User talk:Adamsan/Talkie talkie talkie happy talk (2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello and welcome! If you haven't done so already, take a look at the Welcome, newcomers page, and the Community portal.
As a sidenote, feel free to carve up anything you find to be incorrect in Archaeology. Little of that article, if any at all, was written by professionals. --Smack 23:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks smack- I love the article- it really reads like an encyclopaedia entry on a subject like this should- I'm just going to add a few bios and fill in some of the blank links where I can Adamsan 22.05, Apr 19, 2004(UTC)
Hi again. I just came across your edits at Graham Hancock. Wikipedia policy is to go to considerable lengths to avoid putting external links in the body of an article. If referring, for instance, to Google, one would link to the Wikipedia article on Google, which contains the link to the company's website. Thus, I think it would be best if you relocated all of the external links to =External links=. (As a sidenote, I believe the article to be POV as it stands, but that's a different story entirely.) --Smack 04:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
No problem Smack, consider them moved as of about five minutes' time. Will try to neutralise the language too

Thanks for your comment Adamsan! It's good to have a few archaeologists round the place! --GRutter 11:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you've joined us, we certainly need more archaeologists (or at even just more critical thinkers come to think of it)- the prime source for some contributors appears to be The Big Arthurian Book of Celtic Ley Line Mysteries (now with extra ancient wisdom). My favourite find so far as been the definition of a henge as 'a palaeolithic solar declinometer'. adamsan 20:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Avebury Henge[edit]

Hello. I note you're an archeologist, so all due deference to you. My area is the written word. Is there a technical reason for your insertion of site after stone circle? As a trained journalist I tend to baulk at unnecessary words, and I would say 'site' is evident, ie surplus to requirements. I'm more curious about it than caring. --bodnotbod 21:13, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Botnotbod, I felt the earlier text implied that a henge and a stone circle are the same thing. By changing 'henge or stone circle' to 'henge and stone circle' I felt this made the difference clearer. Adding 'site' seemed to be more natural as it supports the implicit meaning that the henge and the stones although separate, constitute the 'site' of the Avebury monument. English Heritage's online thesaurus of heritage terms gives good concise definitions of henge and stone circle and I have used it as the basis for my rewrites of the henge and stone circle entries. I agree that unnecessary verbosity should be avoided but felt that the distinction needed to made as it is common mistake to confuse the two, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

--adamsan 07:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

That's (more than) good enough for me. Excellent work on Light entertainment too: you've added to it seamlessly there. Ni
Cheers BNB - I dig the sitcoms too so maybe we can contribute to some other stuff together adamsan 20:33, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Nebra skydisk[edit]

I've added a subsection devoted to presenting the skepticism that justly centers on this object. I hope you'll add some links if there are any.

"Skeptical criticism

The disk has only just begun to attract the kind of speculation that hangs over Stonehenge, but uneasiness about the circumstances of its recovery have focused on the following weaknesses: " Wetman 22:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Wetman I cant't let that pass. You have reverted to the previous POV article and are presenting theory as fact. There is no secure provenence for the disc and therefore to call it a record of the earliest observatory recorded and a Bronze Age artefact is misleading when it may well be a fake. The Scientific American article appears to be about a different site altogether and that is why I removed it. The whole thing is POV and demands a rewrite.

--adamsan 07:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Crop mark and Potsherd[edit]

These are two lacking entries that call out for your professional approach! Wetman 21:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

That's the spirit Wetman! I have already a crack at aerial archaeology which touches on the basic types of cropmarks. I think repitition and expansion on their own page is a splendid idea though. As for potsherd it sounds a bit wiktionary to me. Ostrakon however, now there's a word with a story to tell! --adamsan 08:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


I am an aging Yank, quite familiar w/ 'provenance'; not sure i've ever used it myself except to explain it to someone else, but i have heard or seen 'provenience' at most once, maybe never. (Hmm, until this moment, when i did due diligence and looked it up. The 8th Collegiate lists it, tho it seems clear it considers 'provenance' less obscure. --Jerzy(t) 23:09, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm sure there's room for both- I'll remind myself of the guidelines for alternate spellings this evening and try and find an elegant way of having both, but proabably with a link to the pre-existing 'provenance' unless anyone strongly objects. --adamsan 08:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd suggest: ... known as their provenance (or provenience)... – Lee J Haywood 20:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Looks like someone else has sorted it out, splendid adamsan 20:33, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


Is it known what wood it was made of? Certainly not cedar, as this would have to have been imported from the Mediterranean, and I don't think that was done in neolithic times (!); I've removed the reference to it. I would hazard a guess that it might have been oak, but don't have any hard evidence to support that. - MPF 16:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi MPF. this is certainly my mistake- I googled for woodhenge and seem to have quoted an article on an American timber circle instead. Whoops! Late night Wikipedia-ing is no good for the critical faculties. Will have a look around and see if I can find a more reasonable timber. Thanks for correcting me adamsan 18:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adamsan - thanks; I think I found the one you mean: Cahokia, IL. But at least you're not alone, these people did it too: Weird Wiltshire :-) - MPF 19:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Another welcome[edit]

Just wanted to say bravo for your great work on archeology topics! I don't know a darn thing about the subject, but keep up the fabulous work--very impressive. Holler if you ever have any meta-Wikipedia Q's. Best, jengod 18:59, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thanks Jengod! Article writing is great for going over all those undergrad terms I sweated over to memorise but a few short years of alcohol abuse have already erased! Even if you don't do the digging thing, I hope we can contribute to an entry together in the future adamsan 21:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Laguna Copperplate inscription[edit]

By all means, place it in a separate article. Thank you, Ancheta Wis 17:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Grimes Graves[edit]

Hi there -- I've been meaning to write something about Grimes Graves, the flint quarry there in Britain, but I know so little about it I'm afraid I'll bollux it up. Have you considered doing an article on this subject, since you're both British and an archaeologist? Thanks! Stormwriter 23:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Got your reponse at my User:Talk page. As for mucroburins and microliths, you *would* ask about that! I'll have to do some research, though I know that microblades were used often in Alaska and in some other cultures where tool stone was rare. Be forewarned -- it may take a while for me to get to it, especially since I'm hamstrung til I get my home computer fixed (viruses, don't you know). Stormwriter 14:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


Good work on sitcoms. You make me feel lazy... --bodnotbod 23:12, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers BNB- I reckon there's a doctoral thesis for someone on 'Hyperreality in the British Sitcom' You have to love that Random Page feature for providing long words. adamsan 12:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Adamsan[edit]

Hi. My edits to the henge and Stonehenge articles were in aid of pointing out that the Neolithics probably didn't use the word "henge" to describe what they were building, so our use of the word for a specific type of monument is an artificial classification on our part. It is a perfectly lovely classification which I don't have a problem with, but I wouldn't want people to think that we are saying that we somehow know Neolithic/Bronze farmers themselves called one style of bank and ditch monument a "henge" and another, differently ditched, monument something else. There are all sorts of variations on the bank/ditch theme with these monuments, inner ditch, outer ditch, double ditch, etc., enough to almost make one think it was a function of local fashion. I probably wasn't as clear about the whole thing as I should have been, and have been re-thinking it since as probably too obvious a point. Any amendation to that theme you would care to make is fine with me. Cheers, Fire Star 19:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ancient sites article[edit]

Do you think it might be a good idea to create a List of Ancient sites in the United Kingdom article, or something along those lines. I was considering it. G-Man 13:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi Nickshanks. Could you explain what you're doing with the archaeology categories? The British archaeology category covers a wide variety of topics; sites, cultures, tools, archaeologists etc. I hope that it will become a useful introduction to the subject. If you wish to add sites to an Archaeological sites in Britain category, please do not delete the other listings without explaining. Cheers adamsan 18:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, yes it's quite simple, I'm separating out the sites from the general 'roman britain' type entries. I am putting them into a category who's name conforms to the format the rest of Wikipedia uses for archaeological sites, and making that a subcategory of both british archaeology and archaeological sites by country. This improved categorisation will take a while to complete, so please be patient. Nicholas 18:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I'm done now. Could you look through British archaeology and verify all sites have been moved into British archaeology > Sites. I also created a Roman sites in Scotland category since one didn't exist. Nicholas 19:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cool, nice work. I suppose Jorvik could be separated out as a site as well as a tourist attraction and Aubrey Holes are an element of Stonehenge so might be more comfortable in the sites category. I'll take out Votadini from the sites list as they were a tribe. Great stuff though and I will start adding to your scheme from now on. adamsan 20:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I looked at Jorvik, but decided not to move it because it didn't really seem like a 'site', just the Norse name for York. I have subsequently been thinking about amalgamating the Roman sites in England/Scotland/Wales categories into their parent Roman sites in Britain category, as I don't think Wales and Scotland have enough sites to warrant their own subcategory. It seems unnecessary, what do you think? Nicholas 20:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've just found Roman sites in the United Kingdom which lists a few and which I guess will need incorporating somehow into the new system. As for Jorvik, I suppose it depends on your definition of archaeological site which I had a go defining a while back - could it go in both categories as it is certainly something that has been archaeologically investigated? adamsan 21:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well I'll leave it up to you to decide upon, as you're better placed than I am to make such calls. I'll move on for the time being. Find another corner of Wikipedia to spring clean :) Nicholas 21:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to remove consistant synonym recommendation.[edit]

I am recommending removal of an addition you made to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style in June of this year. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to remove consistant synonym recommendation. Please comment there if you have anything to say on the matter. I don't think the use that could be made of this rule (and the use that is being made in one case) is what you had in mind. It would help my case if the creator of the rule now felt the same. But if you feel differently, you are welcome to say so. Jallan 04:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

States in Medieval Britain[edit]

Hi Adamsan - I've reverted States in Medieval Britain to the version before the extensive changes by User: (the banned user Kenneth Alan); you also had a subsequent edit which you may want to reinstate anything you'd added (as opposed to removing's stuff) - MPF 16:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

license vs licence[edit]

License (U.S.) and Licence (British) are both perfectly fine to use. I probably use both of them interchangeably. I don't want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole though. Be my guest! Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 22:30, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject Archaeology[edit]

I've put my name down as a contributor, but what I can contribute I'm not sure. Deb 20:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll put my name down as a contributor; I've mainly studied classical archaeology, and have worked a couple of places in Greece, so I should be able to contribute something there. My studies and work also included general principles of archaeology, of course. Also, since I've been working with Roman and Anglo-Saxon Britain, I should be able to write something sensible about that. Cnyborg 15:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)