User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XXXII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ARCHIVE INDEX (EDIT)
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010–11 2012

NOV '09 — DEC '09

Tizimín

Hi,

I've just updated the Tizimin page. It need it! I made the page a municipality page with references to the municipality seat. I did that to keep as much of the existing content as I could because it contained both types of references. Now I don't think the links to it are right as it is linked from "municipalities of Yucatan" page as a seat and not a municipality. I'm not sure of the correct way to fix that link. Perhaps you can fix it or explain what I should do.

Thank-you.

Michael Holmes (Holmes Mike (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi,
I'm ready to add to the Motul page and make it a municipality page. As there is only one page, I think that would be better as it would have a broader scope. This could split later if content dictated that. However, before I do this I wanted to get a "sense of direction" from yourself. And so I'll wait for your reply on Tizimin first. If I'm doing the right thing, I'll keep going and fix up a few more town pages as more comprehensive, more accurate and better referenced municipality pages. I'll just be doing Yucatan and Q Roo.
I've already started some edits in Q Roo to remove some of the most obvious errors. I think I have got rid of most of the references to 8 municipalities. And some of the common errors for Solidaridad are now fixed.
Again, let me know about Tizimin and Motul.
Thanks,
Michael Holmes (Holmes Mike (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
Hi Michael, apologies for the delayed response, I have been away and off the air for the past week or so.

I think your edits to those articles look great, I am glad that someone's looking at these.

Re the article titles and scope, for most of these (and particularly when the municipio and the township have the same name) I think it is best to have the article at the simplest possible name, and for its scope to be (for eg) "Tizimin is a municipality in Yucatan, and also the name of its municipal seat/largest settlement..." or along those lines. That is, the article is mostly about the municipality, but of course mentions also the municipal seat (and any other notable localities within).

Personally I don't see any pressing need to have separate articles on the municipality and the municipal seat, for one thing a great deal of INEGI, INAFED, CDI etc stats are at municipal level. It would only be in cases where enough distinct info accumulates to make it worth while to have separate articles; it is common practice to have articles that contain "subtopics" that could one day perhaps be turned into a viable separate article, and you could look at it as if the settlements were "subtopics" or sub-entities of the municipality.

I would suggest, turning article titles like Municipality of Motul (if there are redlinks to these) into Redirects to the article containing the info about the municipality (and its localities, incl. the cabecera). That is, the actual article would either be at Motul (if there is nothing else at that name), or else Motul, Yucatan (ie "Municipio, State"). Like I said, there are defacto several ways in which these are named. Keep up the great work, regards --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

new article 'Maya Death Gods'

Dear friend, I wrote a new article 'Maya Death Gods' (to replace Ah Puch) and would very much like to see the deletion proposal and another tag, which relate to an earlier stage of the article, removed. Is there a way to accomplish this? Many thanks, 77.162.130.139 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi R. You should be able to just go ahead and remove the AfD template stuff from the article, looks like the related discussion was closed with a decision to redirect/merge the former Ah pukuh article. What you've done pretty much meets that outcome so I'd see no probs in just removing the no-longer-needed AfD notice. Best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

Hi,

Thank-you for the words of advice and encouragement on my talk page.

As you can see, now that (I think) I have some clear guidelines to follow regarding the municipality pages for Yucatan, I am adding many of the missing pages and adjusting others. There is now a municipality or city site for every municipality of 10,000 people or more. I'll add other selected municipalities in the near term.

What I have noticed is the reason (perhaps) that a few of the city/municipality websites were already pre-existing is that they serve as links to commercial sites. When I came across a link that claimed to be an official web site, but was not put together by the municipality but a business, I just replaced it with the real official web site link. I'm expecting that this is an approach you would agree with (but let me know if I should do something else).

There are other advertising sites that are not as much blatant fakes as they just claim to be a site about the municipality, even though they are in existence to sell tours or something like that. I expect the page was created just to be a funnel for that site (a presumption, as I have not had time to research this).

What should I do with those links? Should I simply remove all commercial sites that are selling something? I left an example on the Rio Lagartos page. I added the Official site, and renamed the commercial site so it is painfully obvious what it is. Should that link and others like it be deleted?

Best regards,

Michael Holmes 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmes Mike (talk • contribs)

Hi Mike. Thanks, you've been doing great work on those municipio's articles, keep it up! Given that bodies like INAFED & INEGI publish copious and freely available material on them, having at least a starting article on all 2800+ of them should eventually be achievable, given the time and inclination.

Re those ext links, yes a lot of them (too many) have little informational value and pretty much serve only the interests of the website, not wikipedia. So there shouldn't be much trouble in removing those links if they fall in that category, go ahead and take them out. Our external links guidelines here cater for the removal of links more commercial than useful. Sometimes you'll get a dispute, and sometimes they keep getting added back in (popular tourist destinations like Cancun, Cozumel, Playa del Carmen etc are the worst), but overall there's no obligation in wikipedia to maintain or have any external link. And yes, good catching those pseudo-official websites, we should always replace those with the actual ayuntamiento one. If there is one, that is; if not the state will often have some relevant webpage. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism from Wikipedia

I recently discovered what I consider to be a clear case of plagiarism of Wikipedia content in a recent book on the topic of the 2012 phenomenon by a prominent author on that subject. Whole sentences have been lifted verbatim from Wikipedia entries without attribution or proper citation. In checking the history of the Wikipedia entry, it seems unlikely that the work is original to the author that is repeating it. I know this is highly unethical, but is it illegal? Does anyone at Wikipedia have an interest in knowing the specific details? Should I contact the book's publisher? What do you recommend? Hoopes (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hoopes, apologies for the long delay, I've been away/offline these past couple of weeks.
While wikipedia allows and even encourages the reuse of its material (see WP:REUSE), that does not mean wikipedia content can be regurgitated verbatim without attribution or restriction. The situation you describe sounds like it would violate wikipedia's Terms of Use agreement, and plagiarism to boot. Even if the content was in the Public Domain (which it isn't), they still should not be just reproducing it without attribution of the source it came from.
As I understand it, any reuse, republication, derivative work or modification of the wiki-original content needs to comply with the terms of the license the content is released under, which these days is generally the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-SA) license (content created before 15 Jun 2009 can still also be covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as well; not 100% sure how the dual-licensing (CC-BY-SA & GFDL) we've had since June 2009 works, but the article text content comes under at least one of these). CC-BY-SA (and/or GFDL) are legally binding documents, so non-compliance with the license's terms wld be 'illegal' in that sense, I s'pose. Also, the contributors of original wikipedia content still retain their actual copyright individually over their own material (it's only that the material is made available under the free CC-BY-SA license). Therefore, any reproduction of that material that fails to comply with the terms of the license the copyright holder released it under, would constitute a violation of the individual contributor(s)' copyright.
Among other things, CC-BY-SA (&/or GFDL) licensing conditions require attribution of the source to be made clearly, and the (usually multiple) authorship identified either by a list or at the least a link to the orig wikipedia content & its history. Also, and importantly, the reproduced, modified or deriviative work must itself be licensed under the same terms (copyleft), ie can't be placed under a more restrictive licensing condition (like full & exclusive copyright). And the CC-BY-SA (or GFDL) license terms & conditions need also to be reproduced along with the work. At least, that's my understanding; from what you describe doesn't seem that any of that has been complied with. License compliance should also apply to reproduced segments/passages from our articles, not just if the whole thing is reproduced.
Unfortunately wikipedia/the WMF as a whole is not really geared up to pursue licensing infringements in a coordinated way, AFAIK. It is usually up to individual contributors to follow up on possible breaches of the license conditions. I suppose in a way it makes for a stronger case if the individual copyright holder (ie individual who wrote the orig text) pursues the matter. There are a couple of places where license compliance issues are listed and followups tracked, such as WP:GFDL Compliance and now WP:CC-BY-SA Compliance. Content reusers who might be in breach get listed at Mirrors and Forks (anyone can do this), and a record of followup attempts can be made; the non compliance followup process is described there. Individuals, not wikipedia as an entity, generally do the followups. There are a couple of form letters that can be used. The content reuser also shld be added to the CCBYSA or GFDL (as appte) compliance list.
However, the above is pretty much geared towards material reproduced on the internet, not in printed books. But in theory it should be much the same process, and I don't see why a printed book/publisher could not be listed here and dealt with in this way too. It's the only central place I know of where such reuse licensing issues are documented. The form letters wld have to be modified to make sense in being about a printed book, but they are well worth a read in any case.
In practical terms for the case you describe, I'd reckon a letter to the publisher or other followup contact with them would be in order. You'd think that at least the publisher wld want to be alerted that the work they'd paid some author for contains material that someone else (original wiki contributor/s) has the copyright on and its being reused contrary to its licensing conditions. Such an approach would be strengthened if it came from the contributor(s) of the text, but it doesn't have to. In order to find out which contributor(s) originally added some piece of text, there's a tool called WikiBlame that can be used. It can help identify the exact edit in which a piece of text was first added (and also help to demonstrate that some wiki passage was put together over time and over multiple edits, ie that it wasn't itself just copied wholesale from somewhere else).
So I guess first step is demonstrating that the text originated in wikipedia, and who the orig content contributors were. What are some of the suspect passages, and from which article(s) do you think they come from? I'd be interested in any followups, and wld be glad to help (when back online with a little more availability than I have right now) if I can. (reply also ur talkpg) Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I have a feeling this is not worth pursuing as a copyright violation, though I do think it is a serious breach of ethics. The passages in question (at least the ones I've identified) appear in a glossary section of John Major Jenkins' recent book The 2012 Story (2009). Definitions marked with an asterisk (which the author says indicates use of Wikipedia content) contain passages lifted verbatim from Wikipedia entries that were not authored by JMJ. Hoopes (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, alright then. Interesting. I seem to recall on Aztlan or elsewhere some disparaging comments abt wikipedia being made by that author; but apparently those doubts can be transcended under the right circumstances... thx anyway. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
On a related note: whats the legality of this?: [1]·Maunus·ƛ· 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Strewth, that price is a bit steep! I hadn't come across this apparent scam before now, but it looks like the (fly-by-night) publisher has at least been careful enough to comply with the terms of our licensing. These 'books' are also copyleft, and in them they specify the license, credit wikipedia as the source and list the individual contributors in the 'book', see for eg this wiki thread at the VP about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20#The_Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia_book_hoax. Wikipedia allows, even endorses, reuse including for-profit, but only as long as the terms of the license are complied with.

Looks like they offer 1000's of different 'book titles' now, all slapped together unedited with wiki content. Presumably they don't bother to print these up beforehand, but are done to order in as cheap a fashion as possible. The publishing co. seems to be registered in the Maldives, so I'm guessing their customer service/complaints dept aint that responsive. Probably not much use in appealing to them direct.

Unfortunately there probably aren't laws against rip-offs like this, selling a vastly overpriced product that's obtainable elsewhere essentially for free — otherwise the bottled water industry wld've been out of biz years ago ;-)

At best, it cld be termed deceptive advertising, since their amazon listings don't mention anywhere that it comes from wikipedia, but they don't seem to be making any false claims, just omitting info that a potential buyer wld probably want to be aware of. But then again, it wouldn't be the first product advertised on the internet to do this.

So I guess it is just a case of 'buyer beware', probably the best course of action is to do what you've done—leave amazon reviews against their adverts to warn/notify potential buyers exactly what they'd be getting for those inflated prices, and where they could go to get just the same information, only for gratis. On the upside, I spose at least we can all now put down "published author" on our CVs...;-) --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mardyks latest and hopefully last outburst

Gee, and I thought he liked me. [2]. It's amazing how venomous some people can be. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug. Yeah, with invective like that I'm guessing galactic astrology HQ is pretty far from Sedona AZ these days ;-). Ah well, at least there's a promise made of no further stirring on wiki, but whether it's kept or not remains to be seen...I wouldn't be surprised to see some form of return, someday.

ps. On another matter, what's your opinion on this article rename? --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there, I've been meaning to but it's been very low priority. Thanks for nagging me. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Papers from the Institute of Archaeology

The article Papers from the Institute of Archaeology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a notably indexed journal from one of the largest institutions of archaeological learning in the world, so I'd disagree it's ripe for a PROD. I see Maunus has taken care of it (¡gracias compañero!). --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Maya stela}}

Hello cjll

What do you think of the stella. It is full operational and only needs some drawings.Japf (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Japf. Looks like you've been doing some fine work with those templates, I think they seem quite promising.

I guess the Maya stela one you link to above just takes today's date for the display? Since {{Gregorian serial date}} also allows you to specify any other given date, I think it wld be good w a little more tweaking for the Maya one to also accept some specific date as the input (not just today's date as default).

It wld be good also to have one that accepts as input a date in Long Count notation (eg {{template name|9|10|0|0|8}} ) and produce the corresponding glyphs (& calendar round calc). But maybe that's better in a separate template.

One other minor thing, in terms of layout for the maya stela one, wld it be possible to arrange a two-column display for the glyph blocks under the ISIG? That wld look more 'realistic'/common than a straight single-column of blocks. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello cjll

I will try to introduce your ideas. I've already tried to introduce a variable date stella with {{Gregorian serial date}}. The code becames too complex. Can some one imagine that we cannot declare variables in wikipedia code? Japf (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello cjll

Almost of the functionalities you suggested are already introduced. Except the one you called minor, because it's really the most difficult. If I put the glyphs in two columns the ISIG sign must have the same dimensions as the others, and for the moment I couldn't do it properly.Japf (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJLL_Wright/Archive_XXXII&oldid=1087694663"