User:Heironymous Rowe/Talk archive Feb 2010-Sept 2010

Technically you can't be an atheist and a Pastafarian

Just sayin'... HalfShadow 20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm a lapsed Atheist, and fall back on the religion of the kitchen. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you're just noodling, then. HalfShadow 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One must have faith in something, and a deity that also fills my belly works for me. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Give my regards to Saint Marinara HalfShadow 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Archangels Linguini and Fusilli send their blessings. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits dealing with Indigenous peoples related articles were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Editor's Barnstar! Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll copy it to my user page with a few others I've received. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological site categories?

As far as I can see, there are no categories for archaeological sites by period. I'm finding that it might be helpful to have categories for Archaic sites, Woodland sites, etc., but I can't find any. Do you think that it would be a good idea to create categories like this? I don't really know what I'm doing, so I don't want to start without getting input from someone who knows better than I do. I would have posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology, but that page appears to be largely inactive. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to do that, on my User page in the list of a few articles I've created are also a few templates and categories, one for archaic[1]. I've also done one for Mississippian[2], but dont think I've done one for woodland nor remember ever seeing one. Might be a useful one to have tho. The Hopewellian peoples cat[3] could be a subcat of it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to organize all of the differant sites in a usable way like this for awhile, has been one of my main goals on Wiki. When I first started editing a few years ago, almost none of the sites were organized in any kind of logical way, if it at all. Many are damned near orphaned articles, if they are linked to from anywhere its from their respective states or counties, with little else. Especially Ohio and Florida, which have gotten alot of attention from people adding all of the sites, but no sort of organization to make them searchable as a group. A cat like this would sure help, been working my way thru as many as I can, but there are sure alot yet to go, LOL. Whack away at it! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! I've also asked Dr. Whittaker, so I'll wait to see his response before I do anything. Ohio and Florida (plus Massachusetts and Rhode Island) are the results of attempts to create tons of NRHP articles for the sake of having tons of NRHP articles. While Swampyank created articles semi-automatically for virtually all of the MA and RI listings, articles such as Clough Creek and Sand Ridge Archeological District were created by NrhpBot — all sites beginning with "A" and all sites in Butler and Hamilton counties got articles, but no more. Florida seems to have been a slightly less automatic process, but they're definitely not very impressive. Perhaps you've noticed that all the Maryland listings have articles, but unlike the others, they're decent quality stubs: Meyer Site (a Monongahela village) isn't amazing, but it definitely provides encyclopedic information. I'm trying to do my best with these Pennsylvania articles, since all of them have nomination forms online; I hope to complete an article on the Fisher Farm Site in Centre County tonight. You may be interested in seeing two articles that I finished a few days ago: List of Native American archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania and List of European archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. I actually worked on them primarily to be able to organise the prehistoric sites by culture, but it definitely helps to have a complete list of sites. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tipton Phase

Hello Herb!

Your Tipton Phase map rocks! Do you think it is easily possible to add little markers to the map showing the current location of villages and towns in Tipton County to demonstrate where the Indian villages were in relation to today's settlements?

• Atoka
• Brighton
• Covington
• Drummonds
• Munford
• Randolph
• Reverie

Green for Indian, red for current day?

That would be great!

doxTxob \ ^talk 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Heironymous Rowe, after seeing one of your articles at New Page Patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who such interesting articles hadn't already been approved as an Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. By the way do you know anything about the mounds near Little Rock? I visited the site sometime before I became a wikipedian, but may have some photos somewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, honored, thanks! Not sure which mounds near Little Rock, as there are hundreds of mound sites in Arkansas, but if it was a state park kinda thing, could have been Toltec Mounds Archeological State Park? A stopped there once 3 or 4 yrs ago on a cross country trip from San Diego to Kentucky a day or so before Xmas. I added the one pic on the article, the table, and will prolly add more someday. I should prolly also make a category at Commons and add some of the other pics I took. Again, thanks for the autoreviewer, kind regards, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

That sounds familiar, but I can't be sure from my memory and might have to consult my host at that time. Or when I get access to my old drive and find my photos see if they have some telling detail. ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, could always use more pics! I went ahead and added a few more things to Toltec Mounds yesterday after this post. Could still use alot more, which I actually ahve a book about excavatoins there. Need to write an article about the Plum Bayou culture, will get to it eventually. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re'd. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		Thanks again for talking with me. This helps me improve my edits. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oneota and Upper Mississippian maps

Map in progress

Here are some internet sites that should help you see the extent of Oneota: http://www.fromsitetostory.org/rwl/47pi0002mero/47pi0002mero.asp http://www4.uwm.edu/archlab/Oneota/OneotaImages/F2.Oneotaphases-450.jpg

Also for NE Wisconsin, see Dammers, Kim

1996 The SENSIBA Site 47BR163 Brown County, Wisconsin, USA. Georg-August University:Goettingen, Germany. Report Submitted to the State Historical Society of Wisconsin.

1985 Victoria Dirst 's "Three Classic Oneota Sites in East Central Wisconsin" (University of Wisconsin Oshkosh).

For Michigan, see the edited volume on Michigan prehistory with

Cremin, William C.

1999 "Upper Mississippian Adaptation: The View from Southwestern Michigan" pp. (264) 265-71 of "Upper Mississippian / Oneota: People on the Margins and the Fringes of History," pp. 253-78 of Retrieving Michigan's Buried Past: The Archaeology of the Great Lakes State, edited by John R. Halsey. Cranbrook Institute of Science (Bulletin 64): Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Also see the Wisconsin Archeology edited volume on Oneota.

For Cahokia, see Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest By Thomas E. Emerson, R. Barry Lewis. A brief mention is at http://www.nps.gov/archive/jeff/LewisClark2/TheBicentennial/Symposium2001/Papers/Iseminger_William.htm.

The U. of Iowa has (or had) a map at the internet site on Oneota that was a series of time-lap images showing the changes in Oneota over time.

Kdammers (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, will check these as soon as I can and correct the map. Will take a day or 2, on a business trip currently. Thanks! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. Your new map still is in error. It needs to include the area around Green Bay discussed in Dirst's work on door County as well as the Sensiba area on the west side of the bay. 08:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

K, have been working on it. It would help if there was an actual map I could use. The one map you linked to[4] for sites in Wisconsin was very helpful, but I still have no idea how to do the Michigan section. A few of the books you mentioned above, I dont have access to. If you do and there is a map or description you could scan and email me, that would surely help. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The map-in-progress looks much better. Unfortunately, I don't have scanning facilities. Kdammers (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for info, and change and correct as I find better resources. If you ever get access to a scanner, send me what you can. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

information on Dunbar Cave

I am the person who recently tried to correct your information on the Dunbar Cave State Park page. I apologize if I stepped on your toes - I am new to Wikipedia and thought that I was able to correct inaccurate information. I work at Dunbar Cave, and some of the information is either incorrect or not authenticated. Rather than me try to change it again, I am asking if you would please correct the inaccuracies. The park is not 115 acres, it is 110 acres. The information on Peterson and Dunbar owning the cave, while based on old research documents, was proven to be untrue in 2007. I would be happy to send you the updated information as soon as the researcher has published it - he has the right to be first to put it out there, of course, which was why I made the correction fairly vague. As for the article on mudglyphs, unfortunately this was an unauthorized story and the mud glyphs have not been authenticated - there is a possibility that they were faked. The article also has several inaccuracies, which is why we would prefer not to have this link to the story. All I can do is ask that you please make the corrections - I will not try again to correct it myself since it is just being changed back. Thank you for considering this,and again I apologize for offending you. Booshoss 2222 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I responded to this message at the users talk [5], and changed as much of the info they disagreed with as I could find sources for. As of right now the only sourced info in the whole article are the things I added. There isn't much info about the site in publication at this time, altho the user above says some one will be publishing new stuff soon. So far I've avoided gutting the article of all un sourced material, as the original contributer didn't provide any sources. I'm not opposed to it being corrected, it's just without sources, I dont know whose facts are more correct. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your friends back.

Seems you noticed he vandalized you page, already rereported to WP:AIV--SKATER ^Speak. 16:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

aaaand blocked.--SKATER ^Speak. 16:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Silly fucker. They have as much as just admitted here [6] that they're part of a group whose article went through AFD and was deleted a few weeks ago. Oh well, suspected as much from the bullshit the other day. Wonbt be long before they are blocked again, I'm sure, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And EC and they are blocked. Thanks. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, enjoy your hopeful 7 days of being vandal free.--SKATER ^Speak. 16:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankee Sai, hopefully they have a short term memory prob and forget all about me in the coming week. We all can have our dreams anyway, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Squier and Davis

I've finally gotten access to a copy of Ancient Monuments thanks to interlibrary loan; I've taken in-depth notes, so I expect to be able to use it for sourcing after it's returned to the library. Curious, would you be able to scan individual plates and upload them for use with articles? For example, there's a plan of the Fortified Hill Works on plate VI. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll check my copy later today. Busy right now getting materials ready for a juried show, the real world intrudes, lol. I'll see what I can do later tho. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This what you had in mind? [[File:Fortified Hill Works Squier and Davis Plate VI.jpg]] . Although, on the page where you have its uses as "fortification", I doubt that that's the current theory on its purpose. From what I've read all of the "fortified works" were ceremonial sites that wouldn't have actually functioned well as forts. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Really...hmm, I'm surprised, since I'd figured that the hilltop locations would have made them rather defensible. However, all that I've read about them (which isn't much) is early twentieth-century or earlier; I've never seen anything close to recent. The image is just what I meant, so thanks; hope the exhibition goes well! Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that my expansion of the infobox just now was the first time that I'd edited the content of the article; since its creation by a bot in 2007, the actual text of the article (including the use of "Fortification") has never been changed. This bot created a lot of miniature stubs for Ohio NRHP listings; every site in Hamilton and Butler counties has such an article, as do all sites statewide starting with "A". Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, never even looked at its history, was just remarking on what stuck out me on page. Happy editing, and just drop me a line if you need any more S and D, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, could you do many more? I was using the Fortified Hill Works as an example. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time right now to do all at once, but can can do a few at a time. Anything specific? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here's a few more, some alreadfy with pages, a few that need it. Will do more when I have the time, cheers! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I don't expect to be working on any of these soon (most of my writing right now is on churches in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches), but I'm sure that they'll be useful in the future. I've finally been able to get a driver's license, so I'm hoping to be able to visit sites that are neither within bicycling distance nor along the way to funerals. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, lol, congrats! Have fun and be careful out there. I'll add more later sometime as I have the spare time. I will eventually get the whole thing I think, would be a good project for me right now. The real world is intruding lately and I don't really have time to research and add/edit articles right now, and probably wont til the fall. It's getting close to my busy on the road season, which actually means I'll be back in Ohio in a few months, and editing will be restricted to things I can do relatively quickly when I have a few spare minutes. If you need a specific one before I get to it, just drop me a note. Be safe on those roads, lots maniacs out there, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was with family members in the Cincinnati area today, and I decided to be safe on the roads of Mariemont and Newtown, where I got pictures for the Mariemont Embankment and Village Site and the Odd Fellows' Cemetery Mound respectively. Do you know anything about either of these? As far as I know, the mound isn't particularly significant, but the village site (which really includes the embankment) is also known as the Madisonville Site, and it appears to be a very important Fort Ancient site. I didn't know the location of the village site until returning home this evening, so all I got was the embankment; however, I've gotten a bit of information from the National Historic Landmark District nomination form for the Village of Mariemont, of which the embankment-and-village-site is a part. While I've not checked to see whether S&D cover the embankment, it's noted in the Archaeological Atlas of Ohio, and I've found multiple sources on Google Books that mention it. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Don't know much about it, but if I remember correctly, I've already included it in the template I made for Ft Ancient. There were 4 foci for the Ft Ancient, one of them named for the Madisonville site. I had planned on revamping the ft ancient article, including the four foci info, sites associated with each, etc., but unfortunately will have to wait for when I have more wiki time. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Madisonville Site is linked from {{Fort Ancient culture}}; I'll set up a redirect. I'm hoping to expand the embankment-and-village-site article. Unfortunately, I don't expect to be able to be back in the area anytime soon to photograph the village site proper; I've been visiting relatives in the Cincinnati area all my life, but this is the first time that I've ever been to Mariemont. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rite on! One more crossed off the mental list of articles in need of creation, lol. I'd like to eventually get all of the red links in that template to blue, good thing Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Good work!. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just curious about some of the redlinks — would "Baum Site" and "Gartner Site" be Howard Baum Site (33RO270) and Gartner Mound and Village Site, both in Ross County, Ohio? Sorry that I couldn't get the Hahn Field sites today — although they're just a few miles away from Newtown and Mariemont, I ran out of time and needed to return to the family members. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :-D Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely possible. Look at the map I made for Ft ancient and Monogahela cultures, I included alot of the sites on there. If they match up with the locations of those sites you mentioned, they are probably them. I used a map in [7] this book when creating the map, and I plan on also using the book as a reference when I finally expand the Ft ancient article. And you welcome, you earned it, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just realised that the Baum Site and the Howard Baum Site may be different — see the map on page 265 of this dissertation, which examines Fort Ancient period sites along the Scioto River. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fort Ancient cultural region, with some of its major sites and neighbors

[Outdent]It would appear they are differant sites. Looks like there are quit a few other sites listed there that could eventually be included as well, if we could ever find any more info on them anyway. I read thru the first 10 or so pages of the pdf, it could be useful in re-writing and expanding Fort Ancient article as well. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I encountered this document while searching for locations of some sites in Adams, Hamilton, and Warren counties. By the way, I may have found another site for you — the Clarke Farm Site in Clermont County has a Mississippian component; are there any Mississippian sites in southwestern Ohio that aren't Fort Ancient? Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, shouldn't be described as "Mississippian" I'd think. From what I know, the mississippian sites around Louisville, Ky over to Corbin , Ky are the most north and easterly purely Mississippian sites. Although some Mississippian traits and artifacts have been found at Ft Ancient sites, which has been the big debate about Ft Ancient since it was first described as a separate culture. The pdf earlier actually seemed to describe some of the varoius thoughts on the subject over the years. Also the book I mentioned earlier deals alot with the exact nature of the relationship between the Mississippian and Ft Ancient. In the beginning it was thought to be an actual intrusion of Mississippian peoples into the area, a colonization of sorts. It is now believed to be a local development by local peoples, who traded with and became increasingly influenced by Mississippian peioples to their south west. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I've never known much at all about the Fort Ancient people. Never gotten to visit the actual fort...hopefully that will come eventually. Are you familiar with the Middle or Late Whittlesey periods? I'm writing about a village that was seemingly occupied during these times, and I've never heard of either one. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of illustrations

You wrote on my talk page: I'm wondering why your removing illustrations i've contributed to many articles about the Mississippiaqn culture? I've been a professional historical artist for 15 years. I've done the research for these images. Could you please explain yourself? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got started doing that, for the simple reason that their authenticity is unclear -- they're not sanctioned by any scientific or ethnographic organization. That said, the skill, care and professionalism are evident (it's not like the person who kept installing his own "artist's conception" of the chupacabra). So I went back and un-did all those deletions. But we really do have a WP:OR issue here. I think it can be helped if you add some commentary to the pages for your images, discussing the research done for them, or any sanction they might have from academic or government organizations. It's really good work, and I regret any discomfort I might've caused in the deletion/restoration process. DavidOaks (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I do research them pretty strenously. As you can see below, this was used to illustrate an interpretative panel at the archaeological site. The second is a digital painting I did, which illustrates the Kings Crossing Site, and a mural I painted in Vicksburg, Mississippi. With these 2 I worked with various archaeologists, namely Kit Wesler, Ian Brown, Brian Butler and Jon Muller.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Plus I have also professionally illustrated several hundred other subjects in my day job as a historical muralist. Altho quit a few of the ones I added here have been solely because I'm interested in the subjects. Many of them were sparsely illustrated, so I contribute to Wiki with my time. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottom 3 pics, 1.) is a photo of an exhibit organized by Dr. Marti Allen[8] at the University of Arkansas State Museum in Joneboro "Portals of the Soul-Ancient Peoples of Northeast Arkansas" from the summer of 2009. 2.) and 3.) are visible in photo 1.) Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New section

Dear Heironymous rowe I do not in any way wish yo offend you, but why are you accusing me of vandilism when it is my page you are vandilising. Signed you know who PS i dont appriciate slandering historical figures. (comment left by Special:Contributions/24.118.52.32)

Replied at their user talk. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Heironymous Rowe

The Sioux in general despised the English for providing weapons to there enemies including the Ojibwa, Sauk and Meskwaki and you have no right to tell me i cant edit my own page.

No offense intended

Have a nice day. (comment left by Special:Contributions/24.118.52.32)

Comment moved to this section with previous post and sig added by me, since they obviously cant be bothered.

Responded at their talk page here [9]. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Shawnee Nation URB Information

Heironymous Rowe,

I am the Sub-Chief for the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band. A few weeks ago I uploaded a photo of our tribal flag, which i see is now gone. I would like to know what we have to do to get that image back under the Shawnee flags of the other Shawnee Bands? I also wrote some information about the tribe and there was some message about copyright. I am the tribal person that maintains our tribal website and would like that information to show as I wrote it. Can you please help me with this?

I tried to get our flag picture to show up again but it did not work.

Thanks and call me if you have any questions. 614-348-6878 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedirman (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fort Ancient help?

I've expanded Turpin Site, part of the Madisonville Focus of the Fort Ancient culture. Do you know if you have any sources on it? All I have is a local history book, a book with summaries of almost all of the state's National Register sites, and a dissertation. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can check tomorrow when I'm back in my studio. I'm at my girlfriends tonight, and suffering from a terible head cold, lol. But will see what I have. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! When I wrote the previous message, I was in the process of writing; I hadn't realised how much information could be gained from the dissertation (it's the one that I've linked in the S&D section above), and eventually I got so much information that the article ended up being far longer than I expected. Still, any more help would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm finishing two more articles on Fort Ancient sites in southwestern Ohio; neither has been excavated, so their focus or foci are unknown. Two questions — if they should be added to the template, where should they go? And do we have an article that covers the idea of an archaeological focus? Focus (archaeology) is a redlink. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the new articles. Not sure what to do about the foci. Maybe create a new section of the template for unaffiliated? It would solve any OR problems with just adding them by geographical proximity to a specific foci without verification. Not sure about a page for Focus, never looked for it. Probably wouldnt be to hard to write one up tho. I know I saw a definition somewhere, cant remember exactly where tho. I think there is a break down, something like tradition-culture-complex-focus-? Altho not sure of the accuracy of that order. Would probably be a good article to have. I bet we could post it at the Wikiproject Archaeology and get some answers there. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted a request for help there. In case you're curious, the articles are Bone Mound II and Bone Stone Graves. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapasha I and IP editor

Look im sorry if we got off on the wrong foot i think we can resolve this like civilized people i dont hate you for anything and i hope theres nothing personel involved i just disagree with you thats all im just saying that i dought wabasha was an english ally as the british (who owned the hudson bay company) provided guns for they're enemies which in sioux culture is a serious no-no.

besides in sioux land the biggest threats were smallpox and loyalist settlers. (comment left by Special:Contributions/24.118.52.32)

I don't know anything about that time period specifically. Allies or otherwise, smallpox or otherwise, its a period and geographical area I havent personally read alot about. My problems are your refusal to edit within our policies. Information added to articles need to be sourced in specific ways. If a reference is need for some info, a tag will be added to request such a refere nce be added. You can not remove thoise tags unless you add the reference. I've provided links to explain how those things are done. Abide by these and we have no problems. I dont mean to come off harsh or unfriendly, but you keep refusing to abide by our rules here. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cole culture?

Do you know anything about the Cole culture (not Coles Creek, just Cole), who lived north and west of Columbus, Ohio during the Late Woodland period? I've read about two of their sites, the Ufferman Site and the Carl Potter Mound, but I know pretty much nothing about them. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed the culture mentioned in one or two places, but really know nothing about them, nor have noticed enough info to contribute to an article about them. Sorry. Off hand, can't even remember exactly what time period the culture was in existence. Someone has to have written about them, but I have no idea where to even start. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, have one book that mentions them in a few places. Found this:

Map found in this book, listed as a Cole culture site

• 1000 to 1300 CE-chronological chart on page 8
• "Fort Ancient developed out of one or more late Woodland traditions after AD 900 and persisted until or about the time that Euro-American exploration of the region began. Cole developed out of one or more late Woodland traditions, but endured for only two or three centuries as a distinct culture." page 13.
• "The Cole Culture (about 1000 to 1300 CE)-Relatively little is known about the Late Prehistoric Cole people who occupied central Ohio, north of the emerging Fort Ancient culture area, in the upper Scioto and Muskingum drainages around and after 1000 CE. The Cole people, like many of their Late Prehistoric contemporaries in and beyond the middle Ohio Valley, did build earthworks--embankments with exterior ditches--at some of their village locations, presumably as protective features. These embankments were utilitarian and adapted to local topography, not geometrically controlled or artistically inspired, and were sometimes--perhaps always--reinforced with a stockade. The only publicly accessible site in the middle Ohio Vally attributed to the Cole culture is the Highbanks Park Works at Highbanks Metro Park, a short distance north of Columbus, Ohio. " pages 73-74.
• And then there is several pages describing the Highbank Park Works, including an illustration from Squier and Davis for the site., pages 140, 141, and 142. All of this info is from "Woodward, Susan L., and Jerry N. McDonald. Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley: A Guide to Mounds and Earthworks of the Adena, Hopewell, Cole, and Fort Ancient People. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press, 2002". If you don't have this book, you should invest in a copy. It has several hundred sites in Ohio, Ky, and WVA from Adena to Ft Ancient, locations, maps, some descriptions, etc. A good guide book for someone who takes day trips to look for such things, also gives info for which ones are publicly accessible and which arent. All I have on Cole culture. Hope this helps some. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the Squier and Davis image in the book(included here). The book also says the site has 2 subconical Adena era mounds and the Cole culture embankment in the park, known as Highbanks Metro Park, located in southernmost Delaware County, immediately east of the Olentangy River. The 2 mounds are known as the Highbanks Park Mound I(also known as Muma Mound) and Highbanks Park Mound II(also known as Orchard Mound and Selvey Mound). The 2 mounds are not located within the embankment, but are about .5 and 1 mile away. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add them to this map if you can find a reference for me to use

I went ahead and put together a stub page for the Highbanks Park embankment site. If you can find a map or illustration that shows the geographical extent of the Cole culture, I will add it and whatever sites you have for it to the map I made of the Ft Ancient and Monongahela cultures, since it seems to be same time period and would fit nicely just above the Ft Ancient. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect such a detailed reply; thanks! No, I don't own the book; I'll check it out on Amazon. I'll see what I can do with Cole; the Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places that I've recently gotten has information on all of these Cole sites, so I may put together a stub with information from it and the copy of S&D that I got rather recently. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, no problem. I also just created a stub for Highbanks Metropolitan Park Mounds I and II, if you want to add anything to it. Takes 2 off your list to get started, lol. Happy hunting, and definitely get that book from Amazon, you'll have a lot of fun with it. i like to use it for day trips in the summer with my daughter and little brother, has good maps for finding publicly accessible sites.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll expand it. Curious, does the book include anything in Indiana? I'm beginning a grad program this fall at IU-Bloomington, so I don't expect to be in Ohio very much while in school. I recently ran across something (perhaps in the IU library; I was there last weekend and found that they had lots of information on Ohio archaeology) with pictures and a description of how to get to the Highbanks mounds and works, so I may try to get down there some time soon. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe so, the book is pretty much the 3 states I mentioned, and mostly Middle Ohio Valley specific, if there are its just a few in the Cincy area. Although, Evanston has a great museum at the Angel Mounds site, and there are quit a few Hopewell, Mississippian and Caborn-Welborn sites in the southern end of the state. I've done a few articles, but I'm sure there are plenty more for the area that need doing. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm hoping to be able to explore while in Bloomington, but I don't have the locations for many Indiana sites, and anyway I'll be busy with work and school. By the way, had you see that someone wrote an article about you? I just discovered it while looking for links to Simon Kenton. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly any of the sites are in Southern Indiana either, have only been to the Angel Site, which has one of the better Mississippian culture museums I've been to. As for the article, I noticed it several weeks ago, but have opted to ignore it, lol. It seems reasonably accurate, if kinda weighted toward my mural stuff. But then again, that has been the most prominent part of my career. I'll just have to get busy and get better known for my oil paintings I guess. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

84.84.167.237 blocked

Fair enough - I've blocked them for 31 hours. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopewell template

I've just greatly expanded Shawnee Lookout Archeological District, a group of sites near Cincinnati that has a Hopewellian component. Should it be added to {{Hopewellian peoples}}, or is that only for the more important sites? Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, sounds fine to me. I'd meant the template to be for all Hopewell sites. Unless it ever got to be so big that we'd need a list page and a link to it from the template. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I modified one of your maps

Hey Herb! I used one of your great maps to illustrate the article History of Randolph, Tennessee. I hope that is OK with you. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Map request

Hello Herb, Do you think you can make a good map from this:

Can you help to make this better?

It has these artifact steps in the diagonal lines.

doxTxob \ ^talk 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you could do with that, except start from the beginning with a larger file size before scaling down. What program did you use to make it? Heiro 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I started actually pretty simple with a spreadsheet (LOL) that I then twisted a screenshot in some graphics program to give it the appropriate propotions. I know, that's not how it is done but I wanted to have that map in the article and had no better idea how to do it. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Giftiger wunsch|ts=19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fort Ancient

Squier and Davis map of Fort Ancient

Curious, have you produced any artwork for the museum at Fort Ancient? I visited the site today for the first time, and I found the 2-D artwork more interesting than the statues that they have in the museum. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not personally, unless they've licensed something I did with my old employer and I don't know about it. Would like to go there tho. Is it at the actual Ft Ancient site? Might try to make it this summer, have tentative plans to be in the vicinty for a week in August to visit family. BTW, what do you know about using pics from .gov sites? Guess this is more of a Commons question. I'm putting together an article for Shiloh Indian Mounds Site, which is NHL and NRHP on its own, but only has about a 2 line blurb in Shiloh National Military Park. I've never been there, but found a good pic here [10] credited as NPS PHOTO. I remember reading somewhere that images created by govt employees were in public domain, but do you know for sure the rules and would this one be ok to add to Commons? Heiro 01:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything with your name or signature, either on the artwork or on a caption, but I was so pressed for time that I wasn't really looking; my brother was scheduled to rent an airplane at a nearby airport, so we had to leave before either of us wanted to. The museum is in the northern part of the actual fort site; State Route 350 now occupies the roadbed of the "Lebanon to Chillicothee" road marked on the map, and the museum lies in the "Cleared Field" area. I'd like to upload several images (I took a few dozen), but I've never been able to get good photos of most earthworks — the best of today's pictures were no better than this photo of works at the Madisonville Site. And as far as the government photos — read Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. If it's credited to an NPS employee, you can upload it to Commons with a {{PD-USGov-NPS}} tag. Be careful with many pictures on the NPS website; they tend to use the term "public domain" to mean "anyone can view this image", so don't upload images from National Register nomination forms unless they were prepared by federal employees, and don't upload other images hosted on the NPS website unless they're anonymous (they typically credit others whose images they use) or unless they're credited to federal employees. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mound sites are notoriously hard to photograph, especially ones that aren't cleared of trees or where you can get back to get a good enough vantage point. The multi mound and Hopewell enclosures are the worst, because the only adequate way to really show them is from the air. I will check into the photo, should be able to figure it out if its kosher to use it or not. If not, leaving for western Kentucky tomorrow for several months of work, will only be 2 to 3 hrs away, may make a weekend trip while I'm there. Heiro 06:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Over the last two days, I visited Ross County, including all parts of the Hopewell Culture NHP, and I can even better see what you mean about hard-to-photograph — especially since the High Banks and Hopeton components of the NHP are closed to the public, and excavations have reduced the original Hopewell Group to almost nothing except flat fields. I notice your photo at Mound City; have you visited any of the other four components? Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mound builders link?

To me, the key reason to link to Mound builder (people) is its the "Name and culture" section, since it discusses specifically the mounds of North America's aboriginal peoples and doesn't bother with earthworks created by other peoples, whether in other continents or white-built works in North America. Also significant is the "Mound building cultures" section — it discusses the range of mound building cultures: it helps to give a context for mounds whose cultural affiliation we know, and it includes possible builders for mounds whose affiliation we don't know. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the one who added a good bit of what is useful about that section [11].

Well, now you know what I think of your work; I hadn't checked the history, so I didn't know who had added it when I wrote above. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like to link to that page too much, as the term tends to perpetuate the Mound Builder Myth instead of the new understanding we've developed over the last 100 yrs. Where possible I like to link to the actual culture articles instead, especially not so prominently as in the first sentence of an article. Maybe it would be better in those articles to have for example:

Such and such Mound Complex Site is an insert culture here archaeological site located in or near City name here, County, State. It consists of (insert mound, village, earthwork, etc. here). And then other pertinent info afterward.

Which is how I usually try to start one out. It gives precedence to the culture in the ones we can assign a culture to, and the ones we cant can be sent to Mound builder (people). Just my preference anyway, lol. 05:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Heiro

I like this idea better than either my previous intro style or the one with which you replaced it; thanks. Now we'll have to see if I can remember to use it...Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I usually start an article by copy and pasting a few things like that and then changing all of the info to the new article. And then of course tweaking any grammar, etc. Its good to copyedit a few times tho, as I've occasionally missed a few things that needed changing, especially with infobox fields, lol. Heiro 18:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hampson Museum

Hello Herb!

Thanks for checking the categories for the tons of photos I took at the Hampson Museum in Wilson, AR this weekend. I do not know many details about the Nodena culture but I sure loved to see the exhibit and appreciate your assistance with the categorization and descriptions. The reason I went there was to take a photo of the Island 35 Mastodon's femur fragment and since they allowed photography I took photos of about everything on display there. ;-)

Have a great day, doxTxob \ ^talk 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. You got some great shots. I had photos of some of them, but came out blurry and couldn't use them, was in a hurry the day I was there, had just driven 2 days straight from San Diego and it was the day before Xmas eve, was trying to get to Ky to see my kiddo, lol. Looks like that Mastadon was there after all, remember you asking about it once, but really dont remember it being there, but as explained above, was in a hurry that day. Heiro 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a year ago I called them and the lady said that the mastodon bones were in storage off site. They also have a pelvis fragment but that was not on display. I guess they change their exhibit from time to time. Maybe next time, it is not very far from here, may a 90 minute trip to the country. For such a small museum that was quite interesting, I enjoyed my time there. It is well worth the trip if you live around. thanks again for your assistance with the categories. doxTxob \ ^talk 21:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Native American + clarity

Hi Heironymous Rowe, Will see what you find redundant in Category:Native American topics etc.; concern is for "lost articles" only findable by "experts" knowing nomenclature and how to navigate "technical category hierarchies". Can see it's better to err on less cat. linking though. Thanks for your clarity efforts.---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mississippian stone statuary

Hello! Your submission of Mississippian stone statuary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, you may want to check the nomination again as there are some changes to it. Cheers, AngChenrui (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dodge Site

I really don't know what to say here; the Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places source that I used on the article reads:

According to the source, "A thin layer of Upper Mississippian material, dated to around A. D. 1300, constitutes the upper component of the site."

Does the date help at all? Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, yeah, I kinda figured that. "Upper Mississippian culture" is a separate thing from Mississippian culture proper, encompassing Oneota, Fort Ancient, and a few other groups who were influenced by the Mississippian culture, but weren't fully Mississippianized. I'll change it in the article real quick, add the Mississippian template and add the article to the template, which has a separate category for Upper Mississippian. Heiro 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay; I thought that the double appearance of "upper" was some sort of redundancy; i.e. "a thin layer of Mississippian material on the upper part of the site, dated...constitutes the upper component of the site". Thanks for the correction. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mississippian stone statuary

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting article. I wish you had made clear which museums own/display which of the figurines.160.39.35.50 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few locations to the article, such as for Etowah and Spiro, but I'm unsure of the exact location for the Cahokia figurines. I believe they are in Illinois, but am unsure exactly where, possibly Urbana. I've seen the Spiro examples in person, they are in Norman Oklahoma at the Sam Noble Museum, I provided the pics for the article for those. But have never seen the Cahokia figurines in person, the pics were from Commons. The Angel mound statue is on display at the site museum in Evansville and the Etowah statues are on display at the site museum in Cartersville, Ga.Heiro 03:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New articles

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Thanks for all your hard work covering Eastern Native American arts and culture! Uyvsdi (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

BTW you might enjoy this new series in glass by Marcus Amerman and Preston Singletary: [12].

Wow, very cool shit! Loved it, would like a chance to see some of that in person some day, or even better yet own a piece. Heiro 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too but their work is in the $10,000-28,000 range! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Shell gorget

The Mississippian culture pottery article inspired me. Please feel free to add or edit away on this article, especially information about precontact manufacturing techniques. Also, here [13] is an image for your Long nosed god maskette article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Another Squier and Davis image

If you get the chance, would you be willing to upload the Squier and Davis image of the Colerain Works Archeological District? The plan is the bottom half of plate 13. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it in the next day or so, I just got back from a 5 day trip and need to reset my office back up, plus busy IRL, but will get to it soon as possible. I might have already done it, I scanned and cleaned up 6 or 7 pages a few weeks ago while doing laundry at the laundromat(life on the road, gotta love it) that I've havent had time to upload to Commons yet. Noticed once that you're a boy scout, check here for my latest project [14], you might get a kick out of it. Heiro 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mill Creek chert

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Vanceburg

Sorry for the long stats I was just showing my info was legit I will not do it again. Yeah my editing skills are not very good I will put your info to use.Thanks man. Vanceburg (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopewell focus question

After adding the Nettle Lake Mound Group (currently a redlink) to the Ohio Hopewell section of {{Hopewellian peoples}}, I wondered how this classification was made. Is it proper to say that the builders were Ohio Hopewell simply because they were Hopewell who lived in the boundaries of modern Ohio? Not much is available online, but you can read a relevant historical marker here. Thanks as always! Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats where dealing with the Hopewell gets difficult. The original "culture" was named for the Ohio sites, until they realized the traits showed up all over the country and it was really more of trade and religious network, not a monolithic culture. Here is one of the maps I used [15](about a 3rd of the way down the page) to construct the map I uploaded. But there are other cultures now considered "Hopewellian", such as Swift Creek, that aren't on this map. It might be part of the Couture Complex, which is a local expression that I've never found enough info about to create an article. Heiro 11:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Who the $%## is Jackson Pollock page

Hi Rowe,

While I'm fairly new to Wiki editing, I do take the process quite seriously. I've done my best to employ proper netiquette and cite sources properly. However, a couple of editors to the page have listed libelous info. The editors M0ntY and Birchgrove2041 have history only to this page. therefore its fair to say they are biased, perhaps advertising the author David Grann. This is not about news, this is about libel at its most egregious level. I do not believe they are upholding the integrity by which Wiki stands. I am only trying to do the right thing: report properly.

I would like to remove the Grann article as it does not pertain to this subject specifically. It is about a da Vinci painting and a man who happens to be one of the many experts called in to verify the picture. M0ntY and Birchgrove2041 for some reason want to include Grann's article. I believe there is far too much ambiguity, inuendo and libel in the Grann article (as revealed in the NPR story on him on 8/4) that it undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. For example, your quote on the page that "Grann cites evidence suggesting that Biro's authentication of Teri Horton's painting may have involved planting a forged fingerprint on the painting" is not correct. He never cites evidence regarding the Horton painting. He cites evidence regarding a separate painting owned by a Ken Parker. This painting has nothing to do with the Horton painting...or the movie. For that reason, I feel it is deemed warranted to remove such mentions in the page. On those grounds, I will be doing so. Thanks for your time.

Respectfully, Raver212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raver212 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

InternetHero's just edited this article, would you please look at my comments on the talk page. As for European colonization of the Americas, we are having a rather bizarre talk page discussion, all I can think of is that he has a unique understanding of the word 'ambivalence'. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Parkin

Hello Herb,

I wanted to let you know that I changed the categorization on Commons for the Parkin Site photos. The main category for them is now "Parkin Archeological State Park". Your maps of the Parkin Site I left in a subcategory "Parkin Site".

Here is my reasoning: Since the Parkin Site is now a state park, I found it more appropriate to list the photos in the state park category, it will also intergate better in the category "State Parks of Arkansas" like this. Then, the article on Wikipedia is named "Parkin Archeological State Park" and I think it is best to name the Commons category identically to avoid confusion. I will check later if there are redirects from "Parkin Site" to "Parkin Archeological State Park" both on Wikipedia and on Commons and will establish them if there are not. The article and photos should be accessible from both names.

I hope that is all OK with you and you don't mind since there were only a few photos in that category, that's the reason I did not discus this prior to just going ahead and making the changes. I have uploaded about 60 more images of the state park and also the settlers' cemetery that is part of the park. I hope you enjoy them.

Have a great day, doxTxob \ ^talk 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I had already noticed and begun a little bit of tweaking and reorganizing. In order to give a little more structure, I've added a few sub cats for all of the new pottery pics. Between your recent additions, Alistarisfar and myself, the Mississippian culture pottery cat had gotten so full lately it was becoming hard to find anything, so I made a few new divisions. Heiro 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I mean [16], have added 6 new subcats including styles of pottery and cats for Parkin and Moundville which we have quite a few images for, Heiro 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I am a fan of structure. As you said, it makes things easier to find. The categories for the different styles I find very useful, they give a nice overview. much better than the clutter. Of course I am responsible for the clutter to a good degree, I just took a ton of photos and did not organize them since I don't know enough about the topic. I just go and take a photo of everything that I see at the museums. Thank you for helping out with your expertise. I always enjoy the things you do on Wikipedia. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as guilty myself, at least when its only 10 or 20 files range, but when they start to get up in the 40 or 60 range, I cant find anything and have to organize LOL. When I created the mississippian culture cat a few years ago, there were only a few files, scattered around in different museum and site categories. I think we've begun to build a pretty sizable database of mississippian related images now. Thanks for the help!. Heiro 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One man's spam may be another's treasure.

Why did you classify the Research Wiki link I made in "Navajo people" at the end of "External links" as spam and delete it? The link was to useful information not readily available elsewhere. I believe some readers interested in Navajo people may have good reasons to welcome a link to a unique site that helps them identify their Navajo ancestors. The site for which you deleted the link is not a copy of another site, it does not make advertisements, or charge money. The link was not distributed spam-like to multiple readers. In my thinking the information it contained is relevant, useful, and a link to it clearly enhances the "Navajo people" page on Wikipedia. I see no down-side to such a link.

You did the same delete on Ojibwa, Choctaw, Lakota people, Apache, and Blackfoot. But not Cherokee, so was that an oversight or is there something about the Cherokee where finding ancestors is acceptable but the other tribes it is not?

What do I have to do so you will stop classifying that link as spam, and allow me to put it back on the "Navajo people" page, and other tribes as well?

Diltsgd (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we are niot a repository of links or a directory. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says:

1. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
2. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

The Cherokee was an oversight. If people want geneological information, its is not hard to find, but a link to a genealogical site on most of these pages is only tangentially related at best and at several such as the Natchez trace completely unrelated. Do you think we should add such a link to every conceivable location or road article on the wiki? Heiro 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Heiro 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Long-nosed god maskette

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Letter from David Appletree to one of his few supporters here on WIkipedia

(With regard to discussion happening here)

You're one of the few, honest, and objective people on my case right now. There's so much context to this which is being avoided and it seems FT2 is lying. It's annoying. I honestly came back with the best of intentions. I accepted mentorship offers from 3 different people. I was then getting steamrolled. Random WP editors were DEMANDING that I censor material on my website which is critical of WP. I said I would be open to making changes, if specific editors mentioned wrote me about any specific concerns, but that I could not just "bulk censor" my site. Anyway as I was defending myself on the ANI board, I was suddenly---out of nowhere---BLOCKED by Scott Mac, who I had called out on his inappropriate comment just a few hours earlier. I felt that his BLOCK was a punitive "revenge" measure for me calling him out. Then FT2 comes from nowhere, AFTER the block, and says I can get out of it if I agree to a highly restrictive mentoring program. However, again, I had already agreed to 3 other mentors and I was highly annoyed by the block!

Well, despite my honest and good intentions, I lost all hope.

I'm very sorry about my reaction, but between the steamrolling, unfair demands to censor material on my website, Scott's inappropriate remark, the punitive block that came from nowhere and the taunt that I could get myself out of it if I agreed to a highly restrictive mentoring program (despite the fact that I had already accepted 3 other offers to be mentored), I lost it.

Thanks for hearing me out and thanks for being objective and fair about the situation. I understand you're probably risking a lot by not going along with the mob. I wish more people had that type of courage.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHadHonestIntentions (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I supported you being here about as much as I support Jihadists, White Supremicists, Fundies, or any other POV pushing extremists being here. Which is to say, not at all. You can deny it all you want, but you came here with an agenda, to push your POV, asking us to waive all of our rules and policies for you and all the while threatening that if we didn't concede you would keep your ongoing sock and meat puppet attacks. You never once dealt with us in good faith, all the while demanding we assume good faith with you. You're no better than the people you oppose and Wikipedia is better off without you. Heiro 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)