User talk:Heironymous Rowe

Fresh page

Archived, too much nonsense lately, start a new section for new business please. Heiro 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

im not spam

Sorry for adding my web address the first time, but i am not a spammer. I have won first and second place a Southeastern indian art festival held by the Chickasaw nation. I just had my southeastern art displayed at the world creativity forum in Oklahoma City on the 15 of this month, & I'm about to have my work put up at American Indian Cultural Center Museum. I have just as much right to put my name up there with Dan Townsend or the rest of those guys, I am NOT A CHINSY SPAMMER!!!!!!!!! DarthVoltron (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded at their user talk page here Heiro 12:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of advice to another editor to prevent their time being wasted

You removed my advice to another editor here under the guise of "same reasons as the previous editor" which were "personal attacks, active discouragement of consensus-building" these were neither personal attacks nor discouragement for consensus building. The editor who made that revert is unable to show evidence of "scientific investigations" (per verifiability policy note two) yet insists on his wording for that article, it is he that needs advice on consensus building - I have been main editor involved in the creation of two featured articles and multiple DYKs and know how to play nice. Since you appear to support Ronz's approach can you show me evidence in the sources provided of any scientific investigations that have taken place there or are you just drive-by policing of what you think is naughty stuff?--163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page isn't a forum to spout rhetoric and hyperbole, bring reliable sources for the information you wish to have included in the article, and quit worrying about the "fringe police". If your sources are reliable, the info will get included in the article. But the way you're headed with your last few posts, I see an ANI report in your future. Heiro 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're not seeing what's going on. A talk page is the place to ask another editor that has reverted one's edits, and in doing so replaces the improvement with the previous, false, synthesis of the sources to show/quote from the sources to support their claim/edit. The editor in question has failed to do this and using obfuscations of non-policy (such as WP:FRINGE) insists on their version being correct. I used the page for this purpose (see the section entitled "scientific investigations") and got nowhere so I gave up on the page. That the same editor that prevented me from improving the page also removes my warning to avoid wasting time is no suprise to me. If you're at all interested, the current version still claims that scientific investigations have taken place (which you can check yourself cannot be backed up by the sources provided) and is patently flawed. I wish for no information to be included as your reply suggests - I only wish that the sources be not misreprented and state plainly that others who also want this will likely be wasting their time. Thanks for polite reply anyway.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I think I'll back off the Man discussion. If you think I am needed please feel free to ping me. I was trying to get discussions there productive and I think I did this so it's time for me to back out and let you and the other regular editors of this article to continue improving the page. Oh and I did ask DavidOaks to rejoin the discussion. I didn't know of anyone else to inform that wasn't a sock puppet. I got to this article through the AN/i complaint so I am not clear on who the regular editors are. I could take a look for them in the history but to be honest, I don't have the time or the will to do a search like this. Thank you very much for your polite conversations with me. It is so very much appreciated. Good luck with the collage and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I actually came there from the ANI thread as well, but got involved in the discussion concerning diversifying the infobox. I think your input has been good and have also enjoyed the conversation, hate to see you go actually. I am currently waiting for other opinions about the images I already found before going too much further. I think once images are decided on we can work out placement in the collage. I know several other editors are watching the page, but they may not be online yet today. Heiro 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the previous discussion centered around the collage and invited the other 3 editors involved at the time. Heiro 21:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :::I will still keep this on my watch list and try to keep up with what is going on. I will be leaving my computer for the day so I am done for sure today. I can stick around though and give input to the images if I am wanted there. I figured by now I've worn out my welcome. :) Just let me know. You are doing great on picking the images. I do think though that the nude image needs to be enlarged a little bit and that the image of the man with the child should be included. Thank for your kind words. This conversation is a good time to stop for the day since today has been strange with some editors. Good, thanks for letting other editors know. I think doing this will help prevent problems later on, at least that is my hope. Happy editing, and talk sonn I'm sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaic/Woodland period/Mississippian culture/ of North America

Sorry Heironymous Rowe - I was going by the information already in the articles when adding the cat. links. It was part of putting Category:Mounds in the United States and the state cats. from Category:Native American history by state on 'semi-orphan' articles for average readers, those not experts in the field-region as you are, to find/come upon these good articles. Ironically, re: your harsh criticism this way, 'Your' articles and wonderful colored maps-diagrams-art for the Gulf to Great Lakes indigenous cultures, traditions, groups, and sites inspired the effort (overdone I understand now, with apologies) to facilitate their find-ability.

Being unfamiliar with that region's prehistoric legacy, whenever any new article opened with one of your 'watercolor' maps I felt gratitude and could sense its place in time period and locale. Was just about to write 'thank you' for them on your talk page on 23rd when the your 2 posted on mine, so some cool down time, and the appreciation is sincerely shared now.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool I like alot of the stuff you are doing with the categories, you just seem to go a little overboard at times. Sorry if I come across too harsh at times, I dont mean to but can be a little too blunt at times. Heiro

Talk:Megatrend_University#Copyvio

I have one question for you here: Talk:Megatrend_University#Copyvio. --S T E V A N ^(talk) 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

replied at the article talk. Heiro 04:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved down. I just wanted to comment directly but I agree that wasn't a good idea. --S T E V A N ^(talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Gartner Site

Do you have information about the Gartner Site (National Register name "Gartner Mound and Village Site") near Chillicothe? I see that you included on the original version of {{Fort Ancient culture}}. All I have on it is a slight mention in one issue of the Ohio Archaeologist, published a few years ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If its still a redlink, I have nothing so far. I generated that list from a map I had found somewhere based on James Bennett Griffins work in I believe the 1940s. Seemed like a good way to make a start on fleshing out the Fort Ancient stuff, as most of the sites are probably notable if they were excavated and had information published about them. Might be hard to find anything, if nothing new has been done at that site since the 40s, all of the published stuff is more than likely out of print or hard to find. Heiro 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since you have access to a good university library, look for this book. Alot has been done since it was published, but I believe it was instrumental in defining Fort Ancient and should have stuff about alot of the more prominent sites. Its old and hard to find so have never ran across it yet myself, at least not cheap enough for me to invest in it. But your library may have a copy. Heiro 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they have three copies :-) If you ever need access to a book that's in the IU library system, go to iucat.iu.edu — anyone in the world can see what's in the collection, so you can see whether I'll be able to access the book; ask me and I'll try to see if I can help. They have lots of stuff dealing with Ohio archaeology; I'm learning so much on the subject here (despite not having much time for it; I wish that I had a lot more time for it) that I couldn't find back in Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Right on! Look forward to see what you find out. Havent been extremely active lately, busy IRL with work, people keep offering me money for jobs, will probably slow down after Xmas tho. Heiro 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see what you mean; I'm a grad student now (taking 12 credits, and full-time status for my school is just 9) and working 20 hours per week. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, my last project is due on Thursday morning; I'll try to see if I can look at this book after I get off work that evening. Feel free to pester me if you think I've forgotten :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No time to go to the library yesterday, but I'm there now, so I'll get the book before I leave. Do you want me to find something in it for you, or are you simply saying that I might find it useful for my own purposes? On an unrelated issue, I've created Category:Type sites; please feel free to take it to CFD if it's not helpful, or please feel free to help populate it if it is. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mississippian tags

Thanks Do you have any examples of mistagged talk pages? I'm removing these entries from my list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats the only one which has popped up on my watchlist so far, just thought I'd drop you a note and let you know. There is already a bug with that template and wikiproject, a bot tends to add that template to the talk page of every article created with Mississippian mentioned in it text somewhere, which can be frustrating lol. Heiro 08:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How many templates?

I've worked on another supposedly Mississippian site in Ohio north of the Fort Ancient heartland: the Cary Village Site, a multi-component site near Columbus. My source says that it "has been occupied at various times by Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian cultures" — is this perhaps a northern outlier of the Fort Ancient people, or an Upper Mississippian village, or something else? Additionally, what culture navboxes (if any) should be applied to the article? The most significant component of the site is Hopewell, so I've added it to that navbox, but I'm not sure (1) whether that's a good idea, and (2) whether it should be included on any others. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Judging by that location, there is no way it is Mississippian proper, but they may be meaning Fort Ancient or Upper Mississippian culture. Does your source give a date for that occupation? Anyway, just stick to the source for now til you find better info, only thing I could do is speculate, lol. Heiro 20:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The source for that statement doesn't give any dates, unfortunately. The Ohio Historical Society's profile of the site gives dates of 999-500 BC, 499-1 BC, and 1-499 AD, but it doesn't break out the dates by culture. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, all of those dates are Early and Middle Woodland period, none are late enough to be Mississippian of any variety. Might just be best to leave out any mention of Mississippian, that source may not be reliable enough to use. Your call. Heiro 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

However, the OHS website's profiles are subject to errors: the Lockington Covered Bridge burned in 1989, but the OHS says that it's still in existence. Even worse, Holy Rosary Catholic Church in St. Marys was demolished in 1978, one year before it was listed on the Register, but the profile thinks it's still standing. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Voytovych

Dear Heironymous Rowe. I know that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, I'm not Alexander Voytovych. I want to create multiple pages of contemporary Ukrainian art, becouse as there is no information about it on Wikipedia. Page about "Alexander Voytovych" is the first in this theme. If I am wrong about creating the page of person , please write my mistakes and I will correct.. Thank you. Julia --Artvoyt (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BC

The use of ce and bce is idiotic. It makes use of the Christian calendar yet to appease non Christians changes the terms around. Wikipedia has many moronic policies so I shouldn't be surprised to find another one. Cheers.--72.193.17.171 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has those policies to keep editors with different preferences from constantly flipping them back and forth. If its too moronic for you, edit elsewhere, cheers!. Heiro 15:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mapuche and the Spartans

In my contribution I did point out that this theory lacks any scientific support and I didn't put it in the chapter "origin" byt in a different chapter below the chapter "Mapuches in popular culture". But the fact is that this theory appears in many blogs and seminars in Greece as a real fact! (Look on google search for "Αραουκανοί" or "Lonko Kilapan"). It's something like a popular civil legend in Greece. It's a matter of objectivity to write about this theory even if it is in fact ridiculous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georalex1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said at the article talk, find reliable citations to actual historians and scholars addressing this subject, somehow proving its notability for inclusion in this article. Popular legends and blogs do not count. Follow the bluelinks I left here and at the article talk to see our policies for what are and are not acceptable sources for citations. Heiro 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:VERIFY. Heiro 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Image dispute from an anon?

You're not likely to get a response from this IP address. The original uploader was Hablador, who was previously edit warring on the Clan of Xymox article, and he's not likely to respond to copyvios anytime soon. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the IP is xem, as they are trying to get the user to contact OTRS if they have copyright and have also proposed the image for deletion at Commons because they dont seem to believe that Hablador has copyright. Heiro 07:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Heironymous Rowe! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Images of Poverty Point

Hi, I think I asked you before but can't find it in your archive: Would you have additional images of the Poverty Point site and/or objects from there? I used all your pictures in the de-WP article and could use more. The article is a candidate to become "exzellent" (~featured) right now and I wish to try anything to improve it. TIA and a happy new year. Please keep up the great work on precolumbian cultures. --h-stt !? 10:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Please check what I did. One person posted his unrelated comment in the middle of a thread and duplicated some comments. My small change makes a lot of sense. Garion96 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, this is an AFD, removing anothers post or placing it somewhere else is seriously frowned upon. I would advise asking them if they would like to move it or remove it, but not to unilaterally do it youself. Heiro 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since that editor is blocked indef that might make it quite difficult. The way it reads now because of his editing in the middle AND duplicating a comment is that I think an unsourced edit outing someone with hiv is a small slip. He moved his comment in the middle, I just moved it to the end of that section, nothing bad about that. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think its a bad idea to mess with others posts, whether they are currently blocked or not. But if you can get input from other editors on the AFD talk agreeing with you, I withdraw my objections. Heiro 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My objections still stand until we get input from others, would you kindly revert you reversion? Heiro 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed this comment. So basically everybody is allowed to post in the middle of a thread making the thread ineligible? Changing those things happens all the time. And no, I don't want to revert it. It changes the meaning of a thread. My edit makes sense since I haven't changed anything. Garion96 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

check your email

Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for cleaning up after that hoaxing IP editor. Not being familiar with the topic area it would have taken me forever to research what was vandalism and what wasn't. Siawase (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexander Voytovych for deletion

The article Alexander Voytovych is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Voytovych until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A statement of divinity

I have learned for myself that your beliefs aren't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue described here has happened again since your last warning (see this dif). What can be done? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made a report at WP:AIV. We'll see if they want to take it up, if they decline for staleness reasons, I may take it to WP:ANI. Heiro 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 03:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied to the message you left. Tim1357 ^talk 03:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your comments and input. JFYI, I removed your last comment because the last thing I want is to have the attack doubled up. I'll cleanup their page.  7  09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Totally fine. Was just coming to your page to leave you a note when I noticed I suddenly had a message. Noticed after I posted "the quote" that it looked bad on ANI, so tried to censor it and that still looked bad. Sorry about that. Heiro 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks again for your input.  7  09:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Hi, just noticed that you've worked on the Mapuche article in the past. I'm trying to propose a new WikiProject to cover all indigenous peoples of the Americans from ancient times to the present (especially focusing on those areas not covered by WP:WikiProject Mesoamerica and WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Would you have any interest in this project? If so, please feel free to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Objection by Frances Fox Piven to a Wikipedia biography entry about her written by persons unknown.

I represent Frances Fox Piven. Recently, she has been the target of publicly posted death threats and has asked me to remove a biography entry on her in Wikipedia which she neither created nor authorizes. She will tolerate a page that includes no personal information, including her place of birth, year of birth, educational background, religion or marital status. She completely objects to the promotion of Glenn Beck's ridiculous attack on her, distorting her work, her words, and intentions, by way of content on a Wikipedia biography page that adds to the distortion by giving the Beck matter disproportionate weight. Piven mostly objects to the lack of control over the facts of her biography and personal life that Wikipedia facilitates by allowing persons unknown to engage in an editing war with me. Law enforcement authorities have been notified of the death threats. I would suggest you revert the entry on her to the one I edited down. It is others, not me, who continue to restore the entry to which Piven objects. If you would like to verify Piven's objection to this Wikipedia entry, please email me, Lori Minnite, at lminnite@gmail.com and I will forward your email to her. She will reply to you directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannielou (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

There is no legal threat in my message to you so I can't remove it. I study the dispute resolution rules and persue the appropriate course of action. Lori Minnite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannielou (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Biting

Hello, It was not my intention to "bite" this user defending Frances Fox Piven, but rather to provide a frank and helpful assessment of the situation. However, since you saw my comments differently, I will ponder what you've said and try to do better in the future. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It just seemed like that stuff had been said already several times and I was thinking too much criticism all at once may push her further into her entrenched position. I'm just hoping she comes around to our way of thinking and possibly helps us improve the article instead continue to advocate for its deletion, which the way thing look at its AFD is not going to happen. Heiro 07:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I share your hopes. Cullen328 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Respect

Thank you, for your very considerate approach in moving our apparent disagreement to a more appropriate forum than AN.

I don't agree with you (yet, at least, and may never) - but I respect you for your calm approach.  Chzz  ►  04:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is my only experience with pending changes so far, and I have to say it has made it easier to maintain the article this year than at this time last year. I dont think every article should have it, but I can definitely see the advantages to having certain vandal high traffic pages with this setting. Ip edits do get thru, if constructive and it saves stress on volunteer editors who would rather be adding content instead of vandal patrolling. Thanks for the pointer to RFPP.Heiro 04:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To say there was "some background" to PC would be the understatement of the decade, I'm sorry to say. Whilst I strive to remain neutral, the concern is - in very brief: that - a) the very notion was contentious and hotly debated (because this is the 'encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'), b) the community agreed to a 2-month limited trial from June 15 2010, c) at the end of which, it was not removed; various 'polls' were held, and 65% agreed to its temporary continuation whilst bugs were fixed "until the release of the new version" with "no precedent for future use" and a "hard stop date of December 31, 2010".¹ And, here we are. So my own position is, that whilst I proffer no opinion on whether PC is good or bad per se, my objection is procedural - ie, the community has not agreed to it.

If that seems like lawyering, I'm sorry; I just care about due process and consensus.  Chzz  ►  04:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is now an RFC on this very subject: Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011  Chzz  ►  14:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Castalian Springs Mound Site

Hi. I came across this article and was rather impressed with it. By chance have you thought of nominating it at T:TDYK? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I had, but then moved on to other things. I've nominated a few others before with related subjects, see the DYKs dropdown box on my user page. If you would like to nominate it yourself, please feel free to and thanks for the props. Youmight also like this, Mississippian Stone box graves , what I'm currently trying to research and add toHeiro 05:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If your interested, I also recently created these similar pages Beasley Mounds Site and Brick Church Mound and Village Site. Heiro 05:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of citation

Please provide a reason for the removal of unreferenced literature. You KNOW you're wrong, but hey, let's have a good time. Cheers. InternetHero (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Go have fun elsewhere. Address the fucking issues on the talk page as you have been asked by several users. Revert again without resolving the issue at the talk page, and I'll have you at the nearest appropriate admin board. I've had enough of you and your antics and so have a few others. Feel like getting yourself banned? Push it. Heiro 05:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, quit swearing. I give up. I won't do it again---okay? If you're wondering why a self-disclosed "expert" on the War of 1812 doesn't have a large contribution to such context then go to the Siege of Fort Meigs article where some person totally reverted a beautifully written article to an equally beautiful article without any reasoning on my behalf in regards to helping me realize that it was written too much as a story. I was willing to re-write it---I'm afraid of such events in the future. Anyway, it looks like I'm taking away something that holds dear to you---in Wikipedia, so I will concede that I don't make any sense. We were destroyed, right? Yes. Teyen diyon, my friend. Click here for the meaning: 5:58. InternetHero (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page, consider this a formal request. Start editing within our policies. If you can be constructive here without being an ass, then by all means please do. Otherwise, go away. Heiro 06:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, last time I talk of your talk page and I won't even reveal your swearing (prohibited). Oh, btw, I edited an article on Enriquillo so you'd better revert it coz it has a reference. Try to be more productive in the future, though. Cheers, and goodbye Wikipedia. InternetHero (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, swearing isnt fucking prohibited here, personal attacks are. If your edit was constructive, I'm sure it will be fine, it its not someone who regularly watches that page will catch it. Which will only make you look worse when someone finally gets around to addressing your edit warring and disruptive edits at War of 1812. Go troll someone else now. Now get off my fucking talkpage.. Heiro 06:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put a warning tag on him about the disruptive editing, and warned him on the talk page as well. If he continues to harass you let me know and we will take it to the admins. I've about had it with this guy.Tirronan (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is old. If he shows up again, I know how to handle him. After enough times of this kind of stuff, dont think it would take too much for someone at ANI to give him a nice long vacation if he makes too much trouble. Heiro 10:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories nominated for deletion

Do you have a opinion on these:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 17#Category:Native American women in the arts
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 17#Category:Native American female painters

Any insights would be greatly appreciated. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ceremonial stone landscape

I just stumbled upon this article. Do you know anything about this? Is "Ceremonial stone landscape" the most common term for these stone structures? I cannot find very many non-Wiki-inspired sites or books that use the term The article does appear to have potential. The external links have moved here. The United Southern and Eastern Tribes appears to be a legitimate intertribal organization. What the article seems to be describing are prehistoric Dhegiha burial sites from before the time they migrated westward. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Sock puppets

I blocked I am a Filipino and then reported to SPI, Suckafree had 5 socks it turns out. Thanks for the heads up on the socks. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee-speaking "countries"?

Someone has created a category called Cherokee-speaking countries and territories, which currently includes the articles, Cherokee Nation, Qualla Boundary, and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Do these entities qualify as Cherokee-speaking countries? Bms4880 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos coming

On Saturday, I travelled to the southwestern corner of Indiana, so I'll have photos coming for Ashworth Archaeological Site and several other sites in the area. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Allison culture?

According to the National Register database, the Stoner Site in far eastern Illinois is associated with the "Allison culture", about which I can find no information. Do we have an article that discusses this people? Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I dont remember ever hearing about them. Any ideas for a time line? Heiro 13:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland undone edits

Hello. Over the past two days, I have deleted three sentences from the "hyperdimensional physics" section of this article that seem to violate NPOV, yet it appears you have undone this edit each time. I articulated in depth my reasoning behind the edit on the discussion page, since I certainly don't take deletion of material lightly. Care to explain why you are disallowing this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.201.29 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Since the initiator of the discussion has not notified you, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Being_.22stalked.22_on_Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied there. Considering their past behavior, contribs history, block log, etc., if they push this I see a WP:BOOMERANG coming around. Heiro 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

native american image

Hi, I noticed you reverted my change to the collage on Native Americans in the United States. I added Pocahontas to the article because there are no females in the collage. That reason alone is enough to change it and I've mentioned it on the talk page. Why did you remove it? --Turn685 (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page when I removed it. Heiro 13:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Heironymous Rowe! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Office Hours

Hey Heironymous Rowe! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pocahontas Mounds school

I am not sure that "the school" mentioned in Ford's work and in your article exists as a viable entity any more. I have been trying to find the actual name of this school but have found nothing concrete yet. Also, Ford's notes about the Mounds date from ca. 1935-4, possibly 1936 (Google Books mention) and I have been unable to find any mention online of a Hinds County school, Jackson Public School or Clinton Public School having the Pocahontas Mound on its grounds. I did find mentions of an old 'Pocahontas School' in/near Hinds County. Looking at Google Maps, the closest present-day school to Pocahontas, MS (site of the Mounds' roadside park) is East Flora Elementary School that is about 5 miles away. The school mentioned in Ford's works might possibly be the New Lake Elementary School mentioned here in connection with a "New Lake Missionary Baptist Church". To me the words "the school" or "a school" seems somewhat nebulous for an article about a historical site. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I clarified that at the time of Fords writing there was a school. I dont want to infer too much more than that without a written source from somewhere. If you find any newer research on the site, feel free to add and expand it, as the few cites I use are all I can find so far. Thanks, Heiro 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the change. Nothing yet re: the school's actual name, at least in any online sources I looked in to. I think it is possible that the school Ford mentioned was not a public school but rather a church school for African-Americans and so the records could be problematic. Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Grit-tempered pottery

Do we have any articles that discuss "grit-tempered" pottery? I'm finishing up an expansion of Ashworth Archaeological Site, relying primarily upon a 1940s report from a test excavation at the site; almost all of the pottery that they found was either shell-tempered or grit-tempered. I've observed that shell tempered pottery redirects to Mississippian culture pottery, but I was hoping to find an article that gives grit-tempered pottery more coverage than the two passing mentions in the Mississippian pottery article. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I doubt it. A good place to look would be Hopewell pottery or Native American pottery. I wrote the majority of the Mississippian culture pottery article as part of my expansion of Mississippian culture subjects and shell tempered redirects there because it is considered a diagnostic tool for Mississippian cultures, almost synonymous with it. You could try asking Uyvsdi, she is really good with Native American arts related stuff. Hope this helps. Heiro 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. You probably remember that most of my archaeological site articles are from Ohio or Pennsylvania (I think I've done only three other Indiana sites before this, and they're all Archaic), so Mississippians and their pottery are a new thing for me. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Watch you dont get sucked in, like me, lol. Southern Indiana is as far northeast as the culture got, around the Lousiville, Ky and Jeffersonville, Ind area. I started an article here User:Heironymous Rowe/Sandbox6(pasted in from an old version at another sandbox I'm now using for something else) for a site in that area that I may get back to eventually and finish, got distracted and haven't gotten back to it yet. The pdf linked from the ELs is a pretty good read if you're interested in Indiana sites. Heiro 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect to get sucked in :-) My main interest is Ohio and some Pennsylvania; the only reason I wrote Ashworth is that I'd borrowed a book (the main source for the article) from the IU library system because it had locations for most of the National Register-listed sites in Posey County, and only later did it occur to me that there was enough coverage of Ashworth to support an article. Now I look at the Prather link; interesting, as I didn't know that the culture got much farther upstream than Yankeetown (I still need to do an article on that site, especially since I got a photo there over the summer) and its surroundings. A pity that similar documents aren't available for other sites; I'm still missing data for a few southern sites, since it appears that a few haven't been published except at conferences or in grey literature for the Corps of Engineers or the Forest Service. I even met the Munsons at a local event for Archaeology Month back in September and asked if there were publicly-viewable artifacts from Kappa V (the only Monroe County site for which I'm essentially agnostic), but they told me that anything from that site is buried deep in the archives of the Glenn Black Laboratory and not even accessible to professionals without a bit of difficulty. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As a side comment, how hard would it be to develop an article covering types of pottery in North American archaeological contexts. Working just with sites in Florida, I've had to deal with fiber-tempered, sand-tempered, and "chalky" ware. Too many of the sources assume that readers know what is meant (although I was lucky that one author provided an explanation of "chalky" ware). Of course, styles of decoration would be a major topic. -- Donald Albury 11:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a great idea, and one that would make a good article for us to have, as most of your observations above are correct IMO. I dont think we even have an article about "tempering" for pottery at all (a one line mention at Temper disamb page), let alone one that explains the different varieties of materials used. I could contribute some, but dont really know alot about the subject in general. I've picked up some because it is so central to our dating of various period, cultures, complexes and phases in the sites and cultures I've contributed articles about. Uyvsdi has made a related suggestion here about cleaning up and reorganizing the Talk:Native American pottery#Organization scheme Native American pottery article. If I get time, I'll try to work up something, but it may take a few days or a week. IRL I'm supposed to be in my studio working on stuff for a show that is rapidly approaching and am at the moment doing a by email interview about my techniques as an artist that I really should be concentrating on instead of playing hookie on Wikipedia, lol. Maybe we should shift this conversation to the Native American pottery talk page section Uyvsdi started and see if we can get it started? She knows alot more about the subject of Native American arts in general than I, especially other areas of the country than the Southeast and Midwest where I tend to focus. We could use your input on the Florida area, which I confess I dont know alot about. Heiro 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll drop in over, then. -- Donald Albury 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe creating a tempering article might be a good idea, but to be honest I really don't know anything about non-indigenous American pottery, so that's why I thought to try to start expanding the Native American pottery article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native Americans in the United States

Thanks for pointing out the issues with Watson Brake and Poverty Point to me; I had been focusing on Cahokia as a peak of Mississippian culture and relation to SECC. Have now learned much more about Watson Brake and other Middle Archaic sites in the Lower Mississippi Valley and am trying to add cited material to other appropriate articles - exciting finds at those sites. Thanks also for contributing your art to help us visualize the living communities, and for all your work on these articles. Parkwells (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Right on, right on, thanks. I've recently started a few new articles (you already found a few) here Troyville culture, Troyville Earthworks, and most of the articles in the Plaquemine culture and Coles Creek culture categories. They could use some copyediting and expansion if you are interested. Heiro 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I started Baytown culture, Coles Creek culture and Plaquemine culture a few years and always meant to expand them more but have never gotten to it. I've added a few new things to them lately, but they could use alot of attention, lol. You are always welcome to chip in if so inclined. Also, if you look at the section above this, a few other editors are interested in fixing our Native American ceramics coverage, another hand would be appreciated if you wanted to help with that.Its such a central part of our dating and understanding of American archaeological cultures to not have a better article or 2 about it. Heiro 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at List of archaeological periods (North America)? I wanted to add recognition for those Middle Archaic and Late Archaic sites in the Lower Mississippi Valley, but am not sure if I put them in the right categories; they are overturning old models, so maybe that's ok. Thanks for the invite above - I understand about the significance of ceramics, but don't know much about the topic. Will see how to help. Thanks -Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Karzai

The correct way to spell the name is Ahmad Wali Karzai, not just because Afghans spell their name this way (i.e. Ahmad Shah Durrani, Ahmad Shah Massoud, Ahmad Zia Massoud, Ahmad Wali, etc.), but the BBC News and others have it this way. That is consistent with the sources. Just because a few news reports wrongly put at as "Ahmed" doesn't mean Afghans must change their names from "Ahmad" to "Ahmed". News reporters don't waste time about learning which way is the correct way to spell it.--NorthernPashtun — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernPashtun (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page and get consensus to change it there. You have already been reverted by several editors who diagree with you, work it out on the talkpage or risk being blocked for WP:EDITWARing over this. Heiro 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You come here to see people get blocked or for knowledge purposes?

Let me re-iterate, just in case you dont read so well and since you seem to have ignored my answer, take it to the article talk page(Talk:Ahmed Wali Karzai#Ahmad or Ahmed), where I have already replied. Heiro 20:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pocahontas Mounds

Allen3 ^talk 00:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing another editor's posts on discussion pages

In this edit you changed another editor's posting on a discussion page. I don't know whether that editor has any objection or not in this particular instance, but in general it is a no-no to edit another editor's post in a discussion. In some instances, some post is so inappropriate and contrary to guidelines and policies that we remove it entirely,or collapse it, but then we post a link to the change on the relevant discussion page, and except in unusual circumstances, we just discuss the problematic edit on the editor's talk page and ask him to strike the comment or make the change. It is better to add the correction in your own following post than to edit another editor's post. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been here awhile and know what most of the no nos are, this was a wikignome like edit per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, which I left a note explaining when I did it, otherwise you prolly wouldn't have noticed it at all. I'm gonna assume this little note is in good faith and hope this isn't to stir up drama. If the editor whose link I fixed from a redlink has a problem with it, I'll self revert and apologize.Heiro 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A good-faith prediction, with no desire at all for "drama:" if you persist in modifying other editors' posts, it will not be well received by the community. Regards. Edison (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion thread about the modification of the Ref Desk posts of others at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Modifying someone else's post. Your input is most welcome. Edison (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wheres Dan

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you too, and good luck. I'll try to check in on him when I can. Lucky the block's a week, because I'm not even supposed to be here today. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Signs of life

Finally people are discussing Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#New proposal for "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)". Do you have any thoughts on the matter? -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Blocking of editor done way too quickly

As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism_campaign_involving_fake_references there appears to be information that editors did not take into account in their rush to indef an editor based upon one-sided information. Whilst that information may have been presented in good faith, it would be pertinent to wait for the editor in question to comment. They have now done so on their talk page, and their comments have merit. You are getting this message as you have supported their block on the thread in question, and I think you should go back and read their comments and reconsider your position. It is disappointing that too many people jumped the gun on this occasion in condemning the editor in question. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing time periods

There's a discussion going on that is definitely more up your alley: Category talk:East and Great Plains periods in North America, if you care to check it out. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

George Rogers Clark

I notice you removed my addition of further reading sources to George Rogers Clark with the edit summary "not a collection of links". I must take exception to this characterization. I have not added links to unsourced, amateur web articles or blogs, here. All of these links are to articles that appeared in the Filson Club Historical Quarterly, a respected, scholarly publication of the Filson Club, a historical society in Louisville, Kentucky. They have recently made the archives of the Quarterly available online. These are not public domain works, so this is probably the only place for most Wikipedia editors to get copies of the full source without gaining access to a physical copy. I don't have time to expand the subject of every article in the Quarterly over its nearly 100-year history, but I thought interested editors might appreciate the addition of links to freely-available scholarly articles on the subject, saving them from having to find them themselves. GRC is a good article, but is not yet featured. I thought these links might be especially helpful for an editor looking to take the article to the next level. I think you are misapplying WP:NOTLINK here. These aren't indiscriminate links to fan sites or Facebook pages (as though an 18th century military man is likely to have such things). Please reconsider your reversion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTLINK doesn't just apply to fanpages or FB, but to indiscriminate links that happen to mention the subject of the article but dont really expand on it or cover stuff not in the article. Such as this link you added to Hernando de Soto, which mentions de Soto numerous times, but is not actually about him or the expedition, but about the dedication of a monument on the Ohio River, which de Soto never even made it to. Maybe a better place for these links would be on the article talkpages? You could create a section there for them? Heiro 17:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed later that you reverted the de Soto link, too. I'll take your word for it that the article didn't mention the expedition, as I'll admit that I judged it on the title alone. That would clearly be a valid reversion under WP:NOTLINK. However, "George Rogers Clark, A Biographical Sketch", which was one of the links you reverted on George Rogers Clark, is pretty clearly going to be substantially about Clark. If someone comes along to expand this article to FA and sees that there is no additional info in that article that isn't already sourced elsewhere, they could most certainly remove it. My mom always said "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." I understand that a liberal application of that principle could be counterproductive, but I don't see that the "Further reading" section in the GRC article is particularly long or unwieldy. If I took the time to read every one of these articles before I posted a link to them, I'd never get through them all, but imo, the good of providing links to high-quality, scholarly articles most of the time outweighs the detriment of having added a few irrelevant links by mistake. Concur? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you just made a better argument for adding them to the talkpage than for adding them to the further reading section in the actual article, especially if you aren't sure what you are actually adding. I tried to open those 3 on Clark and read them, but for some reason they wont open for me. If added them to the talk page they are still there for potential editors, it is what I usually do in this situation.Heiro 17:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

But how many people are looking for them on the talk page versus the article page? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound? I'm really failing to see much of a detriment to adding them to the "Further reading" section. If the section gets ridiculously long, then some pruning is definitely in order. Until then, why not add the links and let interested editors then decide whether they are relevant? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to be at an impasse, I've asked for other opinions here Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Adding links of uncertain value to the "Further reading section" if you want to chip in. Regards, Heiro 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for further input. I'll watch the conversation there. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You rock

I am not a wikipedia guru or contributor, but I came across your excellent work on Native Americans here in Arkansas and I just had to say "Thank You!" for your contributions. Your talent and insight are amazing. Very very very nice work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.77.222 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Heiro 19:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for trying to help out with Miss Congeniality. I'm actually not teaching right now. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Effigy Mound and Effigy Mounds National Monument

HI, I just got a copy of the 2001 Cultural Affiliation Report for EFMO that was requested to comply with NAGPRA. I plan to read it over the holidays and improve both the German language article on the Monument de:Effigy Mounds National Monument and at least a bit the two articles in question here. May I ask you for a look at the result, once I believe to have finished? TIA --h-stt !? 14:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

see talk?

You have not posted on talk -please don't join in blindly reverting - this issue has been rejected through consensus before and will need consensus to replace - Youreallycan 21:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are the one blindly reverting without using talk, which was started here Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#Lube and fecal matter and so far no input from you. I really have no position on it one way or the other, but the edit warring needs to stop now. Take it to talk page and work it out with the other editor. Heiro 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is strong and multiple previous consensus against the edit the user is making. Please do not support edit warring again like that. Your edits only added to the disruption. WP:BRD keeps the new addition out of the article and moves to discussion, it doesn't edit war it back in. If you have no involvement then stay out of it rather that replacing the disputed addition. - Youreallycan 21:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop refactoring your damn comments. You've refactored this one at least 6 times now, enough already. If you want to add something new, leave a new comment. And if you haven't noticed, I'm backing away from that particluar discussion, the edit warring has ceased for now and you guys are working it out on the talkpage. Leave me out of it, go pester one of them. Heiro 00:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If no one comments in reply to a talkpage post it is completely fine to add to your comments. If you don't show up again blindly revert warring a disputed addition into an article, against previous consensus and against WP:BRD I won't have to pester you again. It's no biggie, just please do not add to the disruption again like that. Thanks Youreallycan

As above, I've backed away from that particular problem, I've decided to not take part in the talk page discussion as it seems to be being worked out, now go pester someone else. If all you want to do is leave repeated messages belaboring the same situation(one which I have clearly stated I have backed away from) as if you were the WikiPolice, you are unwelcome to post here. Heiro 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't have stuck your nosey in - against usual guidelines and adding to the disruption, then you move to attempting to demean me with accusations of pester and "ow don't post on my talkpage" . Good riddance to you. Youreallycan 01:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just, wow. Where's that emoticon for a middle digit when you need one. Heiro 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I admire your restraint. :) -- Donald Albury 13:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Really hate to "demean" people like that, lol. Heiro 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper redirect target

Thanks for this - I thought I was being more precise, but you're right. The topic is more general than that little subsection. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

deleted entry Portsmouth OH

Please let me know what type of validation you need for the deleted post regarding Brian Rawlings in Portsmouth OH. It was originated by a family member so that may disqualify it. I am happy to confirm it's authenticity and hopefully add other important people from that community to the page.Brawling (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk, see WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SELFPUB and WP:COI. Heiro

Page protection

Ask for it. I agree, but I'm involved. I noticed the IPs, geolocating to different places. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed you would be classed as "WP:INVOLVED", but figured I'd ask your opinion. I'd checked geolocation too, to see if they could have been one user hopping around, but I guess not unless they are doing a lot of traveling. The next time one pops up without sources or talk page discussion, I'll put in a request for semi. Heiro 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum

Thanks for this talk page trim. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=73943206 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

WP:ERA

Please re-read WP:ERA. You are improperly citing it for your edits. The original date style is the proper date style until changed through the WP:ERA process. The burden falls to those changing from the original. This issues has been debated ad nauseum, and resolved. Please read about this issue on the dispute resolution boards. I understand people get passionate about this issue--on both sides--but it is an issue that has already been resolved, and we'll all be happier contributors when we move past this debate. Primus128 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait long enough for others to chime in on those talk pages? I'd say give it a few days, as it is now late obn a friday night here, not many people who regularly edit these pages wont be editing right now. Those articles have been stable for years as they are, see WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, a default consensus has been reached on those pages. Leave them as is till others chime in and an actual written consensus emerges. Also, go see WP:BATTLE. Heiro 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would expect if I were to wait I'd see people "chiming in" on preference. Preference is not a valid reason for changing from the original. It is much easier to handle these issues systematically. Which is the original style? That's the style that should remain for now. You are wanting to shift the burden. The burden falls onto your position, since it is not the original. Primus128 (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh lord. Aren't we just an unhappy little camper. Read the 3 links I provided you above, and then wait for a consensus to emerge. Heiro 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy. I just want the rules to be followed. The rules specific to this topic are at WP:ERA Primus128 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, following rules for the sake of following rules is moronic. These edits you are seeking to revert are 4 years old, the date style has been stable since, you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:POINTy and editing with a WP:BATTLEfield mentality, none of which is for the good of the project.Heiro 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Cahokia". Thank you. --Primus128 (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

three revert rule

Your recent editing history at Cahokia shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please do not make any further edits until this can be resolved at the DR board. This should be resolved shortly. Primus128 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please dont template the regulars and the warning above could be applied to you as well. Get a clue and wait for other editors to chime in and a written consensus to emerge. Heiro 05:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And as an addendum, it's WP:BRD, not brdrdrdrdrdrdrdrdrdrrrrrrrrr. Please go remove cranium from rectum now. Heiro 05:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave this warning to you instead of reporting you. If I go to that page and you have ignored the warning, I will report it. I have made my three reverts and will not revert again, per the rules. Primus128 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors "chiming in" about preference on the topic are not counted towards the final decision. Preference is specifically disallowed per WP:ERA. There has yet to be a single valid argument to change from the original. Primus128 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are de facto guilty of edit warring per your above comments, but we'll wait for a consensus of the regular editors of these pages to work it out. If you have nothing else constructive to add, go away please. I've stopped reverting if you haven't noticed, now go bait and harrass someone else.Heiro 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are hypocritical since it appears you have been harassing more than one person on the same topic. Primus128 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the last 2 lines of my last post. Heiro 06:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read them. The "principles of policies" are the basis for what I wrote. Rules should be formed with a consensus, but as it says, they should also be taken seriously. Without rules there would be anarchy, but when someone twists the rules there is corruption. You cited the rules in your original edit of the date style, and now that you realize the rules work against you, you try to dismiss them. This is such a hot topic for some, and an unbiased solution is the only way it will be resolved. Primus128 (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been explained to you by User:Dougweller that your interpretation of the rules are incorrect. And so far no one else agrees with you, these articles should retain the date styles they have had for the last four years. It has also been explained to you that is up to you to find a valid reason to change them now, please go do so and stop harrassing me here. Heiro 06:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Primus, if Hiero was at 3RR I would have warned him. He is not and you should not have warned him. You are 'twisting the rules' not just with your suggestion that WP:ERA gives priority to the original style but by warning Hiero for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller You have a history of bias on this topic. It has been put before the proper noticeboard, and it will be resolved there, not by you. User:Heironymous Rowe reverted an edit three times, and I chose to warn instead of reporting him. You two should allow a fair and open discussion on the topic, and not try to bully people who may disagree with you. Primus128 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)