User talk:Madman2001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Madman2001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- SoothingR(pour) 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Earlier postings are available at User talk:Madman2001/Achive 1 (yes, it's a typo).
Earlier postings are available at User talk:Madman2001/Archive2 .

I prefer shortened notes, an easy-to-edit, easy-to-read footnote style.

Contents

[edit] Tlapacoya

Many thanks for copyediting/wikify this article! You did an outstanding job!! --Hurricane111 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article: Tramp chair

Thanks for cleaning it up, looks much better now. - Dharmabum420 06:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Stockton Massacre

Right, same to you. Whew! Hard work but rewarding. Pleasure to work with you. Herostratus 00:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prettifying

Just {{subst:}} one of the prettytable templates in the table header i.e. {| (You can go by with just {{prettytable}}, the others are for all sort of specific case, suchas centered table. In olmec, it was {{prettytablecenter}}). (note that in practice, the template/s is/are legacy code.) Circeus 01:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Great section on Tlacaelel

That is really well written. I'm not sure if it's any shorter than what was there before but it is absolutely a lot more to the point. It really gets across how important he was. Thanks! --Richard 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it is any shorter, either, but I'm glad you liked it! It was your note above that really started me on all this Aztec-related copyediting, lo, those many days ago. Madman 04:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec society section in Aztec article vs. Aztec society article

Thanks for your copyedits on the Aztec society section in the Aztec article.

You may have missed the discussion on this topic. We (well, Piet and I) agreed to shorten the Aztec article by moving the "Aztec daily life" stuff to the Aztec society article and to trim the "Aztec daily life" section in the Aztec article to be a summary of the Aztec society article.

Your copyedits are appreciated but I wonder if you could take another look at this text in light of the above decision and then copy the appropriate edits over to the Aztec society section.

P.S. You've been doing a lot of great work with images and formatting and generally improving a bunch of Aztec-related articles. This is much appreciated. --Richard 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for the heads up. I will definitely copy the appropriate edits over to the Aztec society section. Madman 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 30 August 2006, a fact from the article Itza, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
message It think you deserve this barnstar for your tireless and generous responses to Clyde Winters, Olmeque and others. I couldn't bear the thought of debating with them, but you could. Paul B 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, thank you so very much for the Barnstar. It comes at a great time, because I have been getting worn down a bit: I really just want to add and improve content but lately I've found myself spending great gobs of time just keeping the good articles at at a "good" level. I guess the Second law of thermodynamics applies here in Wikipedia-land as well.

So, bless you, Paul. Your timing is impeccable. Gratefully yours, Madman 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Corona

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 22 September 2006, a fact from the article La Corona, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 18:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
For your hardwork and dedication to making Wikipedia a better place. I, Sharkface217, award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! :-) Sharkface217 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar, Sharkface. I had really pretty much given up on Wikipedia, despite over 2000 quality edits, due to the difficulty in maintaining quality: too much vandalism, too many well-meaning but non sequitor edits, too many POV edits, and lack of support/recognition, among other problems. Due to your random act of kindness, I may just reconsider. Madman 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Preventing one person from leaving Wikipedia forever will make all our work here worth it. I hope you do not leave this site forever. As I have learned in my year(s) (it's been more than a year? I'm getting old!), there may be 2 million or so English Wikipedia accounts, but only a small fraction of those (less than 10,000 by my estimates) are actually "good" contributors.
Hoping that you don't leave, Sharkface217 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Gidday Madman, I'd just like to echo Sharkface's sentiments to express the hope that you continue on with wikipedia, even if only in a limited, variable or occasional capacity. I had noticed you'd not been around much of late and had wondered whether you were on a break of sorts. Your contributions have been sorely missed around Mesoamerican articles, and no doubt in the other fields improved by your diligent and attentive edits. While there are certainly plenty of grounds for frustration around here, and at times it feels like going backwards in trying to at least maintain, let alone improve, the quality and scope of articles, I think that on balance and in the long run a positive difference can and has been made by the efforts of such clear-minded folk as your good self.
Take whatever recharging time you need, and if there are any battles becoming too tiresome then call out for some assistance or maybe look at something else for a while, (eventually) others will step in.
So hope to see you around. If you do decide to concentrate on other things, then all the best for you and your future endeavours. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Echoing CJLL Wright's thoughts, another barnstar

I second CJLL Wright's thoughts. Here's a more specific barnstar.

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For many quality edits to Aztec-related articles, I award this barnstar to Madman2001 who has helped to make a dramatic improvement in articles related to the Aztec civilization.Richard 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Welldeserved they both are. Cheers Madman! Maunus 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, guys. This is just wonderful. To see such fantastic comments from such top drawer folks are yourself, I may just get back into the game. Thanks, Madman 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The image on your page

That is the funniest Halloween (?) picture I've ever seen! —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallowe'en?? Hallowe'en??? Yes, it is! Thanks for your comment. Madman 06:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to reiterate that, Madman2001—the best user page I have seen on Wikipedia! (And thanks for tidying up so many pages.)—Stombs 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos (Olmec article)

Madman, I just wanted to drop you a line a give you some credit for the Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures article - very well done. Its a very strong piece that covers a rather complex (and somewhat controversial) topic very nicely. And I agree with you in using quotes from archaeologists. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article El Manatí, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly (o rly?) 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Juxtlahuaca, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On February 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juxtlahuaca, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Geez Louise Madman - what is that, 3 DYK's in 12 days? Well done man, well done. By the way, I did a little editing of the page - tried to tidy some stuff up, added wiki-links, etc. - hope you don't mind. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congratulations with the DYK's. Yes the FA run is a bit tough - they are right in a lot of stuff but also do exaggerrate a bunch. Forexample it is not "outrageously underreferenced". And most of the bad prose is a matter of taste - If I were the only one to have edited I could understand that my non-native english might have made it less brilliant prose than it should be, but we have been many editors working on it most of whom are native english speakers. But what the hell - FA or no FA it is still the bst article about a language family on Wikipedia right now - not even Indo-European languages can compete.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in with encouragement on both counts- kudos to Madman again for the DYK work, and endorsing the content and relative quality assessment of the Mayan langs. article regardless of the eventual outcome this time around. FA can be a hard road and serendipity plays at least some part in it, as the degree of scrutiny is variable from case to case. However I hope we're not too discouraged from this or future FAC efforts, and the detailed comments received are valuable pointers. And since I often find myself envious of your turn of phrase Maunus I wouldn't worry about prose impediments on that score.
There's still time (generally a couple of weeks) to respond and revise the article while the FAC remains open, and at least clean up the actionable objections. Some of the more intangible ones will be harder to address (talk:Sylvanus Morley came in for a bit of a kicking over its prose style months after its FA passed, it's hard to account for all tastes). I'll do what I can, though I'll shortly be away travelling for about a week or so. --cjllw | TALK 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Remojadas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent run of Meso-American DYKs - it nice to see a bit of cultural and regional diversity in an effort to beat the inevitable systemic bias in our coverage. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment on my talk page. You goal may not be to counter the systemic bias, but you are achieving that :) Keep up the good work! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Las Limas Monument 1, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaina Island

Updated DYK query On 8 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jaina Island, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oxtotitlan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teponaztli

Updated DYK query On 29 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teponaztli, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Classic Veracruz culture

Updated DYK query On 15 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Classic Veracruz culture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks! --PFHLai 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dyk nom

[edit] Another for your well-deserved collection

The Epic Barnstar
To Madman2001, for the latest in a long line of superb new articles on Mesoamerican sites & history. cjllw ʘ TALK 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, Madman- yet another quality addition to the fold, you're making the rest of us look like laggards ;-) Dunno if it's poor form to dish these out more than once to a colleague, but nor do I care...where acknowledgement is due, it's due. Most impressive, as usual. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Epic Barnstar, CJLL!! Very cool.
As I mentioned when I returned from my Wikibreak, I am continually (and pleasantly) surprised at the quality of the Mesoamerican articles here. By way of contrast, I was recently doing some editing on European prehistory articles and I found many of them somewhat clumsily worded, missing key information, and not well integrated with one-another. Thanks in large part to your leadership and cheerleading (of which this Barnstar is a prime example), Mesoamerica is a bright spot indeed here in Wiki-land. I am proud to continue in that tradition. Sincerely yours, Madman 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 16 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Andrés (Mesoamerican site), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, pelota mixteca, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On October 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pelota mixteca, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 November 2007, a fact from the article Speech scroll, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

I really like the ballcourt article. Victuallers (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 28 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mesoamerican ballcourt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Me too! Great pictures. --Royalbroil 14:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of the Olmec Heartland
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Olmec Heartland Overview 4.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Madman- kudos and congrats for a well-deserved FPC promotion- our first WP:MESO img to receive that accolade, I believe. Now for the next one.... ;-) Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise discussion

I've put forward a suggestion at User talk:IrishLass0128#Compromise discussion, since people objected to continuing to clutter up the Village Pump. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snite Museum]

I am still at ND, so i will take the pictures. Can you give me specifics on what to photograph? I could just photo the entire exhibit. User:Pavtron

[edit] Venus figurines

Hi. Thanks for your comments on the extension of the Venus figurines article. Yes, I do use the preview feature, but invariably, the occasional blunder slips through and is only noticed somewhat later. The seven takes it took me are not too bad, I think (especially compared to the over 40 it took me for the much longer Greek temple article in November). As regards references, of course I am aware of that (I am a publishing academic), but as I indicate on the talk page, I did not so much write the new version, but rather simply translated most of the French version, which, up to now, was far more detailed than ours (which was also entirely unreferenced). In the long run, I hope that all these articles will end up referenced (apart, maybe, from the very shortest ones), but it's not always practical to do so immediately. After all, if I see an article on a different wikiepdia that I think is worth including or adding here, I can't necessarily expect it to be perfect... athinaios (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the copy-edit... athinaios (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. I've been trying to do a bit here and there, but it's a drop in the ocean, really. There's a huge amount of important prehistory and archaeology matters that are virtually untouched, and loads that are, as you say, sketchy indeed. Just look at Minoan civilization, an article where not only the title is wrong (I work in that field and absolutely no-one would use that term), but the content is inconsistent, missing lots of important stuff and concentrating on non-notable issues. Apparently, if anyone tries to change anything there, all hell breaks loose... athinaios (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olmec alternative origin speculations

Hi Madman. You seemed to disagree with my reversion of Mr. Winters' latest block of OR which he has now inserted into the article three times. If you continue to think that his edit has merit I would like you to reformulate his edit into something acceptable. It does not seem that he is capable of grasping why it is not suitable for wikipedia in the formulation that he has written himself, and he keeps inserting the exact same version, signed by himself in mid article and badly written. If you do this I would like you to remember that we are not supposed to provide arguments for fringe theories (and certainly not new arguments) - but only note what the theory is about and that it exists and has no general following. To begin discussing the supposed ancience of the vai script and bringing together 3 independent and quite questionable sources that can only vaguely and tendentiously be used to support the conclusion that the vai script is old is not the purpose of the article - that discussion could go on the page of the vai script (if it had been published in a reliable source). It is also not the place for mr. Winters to publish dubious word comparisons between Mande and Maya. I could use your help on the article, I know you have done a great deal of battling against pseudo-science in the Olmec area - While we are both in agreement that existing theories should be given mention I simply cannot accept Mr. Winters turning wikipedia into a vehicle for his personal OR. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 10 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Martín Pajapan Monument 1, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocola

Madman2001: Not off topic, I would argue. I have now added more about the site itself. Chocola can only be understood in context. The entire research has been motivated by questions about the Preclassic Southern Maya area as a putatively seminal time and place precedent to the rise of Maya civilization. Furthermore, it is precisely the longstanding debate about Lowland Maya (Northern Peten) vs Southern Maya area that gives Chocola its importance. Other themes in prehistory and ancient complex government are engaged, as well, such as hydraulics, but the more cogent and pertinent import is with respect to Maya origins. Hence, the relatively brief discussion of "origins" as a concept in archaeology.Jonathan (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Chocola

I am trying to insert some images of the site and can't figure out how to do it. I did upload a photo (my own) of some stone drains but when I try to insert it nothing happens. The file is Stone_Drain_Chocola.jpg. I wonder if the size of the file is too big. Can you advise?Jonathan (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yet more Chocola

A few things. "Peacock terms" - I took out "vigorous". "Exquisite" I would argue is not just acceptable but necessary given that Maya "art" is inevitably listed as one of the "high traits" of Maya culture. If you have another term or word that conveys the idea, fine. Later in the entry I use "masterful." Do you have the same problem with this word?...About condensing the entry, I do see your point. I will try to condense, but I do strongly feel that the topics of "Maya Civilization," "Unity of..." and, especially, "Southern Maya Area" are very germane and appropriate. For example, an entry on Tikal should include some brief discussion of "Classic Maya Cities," with info about settlement pattern (urban layout), the debate about whether Maya cities were "sacred ceremonial centers" or "urban communities," possibly, as well, with some brief mention of theories of "the ancient city" itself. Furthermore, a discussion of Tikal should mention the theory, and theory it is, that Tikal (and Calakmul) may have been capitals of "superstates." In other words, as bare as an entry in an encyclopedia should be, the entry becomes meaningless unless some context of explanation about how and why the entry deserves to be IN the encyclopedia is provided.Jonathan (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] update

Madman, I appreciate your concerns. I did look at the Palenque entry, and do see how stripped down it is. Out of curiosity I then went to the entry on John Lloyd Stephens and was dismayed that there is no discussion of Stephens' importance to Maya scholarship. I have a copy of the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, famous for its entries - authored by many of the leading figures of the day (for example, Edmund Husserl wrote the entry on phenomenology) - and would call your attention again to the fact that subjects of entries in encyclopedias should supply some context as to why the subject appears in the encyclopedia, that is, why and how it is that it has its significance. I could completely take out the sections on "Maya Civilization" and "The Unity of..." and leave the section on the "Southern Maya Area," although if I completely removed the first two the IMPORT of Chocola to Maya scholarship would be blurred. This is because it is precisely due to the location and development emphasis of Chocola that we look to some clues to answers about the rise of Maya civilization, and it is, therefore, also that we look for some clues as to what was going on behind and before Maya civilization developed into a grand unity of culture and city-states extending from Yucatan through Southern Mexico and throughout Guatemala.Jonathan (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocola changes

Please take a look. I have added images, inserted the missing cit, and cut out the two sections. I am sure the images could be resized and/or made to fit the text better, but I confess I do not know how to do this. I could add maps of the site but I am very hesitant to do since the site is in the process of being investigated, little protections are in place against looting, and I would not want to give treasure-hunters clues where to illegally dig.Jonathan (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephens

May I add some stuff - removed from the Chocola entry - to the entry on Stephens?Jonathan (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] chocola biblio add?

You seem to have added the Coe, et al Atlas volume. A good book, by my old prof, Coe, but is it meant to be in "further reading"?Jonathan (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Great Plan, Vol II.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:The Great Plan, Vol II.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Great Plan, Vol. I.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:The Great Plan, Vol. I.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SMA

I see you are looking at what I am doing, which is fine. You are the arbiter for the format; I am working on greatly cutting down the theoretical stuff so the entry does not seem like an essay. Any ideas you have I would welcome.Jonathan (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coe, etc.

I can ask Mike. He is notoriously unresponsive to notions of himself as the topic. He is computer-literate; I did send him a link to the Chocola entry, as I did to Bob Sharer. Mike has not replied yet, Bob replied to me from Copan, saying he will review it when he is back in the States...About the SMA, we should capitalize the "area" to "Area." I don't know how to do this and lose the link set up already. Images: yes, what is most needed, obviously, is a map as I see on other Wikipedia entries - in color, simple, with sites indicated. Also a linguistic map might be useful. For me to create these would cost funds I cannot spare at the moment....Thanks for the format help with the Chocola entry!...If I understand you I don't need to do this any longer?:Jonathan (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more

I would be glad to send you a map I am using for an article of mine on Kaminaljuyu that appears in a volume in press at the U of Colorado. It shows the important Southern Preclassic sites. I do not want to post this as it belongs to the article in the volume, but you could use this as a source to create a map. I guess I would need your email to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Kaplan1938 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad

Hi there. There's a deletion review of this article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25. As you participated in the original AfD (2 years ago - the article has been recreated since) you might like to take a look there. Regards Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KJ table

Yes, Monument 65 is impressive, isn't it? The KJ ceramic sequence - a very important one in Mesoamerica for corrolating events elsewhere in Maya land and beyond - unfortunately is NOT based on 14C; I have run someone else's carbon samples (Valdes and Popenoe de Hatch) and found no correlation with the Shook-Kidder-Popenoe de Hatch sequence. This does not mean the sequence is wrong, since it is corroborated - in general - by 14C and other absolute-dated ceramic sequences elsewhere. It just means the samples were not taken to avoid contamination, or the context was mixed to begin with. One of the great ironies about KJ is that only a handful of 14C dates have been obtained despite the importance of the site and the many projects undertaken there. Bottom line: the sequence in the table I sent you (I hope you were able to open it) IS reliable with the caveat that Popenoe de Hatch has pushed things back by 200 years, that is, she dates things earlier than they should be. On the other hand, some data supports her. Needless to say, what I sent you is accepted consensually by many Mayanists, so I hope it can somehow be inserted into the entry.Jonathan (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 2 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Epi-Olmec culture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] southern maya area map

Not my map
Not my map
My map
My map

Nice job! I understand you can only put so many sites in. You picked well. I think you have too many "jade" indicators, since all we know is the one big one, at Las Minas. For this location, google National Geographic, where I think there was an article about this. Also, it would be great to put Chiapa de Corzo in because this IS an important one, but you can only do so much. (I don't know...can you put an arrow at the top of the map indicating C de C is somewhere up there off the map? I don't know if this is done, nor makes sense.) The map is one I created for my paper on Kaminaljuyu that will appear later this year. The book is "The Southern Maya Area in the Late Preclassic: Urbanism, Rulership, and Ethnic Interaction." It is in press at the University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Michael Love and Jonathan Kaplan, eds. I don't have page numbers yet for my chapter. As for a larger, more comprehensive map for the SMA, feel free to use the same map as a base, although there should be more sites on it. Let me get back to you with an economical but larger listing. Basically, there are three geographic areas: the Pacific Coast of Southern Mexico and western Guatemala, and the Piedmont and Highlands of Guatemala. Linguistic areas might be indicated, as they have been reconstructed tentatively, including the area in the Cuchumatanes mountains of Guatemala where proto-Maya supposedly first emerged. The map should include the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, as well, since "Olmec" influence supposedly moved west across the Isthmua from the Olmec heartland, down the Pacific Coast, and then into the Piedmont and Highlands of Guatemala.Jonathan (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great map Madman - however I would advise you to change the colours - both the green/cyan topographic style and the red triangles. The reason being that red on green is incredibly difficult to discern for people with colour blindness (Among others our friend User:OaxacaDan is colour blind).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That map is not my map.  : ) - Madman (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good on you. An my bad for not checking which - any way I know you are able to improve it :). I'll see about the hero twins.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] kj

Thanks, Madman, for the kudos. By the way, the photo (my own) of Monument 65 which I uploaded and place in the KJ entry has disappeared! Can you advise?Jonathan (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waldo Peirce

Hi, a couple of years ago you asked some questions on the talk page of the Waldo Peirce article. I got tired about a year of trying to navigate through the imbecile-cretin-vandal-third-grader-strewn shoals of WP and moved over to Citizendium. If you want to see the answers to your questions, and what a *real* article should look like without the intervention of all the above-mentioned subhumans, check out:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Waldo_Peirce

Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fatal Vision movie.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fatal Vision movie.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Maya Area

Nice map!! Obviously if possible it would be good to add a few more sites, at the least: Copan, Takalik Abaj, El Baul, Chalchuapa, Chocola, El Sitio, and El Jobo, in order to emphasize the multiplicity of large and important early polities in the SMA, tho I realize this may be difficult given the scale of the map and the size of the font. The point is, if visitors see the map with only a few sites the import of the SMA may not register. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan K1938 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SMA map, etc.

Wow I am impressed. By the way I am thinking about comments from Maunus and others about what made me draw the lines, as it were, to delimit the SMA. It is really based on the SITES, that is on the data. The SMA itself is a theory we are still trying to test. But the sites included all display earlier-than-elsewhere "high traits." Archaeology ideally works with a continuous dialectic between data and theory - gathering data, making a hypothesis to explain it, gathering more data to test the hypothesis, finding new data that doesn't fit the theory, making a new theory, gathering more data to test it, and so on and so on. I thought I had made this clear in what I had written but will try to make it clearer.Jonathan K1938 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more on SMA map

I think the map is great. One thing to do now might be to check if your green area extended beyond the sites of Chama and Nebaj, in the Alta Verapaz. These sites, in Classic Maya times, are known for distinctly Lowland ceramic styles. The Alta Verapaz descends into the Maya Lowlands. In the Alta Verapaz are many limestone pools and rivers flowing into caves; the ancient Maya thought this was where Xibalba, the Maya underworld, could be entered. So the northernmost green edge should not include Chama and Nebaj.Jonathan K1938 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

About your "we don't need to discuss whether Solomon was perhaps a tribal chieftain", I think it is relevant as to show the degree of crazyness of the claim presented in the article... --Damifb (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In an article on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, any discussion on whether Solomon was just a tribal chieftain is off topic. There's enough material already in the article, and Solomon is himself just a sidebar. What, for example, if someone wanted to dispute that characterization? Would we need to have a full-fledged discussion in that article on Solomon??
I'm just trying to keep the article trim. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerican Calendars

Hi Madman. I have commenced work on the article on Mesoamerican calendars. Here you stated that you might be interested in making some graphics illustrating how day names, numbers and the two cycles interlocked. If you still feel like it it would be excellent additions to the article. I also want to draw up comparisons of day, veintena and trecena names in mayan, aztec and other calendars. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy, that offer was from a year-and-a-half ago! Wikipedia has a long memory.  : )
But, yes, I would love to. I was thinking of either an "interlocking wheels" approach (something like this) or of a more chartlike/building block approach, with colors. I'm bogged down at work right now, and probably can't address this until April, but I can help out then.
Thanks for thinking of me. Madman (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the wheels one best and I was thinking of something along those lines. Whenever you get the time will be fine. I highly doubt anyone will beat you to it - There are only so many mesoamericanist graphics specialists out there.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ah Mun.jpg

Maunus thinks this might be a project for you, whenever a meaningful opening appears in your schedule... Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Potter Palmer.jpg

Can you add a source to Image:Potter Palmer.jpg. Current standards require PD images to contain a source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. respond at my talk page or I will lose track of this request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funerary art

hey, wow, thanks for your help! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for the info on my talk pg and for ur amazing editing on especially Mesoamerican articles. Very informative and helpful 189.164.148.48 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nomination of Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition

Hi. I've nominated Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 18, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I agree that your original hook is more interesting and, in the context of archaeology, more unique. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4/24 DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thx for guidelines updates

Hey there Madman- thanks for updating the wp:meso guidelines page. One day, should look to really give them a good overhaul and when in reasonable shape copy them out of project space and into a wikipedia MOS/guideline subpg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to New Thought. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. (This includes restoring material, per WP:PROVEIT.) HrafnTalkStalk 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, you should not slap a {{fact}} tag throughout the article and quickly return to delete wholesale sections. I have raised the issue on the Talk page. Thanks, Madman (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Thought

Hi can you take a look at some of the articles that been deleted from the New Thought. Yes I know these article were not well sourced but they were tagged then deleted in a weeks time. (Whole articles) - One Mind, Affirmative Prayer, Divine Science, Affirmations are just a few. I know Hrafn means well but. Thanks69.22.232.176 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Madman, Per your request I looked at the edits for New Thought. My response is on that talkpage. Read carefully my opinions on other editor and then look at the results that occured when a non-adversarial approach was taken. The old adage you catch more flies with honey than vinegar is especially true in Wikipedia.
I merely reverted Hrafn's deletions and invited him to discuss it on the Talk Page. This so-called "adversarial" approach kept good-but-unreferenced wholesale sections of the article from being summarily deleted. I also invited the esteemed CJLL Wright and you to weigh in on the matter. It would seem that this "adversarial" approach has worked. Madman (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


IP 69.22.232.176, Could you please identify what "whole articles" you are refering to ? Thank you. -- Low Sea (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Article was on the Divine Science church founded by Melinda Cramer and the Brook sisters.66.108.106.248 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Each one of the articles I mentioned One Mind, Affirmative Pray and Affirmations are deleted and redirected to NT. 66.108.106.248 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time finding the deletion log for these articles. It is extremely rare that an article about a notable subject is deleted. If you (re)create these articles, please let me know and I'll put them on my watchlist. Thanks,Madman (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, Hrafn deleted those articles mentioned above.66.108.106.248 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that Hrafn deleted them without sending them thru the WP:AFD process, which allows review by other editors before deletion. If he did, he either overstepped his bounds or the articles were completely without merit. In any case, let me know if/when you create an article or you are embroiled in a discussion. I may not necessarily take your side -- I favor merging articles and deleting nonsense myself -- but I can participate in the process. Madman (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks !!66.108.106.248 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, 66.108.106.248. It looks like Hrafn did delete these articles without following process. I just restored Divine Science‎, though I think I will move it to Church of Divine Science. Hope you like it.
In other news, why don't you sign up for an ID here in Wiki-land? It brings a number of privileges, including a slightly greater degree of authority. Madman (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Church of Divine Science. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I am getting tired of these repeated accusations that have no basis in wikipedia policy. HrafnTalkStalk 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use a redirect as a method to delete an article without sending it thru WP:AFD. Please refrain from this. Thank you, Madman (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No. You cannot present any evidence that redirecting an article requires WP:AFD. Read WP:GAFD instead of making these baseless accusations! HrafnTalkStalk 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Malinda Cramer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Divine Science

Hey I was looking to see if Malinda Cramer and the Brook sisters were sister.LOL I was under the impression they were not.66.108.106.248 (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. They were not sisters. Madman (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on The International New Thought Alliance was also redirected or deleted.66.108.106.248 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just retrieved that article. Your attention to the article would be appreciated. Madman (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (CY, is this you??)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to International New Thought Alliance. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I am merely retrieving what you deleted-thru-redirect. There appears to be good notable material here. You can't go around deleting useful-if-uncited articles. Madman (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V, "useful-if-uncited" is an oxymoron. And WP:V clearly establishes that this unsourced material can be deleted. Source it or lose it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unity Founders

I restored text for Charles Fillmore and Myrtle Fillmore can you take a look.66.108.106.248 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how deleting whole articles can be helpful. I know they need to be sourced. It seems to be focused on articles with spiritual and or religious slant. It is very black and white, if the article needs refs,refs are added then it's notability on and on. I am venting lol. The bias is well hidden behind the wiki guidelines. Thanks for your help.66.108.106.248 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. After an initial assumption of good faith, I can't help but notice that Hrafn only tags articles with a spiritual/religious focus and does not try to improve the articles, but merely tries to delete them. If he spent half his time on finding references, Wikipedia would be a better place. Madman (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, header

Hi Madman, thanks for your encouragement though Hrafn's got a fistful of guidelines, tightly selected, so I'm not sure if I'm up to banging my head against a brick wall with all those ropes and pulleys, esp with someone who has no sense of humour. I wandered into Flo Shinn to upgrade the article in good faith ages ago, but seem to have trod on toes (you've probably seen the talk page) and the boning knife's been out ever since. It's a pity that skeptics believe they're being objective. Is there anything to be done about editors who are disruptive, attacking and commandeering and just have to have the last word? Or do we just go on to something else? I guess nothing's final – would appreciate your thoughts on this, you've had experience. Please post them here, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

PS the threatened revert on my talk page-->Talk:Flo Shinn hasn't happened. JR

Thanks for the response. After originally assuming good faith (see my post above), I have come to believe I see that Hrafn is out to delete as much as possible within spirituality articles -- and only spirituality articles -- without adding any material himself. What a legacy.
I have spent most of my Wikipedia career working on Mesoamerican articles, but stumbled across this behaviour and have spent (perhaps wasted) much of my time lately restoring good faith edits, often my non-registered users. If you would like to help, you can add citations, add additional material, or just simply refuse to be bullied. Madman (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Madman (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
When I first began here I stumbled into many an owned article, was savaged or patronised and vowed to keep away from the metaphysics pages as a result. A vow that crumbles often – they're so interesting! But with the latest talk/stalk person, apart from being someone who comes close to a version of having a single purpose account, there is a mindset of fear that the "FRINGErs will own our butt" which is hardly wikipedia-centred (see pink hidden discussion here[1]). Better some things rot than you leave unless... I feel someone with loads of authority such as admins who tackle harrassment for instance would be the resort. However (*big breath*) not wanting to go down that road personally, I'd recommend letting go and leaving the stew. (Love the roadkill girl's look of rabbit-in-the-headlights on your user page). Be not bullied by all means, also be not suckered in, imho. Havat Talk:Toni Packer.
Another idea is to take it up with an admin to find options, maybe? I'd like to know what yu think. Best to keep it impersonal even with admin discussions (and drop by anytime, it's good to meet you), Julia Rossi (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

You might like to visit here[2] where a discussion is going on. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you might like to look at a proposal here[3] and on its talk page, is it relevant/helpful/yes/no? By the way I looked at the articles you suggested and find the reduction confusing so that find it hard to know where to start with examples like these, though you've probably restored much by now going on the DYK noms. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malinda Cramer

Updated DYK query On 22 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Malinda Cramer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Nice DYK, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joel S Goldsmith

I was looking for Joel S Goldsmith founder of the Infinite Way which is part of NT it was redirected or deleted by Hrafn. 66.108.106.248 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Agent 66. I had noticed that as well. Unfortunately, that article was largely constructed from copyright violations -- there was very little info that was "fit to print". I will resurrect the article with some basic biographical data (referenced, of course) and then you can add further info (referenced, of course). Sound good? Madman (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Columbian Turkeys

Hey there, I saw a few of your edits and thought I'd drop you a line to ask you what you think about my problem concerning OR. If you have some time on your hands, why not drop in on the following notice and give us your opinion: Turkey mountain. Trigaranus (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cantona move and links

Oops - sorry about that --GazMan7 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptzo

Thanks. He works hard, but he is creating a large number of what I think are bad articles because he doesn't use sources enough. He tells me on my talk page " I will try to make references as much as possible, but this would be hard since most of my knowledge comes from documentaries and travel (learned much about Egypt, China, Rome and other civilizations by visiting the place where they flourished).Egyptzo (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC) By the way, I have read many, many books but there were so many that I do not know were to start and search because much time had passed and you come to think that some facts you just happen to have read somewhere in some book but you can find wich one." He also adds in personal opinion - this is interesting, this is unfortunate, etc. You may have seen on Inarus where he actually changed a quote I had found to include something in the quote. He certainly is keeping me busy. I don't guess there is anything we can do but damage repair. I have discovered that different translations of Thucydides say 'impaled' and 'crucified' for Inaros/Inarus, but he should have discovered that himself (with Ctesias he's relying on an article saying Ctesias was crucified, but the same website has Ctesias who clearly says impaled.) I'm off for the day to a dog agility show, I wonder what I'll find when I come back? --Doug Weller (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

He still thinks he can use a dictionary to alter a quote. There are translation issues that he doesn't want to discuss. I'm taking Battle of Grobnik Field to AfD shortly. I don't know how to handle his Inarus edits, his last one was insulting. Thanks for your comments on the nonexistent Uruk battle.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The greatest problem ocures when someone just does nt know and has a lack of knowledge on some subjects but he keeps involving himself.Egyptzo (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from these personal attacks. What is required is proper sources, and I deny that I lack knowledge. You are relying on your experience and memory of what you have read, which may be what led you to create a page on 'Azimilik Strato King of Tyre' - Strato was king of Sidon, and I have had to redirect it to Azemilcus, King of Tyre with a properly sourced reference. Now you are arguing that the battle called the Siege of Gezer is not the battle(s) referred to by that name by scholars, but the destruction of Gezer in the Bible which doesn't refer to it as a siege. Articles should rely on reliable and veriable sources, not what someone considers their 'knowledge'. Normally they should be properly sourced from the start, and certainly not left for a long period of time unsourced.

In historical books it is called Siege of Gezer, however. And Azimilik was a Phoenician form of his name as was Qart-Hadašt for Carthage.Egyptzo (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But his name was not Strato. The Astarte bit is a separate issue. You have now removed the refences I have added to Siege of Gezer which leaves it misleading and attacked me, I am taking this to WP:ANI.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove references, in fact it was you who removed the whole paragraph.Egyptzo (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I removed a paragraph of original research you took from Siamun.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nona L. Brooks

Updated DYK query On 25 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nona L. Brooks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teuchitlan tradition

Updated DYK query On 1 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teuchitlan tradition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Church of Divine Science. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Church of Divine Science. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. HrafnTalkStalk 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was merely reverting your wholesale deletion of multiple paragraphs of non-contentious material. Does the fact that there was a Divine Science church in Topeka by 1925 really need a citation? Perhaps you could help find these citations you feel are needed??
Several times on your talk page I have listed articles that I have run across that are in terrible shape -- much much worse than these -- with absolutely no citations and significant POV. Could you have a go at these? Madman (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:V. Read it carefully this time. The only places that it mentions "contentious" is in WP:V#Questionable sources & WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources about themselves. Whether material is "contentious" is therefore not an issue. What is at issue is whether the material is "challenged or likely to be challenged" (a point so important that it is bolded). That the material has been removed made it clear that it is "likely to be challenged", and in case that was too subtle for you, I have now explicitly challenged it, stating reasons, on the talkpage. Thus it is "material challenged or likely to be challenged", and so needs to be "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", and "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" -- which is you.
I have templated and placed on my watchlist some of the articles you mentioned (and some related to them) -- I have also been involved in a number of articles you've probably never even heard of that likewise need work. All that is however is completely irrelevant. What articles I decide to spend my time on is my business. This article, that you restored is still has half of it unsourced. Now read WP:PROVEIT again -- what it says is that when material is challenged you must source it or lose it. HrafnTalkStalk 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Madman, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. While it may seem on face that I am "speedy happy" the truth is quite the opposite, I tend to lean towards the inclusionist side. Nonetheless, there were some mistaken tags that I applied, and I've attempted to address those concerns here. Your further comments would be welcome. also, I've left some templated RFA spam below. thanks again, xenocidic (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

[edit] smooth

GA was smooth as I assume (I know never assume makes an ass out of u and me) you read the GA criteria and answered most the the points before a reviewer arrived. It was lovely to see an article that was referenced in the right place, images placed correctly etc etc. The biggest test a GA has to go through is two new eyes and one mind reading an article and expecting to get information from it, easily and in an understandable learning path. Have a look at a GA article that needs a review, it can be soul destroying but it can be fun.Edmund Patrick – confer 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A heads up

I noticed your recent post to Hrafn's user talk; you might be interested in this. Before Hrafn called Dzonatas's post incomprehensible, it really was incomprehensible. Dzonatas altered his initial post at the same time he accused Hrafn of incivility for not having understood it.[4] This was not an isolated incident on Dzonatas's part. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Astrotheology, which has closed with an indefinite block on Dzonatas for disruptive editing. DurovaCharge! 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Certainly one would not have to be a fan of Dzonatas to feel that Hrafn is very uncivil at times. Madman (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I really haven't interacted with Hrafn enough to know anything about it. I can say from experience that Dzonatas would try the patience of a saint. If there's been bad blood between you and Hrafn before, suggest cutting him slack on this particular encounter? He was actually getting baited by a very skilled and experienced troll (and I don't use the t-word lightly). Best regards and I hope things take an upturn from here. DurovaCharge! 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)