User:Heironymous Rowe/Talk archive Nov 2010-April 2011

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

Fresh page[edit]

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

im not spam[edit]

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[edit]

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?-- (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.-- (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


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, --CrohnieGalTalk 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, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaic/Woodland period/Mississippian culture/ of North America[edit]

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


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 — 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[edit]

Thanks Do you have any examples of mistagged talk pages? I'm removing these entries from my list. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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.-- (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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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[edit]

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Heironymous Rowe/Talk archive Nov 2010-April 2011! 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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

Thank you![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

I have learned for myself that your beliefs aren't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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? -- (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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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)


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[edit]

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.[edit]

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 and I will forward your email to her. She will reply to you directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannielou (talkcontribs) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1] 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)

Pseudo alternative[edit]

I need to think about this. At the moment I'd advise leaving the article alone and having a discussion at the talk page. AGF and all that, you know. So long as we stick to using Cole, Feder, Fagan, etc. and don't abandon them, it's details we need to iron out as well as title. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That what I suggested in my edit summary when the user User:Midnightblueowl unilaterally rewrote the article including the name. Heiro 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

NA Art Categories[edit]

As an artist, do you have any thoughts on this Talk:Contemporary North American Indigenous artists or many new categories being generated (the top level are mostly fine, it's the secondary level that's less useful):

(Also for Métis, Native American, Inuit, etc. etc.) Dividing artists by media makes perfect sense; only looking at Canadian/US artists and dicing them up by century makes a little less sense, but trying to cleave artists into "contemporary" and "traditional" categories is very troubling to me, especially as a Native artist. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Personally, I think having what looks like 30 or 40 categories for so few entries, (i.e. each cat only has 3 to 6 entries if that, I noticed a few only had 1), is troubling. Subdividing into multiple categories works well when there are lots of entries but making a gigantic cat tree makes it harder to mind relevent entries in this case. And having "contemporary" versus "20th century" is kinda goofy. That line is so recent, most photogs working now would be in both cats, so is a pointless division. I could see if we got to a point number wise with articles to divide them up this way, but as it is, someone is making useless bureaucratic WP:CREEP. Heiro 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's not too many editors dealing with Native art as a whole. Some of the categories I'm redirecting/combining - I can wait this out. Thanks for the link. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Alligator Effigy Mound[edit]

I visited the Alligator Effigy Mound this week, and I've uploaded five images to Commons:Category:Alligator Effigy Mound. Since I couldn't get any higher than ground level, they're not very good; I'd appreciate your opinion as to whether we should have one of them replace the current Squier and Davis image on lists and in the infobox, and if so, which of my photos should replace it. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See what you mean. On the one hand it is nice to have images of the site, as I've never been there, but on the other its hard to tell what it is from them. Too bad they don't have a viewing tower like Serpent Mound. If the S & D image is replaced in the infobox, it should remain somewhere in the article, as these images don't let you even know its an effigy mound, just looks like a series of bumps. Heiro 14:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Hard to tell" is quite right. Like any other earthworks, the Alligator is more easily distinguished with eyes than with digital film, but it's even harder to distinguish than hilltop enclosures like the Carlisle Fort that I visited over the weekend. Have you been to the Rock Eagle Effigy Mound? I've not, but I suspect that it would be similarly difficult to distinguish if the rocks weren't there and if the tower were removed. At the present time, the easiest way to see the Alligator is from the north: it's on a small hilltop, but as you go north along the street, the road falls and immediately begins to rise to a point higher than that of the mound. However, it's obstructed by trees and houses, so it can't really be photographed from there. One other question — I just noticed stone box grave for the first time; is this likely to be the type of grave found at the Bone Stone Graves? Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It sure sounds like it. As the article says, it would be unique in Ft Ancient, but not impossible, as the nearest Mississippian community to them, which has been shown to have contact with Ft Ancient, is the Prather Complex(planning an article for this but busy IRL lately) in the Louisiville, Ky region. And they did construct stone box graves. Heiro 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Curiosity was piqued, so did some looking and here [1] in a book by Warren King Moorehead about Ohio archaeology (late 19th century) is a few pages about Ohio stone box graves, and on page 95 describing their similarity to Cumberland Valley stone boxes. Heiro 02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, very interesting. I've used Primitive Man in Ohio before, since it has some information that I've never found elsewhere (especially locations), although of course it's dated. Thanks to the help you gave me in December (higher up on this page), I'm working on an article about the Gartner Site near Chillicothe, and his report of excavating that site is highly useful. He's amazingly callous about digging up skeletons: it's markedly different from the sombre tone used by one of my friends here at IU, who's a doctoral student studying pre-contact Mayan civilisation. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at such a tone coming from the man whose excavation of the original Hopewell site was little more than official pothunting. On another note — do you have JSTOR access? I just found on there an article he wrote that references the Bone Stone Graves and discusses their relationship with people at the Fort Ancient type site of Madisonville. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions for sites[edit]

As far as I know, there's no such convention, unfortunately. Among the clearest ways you can see this is from spelling: lots of sites use "Archaeological", while many more use "Archeological". Some articles use the Smithsonian trinomials, while the majority don't. Going to Old Town, I'm unsure what the best name is, largely because I'm unsure what to say about the existence of one or three articles. Even the basic National Register listing name is potentially problematic: while it's the only site listed as "Old Town Archaeological Site", that would risk confusion with the Old Chillicothe Site (see National Register of Historic Places listings in Greene County, Ohio), which is located at the present community of Oldtown and is thus described as the "Oldtown archaeological site". Perhaps you could go with Oldtown, Tennessee? Such a name might be supported by the existence of a GNIS entry describing it as a former populated place. Sorry that I can't help more. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess. US spelling usually doesn't have the 'a', but sometimes it does. You might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology. I wouldn't suggest three articles unless the one article grows too large.
Sorry I haven't done anything about the protohistory article. I keep looking at it and running away. I was thinking of trying to straighten out Buffalo Indian Village Site, Hobson Site, Feurt Mounds and Village Site, and Hardin Site, and anything else with the same messed up text in it. Found [2] and even better [3]. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats cool. I'm not so much worried about the spelling of archaeological, I just usually go with whatever the official name is, which here in the US is usually about 50/50 either way, altho I prefer the aeo as opposed to eo spelling. It's just that those 2 editors have had a slow motion war there for so long, I thought I'd suggest a compromise and ask for other opinions and see if we could get a consensus on what to do with it. As for the protohistory and prehistory articles, I replaced some of the text of the Protohistory of WVA with my rewrite, but haven't finished the rest of the text enough to replace it. I't been a busy 2 weeks IRL and I'm not sure when I can get back to it myself. Those other article you mentioned are also on my list to fix as well, thanks for finding that stuff! I haven't had enough time to look for much myself, lol, and one of them is even in my home town (Feurt Site), may try to get some pics this summer when I go up to visit. Thanks for the help, Heiro 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll only be around very sporadically until the beginning of April. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proyecto de Wikipedia en lengua maya[edit]

Hola Rei Mono, espero quieras participar en Wikiproyecto de Wikipedia en lengua Maya, este proyecto ha pasado a segunda fase el proyecto de la Wikipedia en idioma maya, necesito que habras tu cuenta en Wikimedia y apoyes a la apertura de este nuevo proyecto.

Al mismo tiempo una invitación para participar en editar y escribir en maya; ya que me dicen que para que se pueda habrir pronto una wiki maya se necesitan cinco usuarios activos y sería necesario que habrieras tu cuenta en la incubadora Wp/yua; hay muchos artículos que necesitan areglos y tu puedes colaborar. También es necesario apoyar en Wikimedia el proyecto, y la página es la siguente: [4].

Aquí estan las categorías de la wikipedia maya, para facilitar el control de los artículos y el desarrollo de los mismos; así también que sirvan de plataforma para la creación de nuevos artículos de otros usuarios. Mira aquí :[5]

Es necario que haya otros usuarios activos en la wiki maya y tú podrías ser uno de ellos. Si tu quieres puedes crear las páginas que desees en base a un formato, no es necesario que lo traduzcas acorde a la grafía maya, podrás ver el casos similares. Cualquier cosa no dudes en preguntarme. --Marrovi (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision Questions[edit]

Hi im jason. Ive been just starting to edit some things i come across. You reverted an article edit and said it was about shove tuesday, but the article was about mardi gras. The australian mardi gras is different, but they are all differnt to each other. I thought it should have its place. Its definately not vandalism. You can see (and i used) wikis details on syndey mardi gras to edit mardi gras in general. Thanks jasonbentvelzenJasonbentvelzen (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read that article it is about the Shrove Tuesday/Mardi Gras event, they all take place on the same day, Mardi Gras day. The Syndney event does not and has no connection to Mardi Gras beyond the name. Heiro 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts: I am citing wikipedia under the cast list[edit]

Which clearly states that in the documentary there are PHD doctors, scientists and psychologists in the cast list.

This is the truth, what would be a better reference? Can I reference this with a YouTube video excerpt from the documentary (which are already on YouTube) which clearly shows doctors, psychologists and scientists proposing the theory. I am in contact with the makers of this documentary and some of the scientists that propose this theory, what is an acceptable reference, as this would change the wikipedia page on ancient astronaut theory to best mirror the truth about it. Right now the wikipedia page is misleading the public by saying that there are only authors. Wheres the reference for that? That there are only authors working on this theory? This works both ways.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmcocoa (talkcontribs) 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia or Youtube are considered reliable sources either. Try looking for reliable scientific publications. Not user generated ones such as Youtube, Wikis or IMDB. And its not currently misleading, because reliable scientists think the whole idea is fringe pseudoscience at best. Heiro 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but where is your evidence for that? The truth is science isn't doing a better job explaining all these anomalies we find in our history. Example: you would have to take from the quarry, move and put in place a stone every 3 minutes 24/7 356 to build the Pryamids in 20 years (you can do the math).

Dr. Michio Kaku a reliable scientist who is friends with Giorgio Tskoulos supports this theory. Some in scientific community are against and some are for. It's a totally rational theory and is getting more and more credibility/coverage the more we get closer to space travel, we will inevitably find planets with primitive life and help them along - we already do this today with endangered animals, if these animals had the mental capacity and could talk what would they call us? NASA have protocols on what to do if we find primitive intelligent life. Given the age of our universe it is very possible we were visited in our past, that alone is very compelling, but we also have physical evidence and there are texts that actually tell us we were visited and helped. It makes sense when you look at the bigger picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmcocoa (talkcontribs) 22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not her3e for you to push your theory. Provide reliable scientific sources for any eadditions or they will be removed. Keep pushing your POV and you'll find youself at admin noticboards. Heiro 22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your on 4r self revert please. Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not willingly re insert unreliable ciations to a fringe publication or to wikipedia itself into an article. I'm stopping reverting now and seeking outside assistance. Do what you will. Heiro 22:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And if you look, my first revert is unconnected to the other 3. The first I restored cited information in one section that the editor removed. The other 3rvts are his insertions in another section where he cites everyone from IMDB to Wikipedia itself. Heiro 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was going to revert you once you self reverted :) I have watchlisted the page Tentontunic (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Rite on, thanks for watchlisting it, any help with that guy would be appreciated. Usually there are more watchers for that page who help keep the lunatic fringe in check, but it being sunday and a nice day, they are prolly outside enjoying themselves, lol. Heiro 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be 'policed' by irrational skeptics that have such a strong opinion against it nor should it be policed by 'lunatics' but by someone who understands the subject and can provide reliable sources.

The truth is there are scientists working on this theory, and I think Heiro being a skeptic, which is fine, doesn't like to see that there are authoritive people working on this theory. I may have provided unreliable references as I am new to wikipedia, but where should I get the reliable sources? I am in contact with various scientists working on the matter, an email won't do.

Also regarding the comment about IMDb I see many pages on wikipedia that cite IMDb pages for references. And Legendary Times is a respected magazine made by A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association - see here. Which is a team of archeologist and scientists dedicated to finding reliable evidence and are at the forefront of astronaut theorists.

Another important point is that the page says 'according to certain authors' well there is no reference to that, there is no reference that there are only authors working on the matter.

Wikipedia is meant to be a place of reliable information and I people like Heiro are corrupting it. Rather than showing me better sources I can go to get the references (as I am new to Wikipedia editing) he insults me and interrupts other Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmcocoa (talkcontribs) 09:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided more reliable sources here which clearly show Dr Michio Kaku supporting the theory, and has reliable references. --Warmcocoa (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts[edit]

Cheers, I'll keep an eye out on it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, as you can see from the section above, I've reached 3rr with the editor over the matter. Heiro 23:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Map request[edit]

Do you have any books or other works that have maps of the Carlisle Fort southwest of Dayton, Ohio? Last summer, I bought a bound copy of reproductions of the plates from Squier and Davis, but it doesn't have it; the only place I've seen such a map is William C. Mills' Archaeological Atlas of Ohio, of which I have a digital version, but it's way too small for easy online use. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fort Center[edit]

Go ahead. I'm going to be off line now until this evening. -- Donald Albury

Cole culture[edit]

I couldn't find much on the subject but created a stub for Cole culture, since I pulled all mentions of it out of Prehistory of West Virginia. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cool. Have been meaning to do that, but as you said, there does not seem to be much available. Thanks, I'll watchlist it and add to it if I ever run across any! Cheers, Heiro 07:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)