User talk:Mesmith9

Welcome!

Hello, Mesmith9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 23:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Smith

This article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO. Please read WP:AUTO & WP:VANITY regarding the creation of autobiographical articles. 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (aeropagitica) (talk)

I've created the page again. It is now deletion proof since I have been sure to deomonstrate notability.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hill of the Star

Thanks for fixing errors on and expanding Hill of the Star. Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COI Warning

It is not considered acceptable to add references to your own work. See WP:COI. They have been removed from the article on Urban planning.

I have taken a look at the article about yourself that was deleted last year, and I think it is possible that an acceptable article could be written, but not of course by yourself. I may consider doing so myself, but please work by the rules. DGG (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, DGG, but you are wrong about the conflict of interest policy. This policy says:

“

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.

”

Dr. Smith here is a well-known authority on these areas and we do have a number of professional archaeologists like Dr. Smith working on Mesoamerican articles, all of whom have cited their own work (see User:Oaxaca dan, User:Jonathan Kaplan1938, and User:Chunchucmil). Other Mesoamerican editors are ensuring that such citation is not "excessive".

So, edit away please, Michael. Glad to have you onboard, Madman (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about some photos??

Greetings. A couple of the articles you have been editing, including Matlatzinca and Calixtlahuaca‎, have no images. Would you have any non-copyrighted images that you could upload?? Many other Mesoamerican articles have benefited from photos of artifacts, monuments, or of the site itself. Anything you might contribute would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Wikipedia policy can be found at Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Thanks for the info on your Aztec article

I like your Aztec article you've pointed to on the front page. It's an excellent resource. And while we can't just cut'n'paste that article for copyright reasons (and because it's not cited), I do hope that we Wikipedia editors can take advantage of it soon. I also appreciate your recent addition to the Aztec article concerning the economy. And thanks for citing any additions. Madman (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (Still interested in any photos you may contribute)[reply]

Obsidian Mirrors

Thanks for the clarification on obsidian mirrors in the crystal skull discussion. Am I correct in assuming that the "Aztec style" mirrors are round, relatively large ( more than 12 cm in diameter), and have a "projection" or handle, often with a drilled hole? I think that there is a round Mayan mirror in Penn State's excavation material, but I don't know the details. If you have details on these mirrors, or are examining them, I would be very interested in optical details, such as diameter and degree of concavity or convexity. Do you know of anyone who has measured these with a sphereometer or other optical tool? European collectors of the nineteenth century preferred stone objects to ceramics. I would not be surprized to find that quite a few of the mirrors in collections were manufactured to order, and would be suspicious of the one in the Duke collection. A large, finely polished mirror with little damage and no good provinence is suspicious. Pustelnik (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect obsolete information in this article

Some added the section on Jane Jacobs' faulty notion that cities may have preceeded agriculture. This is an erroneous position, and the fact that authors of this entry want to promote false information does not make me inclined to edit or add to this entry. I have blogged about this (see the ref). [1]

If you want scholarly citations, open up any textbook on world prehistory.

Michael E. Smith (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they didn't want to promote false information. Perhaps they just made a mistake. At least they tried to include something. Errors on Wikipedia should inspire their correction. Please don't give up. Fix it! Improve it! Attitude is everything. ;) The Transhumanist 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-build

Hi Mesmith9,

in the self-build talk you stated that the article was very unbalanced because it was limited to some rich countries and almost didn't pay attention to the developing world. I totally agree with you so I tried to start writing something about it, beginning with Ghana. I'm not a english mother-tongue user so maybe I did some mistakes in my writing, would you be so kind to look at it for a small revision? Thanks in advance, --D.mod.61 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]