User talk:ClovisPt

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

We're so glad you're here! -- Madman 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I enjoyed your edit of Olmec alternative origin speculations.

America's Stonehenge

Ah, here's someone to take up the cudgel against the New Age crowd! Let's see what the reaction is ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey Molehill

He there. Would you mind having a look at my latest edit of the Turkey Mountain article and tell me what you think about it? Trigaranus (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Couldn't resist, childish SoB that I am: I had to create a userbox as a tribute. This hopefully doesn't reveal any bias on my part. Trigaranus (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing opinions

I can't believe this. Someone thinks maybe Heyerdahl is not controversial? How can that be?Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Megaliths

Need some advice on dealing with editor with ownership problems who insists that there is a European megalithic culture, won't provide references etc -- see Talk:Megaliths thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Newark Decalogue Stone /Newark Holy Stones

Hi -- these seem obvious candidates for merger, but I'm not sure how to go about it and what to call the merged article. Any suggestions? ThanksDoug Weller (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you on Bernadine Dohrn

"armed resistance" is at least as POV as "terrorism". Thanks for thinking of "violent action", which is neutral and to the point.[1] - Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72

I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, one of whose edits you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view", or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so. David Trochos (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

grammar changes in the Norse Colonization of the Americas article

Good day! :-) On this edit, you seemed to change some of the punctuations. I would just like to discuss some of your changes.

1) This sentence doesn't make sense to me: "Instead, the Vikings exploited the natural resources such as furs and in particular lumber, which was in short supply in Norse Greenland due to deforestation

• I think the colon should be added because the clause of the word "resources" (colon not added here because word and resources are inherently linked) is proceeded by 'listing' the latter (not by a colon though—instead, a word like "such"). The concept of particularity (maybe a made-up word) would also have to have to be listed. "Such as" and "furs" need no colon because they're inherently linked as well.

2) [sic] Not knowing whether the old Norse civilization remained in Vinland or not—and worried that if it did, would it still be Catholic 200 years after the rest of Scandinavia had experienced the Reformation—in 1721 a joint merchant-clerical expedition led by Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland.

• This sentence was actually very helpful.

Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

science-frontiers

The issue is largely one of WP:SELFPUB. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanawha Madonna

I'm on holiday, can't spend time on this. Pyle is a kook and the link with him needs to be removed or an explanation put up somehow that his claims are nonsense/refuted, but that will probably have to wait until I get back. The same website refutes them I think. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories

I really shouldn't be online -- but you might want to keep an eye on this article also, see my edit just now. Doug Weller (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Zheng He

I have reinstated the reference to Gavin Menzies' book. It is a violation of the neutral point of view policy to remove it because you believe it is inaccurate. As you know, it is very widely distributed and therefore notable. As evidenced from other comments on this page, you seem to be inclined toward removing that with which you disagree, rather than discussing it. Please, assume good faith and don't remove other people's work. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained on the Talk page, my second revert is now in place. Please don’t push this any further. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey (Norse colonization of the Americas)

Hi,

Could you help me out a bit on that page. A user named Hordaland has reverted a lot of my edits. I don't understand. I think I'm a lot better at grammar than him so I would appreciated some comments (if you can). For example: "Unlike Greenland: which has been occupied for 500 years," is completely right: the listing of space (GreenL) is the ultimate placeholder---500 years is of space (just a reaction--indeed, you probably know the big bang theory), etc,. Last time I checked, units (500 years) can be listed. Believe it or not, the Maya/Inca were probably the 1st to develope the concept of time (indeed, the Inca refered to "time" as "earth". The guy might be racist coz he took the bolded part out in this sentence labeled: "who picked up the sword of a norse that had been killed by a flat stone to the head and charged the natives". Oh well, I guess ppl will be ppl. InternetHero (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)