User talk:Gumr51/sandbox

This page is intended for preliminary community review of articles, before uploading to Wikipedia.

OK I made changes here Sandbox The link you gave me, by the way, is for an entirely new account, not a sandbox. My link is your sandbox. Anyway, you are going to notice that I took a LOT of information out and I only worked on the first section and started on another. I took out what looks to be a new start of an article for Chalatzingo in the header. For the background, I took out information I could not directly relate somehow to Las Bocas. If Las Bocas is not in the Valley of Tehuacán, that needs to come out also. As for Caballo Pintado, I do not understand what you wrote (and noted it on the page). Are they two names for the same site (which is what I thought initially, or are they separate sites? If its the latter, Caballo Pintado cannot be described in this article, only that another archeologist was doing work nearby.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I now realize it is a new account, will probably erase it later. The article looks good, but you did not comment on whether or not you see plagiarism. I concur on removing the part on Chalcatzingo, the background information is intended to be "regional background" and not just site background, hence the reference to Valle de Tehuacan is regional not site, and Las Bocas is not in this valley. Caballo Pintado is another name for the same site. I will do some more modifications and add some notes from the links you gave me. If you do not mind, I will copy and paste this exchange on the article talk page for the reference of others. Gracias--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, Added some new notes from the link you provided (14), and replaced back some of the regional background. we could remove it altogether or cut it down some. It is inetended to give an idea the age of cultures in the state.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Link details and clarifications[edit]

In relation to the need for details on where the information was found, please note the following:

The enciclopedia link, the problem is that no matter where on the page you go, it maintains the same www link, it does not change. The info was sourced first from the colum in the left, click on history. Then at the bottom, of the same left column, click on Municipios, then find the Xochiltecpec and Izucar de Matamoros links. You will notice that the address does not change.

On the FAMSI report, at the bottom of the poage, there is an icon "next page", click there and takes you to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumr51 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many pages and I'd have to read all of them to know where you got the information. I realize that the way the Encyclopedia de Municipios site is structured you can't link directly, but then you can include the text in the citation - or maybe (which is what I reccomend) find a better source. These encyclopedias are not written by professional historians, but by by civil servants in the municipal government of each municipium - they do not constitute an academically reliable source about historical information. I would advise against using the encyclopedia of municipiums to source facts that are not related to the general statistics of the municipality (e.g. contemporary demography).·Maunus·ƛ· 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, makes sense. Even though I believe the text and information has to have some (more or less) reliable sources. If you look at Wikipedia articles (English and Spanish) for history of most states in Mexico, almost all cite the Enciclopedia as surce. Will try to find better sources in the future.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is tru that they do almost all use that source, that is because it is the only source where centralized information about municipalities is available. Also because many of those articles are written by students who do not have the skills or resources to do the research that could result in articles of higher quality than that (I knnow how difficult it is to find decent books in Mexico unless you have acces to a library at a major university). This article however is about a topic for which there are better sources, and it is going to be written by writers who have the skills and the resources to aim for a higher quality than that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of cohesion[edit]

The text is not the draft I placed there, it was lost on the other page. I would like to suggest that, based on both your comments, I go, redo the draft, place it there again and we start fresh. Will see how I can make better references to links. --Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can copy the draft there to your sandbox instead of the current version if you wish.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will go to work on it and revert later for further revision. I would like for you to look first at possible plagiarism, then we can look into the contents and structure.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't adress the plagiarism issues before you provide sufficiently precise references to allow me to check whether you are copying or paraphrasing the information from the source. I don't have time to read through the entire source to find out where you found the information.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the text, included additional links to Wikipedia (English and Spánish) that in turn cite the enciclopedia. I was missing this link.--Raúl Gutiérrez 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumr51 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't work, a wikilink does not substitute for a source. I cannot follow the wikilinks to your sources, you need to include the sources here in a way so that nay reader can immediately verify that the information attributed to them is correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Draft[edit]

OK, Thelmadatter and Maunus, here is the text again, including some thing that were lost before.

Basically I took my re-worked original article, maintained some of both your modifications and added some text and a new reference provided by Thelmadatter.

The first question, before we see the contents, please review the potential plagiarism, which is the basic excercise here.

Then we can look at the contents and whether anything should be removed, or modified, based on contents.

I beg and suggest you make comments here and I do the actual article modification to the text, for the sake of understanding.

Thank you both for the help.--Raúl Gutiérrez 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumr51 (talk • contribs)

You reverted all of the improvements introduced by Thlmadatter and myself. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the basic question remains, how does this information inter-relate? There are conflicts still unresolved such as is Caballo Pintado the same site as Las Bocas or a different one? At the beginning of the article, you indicate that they are the same but later, you indicate that they are different. Since there were a lot of looted items appearing, claiming to be from Las Bocas before any formal excavations were done, discussion of these items should be part of the history section, not part of the description of the site IMHO, especially since it is not possible, according to sources, that all of the items could have come from that site.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify[edit]

I am now confused.

Need clarification, please note the following.

Maunus reviewed the original text, followed links, and found blatant plagiarism and copyvios.... removed the article.

It was agreed that I would receive help in paraphrasing, I redid the text, and been waiting for comments on the effort.

The text was rewritten by you guys.

Then you guys note it lack cohesion and other things

I go back and reformat it.

Then you tell me I removed your comments

Also, now you cannot follow the links that previosuly allowed you to find the blatant plagiarism

Followed that, in your expert opinion, the links I am using are not credible.

You guys are trying to work on the contents of the article, but if requird, that would logically must be after we resolved the plagiarism issue, and the link validity.

I feel we are chasing a collective tail and I feel the way my ancestors must have felt before the spanish inquisition.

Kindly clarify.--Raúl Gutiérrez 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumr51 (talk • contribs)

I did not remove your change to Las Bocas because I found blatant copyrights violations. I removed it because I had found blatant copyrights violations in other articles and in this article I was unable to verify the information from the sources you supplied, and given your history of copyright infringements I was not prepared to take the risk. There was also serious problems with writing style and cohesion and inclusion of material of little relevance to the topic. Also it is wrong that logically we need to work on the contents after resolving any plagiarism issues. Plagiarism issues is a matter of content and by working on the contents we solve the plagiarism article and teach you how to write a coherent encyclopedic article based on sources without copying from those sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]