User talk:HuMcCulloch

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

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, HuMcCulloch. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bat Creek inscription[edit]

You have now been reverted by at least three different users. Please read WP:CREDITS to understand why -- credits on the image information page are deemed sufficient. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Make your declarations in the appropriate place or dont make them at all[edit]

If you think that I am Feder or Mainfort & Kwas or otherwise have a conflict of interest with the content that I have been adding and advocating for in Bat Creek inscription, then the proper place for you to make such accusations is here and not through thinly veiled insinuations on Talk:Bat Creek inscription. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee feedback on Bat Creek[edit]

I cant tell you what it feels like for me, as a Documented Member of the Eastern Band of Cherokees, to not finally have some resolve to this issue. The stone is in the process of coming home later this fall, it will be displayed in a circle case so everyone is FREE to make their Theory based on the position of the stone. As far as Emmert a Monument has been donated by myself and tribe for his discovery in Bristrol Tennessee. After 6 months of intense research to find the truth about Emmert only proved that he was a Confederate Solider wounded twice. A Police Officer " Well respected" A Mason with the Blue Lodge and highly contributed to both his family and town. As hard as I searched I found no adverse information at all.

The Mayor, Confederates, Chief of Police, Masons, Emmert Family all came to honor and clear his name. I contracted Mr. Wolters to examine the stone for the Cherokee Museum based on the fact he had declared another inscription I had him look at that he deemed fake 5 years ago prior to the work on the stone. The Tribe has been following Scotts testing on the stone and feel confident that it is genuine.

Maybe not now, but one day when all evidence is clearly accepted more great men like Hu McCulloch and Mr Wolters will have the courage to document the truth.

Leslie Rose Kalen Representative to the EBCI concerning the Bat Creek Stone lkalen@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.90.162 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Leslie. I hope that my research on Bat Creek has added to understanding of Cherokee culture and the Sequoyan alphabet in particular, even if I have come to the view that this does not happen to be an example of it. The "Bureau of Ethnology" seems to have totally lacked such an understanding, even to the point of not bothering to try to read it as Cherokee.
What is the Cherokee position (or positions) on whether the Bat Creek stone says anything in Cherokee? And if Hebrew and not Cherokee per se, what is its relation to the Cherokee people? You can answer by email if you like. HuMcCulloch (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was just wondering how one would say “Only for the Cherokee” in Cherokee? Cherokee is of course Tsalagi, but what would the rest be? Is Tsalagi both an adjective and a noun? Is it both singular and plural? HuMcCulloch (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bat Creek Inscription Bulbs[edit]

Does anyone discuss the case of whether the bulbs on some letters like "He" are a closer match for the same shapes on Maccabean coins than the bulbs on the Masonic inscription? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If by "bulbs" you mean the little dots at the corners of the lines in the Masonic illustration, I don't see one on the Bat Creek he. There's one each at the top of the lamed and the yod, but I don't see any others. The Masonic artist was clearly following the 19th c letter charts, which tended to make these pearls very prominent. The extended overhang on the top line of the Masonic he is also characteristic of these charts, and in fact might be sufficient to prove its modernity, had a plaque with this inscription been found in a mound. HuMcCulloch (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm referring to something on the Bat Creek he, on the upper right corner. It's a little different from the Masonic illustration, but if that shape were found on say, a Maccabean coin, it would mean either this forger also had Maccabean coins at his disposal, and not just the Masonic book, or, that the Bat Creek he is more authentic than the Masonic one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It's generally assumed that the little curlicue at the upper right corner of the he (the reverse-E-like letter) is just a slip of the tool. The Hasmonaean (Maccabean) he often has a distinctive shape that I call a "snowmobile", but that is not present here. I haven't looked at Birnbaum's book on the Hebrew Scripts for a long time, but as I recall the Jewish War letter forms generally fit as well or better than the Hasmonaean forms. Furthermore, the Jewish War is more consistent with the C-14 date than the Maccabean coins. So the Jewish War looks like a much better context than the Hasmonaean (1cBC or 2cBC) period. HuMcCulloch (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard[edit]

In response to your last note there:

*Facepalm*

More broadly:

Sorry, but did you actually read what anyone has written there or anywhere else? There's no "test" or specific line-in-the-sand over which you are being challenged the step. Especially for obviously bright people who should know better, editing with a declared conflict of interest is mostly about trying not to be a dick. You understand this. I know you do. You're obviously a properly bright guy. Having someone refer you to WP:COIN is annoying - I get that. But going to war over this is just going to make your life more difficult here. Declaring you are going to test the community's resolve is just inviting trouble. There's no end of morons here who would like nothing more than to drag you to WP:ANI to smack you around a bit, just for fun. (I'm not one of them).
Specific single edits are obviously not going to get you "lit up". But when you take a step back and look at the fact that you've made 201 edits to the article (164 more than the next-closest editor who has just 37) it becomes clear that you have extensively contributed to an article which is the subject of articles you wrote. Those sorts of statistics are going to cause problems for editors who have a particular aversion to original research, concerned you are simply re-publishing your research here on WP.
Of course, there's also an acknowledgement that some editors are experts in their field and that contributions or requested edits from such editors are to be valued and encouraged, even where such editors might border on having a conflict of interest. But no one will encourage you to edit, or value your edits, if you're a dick about it. Yeah? Stalwart111 07:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Write the book[edit]

Can I suggest, if you haven't thought of it for yourself, that you write about a book about the discovery and life of the stone? The story is full of fascinating characters. You wouldn't have to give an opinion on the authenticity, just tell the story (maybe your opinion in the last chapter). PiCo (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, PiCo, but I think I'll pass. My Tennessee Anthropologist articles are now online, as well as the draft of my forthcoming Pre-Columbiana reply to M&K 2004, and my Biblical Archaeology Review is available for a small fee, so I'm not sure what a book would add. HuMcCulloch (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Image size settings[edit]

From this edit summary, it sounds as if your image preference (Top of screen menu: Preferences, Appearance, File sizes, thumbnail size) remains at the old 180px. This over-rides the default 220px for unfixed images, but not fixed ones. I have mine set to the max of 300px - much better. This is initially set at the default - previously 180 px- & too few people had adjusted theirs, or even know they can. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)