User talk:Heironymous Rowe

This is Heironymous Rowe's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives

Jan 2008-Feb 2010 Feb 2010-Sept 2010 Sept 2010-Nov 2010 Nov 2010 April 2012 April 2012 to April 2013

Tempering

Your idea sounds good; I figured it probably wasn't shell-tempered, or I would have linked the Mississippian pottery article. I know nothing about the production of pottery, or I'd be willing to help write an article about it.

Meanwhile, you should be getting your Fulton County KY photos after all. I have more time this week than any other, so I'm hoping to leave early Thursday and get back late Saturday; the extra day means that I'll have time to go farther south, so I'm looking to get some photos around Blytheville, Arkansas and travel northward along the eastern side of the Mississippi. Of course those three days are the only non-warm days according to this (but I have things scheduled at the start of each week, and I can't wait for the end of next week), but at least I won't have as many problems with inconvenient shadows. No time to go all the way down to Nodena, but

Eaker is on my list (the air force base is now a municipal park), and I'm hoping to get Turk, Marshall, Twin Mounds, and Adams that day, and it's my goal to pick up Rowlandton when I go through Paducah on Saturday. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Forgot to say — I don't think I'll have time for Tolu, but could you please improve the coords? Right now, the coords at Tolu Site are identical to those of Tolu, Kentucky. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded Brady-Rawlins' dissertation some time ago (it's so rich, I didn't want to risk losing it to linkrot), and after checking the pages in question, I can confirm that she talks about Turpin-phase sites yielding shell-tempered pottery. I've changed the link as a result. Meanwhile, I remember you mentioning the trip to dedicate some floodwall murals. Where are those located? I know nothing about Paducah, and my photo spots are the only things I've marked on the map. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just back tonight from my trip. After leaving Paducah, I realised that I'd forgotten to get Rowlandton; I'm sorry. Fortunately, many of the trees still don't have many leaves, so you should be able to get a much better photo than the one from three years ago. I attempted to get to Twin Mounds, but the road I tried was temporarily out due to localised flooding; sunset was approaching, and Cairo's reputation made me unwilling to go through the city at night. Looks like taking the road west from Barlow (marked as Holloway Landing Road on this map) will be simple and shouldn't cause problems. Adams doesn't appear to be possible without a canoe or without landowner permission; it's far from any roads, and the only way you can get there is walking through the woods or paddling on the stream that marks its northern side. On the other hand, I got Marshall and Turk photos, as well as Campbell and Murphy in MO, Eaker in AR, the large Sassafras Ridge Site in southwestern Fulton County, Kentucky, and numerous unillustrated sites in Illinois such as the Dogtooth Bend site and the Orr-Herl village site that appear on File:Mississippian sites on Lower Ohio Map HRoe 2010.jpg. Kincaid surprised me, since all I'd seen was your photo, and from it I was expecting a group of small mounds a couple of feet high — nothing like what I saw. And yes, I got time to see the murals; thanks for telling me about them, because I might have ignored them otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mound 72

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I'm not too sure about Occidental Observer being considered a RS either, another racist hate rag that I'm sure has come up RSN before, just cant place where. Heiro 05:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - don't want to see you get blocked over 3RR. I see you warned the other editor (I was about to). Hopefully no meat puppet or IP will get involved, but I'm watching the article. I've told the new account about the RSN discussion.

I stopped at two, they reached 4 against another editor, so I warned. The material, as it stands, is still in the article, but as you saw at RSN I dont believe it is reliably sourced. If it is decided it does not meet RSN, I'll let you or someone else remove it. Heiro 06:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but you seem to have stopped at 3, not 2.

talk) 07:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hope all goes well with the mural rededication. Question for when you get back — I've just written an article on the Hubele Site in southeastern Illinois; where on the template should I put it? Some say that it's Havana Hopewell and others that it's Crab Orchard, and I'm not sure where it belongs. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was occupied long enough that it is possible it was both, not really sure. Maybe go with the most authoritative or the lastest most scientific? Although, per my uneducated speculation, it seems to sit pretty far to the east to be Havana, if it were me I'd probably go with Crab Orchard. I'll leave it up to you, as you've read the source material. Heiro 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the text says that it was inhabited long enough to be both, that's a problem with the text — some say that it's CO, some HH, but nobody says both. I put it on the template with Crab Orchard, partly because Mann was in that section, since the thesis putting it with Havana says that it might also be related to Mann. If you have any time tomorrow or Monday for mound photos, you'll have at least some sun, but as you've probably heard, the rivers are rising; Twin Mounds may be hard to reach for precisely that reason. Finally, if you go out to Rowlandtown, could you try to get a photo for me? There's a former National Register site at 37°5′28″N 88°37′59″W / 37.09111°N 88.63306°W / 37.09111; -88.63306 (southwest corner of 13th and HC Mathis); because the NR's database had an odd address, my photo from last Saturday only shows a little bit of the site. It's one block south of Cairo Road and only about a quarter mile southeast of Rowlandtown. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I'm no longer in KY, back in LA(I had t change my schedule a bit). I will be returning in June though and will be there a good bit of the summer, I can get the other pics then. Heiro 15:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related to this: do you have information on Yankeetown, 12W1, a little east of Evansville IN? It's a pretty significant site, although the affiliation of the Yankeetown Phase appears to be disputed; some sources assume that it's Hopewell of various sorts (e.g. https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/r/80b7/N/Perry.pdf associates it with Crab Orchard), while others say that it's related to Angel, which is less than ten miles downstream. I'm asking because I have piles of information on it (so much that I'll have to leave out a lot of it because I don't have time for it all), much of which is in books that need to go back to the library. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the name before (usually as the phase designation you mention), but know nothing about the site itself. I've been busy IRL so haven't been here much, except for some occasional vandal rvting. And it's prolly not going to let up for at least the next month or 6 wks. Would be interested in seeing the article if you want to start it. But I wouldn't be much help, don't remember running across any info on it. Heiro 22:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep checking back; I'm done with the contents and just need to get the details (infobox, categories, etc) taken care of. Turns out I remembered wrongly, because rather than being of disputed affiliation, it's multi-component: Crab Orchard through Mississippian. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking into the below section? I've gotta go and this guy seems persistent, trying to avoid an EW over this, but he's adding new agey nonsense sourced to a book I serious doubt would be considered

WP:RELIABLE by anyone. Heiro 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Article complete except for adding appropriate navboxes. I've left the guy a message regarding grandmothers as WP:RS and will pay attention to the situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Replied at my talk to your message; thanks. Since you're online, would you mind visiting the CFD for Category:Type sites? Your input would be quite valuable. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added my opinion, for what it's worth. Relatively neutral on the matter. It might be nice to have a group or list of all type sites in one place, but for what it could ever be useful for I have no clue, lol. Cheers, signing off and going back to actual work now, lol. Hope your well, Heiro 05:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the book if you like; these are the essential details that come from a tribal council. Please let the edits go through and undo the wikipedia-cop. I've tried to edit this multiple times with very limited technological means... PLEASE let it go through! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.83.116 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your source and what you are trying to insert to the

WP:RELIABLE source for this information to me. If you disagree take it to the noticeboard and ask for other opinions. Heiro 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi fellow, can you read me here? Page reference 126... this book is really very important tribal wisdom to new-age thinkers. The information is well-referenced, I believe. And from the book. Please, let this stay up for the folks, I don't believe in religious censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.83.116 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fella, feel me, read our policies on

WP:RELIABLE. :-) Heiro 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, nicely played... I am on a collective computer so please don't escalate. Finally, I will try again another time I have to go, but do not be a wikipedia cop, please this information really needs to be up there and the Grandmothers are the, hope our culture's got. The article's incomplete without the information from the book... Don't be a cop. EM Che. http://www.amazon.com/Grandmothers-Counsel-World-Elders-Vision/dp/1590302931

No. This will not be inserted again, if you edit war over it, I will take it to the 3RR board to have admins decide whether or not to block your IP for it. It does not pass the relevant policies I pointed out to you. Heiro 22:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.... as my wife would say. Yeah, the grandmother's council not going on my shelf of important ethnographic reference works. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahahaha, good one. Heiro 15:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Just curious about the red link you added to the Mayersville Archeological Site.

Thanks,

Planning on doing an article on it soon. Have already started collecting information for it. Including the link I added, several other pages already link to it. See the "Pages I've added to the Wiki world, most of them anyway" section at my user page for other similar articles I've created. Heiro 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! I'll be sure to have a look when it's done. Cheers!

I just received your message regarding citing personal interviews. The policy you cite makes perfect sense. Considering wikipedia's 5th pillar regarding "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," and considering that I don't want to teach my young charges to lie, can you help me find a way to bridge the gap between what the students did and what wikipedia allows? Is there some way to cite an oral history? Someway to acknowledge a local expert?

I understand this is not the only thing for you to concern yourself with, I just want to be forthright with the students when I speak to them. I also want to reinforce citing sources. Please, any help would be appreciated.

Mcadorette (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)mcadorette[reply]

I have added info. Why do you delete it?

Sorry? Did I delete something? Mcadorette (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, another user added into the wrong section, I removed it. Heiro 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can visit one of the museum collections and take a photo of a fluorite carving?TCO (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the nearest one to me is approximately 650 odd miles away, not anytime in the near future. Heiro 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome and I apoligise for my 'overeagerness' but as I joined Wikipedia today, I am not familiar with 100% of the rules, but I am trying my best. I am a little unhappy at

You should probably address this at ANI as someone notified you at your talkpage. The fact you are so new and yet know the abbv for "Dont bite the newcomers" is fairly odd, suspicious and extremely unusual. Heiro 19:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

We have been in touch years ago, so I am not sure if you recall me.

Anyway, I have a question for you as an expert. Do you think what is seen on the last photos in this category (Wikimedia - Mound City, AR) is an Indian mound? I have searched a bit but could not find anything on this specific location. Indians were abundant in this area not far from the Mississippi River but do you have detail information about Mound City?

I know that Mound City was named for the Indian mounds but nowadays after decades of farming, they may all be destroyed after having been farmed over.

The photos were taken in Mound City, near West Memphis, Arkansas.

doxTxob \ ^talk 21:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. It might be, or it could be a natural feature or created by European farmers, civil war embankments, etc. I've seen actual mounds that size and shape before, but have also seen construction debris that was also that size and shape. This area does have literally hundreds if not thousands of mounds, see [1], [2], and [3]. It is entirely possible this is one of them, but other than that I can not say. Sorry. Heiro 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original research tag was not the tag I meant to add. It should have been the NPOV tag. The section is almost all a reiteration of this McGeough guy's veiw, and 3⁄5 of the sections refs are in the last line.

Please don't accuse of "Drive by tagging", though. It's annoying enough to make a mistake, I don't want to be called names too.--

You made a mistake, didn't address the issues you meant too, dropped the wrong tag and then didn't have the courtesy to leave a note at the talk page to explain you reasons for what turned out to be the wrong tag? How was that not driveby tagging? And how is that calling you a name? If you are going to drop a tag like that, address the issues you have on an articles talk page. Common courtesy. Heiro 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being combative. The tag's gone, what more do you want? This place is a disgrace to the article; help fix it, it can easily be turned around & made into something great! What do you say? (sorry for coming back a year later, almost.) 75* 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you review the sources a bit more closely per your !vote.

by my count, I see

• Indian Country Today - possibly rs
• National Catholic Reporter blog - possibly rs
• futureprimitive podcast - self published podcast, primary source interview with subject
• futureprimitive podcast (x2) - self published podcast, primary source interview with subject
• own site
• primary interview with subject
• WP - WP is certainly a reliable source, but the article is written by one of the 13 grandmothers per the attribution at the bottom
• book - consisting of essays written by subjects (primary)
• out of babylon podcast - self published primary interview with subject
• out of babylon podcast (x2)- self published primary interview with subject
• documentary, but not independent, as the "Center for Sacred Studies" that made the documentary is closely associated with the grandmothers and has many members in common

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Heironymous,

As a Native American, I thank you for your Native American contributions to Wikipedia.

I posted this on Tbhotch's page, but just now realized that I should also reach out to you as well, since obviously the Olmec is very important to you too.

I just want to add the photo I took at the Tuxteco Regional Museum Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz to the Olmec site. It is published on the commons and free for anyone to see. How do we get the image up there following all of your rules?

Here is a version of the photo I took without the text - if the text was bothering you:

If you can add it to the Olmec page for me - following all your rules, I would appreciate it. That would certainly be better than battling with you forever - since you obviously spend quite a lot of your time on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your Native American contributions. peace, mcguiregreen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguiregreen (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mcguiregreen (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My band would like to use the Eagle Warrior image that you uploaded on one of our buttons. Wanted to make sure that was ok with you before we did that.

Hope you're having a useful/enjoyable/profitable/etc summer away from Wikipedia, but hope you'll also be back before amazingly long; I was surprised to see that you'd done nothing here in two months. Just wanted to let you know that I got pictures for the Wamsley Village Site and the Adams County Paleo-Indian District, both of which are on the River below Portsmouth; I think we've discussed them in the past, so I thought you might be interested once the images are ready online. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, haven't logged onto here in a long time, although I have done the occasional gnomish IP edit. I actually doubt I will be back other than that. The only reason I logged on at all now is because one of my images was deleted from Commons for some mysterious reason and I received an email from another editor about it. I've been fine, enjoying my extended wikivacation, getting tons done IRL, growing my career, etc. I had not realized exactly how much of a time sink this place had become for me, or how bad the last couple of months had become until I wasn't dealing with it every day. No random expletive filled emails from anonymous people threatening me in almost 2 years now. No constantly arguing with random IPs flogging the "TRUTH". None of the same suspects following me from article to article, harassing and baiting me. I must say it has been nice. Hope you and any other page watchers are doing well, kinda miss y'all sometimes (but not enough to come back, at least not any time soon), miss the conversations and team work with like minded people. Y'all have a good day, Cheers, Heiro 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Care to check this one out? Mvto! -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at

Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Uyvsdi (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Good day, HeiRo! you were involed in a discussion at Talk:Archaeology about POV at popular views of Archaeology. I think I've fixed it,but I want you to take a look at the new section.--75* 16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I added your name to

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Paleoindian period to Category:Paleo-Indian period Hugo999 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd lost you - didn't see your April edits, couldn't find any evidence on the web you were still around, hope you're ok. email me if you feel like it. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hopewellsphere map HRoe 2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I edited again and said "major retailers"

I don't care to promote Walmart. I am shocked that boudin is sold there (and have to admit, it is actually decent). I usually don't expect them to carry what I consider to be foodie items.

Also, I don't know how to quote a reference when the only source I have is that I bought it there yesterday. Does my receipt count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankHill47 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(

original research, which we do not use

.

Also, having worked at Walmart, I can tell you that what each store sells is dependent entirely on location. For example, the store I worked at had a great selection of Mexican sodas that none of the other local stores carried, and the store in my aunt and uncle's town a state over didn't even have an "ethnic food" section to speak of (plus, their music section was four and a half rows of country and a half row of "rock/pop/R&B" that had Frank Sinatra and Lawrence Welk in it). Store selection is too arbitrary to include. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 07:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 07:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Heironymous Rowe: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 20:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced the nothing. Several sources all agree. Married women wore aprons. Very hot and probably humid and noone to tell them it was sinful. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. It looked like typical IP vandalism, a subtle change to somehting slightly "scandalous" with no explanation or citation. Good catch and cite. Heiro 16:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Billandcori if it's a joint account. I'm sure the IP must be the same person/people. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an IP hounding me.[4] who is also User:209.180.130.202 - same person quite clearly and either advertising a weird watch or using the ad as a source. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wowza. I get nothing on google even resembling a credible archaeological nod that that site even exists.Heiro 19:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I’m pretty sure the IP is not Billznd Cori which seems to be a joint t account. Pretty sure there’s a COI. Doug Weller talk 21:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something seems weird with the answers at that IP talk. They def seem

WP:NOTHERE to me. Heiro 21:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Some sources for Grassy Pond searching just on "Grassy Pond": this is clearly GP, see its FB page.[5] And [6] mentions the claim for a stone circle, an interview with "Grassy Pond Land Steward, Cori Ryan". And there's this blog by "billandcori". Grassy Pond is actually in Acton, by the way, and here's the bumph on the Land Stewardship Commmittee.[7] Doug Weller talk 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much along the lines of what I had found. Not one of them would I consider a credible source that the location is a.) an actual archaeological site or b.) that it has astronomical alignments. At the most the sources maybe justify an article on a

WP:GNG for that with the sources I've seen. Heiro 17:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, thanks for your note and encouragement; will be glad to help. I saw you had some new articles on the mounds, and really like reading them. These cultures are something I've learned about only in the last several years in any depth, largely due to your good work and others on Wikipedia. I always feel a sense of awe about the achievements of those ancient peoples.Parkwells (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. Some fascinating stuff to read about and some fascinating sites to visit. The 3 newest ones are actually within relatively close driving distance to me, may have to plan some trips soon to see if I can get photos. (As opposed to the vast majority of the ones I've created articles for which are often hundreds of miles away and need to be visited when I'm already on other journeys, lol). Heiro 19:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And more 2 days ago. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, I'm new to this. I promise I'm not a spammer.

The Holocene calendar is a non judaeo christian dating system that makes it easier to relate current times with ancient times. It's not meant to replace already standard dating systems but helps people relate better. You can read all about it on it's wikipedia page.

The best example of the benefits can be seen on the Mastodon page.

It says that the Mastodon was killed out about 10,500 years ago and that people entered the americas about 13,000 years ago. On it's own this info tells us how long ago these things happened. But if we also include the Holocene Calendar date you will see that the mastodon was killed out only 1500 years after the first humans built the first settlements. And that people got to America a short 980 years after.

This not only ties those events together and to us in the year 12,018 but also ties the events to our very beginnings.

Another example is that people started building the pyramids 7,300 years after the first settlements. also they were constructed from the 3rd century BC to the 9th century AD. It's hard to do the math on that because the 3rd century BC was in -800 and the ninth century was in 1000. But if we add the holocene calendar it looks like this: 9,800-10,800 HE.

All this historical clarity just by adding an additional date for those who care to use it. I get really excited thinking about it.

Aucrawford (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Aucrawford[reply]

What does that have to do with

WP:FRINGE. Heiro 06:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes there is no Grand Society of the Mound Builders. But these civilizations/cultures are similar in region and history. If they shared nothing no archaeologist or historian would have coined the term "mound builder".Mangokeylime (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cahokia Woodhenge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cahokia Woodhenge (pictured), built by the Native American Mississippian culture between 900 and 1100 CE, was a timber circle solar calendar used to observe solstices and equinoxes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cahokia Woodhenge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cahokia Woodhenge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr. Rowe. It sad but true I have a love of infoboxes :)

Anyway... My two cents on the former country infoboxes is that those articles discussed chiefdoms not peoples. A polity is not an ethnic group. Ethnic group boxes are not appropriate for a historical political entity. That is all... Mangokeylime (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangokeylime: A polity is also not a country, and most of the fields in that infobox do not apply to those kinds of cultures. I have no problem with infoboxes per se, I have added quite a few of the archaeo infoboxes and nav templates to hundreds of articles; I just disagree with the ones you have chosen so far (this and the Mound Builder one). But rather than wholesale revert you I decided to ask for the opinions of other lomg term editors of those articles (and other similar ones you did not add the infobox to) who are presumably neutral in the matter and see what their thoughts are, so that it is not just me removing your beloved infoboxes. Or maybe they will disagree with me. It would be nice if you delayed adding anymore until others had a chance to weigh in on the matter. Cheers, Heiro 04:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mangokeylime: I agree with Heiro. The country infoboxes can be misleading in discussing these chiefdoms (which weren't countries). The ethnic group infobox may not be a perfect fit, but at Tacatacuru, it had more relevant information, such as language links.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

because of your unprofessional language. Sincerely, --Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you find ironclad mainstream sources for your additions. Heiro 19:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could have said that in the first place, instead of insults. Thank you. ---Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point to one damned I said that was insulting. If you think this "rvt additions of weasel wording & some nonsense about it not being proved a fake" is insulting, you may not belong here. Heiro

Seriously? Insinuating that someone is weaseling is not an insult in your book? Give me a break. If this is language you use, and furthermore even defend in this gaslighting fashion it is rather you that do not belong here. --Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above really why full retirement was suggested. Surely there must be some mistake? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was either that or "rvt unsourced additions", lol. Heiro 19:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to go read

WP:WEASEL. Seriously, are you sure you belong here, Nano?Heiro 19:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah I see, I had no idea :) My bad. I retract my statement. Thanks anyways. --Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not worried about it. But in future, when you insert something like this: "heavily slandered the farmer Olof Ohman, who had originally found the stone on his property. He went so far as to befriend Olof Ohman's daughter Amanda after Ohman's death, under false pretenses, only to find more evidence to indite the farmer. Even though neither Holvik, nor anyone else ever found any wrongdoing by Ohman, the family was subject to heavy slander for decades. As a result, Ohman's daughter Amanda took her own life in 1949"[8], I suggest you have a very, very good source. Heiro 19:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, you're absolutely right. I appreciate the experience and will be more careful! My apologies to you. Best wishes --Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with it. Heiro 20:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about the Rod Laver Talk page. I can remove blatant attack headers and prose. What was said was not constructive at all and is a personal attack on my character. I will have it removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. But I saw no personal attacks in it. In fact, they were rather civil [9]. If it turns out they are a malicious sockpuppet attacking you, it could probably be removed as such, but if it's really just an editor who is new, I doubt you will have much luck. Heiro 05:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think I will have good luck with it. The topic header is way off base as opposed to building an encyclopedia. If he's brand new user with simply a chip on his shoulder towards me, I'll apologize for any accusations I made. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm here to talk about your removal of my addition to

@

WP:UNDUE. No objection to the content per se and the article could actually use some more modern examples, but they should be cited. Heiro 11:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, well, that. (Is there a levity markup in wiki syntax?) Thought I had cited it, but apparently not. I'll circle back to it soon. Agreed on the need for more modern examples. Triplingual (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need a source for this?[10] Doug Weller talk 06:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source already used in article, added to that particular statement. Heiro 06:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The editor who deleted it seems to be targeting fringe stuff. One of their earliest edit.[11] Doug Weller talk 07:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, lol. I checked a few of their other recent edits, but you had already cleaned up after them. Heiro 14:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wanting to add note about use of "loop garou" term in 1941 Hopalong Cassidy movie, "Riders of the Timberline" but I'm not sure how to cite a character's dialogue. The movie was broadcast on KUTP-DT2 MOVIES in Phoenix, but I don't have the date/time James13619 (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page, but let's keep it there, all in one place, so no reason to respond here. Heiro 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

archeological sites

Thank you for quality articles about ancient American curltures, such as Baytown culture, Coles Creek culture, Plaquemine culture, Pocahontas Mounds and List of Adena culture sites, with maps and art images, for service from 2008, for appreciation, - Herb, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

User:Gerda Arendt, thank you very much. Heiro 22:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 08:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 08:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were quite confused. Your recent self-revert does not touch the "See also" section. I initially put New World into the "See also" section and you subsequently removed it citing "unnecessary" in the edit summary. I then added it to the lede (trying to provide a better context than just an unspecified link in "See also"; perhaps your confusion came about as I also cleaned up some whitespace elsewhere in the article in the same edit) and you reverted it but subsequently reverted yourself (so it effectively is the same as when I last edited it, leaving New World in the lede and not in "See also").

I believe New World is a link relevant to the article (since it refers to the Americas and the term was actually coined by Amerigo Vespucci) but I feel it was better in "See also" than the lede, however, apparently you were against that so I tried to adding it another way providing more information on why it is relevant (so it wasn't curtly removed like you did). If the article was not about naming, I might agree that New World was not highly relevant (e.g., I would not recommend Indigenous peoples of the Americas be renamed towards using "New World" unless that name becomes considerably more used and notable in the future) but it is about naming and considerably more obscure naming is also mentioned in the article.

I hope this explanation helps. Uzume (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix your custom signature, as shown in this edit? The bold formatting is not nested correctly. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 My sig worked perfectly fine for 10 years. What changed? Heiro 05:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I just looked at examples on other pages, ones that unlike here at my talk page where you went unilaterally through my talk page fucking with it, it appears fine. They display fine and work fine. Why the need to come onto my talkpage with this? Heiro 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I also have no idea what the problem is. I looked at the diff in question and I can't see any change between the appearance of the two versions. In any case you should have discussed it first before your edits. Heiro, @Jonesey95 does nothing, {{ping|Jonesey95}} is what you need. And always preview because if you save it incorrectly you can't fix it, you need a new signed post. I keep forgetting to do that! Doug Weller talk 08:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closing bold formatting needs to be placed after the closing span tag in your signature, not before it. As you should be able to see in the diff that I linked above, iro'''</span> becomes iro</span>'''. For links to information about changes in how signatures will be validated, please see this discussion. There are a few of us gnomes and bots going through pages (slowly) to clean up these errors, which sometimes cause pages to display incorrectly. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heiro, "whatever i'm currently doing" is this: Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. I made a few mistakes, but I'll try to be more efficient. Thank you. Xadai (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Efficiency is great, accuracy is better, maybe slow down and find out the context before you hit the buttons. Heiro 03:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as a active member in good standing with the Taino community it is my work to update public information as new information comes forward. Also as a student, I submit that not all my changes will always be perfect. In the event that you have a comment, concern, or edit that can help improve the information please do so.

To remove all changes indiscriminately is a negation of the good elements that are being contributed.

From my experience we must all work together to remove bias and ensure that all information is as accurate as possible, and when neccassary backed up with sources.

Please feel free to make your requests and comments to me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titorivera (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left you 5 policy based reasons for my reversion of your edits in my original edit summary. To whit,

WP:CITE works. EVERYTHING GETS CITED or it gets removed. Period. This isn't a place for "activism", this is an encyclopedia, all edits you make should reflect that. Heiro 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A toast sandwich for you!

Please stop changing MY edit on Dillon Carmichael, I know this man he was born and grew up in Burgin with my parents I am best friends with his nephew I have been fishing with Dillon, hunting with him he goes to all of my basketball games so please stop reverting my edits. Brysonjett (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:3RR, considering your recent behavior you will probably be indeff blocked. Heiro 14:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to find reliable sources. And linking to an ashram] does not qualify as such. Heiro 05:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are available previously given. Please see also "occupation" section.

You do not need my "permission". You need

WP:RS. And I have serious reservations that "scientist" should be in that lede either, but I do not have time right now to comb through the references. Heiro 06:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you look at his edit history? No warnings for a long time though. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I did. An SPA for KR it seems. I figured if he popped back up after I reverted and left links in the edit summary, I'd warn and deal with it then. Heiro

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I made a small change to the Mound Builders article which you undid. I changed "Some Mormon writers have considered the Book of Mormon narrative a description of the mound-building cultures;[38] other Mormon apologists argue for a Mesoamerican or South American setting." to "Some Mormon writers have considered the Book of Mormon narrative a description of the mound-building cultures;[38] others argue for a Mesoamerican or South American setting."

As this article never discusses what a "Mormon apologist" is and doesn't link to a page defining what one is, I think it is better to exclude the term entirely. Additionally, the sentence begins by talking about "Mormon writers" and goes on to talk about "Mormon apologists" without any additional information. Are all Mormon writers apologists? Or are they a separate group? If they are a separate group the sentence should be changed to express the idea that two separate forms of Mormon writers are commenting on the subject, one of which can be called apologists. If you think all Mormon writers are apologists the sentence would better read as: "Some Mormon apologists have considered the Book of Mormon narrative a description of the mound-building cultures;[38] others argue for a Mesoamerican or South American setting." However, I think that labeling the Mormon writers who comment on this subject as apologists goes beyond the scope of this article and is an expression of bias that is unnecessary.

I think the sentence is objectively better with the edit but I realize you have a long history with this article so I wanted to ask why you suggest it should be left as is. 2605:A601:A996:5000:8025:40DF:88C3:2305 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have left this at the article talk page, that's what they are for. Heiro 01:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have taken this to the talk page as I suggested instead of using another IP to revert. I do not like discussing things like this at my talkpage, they should be the article talk where the conversation can be seen and easily found by other editors. Heiro 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to use a separate IP, my IP changes automatically after a few days. I didn't see at first why it was necessary to put on it the talk page when not every edit has a talk page section, and it was you personally removing the edits, but thank you for creating a section on the talk page. I will add to it when I get a chance. 2605:A601:A996:5000:5401:1090:6C8E:E00D (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hieronymous. I don't know when Wikipedia revised their stance on BCE-CE dating versus that of the traditional BC-AD dating, but the modern dating format (BCE-CE) used to be unacceptable in an earlier phase of Wikipedia's evolution. Thanks for reverting my edit, but why didn't you then place the correct format in its place? Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because more modern era dates do not often have a date style qualifier on Wikipedia. Heiro 02:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding BC-AD vs BCE-CE, I've been here since 2008, and either has always been acceptable as long as I have been here. What is not, is changing the existing date styles on an article. It used to be the first style used was preferred, to avoid edit warring over the styles. But now per

WP:ERA, the date style on an article can be reached via consensus on the article talk page. Any changes should only be made after a new consensus has been reached.Heiro 02:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. Thanks for the heads up. In the earlier days when I used to do a lot of date work, the AD-BC format was the standard format in use. I prefer CE-BCE format, as it is what I was trained in, but it had quite a bit of resistance at the time. It may be that I am confusing the use of 'one form or another in an article for consistency sake', with the justification of arguments in opposition that I had encountered when I regularly used the BCE-CE format for dating in articles. Thanks for your input... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

and also

• Draft Talk:Ex-Muslims

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may aware of this already, but I thought you might be interested to know your File:Hopewell Exchange Network HRoe 2010.jpg map was used in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon published in 2018 by Digital Legend Press. It's on page 536. Cpetty-wiki (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Story Mound in Chillicothe, OH and this article somehow got mixed up with a mound of construction dirt in Sayler Park. I tried to make an edit to the article with a reference from a reliable source and also based on a personal visit on 10/21/2020, but apparently that is not the correct procedure. I was told: " doing shit like that is indistinguishable from garden variety vandalism by bored 12 years old in their moms basement. " Here is the info and contact from the president of the Sayler Park Historical Society.

The mound Wikipedia is referring to is the dirt pile that formed when they dug up the area that became the new gymnasium at Sayler Park school. We have asked Wikipedia to remove the information since it is not factual for years but they refuse. Thank you for asking.

Jackie Apted President Sayler Park Historical Society [email protected]

If the information from a college professor and the President of the local historical society is not a "verifiable source, a good academic one", then try using Google Maps and see the visual evidence that the only mound in the area is a pitchers mound.

Robert Coil, PhD

Look man, I appreciate the correction, but maybe next time you could be a little less condescending? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeganebula (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew who you were? Maybe I could explain. But you've made a total of 3 edits so far, this being the very first one. Either you were editing as an IP or this is a new sockpuppet account. Heiro 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Mississippian Culture" article, I've tried a couple times to edit it to something other than "civilization" (the first time to culture, but since this seemed redundant I then changed it to society). This simply seems to be the right approach—as I said on the talk page of the article, far more reliable sources (as well as any other sources) call it a culture or society than a civilization. Its status as a civilization is, at best, carrying some doubt. What is not debated is that it is a culture/group of cultures. Society does carry some meaning beyond culture with it that some may also debate. This has no relation to what my view of it is. It is simply that it is better to go with what most almost all academic sources agree with rather than what a somewhat sizeable minority use. Beyond that, it is simply because of the nature of a civilization itself that Wikipedia as a whole is weary to use it unless it is almost unanimously called that, i.e. with Egyptian, Qin, Maya, etc. Historical Cartograph (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When Tim Pauketat [12], the Smithsonian [13], or Dr Edwin Barnhart [14] (whose studies the Maya and should know if the Mississippians were not a "civilization") uses the term I think it is safe for us to also use it as well. Heiro 18:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. I trace my family back to 1620 in the Maritimes. 2. My family arrived in Louisiana in 1765. 3. My mother was 100% Acadian. 4. I am 50% Acadian. 5. I am sick and ggd-dsmned tired of people who seem to think that Coonass, Cajun or Cadjin are not offensive or derogatory.

Wikipedia is adding to the problem ... and certainly NOT doing anything to mitigate the usage of these offensive words (especially "Cajun").

Your feeble-minded "Heironymous Rowe," speaking out of his @nus, says that it's not offensive because it's used in Southern Louisiana. I suppose he says the same thing about offensive and derogatory words he likely uses to label other populations.

Please remove my account. Don't bother attempting to contact me. I have NO use for racists/bigots in my life, so I will no longer bother using Wikipedia.

In closing, FK U!!!

A real ... and OFFENDED ... Acadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTomplait (talk • contribs)

This is not racism.

WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS, your comment above is loaded with them. Do it just one more time. You wont have to leave Wikipedia, the admins here will see to that for you. Heiro 02:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

NMAI is hosting a NMAI Native American Women Edit-a-thon on Friday, April 23, from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm EDT. Pre-registration recommended via Eventbrite. Ahalenia (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Indian removal was, almost by definition, a genocide. The term "genocide" is used to refer to other ethnic cleansings, as in the

You popped the term in without

WP:RSs. Heiro 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is listed on the Template:Genocide of Indigenous peoples which is a templated included on the article itself. It's interesting you removed the word genocide from the lead without discussion.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was inserted into the first sentence of the lede without discussion, a cite, or an edit summary. Above I pointed the IP to the appropriate section of the talkpage to discuss it, advising them to bring sources. You are also invited to participate there. Heiro 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of "It's interesting you", I'm not sure what you meant by that. I do not actually disagree with it's inclusion in the article, but I've been around here long enough to know that drive by droppings of terms like that into the ledes of articles without cites or discussion will lead to edit wars over it. I'm fine with the information you just added, with what looks like adequate citations. Heiro 19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have or could do any drawings of the Illinek from the European contact period, it would really help this article and knowledge in general. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

American Archaeology Magazine, keep an eye out in next months issue, I have a new one I specifically for an article in it that hasn't been published yet, ;-) (I'll more than likely eventually upload it to Commons, but they have a 1st publication rights that limit me from using it for anything else for a certain time period) Heiro 23:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m curious about the difference between a culture and a civilization. What is the difference between a culture and a civilization, and what makes a culture a culture and a civilization a civilization? Epictrex (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "culture" when used in the context, of say, the Mississippians, or whatever or similar groups, what is meant is an archaeological culture, while a civilization is defined here Civilization as "a complex society that is characterized by urban development, social stratification, a form of government, and symbolic systems of communication (such as writing)." A culture can be a civilization, like the Mississippians. But an archaeological culture is how archaeologists define certain traits and link them together to define a usually prehistoric group, those traits are usually defined by the artifacts found, etc. With the Mississippians it's stuff like maize agriculture, platform mound ceremonialism, wall trench structures, shell tempered pottery, and a layered hierarchical society. So it's not that a "culture" gets stepped up to a "civilization" if it gets big enough or "advanced" enough or whatever. The terms aren't part of the same system of how to define societies.

But when we add stuff to articles, we do not rely on what we think they are, we use what

WP:RSs say they are. So in the case of the Hohokam, we need sources calling them a "civilization" before we add that kind of info to an article. Heiro 01:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That’s very interesting. Thank you! I learned something new. And also, I will keep that in mind next time I edit an article talking about an ancient culture, society, civilization, etc... Epictrex (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually not accomplishing anything right now by reverting this troll. He's going to get blocked again, the case you opened will be put back up, he'll be back this time tomorrow and the world will keep turning. Take it easy and leave it to the administrators, won't you?

]

Yeah, I've already stopped, and dropped it at AIV Heiro 07:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why u pickin’ on me?

Why you pickin’ on me? I am a different Wikipedia user, and I’m a new Wikipedia user too, so I ain’t Epictrex. Rui Beech (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit conflicts

At the Teahouse. I have a bad habit of cocking up my replies and then tidying them afterwards, which this time at least seems to have messed with you replying yourself. Sorry for the trouble › Mortee _talk 01:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee: No problem, I do the same at times. But, for the other matter, if that isn't ET, I'll eat my fucking hat. Heiro 01:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I haven't looked into it. If you have a strong view about it then I wouldn't bet against you › Mortee _talk 01:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Palace (Mexico)

Please, explain this edit about mass gallery changes. Problem is that Mexican National Palace is very opulent for you? --Janiclett (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Janiclett (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's some disingenuous bullshit. You are revert warring against 3 established long term editors of that page and are well past 3RR. Revert again and I can almost 100% guarantee you will be the one getting blocked. Heiro 22:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

☼ 22:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice a similar pattern with the IPs? -

☼ 17:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan: I glanced at those earlier (not in depth, been busy IRL). I'm not sure. If it is, they significantly stepped their English language abilities, as the named account had some trouble with it. Also, that IP (based out of Austria) seems to edit a lot of genetics related articles and articles related to Asia/Old World, whereas the named account seemed more confined to Mexico/the Americas. Heiro 18:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The English is definitely better. But the immediate revert and attitude by the first one, plus both insisting on putting the DNA stuff up top instead of the DNA section... -

☼ 18:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It is suspicious. I was wondering if the English could be better because of copyvio? Maybe the text should be checked against the sources? Heiro 18:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the English on the first one is not good: "is that at first it is a news paper article not an academic reference," -

☼ 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it's enough for me to just block, as I'm not uninvolved. But I think it's worth SPI. Do you have time? I might be able to but I've got a lot on my plate at the moment. -

☼ 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, doing it now. -

☼ 18:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

☼ 19:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, and sorry about that. I got busy today, and Wednesday night is pretty much my one night a week out (pub quiz night) these days (what, with the state of the world and all, etc.). Heiro 02:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Origins

Hello, I noticed you removed links at two articles (Sámi people and Loftur Þorsteinsson) with the comment "Not an

WP:RS". Looking at the specific links neither seems to trigger any RS concerns. It's not self-published, there's an editorial board, there's a print version. It's a pop archaeology magazine that ranges into fringe theories at times (although that doesn't seem to be the case on the two links removed), but that needn't automatically mark it as non-RS. It's also not flagged at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The removed links weren't the sole sources for the statements, so it's likely not a big deal; I'm just trying to understand the bar you're setting. Has there been discussion about it as a source on other articles? Thanks. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Nevermind. I just found the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source. I would say as a matter of process, it should have been added to the perennial sources list before mass removal, to help avoid confusion. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing links to AO for years whenever I ran across them. Because they publish articles about giants, ancient aliens, and other assorted conspiracy theories and pseudoarchaeology. Their business model is to sprinkle 30% insane bullshit into 70% generally real archaeology, see fact check for media bias rated "CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE". I just stepped up what I have always done once I noticed that conversation at the RS noticeboard. Because that source should never have been used here. Heiro 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, yes. I came here for the same reason, having seen the removal at History of Northumberland‎, and have now read around it a bit and I absolutely agree that nothing they publish has a place here, for all the reasons so cogently rehearsed in the noticeboard discussion. As you say there, anything they publish that just happens to be true is by definition both tainted and replicable at a better source, and I will happily join in with zapping them anywhere I see them used as if they were a source of anything other than just weeble. Thank you for your hard work on this. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Clan Pollock article

I see you have undone all of the edits I made to the article on Clan Pollock International. I would like to resolve this so we can get a better product posted. Just so I understand your role in this, may I ask if you have any particular interest in Clan Pollock itself, or are you a Wikipedia editor overseeing articles and edits when they are entered to ensure that they meet quality standards? Also - I don’t see any objection to the text of the edits that I made, just to the citations I added. May I conclude that we only need to discuss the citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFPo42 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS that states the information. FTDNA is not an RS. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Familytreedna.com, it has been discussed repeatedly at the RS noticeboard and the consensus is that it does not meet our requirements and should not be used as a citation. I have no specific interest in the subject of that article, other than that I follow and edit hundreds of history and archaeology related subjects. That's what all wikipedia editors do, no one is assigned a role to watch specific articles or subjects, we are all volunteers. Any editor has the ability to challenge material in an article if it can not be backed up by citations to reliable sources. I would love to see that article improved, I wish you luck in doing so, but it has to be done with reliably sourced information. Find better sources for the info. Cheers, Heiro 13:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your comments. I fully appreciate the importance of reliable sources. In this case there truly are no alternative or more reliable sources that can be cited for the particular statements made in the article. First - with respect to FTDNA - I understand that they may not be regarded as a reliable source but the cited URL does not link to FTDNA. It links to the Polk-Pollock-Pogue DNA Project webpage, which is hosted at FTDNA, but is not maintained by FTDNA. It is maintained by the project. I happen to be the Project Administrator. It is the only place where the project's DNA testing results are reported, so it is the only place where the assertions made in the statement can be verified. (I didn't write that statement. I just added the source.) Second - with respect to the medieval Scottish charters that I cited - these are the primary source documents by which the existence of the cited individuals in 12th century Scotland is established. I can add the following URL where the actual text of these charters (in their original Latin) is transcribed if that will help - https://archive.org/details/registrummonaste00mait/page/n5/mode/2up Will that suffice? Here again I have just added sources that the original text of the article did not include. JFPo42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFPo42 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the only place something is published, then no, it can not be used. Groups at FTDNA are user generated content that is not subject to peer review or editorial control. They fail

WP:SECONDARY sources and for sources of the info at FTDNA that pass WP:RS. If you doubt anything I have written above, or want a second opinion, you can start a post here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But other editors will pretty much tell you the same thing. Cheers, Heiro 22:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@JFPo42: Also, when making a post on a talk page, whether it be an article talk or an editors talk, please put ~~~~ at the end, this tells to the software to add your signature and a time/date stamp. It's required to sign your posts, and it will stop signbot from having to do it. Thanks. Heiro 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JFPo42: Just an endorsement of what Heiro said. We take Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources very seriously. If something cannot be verified from a reliable source, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 23:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I understand the concern with reliable sources. Very important but a little judgment might be appropriate in this case. A statement was made in the existing article about results of DNA testing on Pollok family members. No reference source for this statement was provided in the article. I added a URL directing readers to the website where such information is posted and from which it must have been obtained. Surely this would be in the best interests of WP readers of the article. The other citations were to specific Scottish ecclesiastical charters where the individuals cited in the WP article are very specifically mentioned, by name. These charters are probably the most basic and frequently cited sources in scholarly journals concerned with medieval Scotland. I did not include a citation referencing the work where these charters have been fully transcribed for scholarly reference, but can add that. I also added a citation from a scholarly journal of an article by G. W. Steuart Barrow, a pre-eminent authority on medieval Scotland. (See WP article on him.) This has also been rejected by the undo of my edit although it is highly relevant. Can this be restored? JFPo42 (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:HELPDESK, Wikipedia:Teahouse, or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ) I'm preparing right now for a month long out of state work trip starting Monday and will probably not be on here much for the foreseeable future. Cheers, Heiro

I also dropped a welcome message at your talk page with links for WP policies, how to's, etc that may help you figure out your way around here a little easier. Cheers, Heiro 18:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I deleted the sentence drawing conclusions about DNA testing and replaced it with a factual statement and added an external link (although it looks like a footnote). I would like to improve the entire write up of Clan Pollock but don't know how to do it in a piecemeal way. It has a number of errors and statements that are not quite wrong but poorly stated, and could certainly be expanded. I don't know how to go about this other than scrapping the present text and starting over. I don't want to offend all the previous contributors but it really needs to be redone. Just so you know, I have been the Clan Historian for Clan Pollock for over 20 years and contribute a historian's article to the clan magazine 4 times a year; also have a PhD, so I bring some expertise to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFPo42 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Proposed deletion of File:Beausoleilbroussard painting HRoe 2004.jpg

The file File:Beausoleilbroussard painting HRoe 2004.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal drawing, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 10:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Modern Taino Identity

I'd appreciate your input on this topic to resolve some long disputed issues about modern Taino movements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taíno#Request_for_Comment_on_Modern_Taino_Identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketama (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for correcting my edit on LaVey's talk page and letting me know that it was harmful. Wishing you the best. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 21:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your thoughtful contribution at User talk:Johnpacklambert. Theroadislong (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Thanks, although I'm not sure I deserve it for that comment. I feel for the editor, it is painful to watch them flounder around without any apparent clue as to what is going on. And absolutely nothing they have said or done in the last week has changed my opinion that they and WP are incompatible. Quite the opposite, actually, every action they have taken reinforces it. It hurts to watch. Heiro 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some of his off Wikipedia content I worry how a site wide block will impact his life, but feel that is where it is inevitably heading. I agree "it hurts to watch". Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it as well. That's a small part of the reason I think it's better if he stopped. Notice how almost no one in his life "likes" or comments on those posts? I think the people in his real life have given up on discussing his unhealthy relationship with Wikipedia with him. I think it does affect his life and I think it is not for the better. (and this comes from someone who has experienced something similar IRL) I think his neurodivergence prevents him from being able to edit here without conflict, which is horrible and not his fault, but it's not ours either.

WP:NOTTHERAPY applies. I think WP will always be a point of stress for him as long as he is an editor here. I think in the long term he could be happier if he had some distance from WP and a different hobby. But that's all just my opinion. Heiro 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you are right, I hope he finds something else fullfilling and meaningful in his life. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

La Louisiane / Luisiana

Thanks for your edit summary re Sp. Luisiana; at least a reason is provided. I have added a few other edits after that: these are obvious errors that must be corrected. 173.77.71.234 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Randolph, Tennessee GA Reassessment

History of Randolph, Tennessee has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. nf utvol (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's BS!

		Native American contributor
		The Native American Barnstar is given to the users who contribute cited and balanced content toward articles regarding the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Thank you for your contributions! GenQuest "scribble" 04:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Kentucky

You've coordinated with me several times on this article, and your critique is greatly appreciated. I'm a dilettante, but a diligent one. You're an expert. I actually have significant knowledge of early colonial times, with gaps. I make plenty of mistakes. If you have something you want to contribute, and prefer to ghost write it, sketch it out in the talk page, and I'll fill it in from my sources and integrate it into the text. All articles, this one too, need improvement. I'm working on it. Regards Sbalfour (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]