my position to reflect any possible alternatives. --meatclerk 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I found some of the additions trying to help us fill in on our requested citations. I was going to let the new persons today's edits in, and only delete those truly uncited and detrimental. Since I've already put an hour into it I'd suggest you just seehow it looks a little later in the evenint (say around 9 pm?) Goldenrowley 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledging your good work, the additions will stay; I will not revert. Any suggestions on how to communicate with this person? --meatclerk 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Aside from user talk pages and article discussion pages, there is no other way you could get a new person's attention. I did however just send the new person the same greeting and instructions I received when I joined. Goldenrowley 05:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Also, looks like you are done for tonight. As such, I will check off any completed sections. --meatclerk 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Our mutal friend is continuing to make additions without citations. Luckily they are beyond the sections we have checked. I also see you are still editing. So I have made no marks tonight. Your suggestions on our friend? BTW, this page is on my watchlist. --meatclerk 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
On our mutal friend and any others, time is not the issue for allowing any person to fix, contribute or modify. The issue is when we are gone. That is, when our time is up, you and I will no longer be around to fix anything. We just won't be here. Hence, politely nugging a person is the correct path, but sometimes you have to step on their feet (not toes) to get their attention. Then say, as nicely as possible, we are working in the same direction.
From the contributions our mutal friend is making, it appears (s)he is better informed and likely to make better entries than we could, given similar circumstances. As such, the idea is to support the actives.
For instance, in your case, you drive me nuts making constant changes, but stopping you would be counter productive. In addition, your entries seem clearer than mine, given similar time constraints. As such, I see it beneficial to let you do what you want, then cleanup behind you. The errors you leave are minor, and in many cases you return the favor by correcting articles I work on exclusively. This last part (your corrections on my articles) is more valuable than any ego point I might have in Ohlone.
So if its not clear, while you drive me nuts, at times, and our mutal friend is likely to do the same, then it is in our mutal interest to accomidate(sp?) each other. But this accomadation(sp?) can only happen if we communicate in an explict manner; not implict is as is happening when 'mutal friend' adds, but thrashs Wikipedia convention and guidelines. Even then, allowing this person to thrash might benefit us in an unknown way.
Respectfully, --meatclerk 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, It looks like your a little exasperated with me please forgive that I copy edit so much, writing is a hard and laborious process for me, at times. It is of course not my intention to "drive you nuts" this is only an attempt to write and finish the article in the most thorough and professional English. In my defense I think I am adding a lot of good research here, I've got my four books checked out from the library and read them, mostly cover to cover. I added some topics I thought were basic to a cultural/historical discussion, and have pretty much reached the end of my goal. I've been writing slowly, and carefully from the sources (although I can be blind to some of my own errors) ...On new people, I don't understand where a convention was trashed by new person, I actually liked their additions this week... You've said a lot more and concluded we should accommodate each other's work... and on that, I can agree. Respectfully, Goldenrowley 03:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)