User talk:Madman2001

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)[reply]

Earlier postings are available at User talk:Madman2001/Achive 1 (yes, it's a typo).
Earlier postings are available at User talk:Madman2001/Archive2 . Earlier postings are available at User talk:Madman2001/Archive3

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

DYK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK

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)[reply]

Jaina Island

On April, 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

DYK

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)[reply]

Teponaztli

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)[reply]

DYK: Classic Veracruz culture

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)[reply]

dyk nom

...if this picture shows a bird saying two words as some experts looking at the prehistoric San Andrés site believe? by user:Madman2001 nom by Victuallers —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

DYK

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)[reply]

Well done

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

And thanks for the copy-edit... athinaios (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stephens

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK!

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)[reply]

southern maya area 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That map is not my map. : ) - Madman (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Funerary art

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

4/24 DYK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just a note, Hrafn deleted those articles mentioned above.66.108.106.248 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks !!66.108.106.248 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. You cannot present any evidence that redirecting an article requires WP:AFD. Read WP:GAFD instead of making these baseless accusations! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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??)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Madman (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion

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

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)[reply]

Malinda Cramer

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cantona move and links

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Nona L. Brooks

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)[reply]

Teuchitlan tradition

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana in the American Civil War

Hi there. I see you've been reviewing Indiana in the American Civil War now for nearly two weeks, which is past the 7-10 days allowed for an article under the GA process. I'm trying to get the GA backlog of MILHIST articles down, and was wondering if you might be able to pass/fail the article? If you are busy, then please say so and I can take over the review as a Second Opinion reviewer. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. I see you're working with the editor to improve the article. Got a bit overzealous in trying to clear the backlog I'm afraid :) Ignore what I said! Skinny87 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teotihuacan and other classical sites picture

Hey, i'm not sure if I understood it correctly, but if I understand it right, you are the creator of the Teotihuacan and other classical sites map on the teotihuacan page. If this is the case, then congratulations! Your map is used in the official United States Academic Decathlon resource guide for social science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.251.155 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created that map. This is very exciting and quite the honor. Can I get a copy? ; ) Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Marie Presley

Hey Agent 66 here a user on LMP article keeps removing a sourced statement about Michael Jackson and does not wish to discuss. They have a bias and I would like to see if you can help.66.108.106.248 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5] His edit has already been reverted previously by an admin. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not reversed by admin. Realist reframed the quote. Thank you.66.108.106.248 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Collins (person) to Floyd Collins

I like the way you handled the disambiguation of Floyd Collins (person) and Floyd Collins (musical). I don't think that Floyd Collins needs to be disambiguated from the musical by the same name and about the same man. To complete the change, I have requested that Floyd Collins (person) be moved back on top of Floyd Collins the way it was about a month ago. The discussion is on Talk:Floyd Collins (person). I just thought I would give you a heads up about this in case you wanted to support or oppose the move. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been completed. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attending to this matter. Good work. Madman (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gross violation of WP:V

This edit is in gross violation of WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The material had been challenged a couple of months ago with {{fact}}-tags. Per core policy, it cannot be restored without citation.
This comment, in common with numerous of your previous demands has no basis in policy. It will be ignored as such. Please cease and desist making damands that have no basis in policy.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is likewise in violation of WP:V (per section quoted above). Please stop doing it! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, please stop your campaign against spirituality-based articles. Here again, you toss out numerous {{fact}} tags, even for the most innocuous facts (like "Wattles' best known work is a 1910 book called The Science of Getting Rich in which he explained how to become wealthy."), and then when no one adds references within your self-imposed deadline, you delete 90% of the article.

Please help improve the articles instead of destroying them. Thanks in advance for your help, Madman (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making demands that have no basis in policy (and misrepresent my edits). Please stop WP:EDITWARing to violate policy by restoring unverifiable material. Thanks in advance for your compliance with core policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hi! You started this page and I was wondering if you plan to review the article, or if this for someone else? Regards, Craigy (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ta. Craigy (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of legitimate 'primarysources' template

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.

The 'vast majority of the (sourced) material is sourced to primary sources, as can be seen from the following (primary-sourced material stricken, unsourced material italicised):

Wallace Delois Wattles (1860 – 1911) was an American author. A pioneer success writer, he remains personally somewhat obscure,[1] but his writing has been widely quoted and remains in print in the New Thought and self-help movements.
Wattles' best known work is a 1910 book called The Science of Getting Rich in which he explained how to become wealthy.
Life and career
Wattles' daughter, Florence, described her father's life in a letter to Elizabeth Towne, editor of the New Thought magazine Nautilus.[2] Wattles was born in the United States in 1860, received little formal education, and found himself excluded from the world of commerce and wealth. Later in life he came across the writings of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ralph Waldo Emerson.[3]
According to the 1880 US Federal Census[4] Wallace was living with his parents on a farm in Nunda Township of McHenry County, Illinois and working as a farm laborer. His father is listed as a gardener with his mother 'keeping house'. Wallace is listed as being born in Illinois while his parents are listed as born in New York. No other siblings are recorded as living with the family.[5]
~~Florence wrote that "he made lots of money, & had good health, except for his extreme frailty" in the three years before he died,[2]~~ in 1911 (the year after the publication of The Science of Getting Rich).
Ora Ellen Cox, writing on "The Socialist Party in Indiana" in 1916, stated that Wattles lived in or near Kokomo, Indiana near the end of his life. [6] ~~His daughter Florence identified the town they lived in as Elwood, Indiana. [2]~~
Christian Socialism
~~In 1896 in Chicago, Wattles attended "a convention of reformers" and met George Davis Herron,[2]~~ a Congregational Church minister and professor of Applied Christianity at Grinnell College [7] who was then attracting nationwide attention by preaching a form of Christian Socialism.[8]
After meeting Herron, Wattles became a social visionary and began to expound upon what Florence called "the wonderful, social message of Jesus."[2] According to Florence, he at one time had held a position in the Methodist Church, but was ejected for his "heresy".[2]
~~In the 1908 election, he ran as a Socialist in the Eighth Congressional District,[9] and in 1910 as a Prosecuting Attorney for the Madison County, Indiana 50th court district.[10]~~
New Thought
Wattles was associated with the Chicago-based school of New Thought that centered around the teachings of Emma Curtis Hopkins. Through his personal study and experimentation he claimed to have discovered the truth of New Thought principles and put them into practice in his own life and wrote books outlining these principles, giving them titles that described their content, such as Health Through New Thought and Fasting and The Science of Being Great. ~~His faughter Florence recalled that "He lived every page" of his books."~~
A practical author, Wattles encouraged his readers to test his theories on themselves rather than take his word as an authority and he claimed to have tested his methods on himself and others before publishing them. [11]
Wattles practiced the technique of creative visualization. In his daughter Florence's words, he "formed a mental picture" or visual image, and then "worked toward the realization of this vision". She further stated: [2] “ He wrote almost constantly. It was then that he formed his mental picture. He saw himself as a successful writer, a personality of power, an advancing man, and he began to work toward the realization of this vision. He lived every page ... His life was truly the powerful life. ”
Influence
Rhonda Byrne told a Newsweek interviewer that her inspiration for creating the 2006 hit film The Secret, and the subsequent book by the same name, was her exposure to Wattles's The Science of Getting Rich[12]. Byrne's daughter, Hailey, had given her mother a copy of the Wattles book to help her recover from her breakdown.[13] The film itself also references, by re-popularizing the term The Law of Attraction, [12] a 1908 book by another New Thought author, William Walker Atkinson, titled Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World.

(Incidentally, I point this out on article talk before I reverted your last illegitimate removal of this template.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another nasty-gram?? : ) Madman (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rongorongo

Hi Madman,

Yes, if rongorongo is a full script and Chinese is an independent invention, rongorongo would be fourth. But if Chinese is not independent, RR would be third. It's not up to the RR article to make that call. kwami (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madman

I'm sorry for having contributed to the hostile tone at Wallace Wattles, rather than aleviated it. I was quite surprised at how Mrs. Yronwode reacted to the criticism, which of course wasn't directed at her. Of course you are right that the article is not at all amongst wikipedias worst or least sourced. My opinion as I made clear is just that it is problematic to describe a persons life from such a small amount of data, and that some persons who are notable for just a single contribution are best described together with the contribution their famous for. I hope there is no bad mojo between us after this.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not!! I do hope that the hubbub has died down over there at WW. Thanks for stepping in, Madman (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reviews

Meh, passing good pages is easy, the hardest part in your case was just reading the article. Failing particularly bad ones is also relatively easy, though you still have to give them pointers for improvement. The ones that are difficult are the non-summary failures and the holds, where you have to give a detailed review of what's wrong, and try and talk the editors through improving it. But you're welcome, and thank you for volunteering your time to do reviews. We're at over 200 backlogged pages right now, so we REALLY need the help. --erachima talk 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Hey Madman- congrats on yet another fine and deserved GA success, with Mesoamerican ballgame. Top stuff! cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Please see this new section at WT:MESO, for a proposal by Hoopes that some of his current students make some refereed contribs & expansions to various Maya articles- a welcome idea, IMO. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Discussion

Hello, Madman,

Regarding wholesale deletions (noted here here here here and here), i thought you might enjoy engaging in discussion going on here. It is Quixotic at best, but does have relevance.

I am also wondering if we should make a concerted effort to identify pages that have been effaced, merged, deleted, tagged, and otherwise targeted -- and seek sanctions against the editor thus engaged so that the pages can be restored (at their largest byte-count level) and assessed.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dowd page now under attack

Madman, i hate to interfere with your Meso-American work (which is excellent!), but our old friend has now attacked the Michael Dowd page with an efface-and-delete campaign identical to the ones he previously mounted againt Wallace Wattles, Charles F. Haanel, Malinda Cremer, Unity, Charles Fillmore, etc. etc. etc.. He apparently started the anti-Dowd campaign in August, but i only noticed it today, as i rarely work on BLP pages. I made an experimental addition, fully sourced. He reverted it out of existence as "unsourced" although it contained two sources. He also re-deleted two paragraphs he had previously cut which i had reinserted (unsourced.) Like you, i thought we were simply dealing with a "verifiability cop," but it is obvious we have a problem editor on our hands. Dowd teaches the "marriage of evolution and science" and a look at the editor's edit history indicates that Dowd thus touches his hot-boutton topic, namely evolution. I think we need to accumulate evidence and then get administrative help. This problem is not going to go away. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. While I would much rather add to Wikipedia, sometimes we have to keep other folks from trying to remove solid material. I have reverted the removal and added a better citation, one that User:Hrafn cannot contest. Madman (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look

Comments, corrections, updates, and additons requested. Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat, I wrote up my thoughts on the matter on that page. Madman (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; i will post here when i have added updates to the piece. I agree with you about its length. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the page. See what you think. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go here to participate in a mediation discussion. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by my work-in-progress again. I took all of your advice and thensome. It is leaner and tighter now. New sections added almost daily :-) cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map size

Hi there, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Some people like to read the wiki in PDAs or netbooks that have a low resolution, and in order to keep the wiki usable for these people I suggest in Talk:Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire#Map_size that it is a good idea to keep map thumbnail sizes low or better to let them at the default width. Your views are appreciated and much sought, so please don't disregard to tell us what you think on the talk page I linked. Your help in deciding what the best map size is will be much appreciated. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec

Hey SaneGuy,

Excellent article as per usual. :-) Two thoughts: I don't think the lead comes close to being a stand-alone summary of the article (see WP:LEAD). Also.. I've never seen links that go to images. I dunno whether or not this is acceptable to wiki-purists. If it is, at least the link text should be more relevant, and in one case at least, much shorter. ;-) I'll keep looking off and on over the next few days. later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good catch, Ling Nut, old chap. After looking at it for so long, I totally missed the too-short lead. And thank you for your work cleaning up the refences, and adding a few more. Much appreciated. Madman (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ANI or RFC about Hrafn

I agree that his editing behaviour is highly disruptive, aggressive and confrontational. However I don't think CatherineY is the right person to file such a report since she seems just as likely as Hrafn to receive some sort of reprobation for her own equally confrontational behaviour. I think you with you knowledge about wikiprocedure and generally pacific nature would be a better and more credible plaintiff.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight, old chap. I was thinking along the same lines you are. And I was also thinking that I would rather be working on Mesoamerican articles. : ) I find these sort of things so depressing, even if they turn out "right". Madman (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. Maybe we should just drop it all together and let the mastodons take it out on eachother while we improve the meso content.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the thing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hrafn based on Catherine's post to AN/I. Please note (a) it is not yet live, and (b) I know nothing about the matter and have no opinion on it, other than that there clearly is an issue to be resolved. I am writing to you as a signed comment by you was located in the middle of the block of text I moved across. Orderinchaos 07:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn (or, to be more accurate, the unknown persona that called itself hrafn) has "retired from Wikipedia." See his User page. I have no comment to make about who he is, where he went, or whether we will see him again, but i do thank all of those, such as Maunus and Orderinchaos, who have more bureaucratic expertise (and inclinations) than i do and who have contributed to Madman's, Firefly's and my attempts to get this particular situation resolved. I readily admit that i was the least diplomatic of the editors bringing complaints, and i ask forgiveness for any errors i made or lack of tact i demonstrated. And i thank you, Madman, most of all, for your gentility under fire. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Maybe I can go back to the Mesoamerican articles. I doubt however that Hrafn will be able to stay away. He'll be back.

Thank you for your comment regarding my "gentility under fire". While I was expecting some push-back there, I didn't expect to be accused of "harrassing" and "trying to brow-beat" Hrafn, of having "unclean hands", and making "hypocritical demands". Wow!

In any case, back to work . . . : ), Madman (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he was more fragile than his angry mastodon rhetorics suggested. Thats one more good editor lost because to the lack of social skills. Anyone who thinks that it is possible to be a wikipedian without taking part in the community in some way is kidding themselves.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maunus. Interestingly enough, even our even-tempered friend CJLL had his run-in, as can be seen at Talk:Church_of_Divine_Science#Reference-spamming. I am deeply appreciative of your and CJLL's willingness to step in with your opinions, appreciative of both of you helping out in a firm, yet thoughtful, way. I hope I can return the favor some day. Madman (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I advice unwatching the ANI page and not going back to the discussion. Any word you say will be twisted against you now. They are heading towards turning the tables on anyone complaining over Hrafns, in the most disgusting manner. Any attempt at compromise will either be seen as denying that you had any basis for the concern in the first place or may even be turned against you so that you are now the party under fire. This is really causing me to lose my faith in the administration of this project. Lets stick to content addition in the future this is just draining.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal mind

Hi Madman I have worked with you in the past -- you called me Agent 66 I think. The article on the New Thought concept of Universal mind has been taken over by a user who keeps putting an advertisement for a product call Universal Mind. They won't talk on the talk page he or she keeps reverting their text. Can you take a look. Thanks 69.86.63.13 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user Miquonranger03 keeps reverting and does not explain why the added this advertisement.69.86.63.13 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Agent 66. It looks like another editor has also helped out to keep the link off the page. I have also watchlisted it. Thanks for the heads up!

Things have been rather interesting 'round here lately. I finally brought a civility complaint against our friend Hrafn, who has since dropped out of Wikipedia, at least for the time being. The New Thought articles could still use citations and expansion. Nice to hear from you again, Madman (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Holmes

Referenced Holmes being ordained Divine Science Minister New Thought, Ancient Wisdom by Glenn R. Mosley pg. 47 Thanks Madman I think i'm getting the hang of this. Agent 66 I think I'll register as that. lol66.108.92.43 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jupiter Ex.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jupiter Ex.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought

I just placed this edit on Orangemarlin's talk page

I raised your objection to the article' introduction on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard here [6]. I think that the Fringe theories/Noticeboard a good place to discuss the issue, and you might want to explain your objections there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

and thought you might be interested in any discussion that results. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. Looks like there's definitely consensus (unanimity, in fact) that such a "disclaimer" is detrimental to the article. Much appreciated, Madman (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an edit Orangemarlin keeps tagging on NT opening. I don't believe this should be in the header. I see that you have also removed it. I see that there has been a consensus it should not be included in opening .JGG59 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec GA

Hopefully there is no rush for GA status as I will be in the real world for a week or so shortly. If you urgently need to continue the process invite another reviewer at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, I will not be hurt / offended or sulk! Edmund Patrick – confer 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought

Your edit summary says "please discuss". I would ask you to look at the talk page where there is an attempt at discussion, and then self revert or provide a reason for your revert that is rooted in policy (via a dummy edit and on the talk page). Thanks Verbal chat 12:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm unsure of your point. I have added more verbiage to the Talk page on this subject over the past week than anyone else. Thanks, Madman (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought external links

What is the Wiki guidelines on external links. One editor claimed the Catholic Church page has six so New Thought should have less? I figure there is so much more information is out there on the Catholics they would not need many external links NT on the other hand is less known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.92.43 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 66, nice to hear from you again. When are you going to register? : )

The rules regarding external links can be found at WP:EL. As far as I could tell, there is no limit and the comparison with the Catholic Church external links is, to my mind, just plain silly. Hope this helps, Madman (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sometime later) I have gone thru the links and pared a few down that were already used in the References section. Madman (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Llano del Jicaro

A tag has been placed on Llano del Jicaro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of my reality

[7]. I'm sorry but that's really a knock-out comment for me. In my reality, anecdote as used is something quite dreadful. So in the future, it will be very difficult for me trust your judgement. Not sure how we came into contact, but unless something actually brings us into further contact, I would rather not have your comments on my talk page. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<whimper> Oh well, I was only trying to help. I'm sorry your reality diverges so much from mine. Let me know if you change your mind. Cheers, Madman (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Firefly what does that word mean in your universe? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point

I suppose that when you call yourself "Madman", "insane" really isn't that much of an attack. :) Guettarda (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

It is not appropriate to remove tags when they are being discussed on the talk page. Do NOT do that again. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong. I discussed it. I took it off. Thanks for listening, Madman (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought

Hey what is going on with NT related articles Original Blessing up for deletion edit wars on NT. Is this just a coincidence? NT adherents believe in medicine not a Christian type of faith healing. 74.73.176.161 (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly a lot of attempts to brand NT as a "pseudoscience" or quack medicine instead of a spiritual and religious movement. It's sad, really.

Regarding Original blessing, honestly, I think it should be merged with Matthew Fox. This subject is identified with Fox. Madman (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I reread the Original Blessing article since I left the message, I believe it should be merged. I find it odd there was very little movement on the NT page then out of "everywhere" since Harfn disappeared. Honestly some of these editors freak me out.lol Thanks74.73.176.161 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Madman, Thank you74.73.176.161 (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Editor 74. (Editor 74 is referring to my recent reworking of the lead paragraphs for the New Thought article). Glad to help, Madman (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement above in reference to NT lead paragraphs sorry about that.74.73.176.161 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschatology

Hello Madman!: I see you are editing the New Thought article. Many ideas of New Thought were copied and pasted by Mary Baker Eddy into Christian Science. And lo and behold: in the past, before I turned into a skeptic, I was deeply involved in a sect that copied & pasted much of the Eddy stuff, as you can see in this article which I started. Oh, yes: have you seen this? —Cesar Tort 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Cesar. As much as the content, I was struck by your writing style. It's quite excellent, particularly since English is probably not your first language.

To be honest, I'm not all that interested in New Thought, but ended up there trying to protect NT articles from Hrafn's tag-and-burn editing. Since he's left, of course, the hubbub has died down and it's boring really, but in a good way.

Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NT link

Thanks for correcting the problem cannot sleep should not edit when i have not had enough sleep.74.73.176.161 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not invested in NT from a personal perspective but from a Wiki worldview. Thanks! I believe I am becoming a better editor for it. Just for your 411 Christian Science did not come form NT nor NT from Christian Science they developed at the same time. Ideas' do overlap through out the various metaphysical groups which were not NT.74.73.176.161 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec

I'm GA reviewing Olmec. After working through the article for the first time there are lots of {{fact}} tags often with additional comments that are only visible if you open the article/section with the edit function (read them). Please use {{cref}}/{{hcref}} and {{cnote}} for comments (and reference them) and don't provide them in the references(<ref>...</ref>). Lots of such comments are required. That's possibly a result of me being an archaeology student and thus being very critical of theories. After you worked through these issues, I will write the GA review. I hope you are fine with that. If you have any problems with the texts I can take a look myself, however, this will significantly slow down the process. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for sticking my oar in here. Thanks for your thoughtful (pre-)review comments, Wandalstouring. I'd just like to propose that I don't think we need to use {{cnote}} for the parenthetical remarks in the footnotes, & retain the <ref> tags only for citations. In Mesoam. articles we generally follow the WP:CITESHORT referencing style, and IMO it works well enough to have both comments and citations appearing in the ==Notes== section. It's a little more fiddly to maintain separate comments & notes, and as often as not the footnoted remarks can be a discussion or annotation of the cited references themselves. At least, that's how we've been commonly doing things to date, and I'm not sure I see that there's a pressing reason to change. Maybe, if the page real estate taken up by the parentheticals were to reach an unwieldy size and visually overwhelm the intermixed citations in the footnotes...but I'm not sure what the advantages of separation would be, even then. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with CJLL here. The present format is not off standard and there seems no compelling reason to change, particularly since many of the comments discuss the actual references themselves (as CJLL says: "as often as not the footnoted remarks can be a discussion or annotation of the cited references themselves." I'll look at the other comments over the next day or so. Thanks, Madman (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:CITESHORT. Keep comments and references seperate and make it obvious to the reader that you provide him with additional info and not just a refernce to literature most guys will never read nor check. Try Pericles to see how beautiful this works. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you may find it beautiful, using that reference system is not a requirement for GA or for FA and indeed the MOS states that the reference system that should be used is the one employed by the main contributor to the article. Personally I don't remember ever reading academic literature that follows the note/citation style used in the Pericles article.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I'm sorry that the review appeared to hard for you, but the article needs lots of work. I've been talking over some of the issues I critized with other archaeologists on the excavation where I'm currently working and they share my opinion, so it isn't just me being a jerk. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course your not being a jerk, you are doing what you find to be best for the article. However I do believe that you are aiming a little too high with your suggestions - your application of the GA criteria is much stricter than that of any other reviewer I've seen review a GA.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with Maunus in that you're not being a jerk, but this article was nominated for Good Article and not for Featured Article or a doctoral thesis. It's also more than a little frustrating that we've had two reviewers here.

The fact is that I'm running short of time and cannot address the remaining issues -- and more that are sure to come -- what little time I can devote to it at this point. Madman (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a short glance and worked myself through the article before commiting myself fully to the article and making an official review. Sorry, I'm used to military history quality standards and they are among the best in wikipedia. Archaeology hasn't enough good material to define any standards of its own. See, I'm very busy improving and reviewing other articles, but around Christmas time or in the next semester break I can fetch me the sources and work through the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec

Sad to see the withdrawal, but understandable. I was going to ask anyway but why the LDS project, I went back in the history but no obvious reason was given, and my knowledge of this religion is woeful. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts about re-nominating the article. Perfectly understandable decision. Thanks, Edmund Patrick – confer 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Madman2001. You have new messages at Edmund Patrick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Look familiar?

Hey there amigo. Does this chart look familiar to you? I suppose you can regard its reuse by that ext site as a (deserved) compliment, though would be nicer if there was some acknowledgement of where they got it, and at least token compliance with the GFDL license. Still, at least it's a reminder that sometimes our diligent work can spread beyond the boundaries... cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CJLL, for the link. Yes, it is a compliment and, yes, I would hope that more folks would attribute but so many sites copy even copyrighted material.

I also ran across several of my/our photos on another site, again without attribution. Oh well, it does spread the word, help people set up the website above. Cheers, Madman (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dainzú

Hello Madman. I've put your image of a Dainzú ballplayer on the new Dainzú page and credited you in the caption. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Wrestler (sculpture)

On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Wrestler (sculpture), 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) 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article. Well done, and thank you for contributing it! Aridd (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith healing, Muthee, Joyner

I put the info back in, as on talk page here[[8]]. As it is, the information is not controversial as on the talk page in that article, but let me know if you disagree, and I will do more work. But let me know on that talk page. Thanks. Tautologist (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought

I removed religious with philosophical since there really is no dogma. God Almighty is not how we think of IT. "God" "Spirit" "Tao" in us through us as us. We do not believe a man up in the heavens.69.86.63.44 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no middle man or dogma. Ministers guide you to your own wisdom to what is right for you. They can know your spiritual perfection during prayer . The whole movement would consider itself spiritual .74.73.176.161 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-paganism has much the same characteristics, but I doubt that anyone would hesitate ot characterize it as "religious". 04:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Funerary art, revisited

hey I'm on the run so just a quick note.. can you look at the respective threads on my talk and User talk:Ceoil (and maybe even johnbod's talk now.. we're a virus taking over very talk page in Wikipedia ;-) )for the Funerary art threads, and weigh in? Thanks? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana in the American Civil War

Do you still have problems with the article Indiana in the American Civil War?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takalik Abaj

Hi Madman,

I was just checking my photo of Stela 5 against the pre-existing line drawing in the Takalik Abaj article (using the link you helpfully inserted), to make sure I had designated the stela correctly. I noticed that although the photo is of Stela 5, the drawing of Stela 5 shows a mirror-image of the stela, not the stela "as seen".

Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are!! I confirmed this with a FAMSI drawing. I have flipped the image and re-uploaded it. Thanks!! Madman (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Chalcatzingo and Xochicalco

Remember some years ago when you asked for photos of Chalcatzingo and Xochicalco, and I answered I had some but my harddisk died? Now I found a CD with the photos on and I've uploaded some of the best. They're at my gallery User:Maunus/mesoamericaphotos.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Takalik Abaj

Hi Madman, I've now finished uploading my photos of Takalik Abaj, available here. I haven't been able to identify all the monuments and structures that a photographed, so if you see any you can ID, please do.

Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Xochipala

Hello! Your submission of Xochipala at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Xochipala

On February 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Xochipala, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takalik Abaj (again)

Hi Madman. I think I've more or less finished with Takalik Abaj. If you have time to cast a quick eye over it for any obvious mistakes or have any other suggestions I'd be most grateful. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native American art

Hi, I couldn't help but notice your numerous excellent articles pertaining to Mesoamerican art, and wondered if you would like to help put together an overview of Native American art. I've started working on something at User:Lithoderm/Native American art. Do you have any sources regarding the art of the "intermediate area" (Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua et al)? That's one of the areas where the existing coverage is the weakest. Thanks, Lithoderm 01:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter me. Yes, I would do what I could, which is put together an overview of Mesoamerican art. I really don't have anything on the Central American folks, though. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been moved into the main article space. The last time I tried to collaborate upon an article within my own userspace, I found that people were reluctant to edit it... User:Uyvsdi will also be helping, and I'll ask the Indigenous Peoples of North America Wikiproject as well. Lithoderm 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time...

Hey madman. Good to see your name popping up again on the watchlists, hope you had a decent and refreshing break! Welcome back to the fray...cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Yes, it was a refreshing break. Right now, I'm just watching my watch list and making minor corrections on some of the more important articles. I was glad to see you still standing watch. Thanks for all your work, Madman (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Madman2001's Day!

User:Madman2001 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Madman2001's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Madman2001!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jim Inhofe#Protected

I have locked Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week, as discussion seems to have devolved into edit warring. I would like to unprotect the article as soon as possible if discussion can be restarted. I am asking each of the participants to please affirm that until one week from today they will refrain from editing any material at that article that is related to climate change. The idea is to mimic the effects of the lock without the software enforcement. Unless there is a firm consensus at Talk:Jim Inhofe, please do not make any potentially controversial changes. I expect to block any editor who continues to edit disruptively despite assurances to the contrary. I am posting this message to all relevant talkpages; please do not take this as laying blame on any particular editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathar11

Hi!

You had complained about Cathar11's deletions. I believe he is removing citations in quite a lot of articles.Alb28 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, editors new to a set of articles need to be aware that new, large, and perhaps dubious additions to consensus content will be reverted, per WP:BRD. I appreciate any and all support for the D part of that process: discussion. Before the reversion of reverts, as drastic as any of those reverts may seem. Moogwrench (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. When someone removes something "per BLP" you need to be aware that our WP:BLP policy trumps CON, 3RR, etc. Do NOT restore content removed per BLP without due discussion and consensus that the content does not violate BLP. Never use "undo" button to restore such content. You may be blocked or receive other sanctions. [9] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

In regards to your edit summary here, it would be more appropriate for you to address the substance of the issue on the talk page instead of making snarky remarks in the edit summary attacking me. You seem like a reasonable person and I think we can come to an agreement on this so it is disappointing that you have chosen not to do the former. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your comment above, I did address the substance on the Talk Page. And I do Assume Good Faith, but after a while I have to start questioning my assumptions. Madman (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Because I stand by my initial objections? I'm sorry, they aren't going to suddenly disappear because you don't agree with them. Sagredo and I are making substantive contributions to discussion, while the dissenters seem to only be repeating that they disagree over and over again. I don't feel that you have addressed the substance of my objections at all; I feel that you don't understand them or are misstating them for some reason. I'm not going to speculate why, but it is very frustrating that while Sagredo and I are being quite forthright, while you seem to dance around the objections and revert changes by me that have nothing to do with the quote issue. I would like to work on this with you if you are willing to work with me as an editor and not an adversary whom you can invent nefarious motives for. Gamaliel (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that I "revert changes by [you] that have nothing to do with the quote issue". The only thing I have reverted on the article is your continued deletion of a quote favourable to Jim Inhofe. If you feel I'm being stubborn on this matter, well, I am. We need to present a balanced article. Madman (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at diffs like this one then you will see that you have also reverted material unrelated to our dispute. I have no problem with you being a stubborn advocate, but I would have a problem if you became a stubborn advocate who was unwilling to work with other editors and made unfounded accusations about their motives. I hope you remain the former. I look forward to reading what you think of Sagredo's suggestion on the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats

Just a friendly FYI that he prefers "Dr." Thank you for your collaborative work at Talk:Jim Inhofe and elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight!! Madman (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Isthmian Script Mask.JPG

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Isthmian Script Mask.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

daunting task of describing the jaguar-bat

Hey, I'm working on the alt text of Funerary art. Since you uploaded the pics, I wonder if you could correct my reprehensible misrepresentation of these works...? many thanks! • Ling.Nut 09:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Funerary art

Your input is humbly requested here. Thanks • Ling.Nut 05:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art is nommed.

Funerary art is nommed. Be there or be oblong. • Ling.Nut

Fair use rationale for File:Calico Early Man Site.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Calico Early Man Site.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Calico Early Man site arti- geo- fact.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Calico Early Man site arti- geo- fact.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a photograph

I am enhancing the El Manati article in Spanish, would like to add the photograph File:El Manati Wooden Busts.jpg, can you help?, Gracias. --Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will load the photo over in the Spanish wiki and attach it to the article. Unfortunately, a photo stored in the English wiki can't be used in the Spanish wiki. Madman (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

forbidden Pov...

Hi,

It’s a long time since we exchanged a couple of communications but I hope everything is going on well with you.

I’d like to let you know that in my blog I have written extensively about pre-Columbian America and pre-Columbian Mexico in particular, here: the opposite POV not only of the wiki but of the current Zeitgeist throughout the West.

Cheers,

Cesar Tort 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the link, Cesar. I will definitely take a longer look at it. Madman (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove proxy block

{{unblock-auto on hold| 1=ProcseeBot | 2={{blocked proxy}}  | 3=98.228.24.213 | 4= | 5=Reported to WP:OP for investigation. Jayron32 06:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)}}: Hmm, why are you editing via a proxy? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP address that is use by all my computers here at my home, assigned by Comcast. I know nothing about any proxy, and am, to be honest, unsure what you all think the problem is. As near as I can tell, this IP address has not ever edited, much less vandalized, Wikipedia. Please unblock. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had a zombie computer which was running a proxy on this IP until about two weeks ago. Your IP should be unblocked shortly. Procseebot automatically blocks many confirmed proxies for relatively short periods of time (~2months), but sometimes the proxy goes away before the block does, and that's what happened here..... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that a zombie computer was running a proxy on this IP? Should I be concerned that it was one of the computers I own? Madman (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for your help.

I know there was a zombie computer running on that IP because there are hundreds of websites which report an open proxy on that IP from about dec. 8-16. I'd given an example, but apparently the spam filter objects. I suspect it was a zombie computer because the port the proxy is on changed repeatedly. It never hurts to run additional virus scans, but given that there hadn't been a reported active proxy on that IP in two weeks by the time you requested unblock, I doubt it was one of yours. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC) PS, I'm tweaking the unblock templates so your user page gets an admin's attention, because it looks like your IP is still blocked[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Madman2001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

98.228.24.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

{{blocked proxy}}

Blocking administrator: ProcseeBot (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: WP:OP reports proxy is no longer active at this IP. Jayron32 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. I hope it will now be dealt with reasonably soon, and I am sorry you have suffered for so long. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the help. Madman (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. You should be good. If you have another problem, let us know. --Jayron32 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Great Goddess of Teotihuacan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for FUBAR

An article that you have been involved in editing, FUBAR , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As a contributor who was not notified of the discussion taking place this may concern you. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Maps in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Maps for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoamerica portal

Hi Madman, I'm putting together a new Mesoamerica Portal; your input would be greatly appreciated. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Tlapacoya Bowl.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tlapacoya Bowl.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBen (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive Web Design

If you take the trouble to read the other references—such as Refs. 5 and 18—and search Wikipedia and the web, you will find that Marcotte is widely attributed as being the first to use the term Responsive Web Design (in the cited article). LittleBen (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Little Ben, that I shouldn't have to search Wikipedia and the web to find out if something is a "fact" -- that information should be in the citation, and I pointed out that it wasn't in the citation. Thanks, Madman (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away Renee

FYI, your recent edits are the subject of a WP:RM discussion – you're invited to participate at Talk:Walk Away Renée#Requested move. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoamerican ballgame reassessment

Mesoamerican ballgame, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Madman,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Olmec Heartland Overview 4.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 30, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-05-30. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for letting me know- and thanks for your efforts. I'll keep watch! Madman (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Sorry for the lengthy delay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Great Plan, Vol II.PNG

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:The Great Plan, Vol II.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Great Plan, Vol. I.PNG

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:The Great Plan, Vol. I.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Olmec origin speculations. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative Olmec origin speculations.. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative Olmec origin speculations. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Madman2001. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tres Zapotes.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tres Zapotes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tres Zapotes .jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tres Zapotes .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:El Manati Wooden Busts.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:El Manati Wooden Busts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Madman2001. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Madman2001. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Neal Dow.jpg

The file File:Neal Dow.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:La Venta.jpg

The file File:La Venta.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image of not exactly of the highest quality; WP:NOTFILESTORAGE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. House Blaster^talk 03:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]