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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Tlapacoya

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

Article: Tramp chair

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

re: Stockton Massacre

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

prettifying

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

Great section on Tlacaelel

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

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

Aztec society section in Aztec article vs. Aztec society article

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

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

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

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

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

DYK

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

La Corona

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

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

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hardwork and dedication to making Wikipedia a better place. I, Sharkface217, award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! :-) Sharkface217 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar, Sharkface. I had really pretty much given up on Wikipedia, despite over 2000 quality edits, due to the difficulty in maintaining quality: too much vandalism, too many well-meaning but non sequitor edits, too many POV edits, and lack of support/recognition, among other problems. Due to your random act of kindness, I may just reconsider. Madman 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Preventing one person from leaving Wikipedia forever will make all our work here worth it. I hope you do not leave this site forever. As I have learned in my year(s) (it's been more than a year? I'm getting old!), there may be 2 million or so English Wikipedia accounts, but only a small fraction of those (less than 10,000 by my estimates) are actually "good" contributors.

Hoping that you don't leave, Sharkface217 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gidday Madman, I'd just like to echo Sharkface's sentiments to express the hope that you continue on with wikipedia, even if only in a limited, variable or occasional capacity. I had noticed you'd not been around much of late and had wondered whether you were on a break of sorts. Your contributions have been sorely missed around Mesoamerican articles, and no doubt in the other fields improved by your diligent and attentive edits. While there are certainly plenty of grounds for frustration around here, and at times it feels like going backwards in trying to at least maintain, let alone improve, the quality and scope of articles, I think that on balance and in the long run a positive difference can and has been made by the efforts of such clear-minded folk as your good self.

Take whatever recharging time you need, and if there are any battles becoming too tiresome then call out for some assistance or maybe look at something else for a while, (eventually) others will step in.

So hope to see you around. If you do decide to concentrate on other things, then all the best for you and your future endeavours. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Echoing CJLL Wright's thoughts, another barnstar

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

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

Welldeserved they both are. Cheers Madman! Maunus 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The image on your page

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

Hallowe'en?? Hallowe'en??? Yes, it is! Thanks for your comment. Madman 06:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to reiterate that, Madman2001—the best user page I have seen on Wikipedia! (And thanks for tidying up so many pages.)—Stombs 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudos (Olmec article)

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

DYK

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

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

DYK

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

Just to chime in with encouragement on both counts- kudos to Madman again for the DYK work, and endorsing the content and relative quality assessment of the Mayan langs. article regardless of the eventual outcome this time around. FA can be a hard road and serendipity plays at least some part in it, as the degree of scrutiny is variable from case to case. However I hope we're not too discouraged from this or future FAC efforts, and the detailed comments received are valuable pointers. And since I often find myself envious of your turn of phrase Maunus I wouldn't worry about prose impediments on that score.

There's still time (generally a couple of weeks) to respond and revise the article while the FAC remains open, and at least clean up the actionable objections. Some of the more intangible ones will be harder to address (talk:Sylvanus Morley came in for a bit of a kicking over its prose style months after its FA passed, it's hard to account for all tastes). I'll do what I can, though I'll shortly be away travelling for about a week or so. --cjllw | TALK 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your recent run of Meso-American DYKs - it nice to see a bit of cultural and regional diversity in an effort to beat the inevitable systemic bias in our coverage. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment on my talk page. You goal may not be to counter the systemic bias, but you are achieving that :) Keep up the good work! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Palace (Olmec site)?

Hey Madman - I was procrastinating over here and trying to track down a couple of articles for this page: User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Archaeology and Paleontology. One page this guy Skysmith is looking for is an Olmec site called "Red Palace" - I've never heard of it (which doesn't mean much), and seeing how you seem to be our resident Olmec expert, I thought i would throw it your way. Have you ever heard of a site called Red Palace? or perhaps its an architectural complex within another site? Perhaps its an english translation of spanish or something... dunnno... Anyway, not a big deal, as I was just curious. Take care -- Oaxaca dan 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Red Palace is a structure at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan that was likely an elite residence (at least according to Richard Diehl). Google "Red Palace" "San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan" for some mentions. I haven't seen anything exhaustive on the Red Palace - it always seems to be mentioned but never fully explored. Maybe you could write an article on it.  : ) Madman 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks my man. According to this article (Flannery et al. 2005 - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/32/11219), its even less then an architectural complex:

A second example involves architecture. At the moment, our only confirmed Olmec residence is a modest wattle-and-daub house found at the site of La Venta by W. F. Rust (figure 2.3 of ref. 30). BNG, however, wish to give the impression that whereas highland chiefs lived in wattle-and-daub houses, Olmec leaders lived in palaces (ref. 12, p. 1068). Their reference to a "Red Palace" at San Lorenzo clearly implies a residence with the ground plan of a palace, such as the early example found by Spencer and Redmond (28) at Tilcajete, Oaxaca. In reality, however, Red Palace is simply the excavator's nickname for an amorphous patch of hematite-stained sand on which Monument 57, a broken basalt column, was found (24). A stone column that once supported a roof (if that is what Monument 57 was) is more likely to have been associated with a temple or other public building than a chiefly residence. It is ironic, indeed, that the most hyperbolic descriptions of San Lorenzo's architecture come from authors who have not actually excavated there. The less hyperbolic view of the site's current excavator is that "monumental mounded architecture arranged around plazas does not appear at San Lorenzo in the Early Preclassic period" (i.e., before 2800 B.P.). She adds that later Middle Preclassic architecture in the site center was not superimposed on any impressive earlier buildings (ref. 31, p. 98).

You should check out the article - written by Flannery, Marcus, and pretty much everyone else - it puts the smack-down on one-way trade models (espoused by Blomster, Neff, and Glascock [BNG]) between the lowland Olmec and highland areas. At the least, it serves as a good citation for the Olmec Influences article, and might be of interest to you (if you haven't seen it already). Peace -- Oaxaca dan 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read thru most of this, as well as the BNG paper, and the BNG response to this paper. I It does get rather contentious.

Here's what Diehl, who literally wrote the (most recent) book on Olmecs says: "Cyphers' recent excavations in the area have revealed the reason for such wealth of sculpture: this was San Lorenzo's "Royal Compound", home to its rulers. It included a residence dubbbed the "Red Palace, a workshop where artisans carved sculptures and utilitarian tools from basalt and several ritual settings that included monumnets and an aqueduct. The Red Palace is a large structure with red gravel floors and mud walls plastered with red sand." It goes on to refer to a "huge columnar roof support" and other features. I'm not ready to sign on to this being a "palace", but Flannery and Marcus have their own agenda as well.

Thanks for the lowdown. I will add that reference to the Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures article. Madman 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Flannery and Marcus have an agenda? Surely you jest my friend! -- Oaxaca dan 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit from that other 2005 Flannery et al. paper in the article. Thanks for the input.

Getting back to the original issue, I personally don't think that the "Red Palace" is an important (enough) article topic. Madman 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates

Could you please vote in my image?

--Ricardo Ramírez 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Las Limas Monument 1

It could be just me, but isn't that first note in there missing a page number? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Q'anjobal

Hi Madman. I may be the one guilty of inadvertently deleting the Q'anjobal section from the Maya language article, which I am in the midst of cleaning up. I had already noticed its absence and was hollering at Maunus about it! Thanks for restoring it, and I'll try not to commit any more accidental "vandalism" (assuming I was the one). Alan --A R King 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hey Madman - you seem to know your way around images quite well, and was wondering if you could lend me a hand or point me in the write direction - I'm currently tooling around on the Maya diet and subsistence article, and was hoping to throw in some food related images - in particular codex, carvings, monument depictions, etc. Do you know of any decent ones? or perhaps you could show me where to search for them... Thanks in advance, and I'll talk to you later. -- Oaxaca dan 03:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jaina Island

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

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

CHICOTW Template

About once a month someone decides to remove the template in spite of the explanation below it. If you look at the history of the WP:CHICOTW, you will see we transform pages every week. I don't understand your explanation <!--This article is solid enough without needing this distracting counter-policy template at the beginning. --> I believe a {{underconstruction}} would be appropriate for the CHICOTW, but this specific one is better. That is why it is there. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it comes down to policy on using the templates found here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Articles_undergoing_major_edits

There are two types of templates. {{inuse}} templates are for pages you are editing at that moment. Suppose for the next hour I am editing a page and don't want conflicts the various inuse templates are appropriate. However, if I am going to be changing a page significantly over the next few days in a way that the perception of the information will be drastically different, a {{underconstruction}} tag is appropriate. The underconstruction tag is not for copy editing. It is for pages where a person who reads the page today will take away completely different information than if he/she came back a few days later. It is an indication that if you are using this page as a resource, you should check back after this reconstruction is finished because it is anticipated that it will be a different resource at the conclusion of the reconstruction. In the case, of a COTW or an ACID it depends on the purspose of the collaboration. If it is a joint copy edit then, it should not have a template. If it is a joint research effort, it should, IMO. The WP:CHICOTW focuses on redlink and stub articles in need of research. For example, the Good Article collaboration theoretically should not have one. Their objective is to take a Good Article and turn it into a WP:FA. If you look at WP:WIAGA 3(a) suggests that research may not change the perception of the reader gets of the resource. I believe most COTWs are more copy edit focussed than ours. Thus, they will not use the templates that WP:CHICOTW will use given its current objective. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Speedy deletion of SNAFU (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on SNAFU (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There is already a disambiguation page, Snafu.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 72.75.73.158 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

spanish wiki

Hi Madman 2001,

A Latinamerican wikipedian is looking for trouble when he pov tagged the Spanish article of es:Sacrificios humanos en la América prehispánica. He is jealous since the article was nominated "good article" yesterday and he is saying that we have to listen to those who deny the historicity of the sacrifices.

I am only asking you to tell me the source of this sentence wuich I believe you placed:

Some researchers have also associated infant sacrifice with Olmec ritual art showing limp "were-jaguar" babies, most famously in La Venta's Altar 5 (to the right) or Las Limas figure. Definitive answers will need to await further findings.

The said editor placed a citation needed tag and I would like tu supply it. Thanks!

—Cesar Tort 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's one:

"Larger-than-life humans emerging from interior spaces occur on large retangular thrones . . . at La Venta, San Lorenzo, Laguna de los Cerros, and elsewhere. According to Beatriz de la Fuente they depict the widespread Mesoamerican origin myth that marks humankind's emergence from the cave of the earth at the beginning of life. Seated persons holding a baby occur on small, portable greenstone objects, monumental thrones, and freestanding sculptures. The baby frequently lies in an inert, death-like pose, suggesting the offering of a sacrificed infant, reminiscent of the remains of sacrificed infants uncovered at El Manati." Richard A Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization, p 109-110.

I can look for others, too. Madman 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mayan languages to appear on main page on May 21

The date is set for Mayan languages to appear on the main page on May 21! Finally we are harvesting the fruits of our labour!·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Corporate Center GA

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Midway International Airport is the current Chicago COTW You were a contributing editor to AT&T Corporate Center during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Editorial contributors: ChicagoPimp, TonyTheTiger, (Daniel Case, Korg, Madman2001, MisfitToys)
	Good Article

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Calico Early Man stone 1.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Calico Early Man stone 1.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back...

Hey there Madman- great to see your name coming up against edits on the watchlist again- you've been missed. Hope your wikibreak was enjoyable. Saludos amigo! --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Venus of Dolní Věstonice

Hi. I am not sure why you revert the decription of pottery. I agree the item is ceramic but this is a very large group of materials. Pottery is more specific: it is a subset of ceramics. Pottery is fired clay, with cermaics including many others such a silicon nitride, silicon carbide and alumina - hardly the type of material from which the Venus is made.

"Ceramic" is the preferred adjective in archaeology. In fact, a "pottery figurine" does not make sense, since pottery is a noun which generally refers to vessels of some sort or another. While today "ceramic" includes all sorts of materials in addition to clay, in 50,000 BPE, clay was the only ceramic. Madman 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Another for your well-deserved collection

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

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

Thanks for the Epic Barnstar, CJLL!! Very cool.

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

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)

happy halloween

• ...that the unusual Mexican ball game of Pelota mixteca is thought to be a development of real tennis? by Madman2001. Nice article - hope you like the short hook. I think it needs a picture to show whats involved. Ive looked on Flickr to see if I could find one. Yes! .... but not "free"... Ive asked a few to change licenses which may happen. Anyway. See you soon Victuallers 08:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shen Kuo image

I found the source for the image, and posted it on the discussion page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Chalcatzingo ref

Hey there Madman. The good folks at FAMSI have just made available online the entire text of David C Grove (ed.), Ancient Chalcatzingo (1987), which has a bumper-load of essays on the site & the broader regional & Olmec perspective. Some bits are a little dated, but another key and now-accessible resource to be aware of. Cheers!--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well done

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

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)

Olmec map

Hi, I saw your Olmec heartland map pop up on FPC. Can I recommend using the color #9EC7F3 for your rivers and bodies of water? The dark blue river color is clashing. One other thing that slightly detracts from this nice map is the boxy label in the upper right corner; may I suggest using the words only without the box, or some other way to make it less dominant? If you can fix these I'll happily support your nom; that and your DYKs recently have been outstanding! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. Another editor also commented on the title box, so I removed it entirely, as you can see from the Featured Pictures nomination page. Let me know your thoughts on that.

Regarding the river color, this is a bit of dilemma, since I am using the standard (English) river color, as can be seen here on the Maps project page. All my maps use this color for rivers, as do many other mapmakers. Let me think on this a while. Thanks again, Madman 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A few more thoughts: On your title boxes of the series- It's ok to label, I would just make the labels less obtrusive by removing the box/white bg and play around with position, size, color, etc.

The scalebar on the FPC says 25, but 25 what? Both miles and km need a number label to go with the hash.

Hmm, I thought that the scalebar was understandable. The upper one is for 25 miles and the lower one for 25 kilometres. Is this confusing? Would you put 25 on each scale??

River color: I see #1821DE listed (proposed) as a standard river color, but I still think the blue is too dark and saturated. For comparison, google maps uses #99B3CC for rivers, which is a much lighter color. The main reason I didn't like #1821DE is because it's clashing with the text-labels. (If you wanted to change this on a large number of .svg files, you could save time by editing the XML tree directly or even use an automated script.) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't feel I can back off using the standard blue color on this map today. Above and beyond the work involved, I would at least want to raise this issue at the Maps project page first, rather than just change this one map (or all my maps). I note that the proposed standard for Wikipedia Commons is #27AAEA --still darker than what you suggest. If I were to change to a brighter color, I think I would have to change to that one, rather than trying to set out on my own. I think map-makers here in Wikiland need to follow standards. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would much prefer #27AAEA over #1821DE as the former is much less saturated. However even prolific wikigraphist commons:user:Sting's excellent Corfu map departs with his own suggestions and all these others, by using #0978AB! I abide by the (proposed) standards where applicable, but where the standards are unclear, nonexistent, poorly documented, self-conflicting, or unsatisfactory, I happily go my own way. As for the scalebar, I was confused, so possibly others will be too. If other maps are using this strategy, it's probably OK, but I can't say I remember seeing it before. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken redirect

You recently created the redirect Mictlantechuhtli, which redirects to ... Mictlantechuhtli. (You'd be surprised how often this happens.) Unfortunately, I can't figure out what title you were trying to redirect this to, so it would be appreciated if you could fix the redirect. --Russ (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the west coast of North America

Would you be kind enough to take a look at the Mesoamerican history part of History of the west coast of North America, which is a pet project I've been working on and off for a while now. I expect that I've made a hash of the pre-1492 portion, and any assistance/clean-up you can offer would be appreciated!

As you can see, the focus of that article is the Pacific coast drainage area of North America, and any cultures which had settlements which were physically located in that area - even if their largest settlements and cultural heartlands were elsewhere. Thanks! NorCalHistory (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to look at this. Here's my question: how far inland should I go?? For example, I wouldn't think that the Valley of Mexico should be included in the article since it's equidistant from the coast. I believe I should concentrate on the true coastal areas. In any case, I'm interested. Thanks for the offer, Madman (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, without getting too formal about it, the thought would be to focus on cultures within the drainage area of rivers that drain to the Pacific (with some wiggle room here and there). I agree with you about the Valley of Mexico - This image suggests that the Valley of Mexico is not in the Pacific drainage. However, having said that, I think that it would be fair to include some (small amount of) discussion of pre-1492 cultures which had their heartlands outside the Pacific drainage area, but still had a presence in the drainage area. NorCalHistory (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of the Olmec Heartland

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Olmec Heartland Overview 4.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Madman- kudos and congrats for a well-deserved FPC promotion- our first WP:MESO img to receive that accolade, I believe. Now for the next one.... ;-) Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stephens

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

southern maya area map

Not my map

My map

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

Great map Madman - however I would advise you to change the colours - both the green/cyan topographic style and the red triangles. The reason being that red on green is incredibly difficult to discern for people with colour blindness (Among others our friend User:OaxacaDan is colour blind).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Ah, good on you. An my bad for not checking which - any way I know you are able to improve it :). I'll see about the hero twins.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi!

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

In an article on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, any discussion on whether Solomon was just a tribal chieftain is off topic. There's enough material already in the article, and Solomon is himself just a sidebar. What, for example, if someone wanted to dispute that characterization? Would we need to have a full-fledged discussion in that article on Solomon??

I'm just trying to keep the article trim. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mesoamerican Calendars

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

Boy, that offer was from a year-and-a-half ago! Wikipedia has a long memory.  : )

But, yes, I would love to. I was thinking of either an "interlocking wheels" approach (something like this) or of a more chartlike/building block approach, with colors. I'm bogged down at work right now, and probably can't address this until April, but I can help out then.

Thanks for thinking of me. Madman (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the wheels one best and I was thinking of something along those lines. Whenever you get the time will be fine. I highly doubt anyone will beat you to it - There are only so many mesoamericanist graphics specialists out there.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Image:Potter Palmer.jpg

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

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

Funerary art

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

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)

DYK nomination of Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)