User talk:Madman2001/Achive 1

Tibás

See Talk:Tibás for my response to your edit summary question, SqueakBox 15:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjung Gemuk

If you know so much about Tanjung Gemuk why don't you improve the article?! --DelftUser 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know nothing about Tanjumg Gemuk. Madman 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Beat Monks

Hey guy, I wikified the page and included the most pertinent info on the band. Though I know they're obscure, that isn't enough of a reason to delete an article. Since I just created the article yesterday, you should give it some time before nominating it for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield pubs

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that, even though I nominated this article for deletion, I have decided to see if it is possible to save it. I have been through the article removing all of the POV and review-like elements and I have started to expand the rest. With a lot of cleanup I think that it could be saved (although I don't think that it is there yet). Anyway, please take another look at the article and see if my edits change your opinion on the article. Thanks, JeremyA 03:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

article for deletion

Hey Madman, by your edits I know that you enjoy cleaning up wikipedia, but the article that you put up for deletion which I happened to create is very notable. Please see the latest info I added. Anymore evidence of the article's notability, I would be happy to provide. Thank you for keeping the conversation civil. Travb 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

You asked me how I make my maps. In photoshop of course. :)

As for the United States of Greater Austria map, these borders were only proposal, you can see that in the article:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria

Map which I created for that article is based on the map from the external link in that article. You can see that link here:

http://www.thomasgraz.net/glass/map-popov.htm

I usually use one map as a model and draw another based on that one in photoshop. If you want to draw map with higher quality, you just have to spend more of your free time for drawing and to use options in photoshop. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, you should to have a good model map on which you will base your work. PANONIAN (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixe-Zoque languages

On the stub about the Mixe-Zoque languages, I got my list from Ethnologue and it showed some specific dialects of languages but I took them out. Then I searched for the list but I could not find any other. When I compared the list on Ethnologue to the list on Mesoamerican languages, the last mixed some of the specific dialects I took out and mixed them with the main languages. I am sorry but I do not know more about it. Tim Q. Wells 01:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Isthmus of Tehuantepec close-up?

I used GTOPO30 data for that map. The detail is limited by the resolution of that dataset. I don't remember specifically, but I don't think I would have downsized the image while constructing the map, and if that's the case that particular dataset cannot be used to make any more detailed of a map. I can also play with the shading and coloring options of the program used to render the map (or try another program) to see if a more suitable map for your area can be made. I'll look into it. --Kbh3^rd talk 17:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Popocatépetl talk page

Hi, Madman,

Dropped a comment on the talk page of Popocatépetl re your recent edit: welcome your response. (I didn't like your deleting the map.)

--Lavintzin 15:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the map goes, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I thought that the article was a little crowded, and that seemed the least interesting of the images and was, as noted, available elsewhere.

By all means, re-insert it. Madman 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec edit warring

Agreed Madman, and I've set the ball rolling by applying for page protection at WP:RFPP. It seems that we've been bought a few hours' respite in any case since that anon contributor has been blocked for a 3RR violation by Freakofnature, but they will presumably take up cudgels again once the block expires. Would appreciate your help to find suitable wording for the proposed notice on talk:Olmec, as we need ourselves to ensure any claims of bias or 'censorship' are unfounded. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sino-Japanese War

Hello there Madman2001, I'm here to tell ya that I reverted your changes to Second Sino-Japanese War. They were good copyedit edits, but unfortunately the anon who edited before you (so you pretty much cleaned after his defecation) inserted a bunch of POV and bad setences. Even though your edits were balanced and NPOV, I still think the old version is better. What follows explains the rest, after all. Cheers. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh> Another heroic effort goes for naught. : ) Madman 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :( -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked out the intro section and, indeed, it was more comprehensive than what I had cobbled together on the fly. I'll pull this off my Watch list, since you seem to be watching and to a large extent moderating the article. Indeed, it sounds like there are quite a few folks out there with some pretty strong viewpoints on this matter. Hang in there, and thanks, Madman 21:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Feel free to check back once in a while. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expands

Hi. I think you may have mistaken my adding of expand tags as something random. It's not - it's part of a criteria-driven exercise for identifying articles in need of expansion. Users familiar with the subject matter of these articles will know what needs to be added, and should hopefully remedy the situation in due course. If not the tags can always be removed, or discussed on talk pages. Thanks for your interest though. Are there any you are specifically worried about? SP-KP 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am just concerned that the "Expand" template is ugly, I fear it flags an article as substandard, and I fear that the "remedy in due course" may be a long time in coming. I would have less concern if, when someone flags an article "Expand", they would explain what they would like to see added as per the template. Madman 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations removed by rewriting offending sections

Hi,

You pointed out the copyright violations in Spanish conquest of Mexico. It was on my mental "to do" list to do something about those eventually. Your "copyvio" notice put it on the top of my list. I have now fixed the copyright violations by rewriting the offending sections. The rewritten article is in Spanish conquest of Mexico/Temp.

What's the next step in getting an admin to replace the copyvio text with the replacement text?

Richard 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised by another Wikipedian that the next step is to ask you to review the rewritten article and agree that the copyright violations have been resolved. Could you do that please?

Richard 16:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Richard, I will do that. I hope to be able to do that today. I was hoping to do that yesterday, but got delayed with my paying job. Thanks for the quick response! Madman 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lest you get bored...

I added a comment to Talk:Spanish conquest of Mexico regarding the source of spelling and grammar errors. If you have a penchant for this kind of copyediting, take a whack at the following articles:

Aztec Aztec religion Aztec social structure Human sacrifice in Aztec culture Siege of Tenochtitlan

The source of errors in these articles is pretty much the same, our Aztec expert who is less than proficient in English.

There are other articles related to the Aztec empire which may also need copyediting but the ones listed above are the ones that I've noted as having the most problems.

Enjoy...

Richard 04:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huitzilíhuitl

Hi. The information you removed from the article was good information, at least if my sources are correct. (But I'll double-check what they say about the relationship to Matlalcihuatzin; maybe I misread it.) I wonder why you removed the information, especially the part about making the position hereditary. That seems like an important point to me. Do you have some information that contradicts my sources? --Rbraunwa 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every other source I have reviewed indicates that the position of tlatoani (or hueyi tlatoani) was never hereditary. For example [1], [2], Encarta, and the Aztec article here in Wikipedia, which says "The most important official of Tenochtitlan government is often referred to as the Aztec Emperor. The Nahuatl title, Huey Tlatoani (plural Huey Tlatoque), translates roughly as "Great Speaker". This office gradually took on more power with the rise of Tenochtitlan. By the time of Auitzotl, the title of Emperor had become a more appropriate analogy for this office, although as in the Holy Roman Empire, the title was not hereditary."

Similarly, I did some checking about the relationship between Huitzilíhuitl and Matlalcihuatzin and all the web references referred to her as his daughter.

Overall, I was attempting to use bring your additions in line with the "style" we've been using for the Aztec-related articles (which is one reason I substituted tlatoani for ruler and Lord and removed the term "cacique").

I really enjoyed your addition to the article. There is no doubt that the Aztec ruler articles need beefing up. Thanks for addressing this and I look forward to any other Aztec-related articles you may be working on. Thanks, Madman 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madman, I just uploaded some more information on Acamapichtli. Can you take a look at it, at your convenience? --Rbraunwa 18:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for your edits on Acamapichtli. If you don't object, perhaps I will continue doing what I've been doing and letting you add the finishing touches. I've worked on a third article now, Chimalpopoca. Clearly your background on the Aztecs is better than mine, and also your knowledge of the conventions that have been adopted at Wikipedia. Rbraunwa 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I still plan on writing the footnote about the dates for Huitzilíhuitl; I just haven't gotten to it yet. Rbraunwa 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

hey! On June 14th you uploaded the Image:Lake Texcoco c 1519 .png image. On that page you indicated that the "This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it", presumeably, because it was your image. If so, I was wondering if you could change the tag from norightsreserved, to something like {{self|GDFL}}. With the no rights reserved one, there is an implication that the image is anothers work, and requires that you e-mail the Wikimedia PR department, and add the {{confirmation}} tag. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Madman 12:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxtla photos

Mad about you: You asked for more tuxtlas photos. Here are some: http://www.tuxtlas.com/news/events/santa_marta_air/index.html Dongringo

These are gorgeous pictures. One or more of them would be a great addition to Wikipedia. Perhaps the owner would be interested in uploading them?? Madman 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nahuatl language GA nomination news and Q

Hello. The improvements look good. I think this definitely qualifies as a good article. I will add it in a bit.--Esprit15d 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Olmec edits you've reverted three times

Since it seems you think there are too many Olmec heads for people to handle, I'll move them to a gallery. Jamidwyer 22:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Jamidwyer[reply]

Hey, I think that's a great idea, sir. I was thinking along the same lines. Please do. I would love to see it. BTW, do you have any photos of Olmec artifacts? The Olmec figurines article could certainly use some. Thanks again, Madman 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images &c

Hi there Madman. I've been offline the past few days and so only now responding to your post at my talk page. I agree with you that there's a reasonable limit to the number of colossal head imgs needed at the Olmec pg, however the situation seems to be redressed so will keep an eye out for it for now.

I've noted the problems you've run across in the FPC nom for your (fine) Lake Texcoco map, and surely the process itself needs refining to clarify (if indeed there is a consensus) what img formats are preferable to use in cases such as this. I'm not myself that well-versed in the SVG format, but have uploaded to commons an SVG conversion of your file at commons:Image:Lake Texcoco c 1519 .svg. I had to first convert the PNG to BMP and then to SVG, which has blown out the file size a bit- to be improved, you would have to tweak the original file in whatever imaging program you used to create it. Preferably, if you have a version or layer of your file which does not contain any of the text, you could load that into some SVG utility (like the Inkscape one mentioned in the FPC comments), and then add in the text portions & save as SVG- that should (I think) reduce the file size and also take advantage of SVG's facility to record the text as separate elements. Like I say, I'm no great shakes at imaging formats, so there could well be some alternative way to get the same result they are looking for at FPC. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(RE: Mojarra pictures) No problem.

And yes I have better versions. If you want I can make them available to you. See my response on User_talk:Maunus

Sorry I dont have many better photos from the museum of Xalapa. See again my talk page.--Maunus 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did have some, check them on my user subpage. You may want to use any of them in an article. Theres also a high resolution pic of the inscription. some mesoamerican photos. --Maunus 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have photos of Chalcatzingo and Xochicalco but I cannot currently acces them. I will upload as soon as I can and give you a message here when i do. Maunus 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maya zero glyphs

Gidday Madman. I've now uploaded a couple of versions of Maya glyphs for zero - I've even done these in proper SVG format ;-)

There's this one, typical of the inscriptions , and these two, typical of the codices (one aligned vertically, the other horizontally):

I don't know why the last of these (horizontal) renders much smaller than the other two when you specify the same pixel size in the image tag, nor why the codex versions seem slightly larger than the inscription version- they should all be the same default size. Probably something to do with the s/w that Mediawiki uses to render svg's as png. How do they appear to you - do you use IE as your browser, and if so have you installed an SVG viewer plugin?--cjllw | TALK 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he last one does look smaller, but measuring them it looks like its an Optical illusion. I think they are the same size. Cool glyphs! Sorry for intruding on the talk page. Maunus 08:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maunus, I'm sure Madman won't mind! What I meant was, it seems I have to manually increase the px specification in the image tag for the last one to get it to display at around the same size. For comparision, here are the two codex-style glyphs (horiz/vert) with the same px specification in the image tag (in this case, I've set both to 20px):

To me, the second one above looks tiny, it's not until I bump up its px spec to say 40px that it looks halfway decent (the first one here is kept at 20px):

It's all rather odd, and I gather there's still a few bugs to be ironed out in Mediawiki representation of SVGs. Will see if there's any explanation for this behaviour about somewhere. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 09:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. Just to be sure (before I insert it into the 0 (number) article ) this shell glyph is used for zero in the Long Count?? If so, I think I'll use the one for monuments then.

Also, how did you do this? Did you draw this freehand and then scan it??

Regarding the "px" specification, I believe that the 20px or 40px refers to the width of the picture. Consequently, if their widths are identical, the vertical glyph will be larger than the horizontal glyph.

Finally, I am glad to know that you have done this using SVG!! : ) Thanks, Madman 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Of course, how bone-headed of me. I'd resized the canvas for these imgs to the same dimensions as the glyphs, so they would fit together nicely, like this; but of course a natural consquence is that their actual widths are different. I may have to tweak their relative proportions and make the default size a bit smaller and more uniform, so you don't need to specify different px widths to make them appear the same size. Thanks!

The inscription version is supposed to be typical of Classic era Long Count inscriptions, and is prefixed to period glyphs (eg katun) in Initial Series sequences such as 9.0.19.2.4 where it represents a zero count for the period it is affixed to. The codex version also represents zero (can also signify '20' or completion in context when accompanied by a dot).~~but the codices don't have Long Count dates (it's possible that there are LC graffiti or mural-style dates where this simplified representation is used in that way, would have to check).~~

The codex version I just created freehand in the application, while for the inscription version I started out with a character from a freeware Maya font, turned it into a png then had the app generate a vector path, which I then modified and tidied up freehand.--cjllw | TALK 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction to my earlier loose statement (now crossed out above)- the Dresden codex indeed does have some Long Count dates, however these have the numeric portions only (ie the period glyphs are not shown). And it is indeed in this context that the

glyph appears, signifying zero (tuns or k'ins or whatever). Cheers,--cjllw | TALK 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec

Gosh. Thanks you very much for the award! It is much appreciated, and gave me a ray of sunshine too. I wonder if this new editor is a reincarnation of User:Roylee, who also added some bizarre stuff about parallel human evolution in Central America. 14:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Matthew Stirling

Thanks! it wasn't very difficult to find good material on Stirling. The only thing I'm still looking for is a copyright-free photograph of him.

Sdsouza 22:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've spent a good half-hour combing thru the Internet. I doubt that there is a copyright-free image. I'm thinking we'll need to rely on Fair Use to obtain a photo. Madman 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Am not sure how to interpret Fair Use yet. Found an excellent image at http://www.nmnh.si.edu/naa/images/stirling3.jpg, but the org's copyright language sounds restrictive (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/naa/copyright.htm). Thanks for searching though, and again, thanks for the encouragement. Sdsouza 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your fair use justification, and while it clarified things for me quite a bit, I wasn't sure I could apply it to an image of T Proskouriakoff that I found at http://www.archaeology.org/0301/reviews/mayanist.html. Apologies for the trouble, but could you please review, for Tatiana Proskouriakoff?. Cheers Sdsouza 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SD, Fair Use is usually a judgement call. This image of Tatiana is probably a photograph (as opposed to a frame from a movie) and the copyright is owned by an individual, which I am more reluctant to "fair use" than one from the Smithsonian, which is a taxpayer-supported research organization that allows its works to be used for educational purposes.

Let me look around myself. If that's the best bet, we may want to go with it. Madman 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, am continuing to use this stub for the Tatiana image question, because I didn't want to open up a new one. I have received permission on e-mail from Ms. Char Solomon (biographer of T Proskouriakoff) to use the photographs on her site (http://www.charsolomon.com). I wrote to her using (mostly) the standard Wikipedia template for requesting copyrighted material. Am going ahead and uploading some of the photographs from her site. Sdsouza 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the unflattering part :). Do you think any of the other photos on http://www.charsolomon.com is more appropriate? Ms. Solomon very kindly sanctioned the use of any of those. Do browse in your spare time, and choose any one. I, or you (the permission mail has already been forwarded to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org) can upload it. Sdsouza 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mea culpa, completely overlooked a message from you. Have changed the photo to one that hopefully won't make her turn in her grave (peace be unto her). Sorry again. Sdsouza 23:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec revisited

Hi Madman, I tend to agree with your recent comments at my talk pg, and will weigh-in to the discussion as and when I am able. Unfortunately I'm a little snowed under with work and some other stuff at the moment and so am not presently devoting much time to wp- but when I get the chance I will. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madman I would like to help you in your struggle for objective science, but I really just get angry and I don't really know what is the standard procedure for dealing with that kind of crusaders on wikipedia. If you have any menial tasks in cleaning up the Olmec pages that I might help you out with I would happily do it. Write me on my talk page, otherwise I will stay out of it since I don't have the time nor patience to take on a discussion with an antagonist as rhetorically skilled as mr. winters. Maunus 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK question

...that Chichen Itza means "At the mouth of the well of the Itza", a Guatemalan people estimated to have a present-day population of 30,000?

Isn't there a word missing after 'Guatemalan'? If it's a archeological dig location, I doubt it has a present-day population either. Could you please expand on what you meant to say with this line? = Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem the clause refers to the 'Itza' in the quotes, not the 'Chichen Itza' from the first part of the sentence. Either way, people is plural, so I changed it to say "Guatemalan ethnic group" instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic group works for me. The "Did you know . . ." format makes for convoluted sentence structure at times. Thanks, Madman 08:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

italics within italics

I think you should add your rule. It is still just a list of suggestions. Add a link to any reference work, or an article in some archive where they use it, so you can show an example. Wikipedia dropped using italics for quotations about a year ago, but most quotations in older negleted articles still use italics for quotations.

Moctezuma II

Hi, I am not a student of English syntax, but it seemed to me that the sentences

... Spanish conquerors (whom .. he might have believed to be gods) ... Spanish conquerors (who .. he might have believed to be gods)

impart different meanings. I think the former implies he believed the Spanish (and actually the rest of the sentence then makes no sense), and the latter conveys that he believed the Spanish to be gods. This might just be me, but i thought it was worth nailing down. Cheers, Sdsouza 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the explanation. I read through it and that was precisely what I thought I was saying in layman-ish : the Spanish are the subject of the clause (neither Moctezuma nor his belief in their divinity is), and therefore the word to use is who, rather than whom. However, it shouldn't matter as long as people get the meaning right, i guess.

Sdsouza 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does, thanks - time for me to go back to grammar study :). Sdsouza 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Mesoamerica images

Hi, on my userpage you mentioned taking pictures of mesoamerican artifacts in the British Museuem. Well, ask and you shall recieve! I've uploaded four, two of them are Olmec. Cheers. Akubra 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded them to the Commons. Akubra 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Olmec

First of all let me draw your attention to The Wrong Version. That's for more or less extreme situations, but I hope you get the idea... I have little knowledge of the topic at hand, so I cannot choose the "right" version to protect without compromising by neutral status in the argument. Hence I protected the last version of the article.

I know you guys are experienced editors (I have many Mesoamerican articles in my watchlist) and I would encourage you to get even more editors knowledgeable editors involved. The point of protection is to force editors to discuss the problem and if Olmeque fails to join the discussion that's to his disadvantage. If Olmeque takes an uncompromising attitude he will be duly warned. However, I cannot go around taking sides in an issue which at the moment seems to arise from one editor's language barrier.

In any case, the edited text of Olmeque's contributions remains in the article history and can be retrieved at a moment's notice. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I truly think the article should remain protected for a few days, if only to allow people to cool down after the recent revert war. I'll keep an eye on the situation, though. Regards -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mask image in the Aztec mythology article

I uploaded a different version of the Image:Aztec mask 050910 170205.jpg as I was unaware that there was a "previous" version of it somewhere else. Anyway if you wish to have a look at it and than preferably replace it than here it is: Image:TurquoiseAztecMask.jpg it might be a little less blurry, but I can't say for sure as there is this very blurry area - nose. I don't know if there was a name on the label - I might have ommited this detail while changing the filename back in London. But the rest of the details I put in the description was on the label in the museum for sure. BTW if u still want to know how to make nice photos in museums (and I don't think any of mine Mixtec-Aztec photos is nice as all of them are blurry) check my talk page. Cheers. Z-m-k 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested a map?

Can you tell me more about the map that you requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps? MapMaster 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change my mind? I would like a map, but I am thinking instead we could better use a site map of La Venta, detailing the location of the various stelae, monuments, etc listed in the article. I found a map on Spanish Wikipedia here, but it's hard to read and rather blah IMHO even when I get to the image page. Also, I'm not quite sure how to edit it, since it's in SVG format (which, I was told, is the format for maps). Can you do something with this? Madman 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the map in Wikipedia Commons: Image:La Venta site plan.png. I first uploaded it as an SVG file, but Wikipedia does not support the fonts I used and left some other weird-osity in the image, too, so i went with PNG. I leave the placement to you MapMaster 20:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec improvements, La Venta

Gidday Madman: alas and yes, my wikipedia-available time has been somewhat restricted these past few weeks, hopefully the situation will improve soon. I've responded to your questions over at my talk page. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 05:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola again. I might've known it, but I still have not been able to find enough time to do the foreshadowed updates to Olmec, and will be offline for the weekend; I'll see what I can do next week. I have however managed to make a couple of suggestions at talk:La Venta for some areas of potential expansion. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 08:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe map

Hi Madman,

I see you added Image:BlankMap-Europe no boundaries.svg. Is there any chance you could help me out with a similar version, but with the national borders showing? I've been looking for exactly this.. and the one you uploaded is so close, but not quite :)

I've been trying to mess around with an SVG editor myself, but can't get it to do what I want. Since you seem to know what you're doing, I hope it won't be too much for me to ask. Thanks a lot! EuroSong ^talk 12:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do. Give me a day or so. Madman 12:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eurosong: I have uploaded what I hope will meet your needs: Image:Blank Map of Europe -w boundaries.svg. Alas, I am not an expert on this. In fact, I am a novice and built the earlier map just to become acquainted with Inkscape software. I am afraid that the Image:Blank Map of Europe -w boundaries.svg map does not have a very high resolution (at least, as I define it). This is an artifact of the map I used (Image:BlankMap-Europe-v5.png).

In any case, good luck and let me know how this turns out. Madman 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madman, thank you very much for your hard work: I greatly appreciate the fact that someone took their time to try and help! I hope you did not spend too long on it :)

Unfortunately though, it is not what I need: the resolution is far too low. I could have adapted that png myself. What I need is an adaptation of the high-res SVG Image:BlankMap-World4.svg. This is my problem, which I have been unable to solve yet. Thanks again for your efforts.. maybe I can find another way, if I spend more time on it. ALl the best, EuroSong ^talk 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoamerican lectures

Hey there Madman! Not sure in which part of the US you are based, but over the next month or so there's a whole bunch of Mesoamerican/Precolumbian lectures and presentations coming up. One or more of these might be near where you are, and you might be interested in attending if you can. Mike Ruggeri maintains an updated listing of these here. If you're able to go along to any, bring your camera and notebook, & maybe we can get some more material. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, CJLL. Keep up the good work, Madman 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your message!

Dear Mr. Madman2001 ;

Thank you very much for your message with Japanese translatation. Since I can read and understand English,please don't trouble yourself for Japanese.But I'm poor at speaking and writing in English like most Japanese people.

‘Commons’ is not necessarily transrated,but described コモンズin Japanese.

Stela is translated into Japanese with 石碑（seki hi）. 石（’seki’ means stone）碑（’hi’ means inscriptions in stone or wooden slab） →stone slab erected for commemorative purposes inscribed, carved in relief.

Please excuse my poor English.

with my best regards,Siyajkak 12:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 2006.9.25.14:28(UTC)in wikipedia:ja[reply]

About drawings of Oxtotitlan paintings

Dear Mr. Madman2001 ;

Thank you very much for your message! The drawings of the paintings A-3,1-C and 1-E which I made by colored pencil are observed and referred to Grove,D.C.1970,Fig.28[black and white photo](A-3), ibid., Fig.12　 and http://www.famsi.org/research/grove/section06.htm [color photo]（1-C）, ibid., Fig.9,Fig.10 and http://www.famsi.org/research/grove/section06.htm [color photo]（１-E）. I tend to avoid expressing what I cannot be visible in photos,Mural 1 (referrd to ibid.,Frontispiece and http://www.famsi.org/research/grove/) and others drawings ,too

Thank you so much for making use of my uploaded drawings,whle I added your uploaded maps of mesoamerica to some Japanese wikipedia articles. Your making maps are difinity needed and useful in showing location of archaological sites in mesoamerca. e.g.Cerro de las Mesas,San José Mogote etc.

Thank you again.

With my best regards,Siyajkak 11:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for copyedit

Hi Madman if you want to start out with some uncontroversial editing I would appreciated if you could do some copyediting brushups of Mayan languages which I hope to nominate for GA this week and later FA. Maunus 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be honored to do this. Let me see if I can get to it today. Madman 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps for Mayan languages

Just to let you know that am very excited about the graphics that you are going to make, I am sure they will spice up the page and make it worthy for FA status. I hope you have time to go about it soon. Also I have added a bunch of new sections that could use a second glance by a neutral reader. Maunus 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo the great new map. There are some minor corrections to be made though:

Eastern branch > Western Branch

Western Branch > Eastern Branch

Yukateck > Yukatek

Poptí > Jakaltek (Poptí)

K'che' > K'iche'

Tz'untujil > Tz'utujil

Achi is missing from the Quichean proper branch.

Also graphically I would prefer a serif font like the one I used in the other map, but I'll leave it up to your taste to decid if thats appropriate. However the apostrophes used should be straight (') looking like commas. I would also change the yellowish background colour which looks kind of dull white or something crisper would be preferrable in my taste and the letters should be compltely black (and weren't you going to assign colour codes to the branches?). Maybe the fuzzy colour and letters is a problem with the resolution? or maybe it would look more crisp in SVG format instead of PNG. Also Homunq had the idea to add the approximate years of splitting by glottochronology and applying speaker numbers to all the branches - I think this would be cool but a bit more laborous Maunus 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligent changes. I have one more request. Could you make a distinction in colour between the qanjobalan and cholan branch and between the mamean and quichean branch. It would be nice if it we a darker and a lihgte shade of the same colour. e.g. Cholan light blue, qanjobalan blue - mamean pinkish and quichean magenta. something like that. Maunus 09:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more little thing...Could you make the background white? (that creamy coloured background makes me dizzy)Maunus 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the Spanish conquest of Mexico article

User:Kortiz has raised the question of whether this article is appropriately named. Your opinion is solicited and welcomed.

--Richard 01:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing images

You did the right thing on Gulf of Mexico! Looks much better. Thanks! Mattisse 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Tree

Hi Madman, sounds good. When the two maps differ please follow the already existing classification since there are some errors in the french one. Thanks. ·Maunus· tlahtōlli 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks madman, that's a really nice map! One change though: Kaqchikel and tzutuhil are closer to eachother than to k'iche, and they should form their own forked node of the quichean proper node. K'iche' is closer to achi than to Kaq/Tzu (in fact linguistically they are considered dialects of one language but achi is given language status because of the longstanding ethnic division between k'iche and achi peoples who were at war before the conquest) this means that k'iche and achi should also form a node unto themselves off parallel to the kaq/tzu node off the quichean proper branch.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 13:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - Q'anjob'alan-Chujean should be one of two nodes off the western branch with cholan-tzeltalan being the other. It may be a bit confusing but the eastern branch is the same as quichean-mamean and contains only those two subbranches.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! Thanks Madman!·Maunus· tlahtōlli 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: It is considered poor form to give yourself awards

With correspondence to your message:

If you read the Regulations regarding service awards, you are allowed to give yourself service awards. As for Noobiemacnoss1, he's is my friend and he is considering making anime related edits, and Happyman_oz_123 and I have no idea. Hpfan9374 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible socks

thanks for the info. please let me know by email or on my talk page if you notice any clear violations like using a sock to avoid a block, or vote stacking. Thx in adv --Trödel 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is considered poor form to give yourself awards

Please see Wikipedia:Service awards, and read the emboldened text stating: "This is one award that is intended to be given to yourself." You can simply award yourself the badge, if you meet the eligibility requirements. Hpfan9374 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site map for Teopantecuanitlan??

Hey Madman - I have a few articles about Teopan, and if I remember correctly, there might be maps in them. I'm not sure how scanning those and uploading them to wikipedia might work legally (I haven't really dealt with that issue yet). I'll check them out when I get the chance and get back to you. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its a moot point anyway on my end - the articles I have lack site maps. Can't seem to track one down. Other then tracking down people who actually worked there, I'm not sure what else to do. hmmm... Well, I'll keep my eyes out for anything out there and will let you know if I find something useful. I did see some nice architectural images online, but again, there might be copyright issues involved. Take care, Oaxaca dan 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Count

Hi, The other day you reverted an edit at Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar with the comment "Revert to last version by, er, me myself. Folks, before changing this again, let's discuss on Talk page. Thanks,"

The values I put there were taken directly from the source listed at the end of the paragraph. If that is the source we are using, we have to use the values it says. Any other values MUST be justified by their own sources. If you think other numbers are more accurate, fine, but you have to find a source to back that up. Until then, we'll just have to use the numbers in the book.

For a topic such as this -- with a lot of controversy, misunderstandings, and obscurity in the way -- citing sources and backing up claims is essential. That whole paragraph is referring to Forest of Kings, so the dates in Forest of Kings will be used.

I really don't see any debate here. The text on page 430 isn't ambiguous about this at all. I have no objection to including other numbers, but you must put them in their own section with their own references. I'm restoring my edits.

Kundor 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map Request (Reply)

With the War of the Second Coalition--IAMTH EEGG MAN^{Δdark side} 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago Landmark has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoamerican archaeology and Latter Day Saint scholars

Hi Madman. I don't have many sources on the Olmec theories. What material I do have on the LDS perspective of Mesoamerica is certainly not sufficiently credible to cite in an article on Archaeology. I am hoping to bring that article to the attention of editors who have a better working knowledge of the current state of archaeology in the region than I do. I'm an amateur at best. Thanks for your interest. - Authalic 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teponaztli

I only know that teponaztli is a large wooden drum. The word doesn't mean wooden drum though it is not analysable to my knowledge- it just means teponaztli. (like spanish guitarra doesn't mean a six stringed cordophone - but just guitar) I have never heard other meanings given for that word.

I don't know about mayan languages I don't know who decides and how its done·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teponaztli is possibly tepontli "log" + -(hu)aztli "tool, device" (this is given in Andrews (2003): p. 616 if you need a source). *Tepontli "log" itself doesn't seem to actually exist per se, but there are words like tetepontli "tree trunk", tepontic "tree trunk" and tepontica "with a shaft" that might be related. --Ptcamn 18:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]