User talk:Rsheptak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Welcome!

Hello, Rsheptak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! .

I assume you're the same editor who was editing the San Pedro Sula article from 64.142.13.62? I'm glad you decided to choose a user name and log in. See the note at User talk:64.142.13.62. Explaining specifically what was objectionable that you decided to remove reference to the railroad, etc, on the article talk page would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the same person. I removed the material from the San Pedro Sula entry because it was factually wrong. See Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's Biografia de San Pedro Sula, 1536-1954. LSU Geographer William Davidson and his students have also written on the history of SPS and the north coast of Honduras. I am an archaeologist and historian and have been working in Honduras since 1980 to uncover its precolumbian and early colonial history.

1 WikiProject Mesoamerica
2 Font display in 'references' section
3 Greenberg and Lenca
4 New editor's odd Honduran edits
5 Honduras commercial link
6 Yaxkin articles
7 Garífuna
8 Southern Maya area
9 Southern Maya Area response to your comments
10 more on SMA
11 User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art

[edit] WikiProject Mesoamerica

Hi there Rsheptak, it's good to see you active around here again, and compliments for your highly useful expansion and corrections to articles like Cerro Palenque.

Apologies if I've mentioned this before someplace, but you might possibly be interested in WikiProject Mesoamerica, a collaboration of like-minded editors with an interest in improving the quality and coverage of material here on all things Mesoamerican. If you care to, please take a look around the project pages there, we'd welcome any and all assistance you can provide in that effort, no matter how infrequently you can spare the time. We are particularly poor in coverage of Honduran and other lower-Central American archaeology, which seems to be your speciality. If you have any images of sites you'd be prepared to upload and make available to wikipedia under one of the suitable free licenses, that would be particularly excellent. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions on my talk page or the project's main message board.

In any event, keep up the great work, and see you around the traps. All the best, --cjllw | TALK 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not much time to write on wikipedia these days. Most of my time is spent reading documents, but when I can, I shall continue to contribute. Rsheptak 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, quite understand the constraints and pressures of Real Life. We're grateful for any of the time and effort you are able to spare. And thanks for the research into and refs for Monte Albán's Zapotec toponym- that's some really useful info which we should be able to work into the article. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Font display in 'references' section

Hi Rsheptak. Re Monte Alban refs: they look OK to me in Internet Exploder (v6), my installation is a pretty much vanilla one. I think all that the {{aut}} template involved here does is to wrap a <span style="font-variant: small-caps;"> around the authors' names, and your browser does the rest, so I guess it may depend on the available/default font you may have, or maybe your css. I haven't checked how it looks in other browsers as yet, and it does seem a little weird if they are displaying in different colours- I don't think that is meant to happen.

I tend to apply the {aut} template by default these days as to me at least the smallcaps makes the authors' names easier to pick out, particularly in a long biblio listing. Otherwise there's no indentation or other visual cue to set these off. But I'm not really wedded to that style, if you think it looks too crappy there then it could be removed, there's only a few refs there at present anyway.

Do you get the multi-colour effect on other pages- how about at Mayan languages for eg, which has an extensive biblio using {aut}? --cjllw | TALK 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for example, the McQuown entry is in black, but the subsequent one is Blue. I've checked this on several macintosh's with several different browsers/versions of Firefox and Safari, and all show colors in the same place. I've only seen blue and red, so maybe the author's names are hyperlinked for some reason? I have no local CSS. These are vanilla installations.Rsheptak 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue appears to be with the use of small caps. Its a font/face that doesn't exist on the Macintosh, and hence is being scaled from some other font/face. The result is jaggie and unever stroke width for the characters. Either a different font/face needs to be used, or, bold this so that the stroke is heavier, though it will still look bad. Rsheptak 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the blue/red colouring can be put down to the authors' names being wikilinked, where blue indicates an article exists, red an article is yet to be created. But if the smallcaps font-variant itself looks dodgy, then that could be a concern. The default display font in articles is of course dependent on each individual browser & system setup, but the presentation should be designed to cater for the widest possible range of systems. I know a little but not enough about it to suggest whether or not some better fix to the template which produces the effect can be found. Perhaps the names could simply be capitalised, bolded, or outdented; or of course they could be left 'plain-text', which is not such a problem when the biblio list is smaller. I'll take a look around and see if there are any other special-effects templates which can be used to similar purpose but with a more reliable effect.--cjllw | TALK 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenberg and Lenca

Hi. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'll respond on the article talk page, so it'll be easier for other interested editors to see. Take care, --Miskwito 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New editor's odd Honduran edits

Hi Russ. Yeah, it's pretty odd behaviour- they seem intent on insisting Garifuna in Honduras number over 900,000, when the most generous citable estimate I've been able to locate is c.200,000; 2001 census data puts it more like under 50,000. Funnily enough their changes to the %ages don't add up if they really intended +900k- maybe they're unintentionally adding a zero(?)

It also occurred to me that they may not be proficient or confident in english (and hence their silence to date in engaging in any commentary or defense of their contribs). I dunno, maybe leaving them a message in spanish might work. I suppose at this stage we can consider them duly cautioned anyway, and if they persist in it then may have to implement a short block and see if that brings them to the table. Will keep an eye out. Cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honduras commercial link

Hi there Rus, sorry for slight delay in response, have been offline the past few days.

Yes, I agree with you that the ext link has COI concerns, and does not really provide access to any substantial encyclopaedic material that could complement the article. As it's also exclusively in spanish, it's of even less value to the general en-wiki readership. I've removed it again. Saludos (and ¡feliz año nuevo!) --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Send, or post here, a list of the Yaxkin articles you might be interessted in reading and I'll see about getting some of them next week. Do it quick before I get immersed in archival documents again and forget to come up for air. Rsheptak (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yaxkin articles

Hi Rus. Hey, that would be great. The index of Yaxkin articles at IHAH's site (PDF here) only goes up to 1989 (the PDF file itself seems to be incomplete..?).

Even so, a couple of those older titles that are listed, and which caught my eye and would be useful, if you are able to obtain any of them readily (am not expecting all), include:

Dixon, Boyd (1989). "Estudio preliminar sobre el patrón de asentamiento del Valle de Comayagua: corredor cultural prehistórico", Yaxkin (12):1
Abe, Masae (1988). "Los sitios monumentales en la zona norte del Valle de Florida", Yaxkin (11):2
Henderson, John S. (1988). "Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Valle de Sula", Yaxkin (11):1
Joyce, Rosemary (1985). "Resultados preliminares de las investigaciones en Cerro Palenque, Valle de Sula", Yaxkin (8):1-2
Stone, Doris Z. (1980). "Una interpretación del Ulúa", Yaxkin (3):3
Fowler, William R., Jr (1978). "Problemas del Período Postclásico en El Salvador central", Yaxkin (2):4
pretty much any of the papers in vol 5 no 2 (1982).

plus, of course, any of your or Rosemary's papers on Cerro Palenque, Travesia, Ulua-ware, etc. If there are any other papers which give a good account of Honduran sites that are otherwise not widely published elsewhere, that you might recommend, would be appreciated. In short, I don't want to detain you too long in looking around for these articles, but generally any article that you may easily come across describing the 'lesser-known' Honduran sites where info can be hard to come by. Once again, greatly appreciate your kind offer, and many thanks. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it! so nothing about Copan (or el puente, la florida, el Paraiso), or Santa Barbara (La Sierra, Gualjoquito, and others to numerous to name), or Comayagua (mostly Yarumela, but also all the sites of Kenn Hirth's El Cajon projects)? I've got the 1982 and newer issues (mostly) in my office but will have to hit up the Bancroft for the earlier issues. Anyhow, I'm off to a conference and will get on this next week. Rsheptak (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, fantastic. I figured that there's plenty of widely available material on Copan, but much less so on other Honduran sites and cultural syntheses, where Yaxkin should come in most handy. Really, papers on any of the others would be welcome, as on wikipedia most of 'em are yet to be written about, and would be good to make a start to rectify that shortfall. Anyways, enjoy your conf and catch up w you later; thansk again, and saludos! --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok three articles will be on their way to you by email over the weekend. I decided not to copy the Doris Stone article because its so out of date. Instead I'll try to send you the Ulua Polychrome sorting key from the Honduran Ceramics Handbook (published by UCLA) next week. Rsheptak (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garífuna

The Demography section of the article about Honduras state that the Garífuna langauge is Cariban - whereas the article about the langauge it self states that it is Arawakan. I remember that there was some controversy about this, that some thought Garífuna to be a mixed langauge, and that in the end it turned out that that it was solidly within one family but whith a lot of loan words from the other family (mostly in womens language if I remember correctly), but now I forget whether it was a Cariban language with Arawakan loans or an Arawakan language with Cariban loans. Can you enlighten me and wikipedias readers about this?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Garifuna is a descendent language from Yoruba, and the Arawakan language family, and more specifically, the northern Maipuran group of Arawakan languages. The Arawkan family spread in prehistory from lowland south america to most of the Caribbean islands.

Carib, on the other hand, is a member of both the Arawakan language family, and the Northern Maipuran group specific to the island of Dominica (Dominican Republic and Haiti today). Ethnologue classifies Garifuna as "Arawakan, Maipuran, Northern Maipuran, Caribbean" and says its related to "Island Carib". The confusion comes in because Arawakan is both a language family, spread over a wide part of the Caribbean and lowland south america, and a language specific to Surinam. So Garifuna is an Arawakan family language most closely related to Carib is how I've understood the literature. Modern Garifuna has extensive borrowings from English, French, and Spanish as well, and has been divided into an Eastern (honduras, nicaragua) and western (guatemala, belize) dialects. Is that clearer? Rsheptak (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I'm afraid. It seems that you confound the subgroup of the Arawakan language family called "Caribbean" with the distinct linguistic family called Cariban. But actually the articles themselves have cleared it up. Garífuna is an Arawakan language with loans from Carib, especially in the womens language. Island Carib was not Arawakan but Cariban and apparently Islands Caribs were slowly assimilated into Arawakan society. And as far as I know the Yoruba influence in Garífuna has been greatly exaggerated - the latest reports I believe stated that there was hardly any Yoruba linguistic elements in Garífuna. I'll have to get my hands on some of the resources again. Thanks for the efforts anyway. I do think we must change the Honduran article to state that Garífuna is Arawakan and not Cariban however.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. It is exceedingly complicated, and it turns out that you were more right than not, I am the one who confuses the terms now. It appears that "island carib" was a now extinct Arawakan language with many loans from an even earlier extinct Cariban language. It also appears that Island Carib was the immediate ancestor of Garifuna. This would put Garifuna in the arawakan family (Maipurean) but with inherited influence from a cariban language (and as you mention english, french and spanish). where you wrote Carib above I understood Cariban - but you meant "island carib" and were absolutely correct (the problem was that Island Carib was not a Cariban but an Arawakan language). I wish Carl Von Linne had been a linguist so we had a less confusing nomenclature. Anyway: my bad. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is exceedingly complicated, so no need to apologize. I also think there's a lot of misinformation out there about Garifuna, in general. I'm actually glad you brought it up, and forced us both to think about it. Good things were the result. Thanks for the update. Rsheptak (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Maya area

Some interesting points. I will think about them and get back to you soon. I am trying to sign this with the four tildes and for some reason my name does not come up! Anyway, this is JOnathan K1938 responding.

[edit] Southern Maya Area response to your comments

The boundaries are given roughly because, as the entry elucidates, the SMA is as much a scholarly construct as it is an actual space and time. Basically, scholars speak of the SMA – or as the “Southern area” – because of the important early sites connected seemingly with later high developments, principally in the Classic Maya world. Accordingly, sites range from Chiapa de Corzo, with its distinct Maya or Mayoid artifacts (like the Horcones phase carved bones that are very Miraflores-like), to below Copán, this broad arc including the Pacific coast from Izapa and Paso de la Amada in the west through the Soconusco, Mexico, and the Guatemalan coast, piedmont, and highlands. You should think of sites, not a delimited geographical and temporal entity as if it were a unitary politically integrated entity.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say “The article is written as if the southern boundary exists in a vacuum, and all interaction was to the east, and north, with the Northern Maya Area and the Olmec heartland. Whatever model you want to use for the Olmec, the iconography isn’t bounded…etc.” If you mean that Olmec and Olmecoid phenomena should be considered part of the SMA, this is only true with respect to the latter, i.e., as an “influence” or still not understood “presence” of Olmec or Olmec-like traits at, for example, Takalik Abaj.

I also fail to understand the rest of your comment. Your comment about Usulutan ceramics seems to indicate a belief that ceramic distributions represent ethnic distributions, which is not the case, especially with Usulutan.

While Maya linguists believe there were several different languages spoken in the SMA in the Preclassic they struggle with linguistic distribution, that is, where and when questions. Jonathan K1938 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more on SMA

Check out what I wrote on Madman's talk page. Hopefully this helps address your questions.Jonathan K1938 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan, this will have to wait until I get back from the Coloquio Pedro Bosch-Gimpera in Mexico City this week. I'll read it then and write a reply. Thanks for your patience. Rsheptak (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art

Hi Rsheptak, nice to meet you...User:CJLL Wright thought yu might be a good person to ask for help on the "Americas" section of User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art... interested? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article. I'm not actually sure one can do a general article on Funerary Art, and this most certainly is not how to do one! I'll do what I can, but better look for more help than just me.... Rsheptak (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we need to separate "Ancient" from "Modern"... but aside from that, why is the current sandbox 'most certainly not how to do one'...? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.