User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XIII
 | This page 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. |
| ARCHIVE INDEX | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| 2009 | 2010–11 | 2012 | |
|
|
| ||
Apr '07
Maya Calendar Glyphs
Thank you for putting the excellent Tzolk'in day glyphs for the Mayan calendar page.
I'm trying to locate similar glyphs for the Haab months. I think I had this font many years ago, but can't seem to find it now.
I think I would like to make an interactive Flash calendar application.
Do you have any resources? Thanks.
EDIT: PS, I'm not into the woo-woo mystic kind of thing. I am actually just interested in the amazing mathematics and cyclical nature of such an advanced calendar.
Rothrock42 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rothrock, I've been meaning for some time to reload those ones in SVG format, and to put up glyphs on wikicommons for the haab' calendar as well. I downloaded the freeware font which I based the calendar glyph drawings a couple of years ago, and at the moment I can't recall exactly where they came from. I'll have another look and see if I can find it again and let you know, although I dimly recall looking for them once before but thinking it might now be offline, or had moved. Anyways, we'll see what turns up. Similarly, when I do get around to making SVGs for the haab' glyphs will let you know - though it probably won't be for another couple of weeks, as I'll shortly be away travelling and consequently won't be online. Cheers, (also posted at your talk pg) --cjllw | TALK 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I found one font, but it isn't as attractive as these. And a couple are downright strange. I look forward to it. Good luck on your PhD. Rothrock42 06:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
El Salvador project
Hi. I don't know if you are interested but I have been invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject El Salvador and after looking at the project page I have responded critically (see the talk page). I would appreciate your views on the issue I raise and whether or not my response has been appropriate in your opinion, which I respect. Alan --A R King 08:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Alan, replied in brief at your talk pg- will respond in more detail once I've looked into it more thoroughly.--cjllw | TALK 09:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Our friend is at it again. Sillyporean and Sinkie. Just letting you know! Best, --Rkitko (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not delete my pages. -User:Sillyporean 3 April 2007
- Sillyporean- the pages you create may be, and have been again, deleted so long as they do not adhere to wikipedia policy and consensus guidelines as to what is appropriate content. You've been informed several times now, please do not recreate these again. If you insist these are valid articles, then the proper thing to do would be to argue the case for their reinstatement at Deletion Review.--cjllw | TALK 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Horsing around"
Hi there, I am impressed at how quickly you caught my horeseing around, trying to add my own birthday in January 1979, impressive!!
I am curious, how eere you able to catchon so quickly?
Thanks,
James James79s 5 April 2007
- With practice, these are not hard to spot. At any given moment there are a number of people here on the lookout for inappropriate recent creations and changes. Now you've had your lark, it would be appreciated if you stopped, as I and other admins around here would much rather be improving articles than trying to staunch the flow of bogus entries. You'd be welcome, even encouraged to try instead to make additions here which are more constructive- who knows, you might even find it enjoyable..!--cjllw | TALK 07:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Popular Culture Reference Removed?
Why would you remove the reference of Teotihuacán in the context of popular culture? This does not seem to differ highly from other entries with references in popular culture.
I personally found it very interesting that the on-going serialized fiction is based on an anthropologist and the story is being used to examine the Aztec and other ancient civilizations and their impacts on today's society. Alex.rosenheim 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- (apologies for delay in reply, have been away) My impression from the info added was that the connection was rather incidental, a 'passing mention' of no great significance to either article. Possibly I was mistaken, however I was also bearing in mind the MoS guideline of Avoid trivia sections in articles in general. Perhaps if you were to recast it to highlight the significance of the reference to the pop culture work, if there is one, that would be better.--cjllw | TALK 00:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo is coming to Sydney
Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Ta bu shi, I was wondering whether there'd be an opportunity in the schedule. I would be interested, but given the particular day it may prove difficult to rearrange some family commitments. Will depend on timing.--cjllw | TALK 00:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw God today.
Well sir... Truly thou art a speakful beast!! Nay say one with candor!!! In the means truly there is no end and thus we must present ourselves with intelligence and hope the rest pay heed. Adieu—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.62.93.31 (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw god today in the most heavenly light, there he/she was dressed in worldly might.
That person was the same as me, Only labled a he or a she. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.62.93.31 (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Image:Parkville.jpg
I did a speedy delete on this yesterday, and the user reposted it. You may want to change yours to a speedy delete too. Vees 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Vees, and it seems that the uploader has now re-reviewed Google Maps' terms and conditions and conceded that using the screenshot in this way was an invalid fair use claim. I've now deleted it. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirection of article Evolution and Belief
Thank you for redirecting my article.I have edited it there. Had i come across this article before i would not have created the article Evolution and Belief.
--Wizzywiz 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's ok, it's hard sometimes around here to see the forest from the trees. Just to note, the redirection to Creation-evolution controversy was the outcome of my AfD nomination, it wasn't actually myself who did the redirect. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
dustup
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Problem at List of ethnic groups in Myanmar. --Ling.Nut 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've reviewed it and added my comments re inclusion of Rohingya at talk:List of ethnic groups in Myanmar. We'll see how it progresses...--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there, the editor has again reverted (blanking the Rohingya entirely), then threatened to report me for vandalism for including "biased" and "controversial" information. But s/he never provides sources. Very strange. Badagnani 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
just fyi
- just fyi, Taiwanese aborigines is now at WP:FAC.
- --Ling.Nut 02:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying Hello, Asking for your interest:
Hey, I saw your name on the Harmonious Editing Club page (great idea BTW) and as an admin.
I'm an Australian research student from Sydney currently writing my thesis on collaborative online communities and wikipedia is one of my case studies. As such I am looking to interview wikipedians for my research.
As someone involving extensively in editing and also in organisations like the harmonious editing club, i was wondering if you'd be interested in being interviewed (via email) for my research?
The interview can be done anytime between now and june, via email, and anonymity is ensured by the University's ethics standards.
Would love to know if you're interested, and would love to interview you if you have the time. tamsin 07:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tamsin, and thanks. I've responded at your talk page. BTW, which Uni are you affiliated with? Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Great!
hey cjll, great to hear from you: so glad you're interested.
- timing is totally flexible, as I'd hope to email you via email, so you can take your time to answer when it suits you. I would hope to conduct the interview in may/june/july.
I'd love to email you and send you info about the project so you know about it.... but as I've never had to email people off wikipedia I don't know how to access user email addresses? would you be able to show me, i'd really appreciate it :)
btw, in answer to your question I'm an honours student at the University of Sydney. I see that you are also a sydney-sider, quite a coincidence ;)
I noticed yesterday that sydeny wikis are planning to meet on wed, i was thinking of coming along to say hi. so maybe see you there! tamsin 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- No probs, look forward to hearing from you. I've replied with answers at your talkpg.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Films directed by Powell and Pressburger
I see no discussion about this. I thought an earlier discussion agreed that this should be "Films by Powell and Pressburger" so that it could include films by just one of them like Peeping Tom and films where they only produced like The End of the River -- SteveCrook 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Steve. Someone had listed Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS ([1]). After surviving uncommented there a couple of days it was moved to the /working subpage for processing. As I was going through the rename process, it soon became apparent that not all of the films in the old cat suited the new one, and I put a halt on the processing for reconsideration [2].
- I would agree with you that the former categorisation title is an appropriate one, given the P&P partnership extended beyond directing. I'll be happy to revert those I had started and restore the category under its original title. Perhaps a more explicit description of the category's intentions could be written there, to avoid any future misunderstandings. Cheers, (also posted at your talk pg) --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The cat "by Powell and Pressburger" can be taken as expanding to "By Powell" or "By Pressburger" and the "by" includes films where they just produced or wrote as well as directed. I've added a more explicit description of the category that will hopefully avoid any similar moves in tne future. -- SteveCrook 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You seems to have been mislead by Badagnani's excessive POV pushing. The point I am making is the inclusion of bias information. We must'nt forget what Wíkipedia is. The inclusion of Rohingya in ethnic groups of Myanmar, while supported by many humanitarian organisations, it was highly disputed by both successive government of Myanmar, be it democractic or military, as well as opposition groups. There is a clear consensus to the authenticity of the rohingya claims. While you may find it perfectly valid to include in the article, giving the sources - although they are mainly human rights organisations - you have to think about the effect of such inclusion have on Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the public view the information as "if it included in wikipedia, then it must be true". Inclusion of rohingya's claim while it was widely disputed and lack historical evidence, would not only make Wikipedia a bias medium, but also endorsing rohingya claims to be true. Wikipedia is already getting bad press over the inclusion of bias information and POV materials. There was an article titled "Wikicked-pedia" in today's edition of "Daily Mail" (national newspaper) in United Kingdom citing excessive bias information along with people abusing Wikipedia to promote particular version of history and events. We are all treading on dangerous ground here. While it maybe morally valid to support rohingya cause, it is not appropiate to use Wikipedia to legitimise their claims. This is my arguement and that is the reason why such bias information should not be included in article. Okkar 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okkar, I do not think I am being misled. I formed my opinion after reviewing the associated sources, and not anything Badagnani had to say.
- You say there is 'clear consensus' that the Rohingya's identity/authenticity is disputed, however it is quite evident that this 'consensus' does not extend to a multitude of notable and respectable third-party sources, who all acknowledge a people called Rohingya with a presence in modern-day Myanmar (and elsewhere). Even if this group had never been recognised by any past or present Myanmar/Burmese govt authority, that does not obscure the fact that a great many other reputable and citeable sources do.
- I am glad to see that you are concerned with wikipedia's reputation and accuracy; in which case I hope that you can appreciate that the most accurate and informative approach in this instance is to document the readily-apparent fact that there exist differing notable views on Rohingya, in such a way that avoids opining on whether the human rights organisations are right and the Myanmar authorities wrong, and vice versa. If the Rohingya were included in that list without any qualification you might have a point, but since there is an accompanying annotation to the effect that the group is unrecognised by Myanmar authorities, you should have no concerns that the reader is being misled with false information, or that their appearance on that list necessarily endorses their 'authenticity'.
- If you review the NPOV policy, you will see that in respect of dealing with situations where "...there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." If we were to omit mention of the Rohingya altogether, that would be counter to this policy. Likewise, if we ignored the govt's position on the matter (which we do not), then that would fail under NPOV.
- In summary, it is not being 'biased' for wikipedia to treat this conflict of views in this way. If you still disagree, you are welcome to raise the matter to some wider resolution process such as WP:RFC and see if you can obtain consensus here to do otherwise. Note that page blanking and persistent reverting of cited information is most unlikely to assist your cause. Regards,--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
problem closer to home, please take a look....
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Scrap the infobox
- Ling.Nut 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Lukas19
Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Alun. Having reviewed the situation, I agree there are similarities which need looking into. Will comment further there. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)