Hi there Jules. Just acknowledging your request made at my talk page; I will look into it, though I expect to be largely offline over the next couple of days so it may not be until next week that I'm able to comment in any detail. So please bear with me, from a quick revision I would hope that any issues can be worked out in a constructive fashion.--cjllw | TALK 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jules- in further response: it's not that anyone necessarily doubts the accuracy or experience of your information, and certainly not because you have a book out on the general topic. Wikipedia's No Original Research policy is a long-standing and necessary one- I'm sure you can appreciate that wikipedia is a frequent target by less scrupulous folks who seek only to promote their own ideas and theories (often quite fringe ones), products, and personas. It is if you like one of the things we try to use to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Equally however it shouldn't mean that valid and earnestly-meant contribs such as yours are automatically disbarred. The main issue boils down to Verifiability, another policy- by providing reliable sources we can at least give the reader a chance to ascertain where a certain piece of info originates from, and (hopefully) distinguish it from stuff that for all anyone can tell may or may not be completely made up.

In the particular case here of local vs foreign ownership, if the article says most hotels are foreign-owned and there is no reference to it, and you believe it to be wrong, then you could remove it and comment to that effect on the article's talk page. If you have difficulty in finding any independent references one way or the other then you could ask for some consensus for a restatement of the info and see if anyone has an issue with it. If references simply aren't available then it might not be something worth going into too much detail on the article anyway. I don't suppose your book has any mention of it (in which case you could at that as a reference which could at least be cited)? Or any articles on it in the local press?

As mentioned I'll be offline for a couple of days, happy to take back up the dialogue when I get back. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jules,

I re-arranged my own comment since they were re-edited and added to other user's comments. You went ahead and put them back and now an unsigned series of argument writeen by someone else precedes my few words as if I wrote the whole thing. Please respect the re-edits since it's my signature I certainly I don't want comments not written by me to appear as if they are. Please dont' revert back since this is a personal comment. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHonduras&diff=300615859&oldid=300602140 There you can see who your edits completely distorted other users (including myself) comments. Thanks Wikihonduras (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talk page, you wrote: "I just searched the entire decision. It doesn't mention Artículo 239, reelección, continuismo or continuidad. Correct me if I'm wrong by citing the pages on which you find any of those terms." The following really is asked from my own ignorance and lack of Spanish comprehension. I recently came across these comments by Greg Weeks on his blog and would like to know your opinion: "To clarify, Article 239 *was* mentioned, but was only a very minor part of an overall argument that focused on other issues. ... As I noted in my original post, pp. 39-40 specifically mention the prohibition on reforming re-election. That is repeated later, though in a different document basically copying the first." [1] Greg's basic point is that it was not a major reliance, but I wondered if you agreed that it had been mentioned at all. I hope you don't mind me asking here rather than on the article talk page. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 39-40 talk about violations of Articles 373, 374 Y 375, which prohibit changing the constitution. Article 239 is not mentioned anywhere in the decision, arrest warrant or associated documents. Jules Siegel (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Cancún. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. please also read WP:CITE and WP:BURDEN. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my article. It's a Wikipedia article and it should reflect the highest standards of accuracy. I'm not assuming ownership. I am very politely asking you to avoid making changes to the article that diminish its accuracy. If you have something to add, to it, feel free to do so, but please try to make sure that you are improving it. It seems to me that you are taking a rather proprietary attitude without reference to the accuracy of your changes.

I will appreciate your taking these remarks in the spirit of helpfulness with which they are offered.

For the sake of the record, here is the full statement about this that I left on your talk page:

Your Cancun Edits

I think that your recent removal of useful and verifiable information was unfortunate. The Cancun page does have some problems with citations that I could correct if I were inclined to put up with the inevitable (and perhaps well-meaning) but frequently ignorant and over-zealous revisions.

Your changes to the meaning of Cancun are an example. Cancun cannot mean Snake's Den, principally because cun does not mean den in Maya. It may mean seat or basin. Can (as in Kukulcan) does mean snake. There's no evidence that snakes were ever especially prominent on the island. They aren't mentioned in any of the literature about the early stages of development, although iguanas and other fauna are mentioned. Rattlesnake imagery is an important feature of much Mayan (and Mesoamerican) art. The rattlesnake was a totem and frequently used to symbolize the state or a god, as the eagle is used in European societies. A scholarly discussion on the meaning of Cancun on the Famsi forum left the meaning open to various interpretations, of which snake's den was the least favored.

I'm sorry if I sound overly critical, but I think it is fair to say that I am an authority on the history of Cancun. I'm not very well versed in Wikipedia mark-up language, and I find the Wikipedia environment rather hostile, so I don't contribute. I would very politely suggest that you be more cautious in changing anything on the page, and, if possible, that you go back and find the original translation of the name, which, if I remember correctly, was much more nuanced. — Jules Siegel (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jules Siegel (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jules, apologies for late response to your post at my talkpage, have been offline these past couple of weeks. Appreciate the notification.

FWIW I have no issue in accepting you as a knowledgeable source on Cancun, or of you citing/referencing your own publications on certain points -- with the proviso that it is something published somewhere, unfortunately unpublished info would constitute Orig Research no matter how reasonable it may be. If there's important info you have that's not published but passes a common-sense definition of reasonableness, personally I'd think it ok to keep the statement in the article, but perhaps tagged as needing some verifying cite -- if it's an important fact then one would expect there to be some published reference to it out there.

Re using the AZTLAN mailing list at FAMSI as a cite for something, I'd say it's permissible if the list contributor is an otherwise recognised published expert in the field, as many of them are. It's also however best to try and find additional sources published in more reliably reviewed venues, and if the statement is in any way contentious or uncommon, it would need to be couched in terms like "John Doe, prof of archaeology at <institution>, has stated that ...".

Also FWIW, I think that LibStar's comments & tagging re 'ownership' on your talkpage here above is a bit uncalled for, and if not careless. Don't know if you intend to resume or continue with that discussion now, but if you run into any further probs you can let me know (though my wiki editing time still remains very limited right now, can't guarantee that will be able to respond promptly. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]