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

Spirit otter

Are you familiar with the concept of the "spirit otter"? I'm nearly done (although I need to run, so it may not be up for some hours) with an article on the Francis Farm Petroglyphs Site, which includes what one archaeologist deemed to be a representation of such a creature. Apparently it figures in the mythology of the Lenape and Chippewa, although neither people is thought to have created these petroglyphs. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of it specifically, but sounds plausible. You'd need to check on the mythological beliefs of those people, and I'm not sure if we already have an article on it. It might be hard to find online, as most searches will prolly bring up new agey BS instead of actual Native American beliefs. The university library where you're at now will probably have or could get a book or 2 for you. Heiro 17:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking in the back of one of my sources, I found that it's apparently a variant on the underwater panther idea. Thanks for the library suggestion; I'm not yet accustomed to the far wider selection I have here, so I didn't think of checking for Native American mythology books. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The underwater panther thing would make sense, seeing as how a lot of eastern native american mythologies are related, thru their former participation in the Hopewell interaction sphere and later the Southern Cult, so any underwater spirit animal would probably have such characteristics. Heiro 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Did someone say otter? :D Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHA, lol. Relative of yours? If I had any sources for the above mentioned "Spirit Otter", I'd expand on it in any relative articles, but alas, all I have is conjecture. Heiro 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Heironymous,

The changes I have made since I added newly unreferenced material to the "Pine Bluff" articlle have largely been grammatical. I will include references for my material eventually. However, citations on Wikipedia are more tedious and challenging to me than just typical APA style references. Hence, I will have to read more and through trial and error attempt to incorporate this. Believe me, I want to include references so that young people using this as source material can quote my additions with supporting information for further reference.

Nonetheless, the entire "Pine Bluff" article has largely been written with unreferenced material now for a very long time. Why you are in a holy uproar over me taking a little while before I familiarize myself with the Wikipedia referencing procedures is beyond me. I can appreciate Wikipedia editors who scrutinize articles and help improve them with some discussion and prodding. However, the element of Wikipedia which I do not like is the editorial czars who leap from their crouched positions and pounce on well-intended contributors trying to make qualitative improvements.

I look forward, Heironymous, to seeing you on the Pine Bluff page and I will entertain your constructive comments. However, you need to take a chill pill for a minute and let me determine how to proceed.

Thanks,

Jmmyjam (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)jmmyjam

Responded at their talk here]. Heiro 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Heironymous,

Thanks for your assistance in providing me with a citation template. This has helped me immensely in trying to strengthen the Pine Bluff article. I don't think that Wikipedia has a user-friendly process for new people. I apologize if I came off as testy and obstinate in our initial encounters but I have been taking my cues from existing material and have been somewhat confused in the process. I welcome any comments you may have to help further strengthen Wikipedia information.

Jimmy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This is technically for people helping "new editors" but thank you for your recent assistance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Chief Red Bird

Do you have any thoughts on this article? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hello

I discovered you (sort of like Columbus "discovered America" - you were always here but..) at Serpent Mound and have enjoyed looking over your user page, contributions and related links. Besides sharing an interest in pre-columbian remains I believe that we also share one in murals. I now live in New Mexico - the land of petroglyphs and a very different sort of remains than I found in Ohio. Mostly this is just a "nice to meet you" to a seemingly kindred spirit. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not gotten too much into murals here, on wikipedia, but they are a big interest (thought currently mosty dormant) of mine in the rest of my life, such as it is. I have for years bemoaned the fact that there is no such work as a "Guide to Murals in America." Someday, afrter I am done with "Guide to Architectural Sculpture in America" I might do it. Unless I do "Cemetery Sculpture" or "Fountains of.." first. Are you editing murals article here? I used to take school kids (homeschoolers) on a mounds tour from Newark Oh to Serppent Mound back in the days and have a variety of pictures, books, brochures, and that sort of thing that I have not really ised on wikipedia all that much. Living in New Mexico now it is more convienient for me to do petroglyphs - the photo at kokopelli, for example, is mine, from a hill top theat I can see from my home. And so it goes. Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Murals exists, but List of murals is currently a red-link, ready to be started.... :) --doncram (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I usually try to avoid mural stuff on here, since I've done around 300 large outdoor ones, mostly as part of large civic projects, and most of what I know or could contribute would prolly have some COI issues, lol. But maybe Carptrash will. Heiro 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AD/CE

Why did you change "AD" to "CE" at the Mississippian page? (And why did you leave a harsh message for the person who had pre-changed it?) Is there a Wik policy for using this less common form (which seems to require a three letter counterpart: BCE)? Kdammers (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

the only time Ive changed that lately us when user:axiomoffaith went thru pages changing BCE to the AD usage. I left him a message because it is against policy to change existing usages. On smartphone now. Will reply more fully later when on computer. Heiro.

Replied in full at users talk. Heiro 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race

I changed the statement from only "Anthropologists" to "Anthropologists and other Social Scientists." Outside of these circles the assertion that race has no biological foundation is hotly contested. Ronk01 talk 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could have sworn..

That you were an admin. Hrm. Oh; and I'm saying this here, because I do not wish to derail the ANI thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Nope, not an admin and not sure if I ever wanna be, lol. Some of the tools might be handy, but I get the feeling that it might be more trouble than its worth. I just sometimes spend too much time on here, live in hotels alot for work, lol. Heiro 05:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do want to be an admin some day.. but if for anything, because I seem to run into many users who sock disruptively, or are banned for socking. Basically, a tool to quickly block any socks that emerge. The only articles that are on my watchlist are those edited by socks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, someones gotta be, and you always seem level headed enough from what I remember from reading stuff at ANI. In circumstances like you just described, I usually wish I had the bit so I could just take care of it. But..... my personal feelings on what constitutes vandalism and competency would probably see me desysoped eventually, if not sooner. Not having the bit myself helps keep me level headed enough to stay here, hehe. Heiro 05:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually....I woulda swore you already were, as well. Heiro 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fox Farm Site (Mays Lick, Kentucky)

Nice work with your short article Fox Farm Site (Mays Lick, Kentucky). Hope you don't mind my abruptly moving it, to avoid naming conflict with the Fox Farm Site in Virginia, also listed on Fox House combo dab page. If "Fox Farm Site (Mays Lick, Kentucky)" is not best in your view, say if you want to use the county name as in "(Mason County, Kentucky)" or if you prefer "(Kentucky)" pls. feel free to rename it further; i mainly want to avoid the naming conflict. I appreciate that you provided good info and also did not attempt to identify the location, which has been a problem in some archeological site articles. Thanks and keep up the good work! --doncram (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Clover Site

You really have the Clover Site reading well. Nice work. Locally, the various phases of Ft Ancient are not totally thought to be descent of Hopewell. There are generally two cultural periods seperating these. In south western West Virginia we have the vangaurd Hopewellian, Armstrong Culture who appears to mix with some Adena, but not all here. The Watson Pottery people were contemporaneous. Ohio State Field scientist (WV scholars concurred) Watson People were not Hopwellian at all. This culture, locally is followed by Buck Garden Culture central to the state and varies to several enfluence variances including possibly lower Drew Tradtion which is ancestor to Monongahelan. McMichael (1963 & 1968) states it appears Ft Ancient groups pushed the Buck Garden from the larger lower valleys in our area. In our Kanawha region both early Feurt and Roseberry phases follows the pushed to the more mountainous areas of the state. Buck Garden which is not well understood within West Virginia presently. As you know, an Mississipian enfluenced people from below the upper Cumberland in eastern Tennesse seems to have contact with the Clover Phase something like after CE 1550. That's currewntly being research by local archaeologists to clear this cloudiness up.

Here follows a little what I'm talking about:

Myra Jayne Giesen (OSU 1992), "Generally, Fort Ancient phases are thought to reflect geograghic differences rather than temporal differences (Essenpreis 1978; Griffin 1978)." Also, "Recognizing significant patterns of culture change that occurred at 1200 or so [ie Gallivan 1999]", Hantman relates the period A.D. 1400 to 1607 in Virginia is considered Late Woodland II and the "Mississippian" period in this region's chronology is not traditionally recognised in the "framework" citing Egloff, 1992. Jonathan P. Kerr explains, "Although a Late Woodland level of society continued in the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the northeast and the piedmont and coastal areas of the Middle Atlantic until European contact (Geier 1992:279-280) some contact is found at the boundaries between the Mississippian culture area and these regions." His article mentions Lee county (Carter Robinson, Ely and 44LE14), "...suggests that a ranked society or chiefdom was operating in southwestern Virginia. It is probably based on an Eastern Woodlands model rather than a Mississippian model; although, the Mississippian culture greatly influenced the tribal societies in this area (Egloff 1992:213-214)." He continues, "The Mississippian settlement pattern of platform mound construction, with settlements arranged in a hierarchical manner, and a political system that has generally been described as a chiefdom have not been positively identified in southwestern Virginia." (1996-2010 Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Late Prehistoric Period). This area is of the lower Blue Ridge Mountains. Adjoining to the west, Lynne P. Sullivan writes of Mississippian influenced easterly Tennessee, "There is little evidence for interaction between Upper Cumberland people and Fort Ancient groups [CE 1050~1550] that lived along the Kentucky and Big Sandy rivers to the north and east. In fact, the Upper Cumberland region appears to mark the northern margin of the Mississippian "world" in this part of the southeast." Edward V. McMichael (Archeologist 1968:45) comparing fringe area through to the interior of the Mountain State, "Thus we see even greater differences the further removed from the sources of cultural influence— Mississippian."

"The Fort Ancient tradition[40] follows the Late Woodland period within the Ohio River Valley. Joining trees (DNA ANALYSIS) revealed that the Ohio Hopewell do not group with samples from Fort Ancient populations of the Ohio River Valley, but with samples from Glacial Kame, Adena or Norris Farms, possibly indicating some relationship between the groups. This in part could be due to small sample size and a low number of sites that have been amplified. More work within all of the Ohio River Valley cultures is needed to give a clearer picture to archaeologists, linguists and biological anthropologists alike." Lisa A. Mills, The Ohio State University 2003, preliminary DNA research.

Regardless of these details, (Hopewellian descent or not) you sure have the Clover article well written. Please keep up the good work, kudos Conaughy (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the latest I know about "Enfluence from Southern Cult", post "Classic Mississipian":

Radiocarbon dated to 1666 CE, ending of Rolf Lee 46Ms51 with gorgets (McMichael) Similar marine shell Citico-style rattlesnake gorgets of Tennessee. Citico originates in Florida. (Holmes 1883:293) and The Orchard Site 46MS61 embossed pottery probably appearing between 1550 and 1650 CE (Spencer). This post dates Mississippian. The Lizard Cult "probably reflect the spread of some manner of religious ideas." states McMichael 1068. The source of this manifestation of the Southern Cult (Chiefly Warfare Cult) is from proto-historic regional chiefdoms of Tennessee and North Georgia, which developed after 1600 CE. (McMichael 1968). This is a very late protohistoric period development in the Clover Complex. This era begins multi-tribal settlements no longer using log palisade forts as seen at the Bentley (15Bd11) and Orchard (46MS61) sites leading to the historic Refugee Culture.

BTW, I'm also a fan of you visual art and graghics. Do you commission your work (art)? Please continue your fine editorship. Conaughy (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Conaughy, I will look into the stuff you left here and try to include it where its appropriate in the articles. As for commissioning artwork, I do take commissions, its my bread and butter, lol, but it would probably be frowned upon to discuss it on Wikipedia. There is a link to my website in the userboxes to the upper right side of my userpage, you can contact me there(look for the contact page for my email) and we can discuss whatever you have in mind. Heiro 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You answer for Doug?

I don't know what you were doing on his talk page, but nonetheless I have com to answer you. "We don't know how reliable their compiling process was", so you say. Yet, their genealogy comes solely from the Bible, their references clearly marked. I would not normally think statements like, "Adam begot Seth", would require a citation (because everyone knows that). Yet they DO give a citation, like this, Adam Ge. 2:7, 19, 930 yrs. Ge. 5:5 Seth Ge. 4:25, 905 yrs. Ge. 5:11 etc. As you can see, there is no question where they got their research, THEY GOT IT FROM THE BIBLE. The other thing you keep telling me is, "do you expect that everyone has this poster to look at?" If I believed that, their would be no reason to put it on Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is so that if someone wants to know something, he just types it in the search engine and their it is. If everyone had my source, there would be no need to list it there. If you would like to be that other editor to check my source, go ahead and purchase the poster, just as you would if it was any other form of media (except, maybe, a website). "There are already 2 genealogies there". This is exactly my point. Both genealogies are incomplete, either omitting generations or branching off irrelevantly. I thought it would make much more sense to provide 1, unabridged list, so that all may see the true lineage of Christ without having to re-write the generations in their head. --Nate5713 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to have the discussion about whether find something in the Bible makes it true, is it? Carptrash (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lord, give me strength! Listen. The article which I want to put this source in happens to be Genealogy of Jesus. Now, it doesn't matter for this discussion whether or not the Bible is true; what does matter is whether the Genealogy provided comes from the Bible or not (because if it didn't, it would not be relevant, would it?). My point to you (or all of you, unless you're the same person?) is that the Adam and Eve Family Tree is based only on the Bible, and therefore is completely relevant to the afore mentioned article. --Nate5713 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I answered your question on his talk page because I have his talk page watchlisted because I some times ask him for advice or help. As for the geneology, if its all from the bible, cite it to the fucking bible, not some poster that may not be factually accurate and is not a scholarly reliable source. Heiro 23:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good suggestions and please wash your mouth out with soap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate5713 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep your soap suggestions to yourself and please stay away from my talk page. Consider this a formal fucking request. Heiro 05:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Man

Hello Heiro. Just a suggestion on improving your tone at Talk:man. You have so far shown yourself to be too narrow-mindedly partisan to be of much help in this dispute, choosing to holler and cheer from the sidelines instead of engaging with the issues. Let me respectfully suggest that you do both sides of this discussion a favour by dropping the aggressively censorial approach to those with whom you disagree, or excusing yourself from the process completely and allowing more thoughtful, polite and constructive editors to work towards a resolution. Thanks, and happy editing. SAT85 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You have some gall calling anyone a fucking narrow minded partisan. I'm not the first to suggest this matter has been settled, or that another round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not needed. Your new tactic of leaving mesasages similar to this for those who oppose youwill not work. The consensus of the community was clearly against you and Dawid on the matter, WP:NOTCENSORED applied and the matter was settled over 2 weeks ago. If I was you, I'd back away from the dead horse, or it may not end well for you this time. Also, I respectfully suggest you keep your opinions on my opinions to yourself or the talkpage where the discussion was going on. 04:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Heiro

This is exactly the sort of confrontational attitude I am talking about. It is a tactic peculiar to you and one or two other editors, and it has no place in a collegial enterprise like Wikipedia. If you do not want to be notified about breaches of wikiquette on your talk page, then it would be a good idea not to breach wikiquette. Some of us have chosen to allow things to cool down at Talk:Man in the hope that common sense will ultimately prevail there without our help, but do not take advantage of that: the usual wikirules still apply. Have a good day. SAT85 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, a single purpose account the vast majority of whose edits is to a single contentious issue, is coming to my talk page calling me "narrow-mindedly partisan" and to admonish me for expressing the opinion that the aforementioned settled, contentious issue did not need to be resurrected? Common sense has prevailed on that issue, policy has been used as a basis to form a consensus by the community, you and one other editor refusing to accept that is disruptive. As I mentioned above, continuing to beat the dead carcass will likely end up in another WP:ANI about you, where if I remember correctly, you were very, very, nearly topic banned before you "personally chose to allow things to cool down". I did not breach wikiquette. If you have any diffs to support your allegation of my breaking wikiquette or of behaving in an unreasonable manner in that issue, please be my guest in filing a report in whatever venue you choose. Watch out for boomerangs, lol. Heiro 05:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:etiq if you think that your behaviour (swearing at people, ridiculing their "delicate sensitivities", jumping in with WP:IDIDNTHEAR if someone expresses concerns about any aspect of the process, throwing around unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, and being generally abrasive) is acceptable, bearing in mind that guidelines encourage editors to be particularly sensitive over these sorts of disputes. I did not come here to reignite the arguments, since they were done to death at the other page, but if you have some new evidence that policy and common sense support the photo (other than "not censored", which was dealt with very early on), feel free to bring it forward there or on my talk page. As for the attempt to censor me--proposed by the user who then went and archived the whole Talk:Man discussion against everybody else's wishes--I think the reason for its failure is pretty self-evident, and illustrates exactly the sort of unthinking approach that I suggested you might want to relinquish. Flogging dead carcasses, after all, even if that were happening, is not as bad as flogging other wikipedians. This has been a surprisingly heated debate for such a straightforward matter, so please read over some of what you have written, and try to be more constructive in the future. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the list approach probably works best here, so I'll try to get them all:

• Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry-there was a sockdrawer involved in that discussion, it was dealt with and several accts blocked, so no, it wasn't unfounded, it just turned out you weren't one of them.
• Swearing-first swear word in this conversation is above, my reaction to an SPA, whose sole purpose seems to be to censor a picture they don't like, having the balls to call me "narrow-mindedly partisan", plus I used it as an adjective, not a personal attack
• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT- is not me saying I didn't hear that, its a pointer for you to go read that page and stop acting like you have your fingers in your ears, consensus was clearly against you in the discussion, policy was against you and you ignored it, constantly spouting the same arguments.
• WP:NOTCENSORED- was not "dealt with" as you state, as you never found a policy reason for disregarding it or got the community consensus to overturn it
• Your "delicate" sensitivities" do not set policies or determine what is or isnt covered on this site.
• You were the one who was generally abrasive, else why would so many editors other than myself have voted on WP:ANI for a topic ban for you on this subject?
• I never archived the discussion, and personally, if asked, I would've left it up longer to discourage further rehashing of that overlong brouhaha. I support it being unarchived actually. I do not support the debate being reignited not even 3 weeks later, with the same lame arguments ad infinitum. The community reached a policy based consensus on the matter, its time to move on.

Personally, I think if you want to edit somewhere family friendly and with a policy such as WP:PROFANE in place as more than a guideline, you should check out Conservapedia, they'd prolly love you there. Now, I consider this conversation over. If you have real issues with me, provide the diffs, go to a board, seek admin attention, whatever. Provide diffs and watch out for boomerangs as I mentioned above, otherwise, drop it and stop posting here, because I've talked to you all I wish too. Heiro 08:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is very productive, but for the record. (1) You suggested that I was a sockpuppet in an attempt to distract from the real issues, as well as rather inanely playing on my username, and that, as I said, is against wikiquette. (2) You have sworn at several people numerous times throughout the discussion at Talk:Man; again, a breach of wikiquette. (3) Er, yes, I know what WP:IDIDNTHEAR refers to, but using it to stifle the concerns of other editors (especially when they are not even addressing you) is rude and unconstructive, and a breach of wikiquette. (4) WP:NOTCENSORED was in fact dealt with: it cannot be given the universal application that you want to give it, because otherwise there could be no objection to emetic images of predigested macaroni on the Italian Cuisine page. (5) You said that I wanted the picture removed because it "is violating [my] delicate sensitivities" (lol!)--not true, and a breach of wikiquette to say so. (6) Bad manners were never cited as an excuse for the proposed topic ban on me, as far as I am aware. (7) Great: we agree that the user who unsuccessfully tried to censor me made a mistake when he then tried to censor the whole preceeding discussion. (8) As its header says, WP:PROFANE, like all guidelines, represents established consensus among the broader editorial membership (and makes perfectly good sense), and therefore cannot be dismissed without a new (non-local) consensus. But this was all discussed last October; if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is called for, it is here. Have a look at the archives if you have further points that you feel have not been addressed. Thanks, happy editing, and goodbye. SAT85 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Read my last few sentences, take it to a board or drop it, and stop posting here. Consider this a request to stop posting to my talk. Bye, Bye. Heiro 00:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

After a little digging thru diffs and contribs, I found a few interesting coincidences. Please see this Dawid/SAT85/180.181.104.107. Care to explain those rather strange coincidences/editing patterns? As you can see, I've asked for another opinion on the matter. Heiro 07:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Folks, just a quick comment if you don't mind me sticking a few words in. While I'm pleased that it looks like SAT85 and Ben Dawid are not socks, I don't think Heiro has done anything wrong or malicious in the SPI report. The IP edits and editing each other's pages were legitimate reasons for concern - no CU would have touched it if they did not think that was the case. Best regards to all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boing!, although I will point out I didn't file the SPI, I asked another editors opinion on it first, they decided to file the SPI. As this all seems to be over, and I dont really wish to continue the conversation above, I'll be archiving my talkpage later today sometime, everyone have a good day. Heiro 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.