User talk:ClovisPt/Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Madman 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I enjoyed your edit of Olmec alternative origin speculations.

Let's be careful out there

Clovis, good buddy, let's not completely wipe out entire sections of Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations without discussion -- indeed without even edit notes. In particular, it appears to me that you are trashing the Olmecs as African school. We need to be respectful. Madman (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

America's Stonehenge

Ah, here's someone to take up the cudgel against the New Age crowd! Let's see what the reaction is ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey Molehill

He there. Would you mind having a look at my latest edit of the Turkey Mountain article and tell me what you think about it? Trigaranus (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Couldn't resist, childish SoB that I am: I had to create a userbox as a tribute. This hopefully doesn't reveal any bias on my part. Trigaranus (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing opinions

Hi. I noticed you've twice removed a neutrality disputed tag from Pyramids of Guimar. I notice you're a relative novice here, so a friendly piece of advice - if you disagree with a cleanup tag, this isn't the best way to deal with it, as it'll just be put back - experienced editors only tend to add cleanup tags if they are actually needed. In this case, the issue is that there is an opinion "that Heyerdahl is controversial" which is not backed up with any evidence, so in order for the word controversial to remain, there needs to be some evidence that he is controversial (note that it's only a "neutrality disputed" tag, nothing more, so don't assume that anyone disagrees with it just because of tagging - it just needs sourcing). Hope that helps. I'll hold off from re-inserting it - if you're not able to find a source let me know and I'll add it back in, to flag the problem up to other editors in the hope that others can help. All the best SP-KP (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Someone thinks maybe Heyerdahl is not controversial? How can that be?Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Cryptid. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Skomorokh 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Megaliths

Need some advice on dealing with editor with ownership problems who insists that there is a European megalithic culture, won't provide references etc -- see Talk:Megaliths thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Newark Decalogue Stone /Newark Holy Stones

Hi -- these seem obvious candidates for merger, but I'm not sure how to go about it and what to call the merged article. Any suggestions? ThanksDoug Weller (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you on Bernadine Dohrn

"armed resistance" is at least as POV as "terrorism". Thanks for thinking of "violent action", which is neutral and to the point.[1] - Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Walam Olum

What did you revert my changes on the Walam olum? Marburg72 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Talk Page, I've provided a large number of comments from journals and books -- it looks as though this has been pretty definitively shown to be a literary hoax. Still having problems with Marburg72 who won't accept that Joe Napora has changed his mind although he clearly has - I've put excerpts from his letter on the talk page. This could be a good article given time and good will by other editors on something that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention over the years. Doug Weller (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The uninformed opinion of a literary hoax is wrong in a material way. The archaeological evidence of engraved birchbark scrolls found in excavations demonstrate that these artifacts did exist. The biased opinion of some authors do not stand up to the material evidence of Ojibwa pictographic writing. More recently, imporant works continue to demonstrate the significance of the Native Americans (such as Man and Impact in the Americas). Indeed, the works by Selwyn Dewdney and Joe Napora should be reviewed - and it is shown that Napora did not "change his mind". The attmpted debunking of the historical document by Oest. was unscusseful because Oest makes the critical error of ignoring significant information that was presented before his attempt.Marburg72 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The existence of real birch bark scrolls is not an issue or disputed. Editor's opinions as to whether a scholarly work is right or wrong shouldn't be a factor. Marburg72 has been asked for any references to scholarly works since 1994 that support the authenticity of the Walam Olum and has found none, but cites a self-published (in this case actually by the author) book by an ex-spare reporter which has not been discussed in any reliable sources (Marburg72 gets confused about 'reliable' in Wikipedia terms. Marburg72 continually insinuates that Oestreicher is lying when he says that Napora was convinced by the evidence that the Walam Olum is a hoax (he has discovered a French translation of some undated work by Napora that was published after Napora wrote to Oestreicher (I have a copy of the letter) that doesn't say he changed his mind but is just an introduction to an excerpt from a translation of the Walam Olum). He calls Oestreicher's work NPOV and has removed some of his works from the references that were used by the original author of the article (claiming they weren't used in the article but how he can know that is a mystery. And finally, he seems to think his opinion of Oestreicher (note also his mention of 'biased opinion of some authors' is relevant to editing. Every scholarly reference that I can find since 1994 that mentions the Walam Olum agrees with Oestreicher, but attempts to change the lead to reflect this are reverted by him.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've rewritten the lead from a version that stated that it is a creation narrative to one that I think is NPOV, saying that (as evidenced by various books and articles) scholarly consensus has developed since 1994 that it is a hoax, although there are still dissenters. I hope Marburg72 will recognise that this is in fact the case and is NPOV, and let it stand. Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is far from NPOV to call scholars of native american writing "dissenters". Apparently anything that doesnt come from Oest is unworthy to you? Marburg72 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for you to revert the lead to one that doesn't suggest it is a hoax at all. Please stop suggesting it is only Oestreicher who thinks it is a hoax. Quite a few other people have written articles and books since 1994 saying it is a hoax, the only book that disagrees that you have found was published by its author. I have Joe Napora's letter in which he acknowledges it is a hoax, I wasn't thinking of him. " The Walam Olum, usually translated as "Red Record" or "Red Score," is a Lenape (also called "Delaware") Native American creation narrative." is not NPOV. The lead has to acknowledge the scholarly consensus. Although I think it is more or less unanimous and includes Naparo, I'm willng to have a suggestion that there are some who disagree (and certainly I know some Indians disagree). Oh, and in your edit summary you mentioned there was no consensus on my lead. Although I don't think 'consensus' with you is possible on this, I will note that you have made a major change in the lead which now asserts it is actually a Native American creation myth. Without seeking consensus. Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've misunderstood what you meant by no consensus. I thought you meant about the lead. A scholarly consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, and Naparo (nice guy, good poet) calls it literature now. And he hasn't published anything in English about it since 1992 (the French translation in a 1996 publication could have been written at any time and doesn't say he thinks it is genuine). A scholarly consensus has certainly developed since 1994. I may have lost track, is that 3 reversions of the lead that you've made today? Doug Weller (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian article

If this article is ever going to be for GA or greater status, every statement (particularly if it is broad and sweeping) within the article must be sourced. Don't merely revert a fact tag because you find it inconvenient. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Midewewin

Why'd you put that back? I really think it doesn't belong there.Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And why did you remove Marburg72's suggestion on the Davenport Tablets's talk page to add photos?Marburg72 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72

I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, one of whose edits you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view", or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so. David Trochos (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

grammar changes in the Norse Colonization of the Americas article

Good day! :-) On this edit, you seemed to change some of the punctuations. I would just like to discuss some of your changes.

1) This sentence doesn't make sense to me: "Instead, the Vikings exploited the natural resources such as furs and in particular lumber, which was in short supply in Norse Greenland due to deforestation

• I think the colon should be added because the clause of the word "resources" (colon not added here because word and resources are inherently linked) is proceeded by 'listing' the latter (not by a colon though—instead, a word like "such"). The concept of particularity (maybe a made-up word) would also have to have to be listed. "Such as" and "furs" need no colon because they're inherently linked as well.

2) [sic] Not knowing whether the old Norse civilization remained in Vinland or not—and worried that if it did, would it still be Catholic 200 years after the rest of Scandinavia had experienced the Reformation—in 1721 a joint merchant-clerical expedition led by Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland.

• This sentence was actually very helpful.

Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

science-frontiers

The issue is largely one of WP:SELFPUB. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanawha Madonna

I'm on holiday, can't spend time on this. Pyle is a kook and the link with him needs to be removed or an explanation put up somehow that his claims are nonsense/refuted, but that will probably have to wait until I get back. The same website refutes them I think. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories

I really shouldn't be online -- but you might want to keep an eye on this article also, see my edit just now. Doug Weller (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Zheng He

I have reinstated the reference to Gavin Menzies' book. It is a violation of the neutral point of view policy to remove it because you believe it is inaccurate. As you know, it is very widely distributed and therefore notable. As evidenced from other comments on this page, you seem to be inclined toward removing that with which you disagree, rather than discussing it. Please, assume good faith and don't remove other people's work. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained on the Talk page, my second revert is now in place. Please don’t push this any further. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey (Norse colonization of the Americas)

Hi,

Could you help me out a bit on that page. A user named Hordaland has reverted a lot of my edits. I don't understand. I think I'm a lot better at grammar than him so I would appreciated some comments (if you can). For example: "Unlike Greenland: which has been occupied for 500 years," is completely right: the listing of space (GreenL) is the ultimate placeholder---500 years is of space (just a reaction--indeed, you probably know the big bang theory), etc,. Last time I checked, units (500 years) can be listed. Believe it or not, the Maya/Inca were probably the 1st to develope the concept of time (indeed, the Inca refered to "time" as "earth". The guy might be racist coz he took the bolded part out in this sentence labeled: "who picked up the sword of a norse that had been killed by a flat stone to the head and charged the natives". Oh well, I guess ppl will be ppl. InternetHero (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

He also took out my description of Eirik the Red. A heathen can be compared to Norse paganism. He deleted the story of how Eirik tried to join Leif. I don't understand where this guy/girl is coming from. InternetHero (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot

I don't agree with two of your edits to Bigfoot. First, you changed H. erectus to Homo erectus the full name was used previously. Why did you change it? The use if valid. Also, you changed "ape" back to "ape-like". The second one does not make sense in this context (although it is often used). I don't believe that anyone is claiming bigfoot to be anything other than an ape. I don't really care about the abbreviation of Homo but "ape-like" does not make any sense to me. —Fiziker ^t 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to set some conventions for the page as several things switch around quite freely even from sentence to sentence. Please see Talk:Bigfoot#Conventions. —Fiziker ^t 17:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I returned the section on Bigfoot fossils in Evidence regarding Bigfoot. See the talk page for my reason. Good job with the rest of the page. It still needs a lot of work but it's slowly getting better. —Fiziker ^t c 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Cremo AFD

Could you please re-evaluate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cremo? Your deletion criteria isn't grounded in any guideline or policy. I've found entries for Cremo in Contemporary Authors and a specialist encyclopedia, and I've added links to a couple of reviews of his work. There are at least a couple of other newspaper articles out there, but I can't access the full text at the moment. Still, I'm satisfied that the guy meets WP:BIO. Zagalejo^^^ 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting at Talk:Bigfoot

It's rather common to revert contributions that do not aid the article writing process, as that one was. The edits in question were added by a persistently unhelpful user who appears every week or two with a different IP in order to let the world know that here in America, we shoot at things no one has ever seen. I'm one of those with the thankless task of cleaning up his messes. — Lomn 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Shawnee Runestone

Thanks. I was gonna add one for the Heavener Runestone as well, but the one I have is no better than the one already there. I have lots of pics from my cross country trips( I tend to break up the drives by stopping at archeo sites, mostly mississippian mounds). But when I was going close to Heavener and saw a "runestone" was there, I had to stop and see that. I so laughed my @$$ off, it was so worth the detour just for the chuckle I got. To think, Norsemen made it all the way from Greenland, down the Atlantic coast, across the Gulf, up a series of rivers, and THEN decided to settle and start leaving runestones in OKLAHOMA of all places. Ah, the gullibility of some people. Glad to see there are other people on here fightin' the good fight, Cheers! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Horn

Would you mind taking a look at Red Horn (legend)? There is an editor making POV editions, original research, conflict of interest, etc. He wont respond on the talk page, he just keeps reverting everything I do to maintain the neutrality of the article.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Flavin

Yes, his website is self-published. I don't see how it can stay in, even though it matches with what I've read other sources saying, including people who admire Fell. Doug Weller (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cryptid

I'd like to revert User:Melaena's edit to Cryptid, which removed the statement that no cryptid has even been proven to exist. However, I'd prefer to have a reference for that statement. I can't find anything that specifically says something along those lines. Do you know of anything? —Fiziker ^t c 04:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Rudd

Would you mind dropping in at Talk:Mark Rudd and explaining your edit in more detail? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cryptid and The Secret Saturdays

There have been a number of reverts over the inclusion of The Secret Saturdays in the Cryptid article. What is the reason you removed it from the article? It looks to me like it's fine (although I suppose it could be to obscure to bother including). —Fiziker ^t c 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Force of habit, I guess. Before that show aired, when it actually had a different name, it kept being added to that page in a blatant attempt at advertising. I suppose that I shouldn't object to its inclusion now. ClovisPt (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Either way is fine with me. —Fiziker ^t c 23:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS DIALOGUE ON THE REPTILIAN HUMANOIDS PAGE?! Don't you see it's completely and utterly the truth? AndarielHalo (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics (Institute)

Hi. As you commented on the AFD for the page Exopolitics Institute, you may want to comment on the AFD of the successor article, Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Guðríðr Þorbjarnardóttir

I reverted what you did to the articles on Guðríðr Þorbjarnardóttir, because you moved the page by copy-and-pasting. That is not the way to do it since we lose the article's edit history.--Berig (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - my mistake. ClovisPt (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who do you work for?

70.100.83.62 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a survey? ClovisPt (talk)

Not trying to split hairs

You changed the Mesa Verde National Park article to group it as a "Protected Area of the State of Colorado". Technically, being a national park, it's a protected area in the state of Colorado - the state exercises no jurisdiction over it. I haven't bothered to do the research to see if that is an accepted style point, but....

Vulture19 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken - the template was already in the article. I merely changed it's default show/hide setting. ClovisPt (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptoarchaeology

Sorry I didn't have time, I was a bit distracted, see [2] - I've spent a lot of time dealing with his edits before yesterday. I like what you did. dougweller (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've been tangled up in an interesting situation. Glad to know you're keeping an eye on the cryptoarchaeology redirect. ClovisPt (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mnajdra etc

Thanks for removing the unsourced/fringe material. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries - my pleasure. ClovisPt (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis

Hey dude stop reverting my post on the location of atlantis. it is most definitely not vandalism i am actually being serious. --GanstaNinja (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near-birth experience

A included a rationale, which explains my decision to keep the article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed that - I assume that would be "The result was keep. In a vote, this would be closed as no consensus; however, after examining the arguments presented by each side, reading the article, and preforming a Google search, I've determined that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion within Wikipedia." I honestly didn't realize that administrators were individually granted the authority to determine a subjects notability. That actually seems a little odd to me, given that your determination was based entirely on the same information examined by the editors who voted. ClovisPt (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I based my decision partially on the participating editors' comments, and partially on my own judgment. Comments such as "non-notable" are invalid, as it was proven by other editors that more than enough sources exist to establish notability. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the nomination, as well as several delete "votes", boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So as far as I can understand this, the reason it was closed as a "keep" instead of a "no consensus" was your own judgment about the notability of the subject. To me, this is an unfair situation, where your "vote", so to speak, counts more than other participating editors. After several searches on the article's subject, I remain unconvinced that it is notable enough to warrant its own article, and it seems as if none of the other editors who felt this way have changed their views.

I feel that the discussion should properly be closed as a "no consensus", as this accurately reflects the nature and number of votes and comments made. This is important, since it is my guess that this article, given its flaws, could become subject to another attempt at deletion, and in these cases the results of past discussions are considered relevant. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way for you to make this change? I suppose I could try and figure out how to open a deletion review, if that is really necessary. ClovisPt (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacobs Creature

In addition to including the bear with mange as one of the prominent sightings in the Bigfoot article, Sasquatch2 has created an article titled Jacobs Creature about it. I decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt and not put it up for deletion. I've tried improving the article but there doesn't seem to be much there. All I can see happening with this article is a quick discussion of where the photos came from, saying skeptics think that it's a bear with mange, saying believers think that it's a juvenile Bigfoot, and that it resulted in Bushnell offering a reward for a photo of Bigfoot. Can you tell me what you think about whether this article should be kept or not? —Fiziker ^t c 03:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a hard call for me. While there is not a strong need for an article on this incident, it did receive a large amount of press coverage at the time, and so might barely qualify as notable. There are far less notable extant articles on cryptozoology topics, but that is really not a good standard. Maybe we should pursue this discussion on the talk page of the article? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sasquatch2 and I have been going back and forth on Talk:Bigfoot regarding whether the Jacobs Creature is prominent or not without any progress. Do you have any suggestions on the situation? —Fiziker ^t c 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was giving myself a little time to formulate my thoughts, but I've commented there now. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was a good analysis. I am somewhat concerned, as I said there that the first two sightings don't really fit in anywhere else but they could be moved. —Fiziker ^t c 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Biography help

ClovisPt, just wanted to say thanks for wading into the edit war on my father's biography page. I fully recognize that I may not be entirely satisfied with the final result, but I can't accept a defamatory piece written by his detractors. I'm just asking people to be more objective and less hostile. I thought your post was good and hope it helps reset the tone. ThanksMikevf (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ClovisPt Can I ask for your help again? The hostile editor is edit warring to include a modified quote that misrepresents my father's views. And he's violated the 3 revert rule in the process. I have no objection to inclusion of accurate quotes, but not modified quotes that have been "corrected". Thanks.

PS I added documentation of the 3 revert issue to his talk page. I tried asking him to desist but he denies having done anything wrong.Mikevf (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I said on his talk page I'd block him if he vandalised again (3 edits, all vandalism, now 5, ditto), but as he's vandalised me, I'm not sure I should. Next time though... dougweller (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, from what I've seen I like your approach towards blocking editors, you neither jump the gun nor dither around too much. ClovisPt (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

In Living dinosaur =) --Againme (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ClovisPt (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuente Magna

I've just realised that this may not meet our criteria for notability, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across any reference to this outside of fringe sources; and it doesn't appear to be that important even to them. So I guess I would support deletion, now that you mention it. ClovisPt (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article deletion

I think you should reconsider it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion

you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please delete the 2012 Doomsday Prediction article. It's not the end of the world in just three years, and I'm tired of freaking out over Doomsday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahs08 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Menehune

I saw that you recently deleted content from Menehune. Could you use the talk page to explain it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation requests, but do you think you could use the talk page to discuss why you think the material is false or challenged? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, I am not the author of this information. But it is found throughout the literature, so I'm still not clear why you are questioning it. Could you use the talk page to discuss it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I questioned the accuracy of the information simply because I hadn't yet come across it in the literature myself. I checked out the relevant passages from the book you cited; it is a perfectly adequate source. Thanks for adding it to the article. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cumbric revival

Are you interested in helping with the merge to Cumbric language? Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a go, check it out. ClovisPt (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigfoot Reference

The magazine is better known as just the Engineering and Mining Journal, which you may have a difficult time finding, depending on where you live. I ran across the article a few years ago while researching something else, and made a copy. It is clearly derived from press accounts, and treats the incident as a joke. My whole point in citing it was to show that the incident, whatever it was, was not (entirely) created 40+ years after the fact. If you leave me your email, I will scan the page and email you a PDF. Plazak (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some libraries which have old issues of the Engineering and Mining Journal (as best I can recall): Denver (central branch), Colorado School of Mines, University of Arizona, Arizona State, University of California at San Luis Obispo. Look on Worldcat. Plazak (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

America's Stonehenge

I've got some stuff I could email you if you are interesting in helping work on an improved version. I've been looking at this for over a decade now. You can email me from my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good, I'll email you once I get the email function set up. I'd certainly like to look at more sources, but I never can tell how much I'll actually work on an article - I've been meaning to add some more content to Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head for months. ClovisPt (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD

You've been a regular contributor to the article on the Crips. Would you mind giving your opinion on this WP:Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pumapunku

I don't have enough easy access to the Internet right now to work on this, but it is getting worse and worse in my opinion - I know it's an article you have edited in the past. First there is addition of Posnansky with no cites to anything serious, then another editor (Gingermint, now I really wish I was around as Gingermint is editing a lot of stuff on my watchlist) has in my opinion added some wording which is clumsy and adds further bias to the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug. I took a look at the article, and tweaked a little bit of the wording in the "Age" section. Paul H seems to have already done a good job of filtering out the misinformation. The only obvious problem I see with it is the historical background on previous, wildly inaccurate date ranges. Should these be removed as undue weight, especially since (I think) these ideas weren't widely accepted when the were published, or should that stuff be left in as a sort of history of archaeological thought about the site? I'd be more for removing them. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanos is pretty adamant about them being in, did you see the talk page? Best discussed there anyway I think. I'm trying to get more on it but it will take time. I am under the impression that Posnansky had little to say about the dates of this site versus Tiwanaku and for that reason this may not belong in the article, but I'm not sure what he said specifically relating to Pumapunku. Dougweller (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigfoot trap

Sorry that I had to nominate it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot trap Northwestgnome (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence regarding Bigfoot

Hey there, could you comment on this discussion? Do you agree that this article should be redirected as a content fork? Thanks. -- œ^™ 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Evidence regarding Bigfoot

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Evidence regarding Bigfoot. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence regarding Bigfoot. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

cryptids

In response to your point about many cryptid pages having notability problems, I very much agree. I have moved away from editing this area because there are other topics on which I have a far more unique ability to contribute. Nevertheless, when I have time I have been trying to add references or tag for notability. One particular article that could use some help is High-finned sperm whale - its notability has been lacking for so long that I finally had to put it up for AFD. None of the references that have been put forward in my opinion establish notability, so if you have a chance to look for notability-establishing refs there it would be great. If it really is notable I would rather refs be found to avoid deletion - no one wants to see an article on a notable topic go away. On the other hand, if those refs are not out there, it would be best if we knew that for sure. Thanks. Locke9k (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry about that comment on the talk page

I am studying for a final right now, and today is the test. I am sorry for any disturbance this may have caused. I have been saddened by your description though, as it has been an attack on my character and identity. I am not Anti-Semite, nor do I ever wish to be. I have removed the entire section, because it served no purpose but discrimination. My intial attempt to rectify this was obviously misinterpreted. My only hope is that consolation is that not too much to ask for.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. Good luck with the final. ClovisPt (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Angel Moroni

I am deeply concerned with the way that you and several other editors are treating that article. Can you explain what justifies it being an a negative tone, designed to condemn and minimize the truthfullness of the story altogether. Its suggesting to me you and others have the impression on the topic as, "it never happened, so it should be treated as such".

After reading these edit summaries, I am disturbed at the intentions of you and Dougweller:

• "reverting - come on now, lets be serious about what can be stated in an encyclopedia"

• "we cannot have an article written as though this story is true"

• "edits which made this look as though it was all factual"

Those summaries completely sum up yours and his intentions altogether. You clearly don't believe in it and as a result you're attributing your opinion to the article to represent suc. However, if I put "My opinion" into the article (which is wording it like it all happened, as it did) I get shot down in flames for it. May I ask? how is that justified? How does your opinion on the factuallity of an article automatically go above mine?

I'd like to see the article reverted back to the way it is. Yes this is an "encyclopedia" this is not a propaganda tool for negative anti-LDS spin control. Routerone (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You really need to read our policies and guidelines. This includes WP:NPOV. And WP:FRINGE in this instance. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me second Doug's recommendations. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Sea Serpent

You redirected the page 'Many-finned sea serpent' to 'Sea serpent'. Can you please explain why? Almost all of the information from the Many-finned sea serpent is inaccessible unless you go fishing through the history. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly notability concerns - I didn't see how this subject deserved its own article separate from Sea serpent, especially as it seems to mostly be a term used by one cryptozoologist to describe one "sub-type" of sea serpent. However, if you want revert the redirect, to enable you and other editors to work on establishing the notability of Many-finned sea serpent, that would be fine with me. In fairness, I should let you know that if you do that, I might bring the article up for deletion, just to see what other editors think. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what really bothers me is not that it was redirected, it is that all the lovely information from the article was lost. Were could I add it on the Sea Serpent? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I couldn't decide if the redirect was justified or not, so I have reverted my own edit and undone the redirect. Please feel free to improve the article. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to join in the discussion on Talk:Many-finned_sea_serpent. ClovisPt (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but someone redirected the just page again. Should we go and ask him to put it back? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you raise your concerns on the talk page of the article itself? That seems like the best way to involve all contributers. ClovisPt (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ballandean Pyramid

Not even a fringe idea, just someone's 'folly'. I've completely rewritten the article. I don't think it's notable though. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. After I reverted the recent edits to the ancient astronaut article, I was looking into the "Ballandean Pyramid" with a rewrite in mind, but then realized you beat me to it. I'm with you on the notability, this seems more like a local attraction than anything important. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just been going through a bunch of articles edited by Badastronomy (talk · contribs) working on a large number of links to a number of related websites, all once you dig into them promoting the 'electric universe' concept. Serendipity though as I found some good recent research on cart ruts in Malta! Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And good work on Nommo. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing reference to website copied from wikipedia?

I noticed your edit to Aveline's Hole with the edit summary "removing reference to a website containing text copied from wikipedia". Can I ask how you know it was copied from wikipedia & wasn't the other way around wp copying from them? Is there some tool available to find this?— Rod ^talk 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case it is simply what the website in question, crystalinks.com, does - most of the content on the site is copied entirely or partially from Wikipedia. I wish I knew of a tool to help in all cases, that would certainly make it easier than going through endless article histories. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Van Flandern

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Van Flandern. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You work fast! I was posting a link to the revised article, got the syntax wrong, and went to the bathroom. When I got back you had corrected it. I was pretty surprised, but thankful. Thanks! Akuvar (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the personal attacks are getting out of hand on the TVF discussion page. First, editor Tim Shuba launches into an attack of the subject, when I ask for that to be discontinued, the other editor, Hipnosifl, makes a comment about antisemitism, is this trying to out me that I am Jewish? and finally the other editor, Tim Shuba, after making two reverts himself, and I only making two reverts, sends me a warning message letting me know I am in danger of violating the rules. I know the rules, and I think he did that to give other editors the impression that I don't follow the rules. I don't know if you can help, but I felt I needed to say something. Akuvar (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The antisemitism remark was my misunderstanding and was not directed at me. However, I have left a comment on user Tim Shuba's talk page asking that he refrain from personal attacks and that his attitude makes me question his NPOV for editing this article. Akuvar (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That page always seems to generate heated discussion. Hopefully we can edit the article without devolving into personal attacks. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Routerone

You may recall his edits at Angel Moroni - he was using a sock at that. He's denying it but it's CU confirmed, see User talk:Routerone. He even warned his IP sock! Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed on Mu trivia

Hi, you have attached "citation needed" tags to several dozen of entries in the "Pop culture" section of Mu (lost continent). Note that many of those entries are printed books. Obviously a book itself is the most reliable source about its own plot and charaters (the blurb in Wikipedia:* about secondary and tertiary sources being better is just someone's ill-thought opinion, and these examples are obvious exceptions). Moreover, several of those entries have their own Wikipedia articles; if the disputed statement is taken from that article, the request for proof should be placed there.
Finally, consider what is the practical effect of tagging all those entries. On the down side, editorial tags (even the relatively modest "citation needed" ones) are as nice and reader-friendly as graffiti on a public building. Moreover Wikipedia has over 3,000,000 articles (growing) and perhaps 10,000 active editors (shrinking). If the editorial taggers demand 100 additional references for each article (as in the Mu example), then each editor will have to enter 30,000 references. So it is obvious that 99.9% of all the editorial tags that have been splattered all over Wikipedia will remain there forever.
Even if the tag requests were somehow complied with, *most of that work would be wasted* because readers and other editors will hardly ever use references for banal statements, much less check whether they do support the statements.
Note that when editor A inserts an editorial tag, he is not doing any useful work: he is merely requesting that someone other editor B do some work, that A feels should be done but is not willing do do himself. Note also that the effort needed to comply with a single "citation needed" request is 10 to 1000 times more than the effort of inserting the tag. Thus editorial tagging is fundamentally an arrogant and unfair activity that is detrimental to Wikipedia and to the morale of its best editors. Please reconsider and desist from it.
To escape these sins, editorial taggers should abide by the one request, one contribution rule: for each reference or substantial content paragraph that you enter, you get the right to place only *one* editorial tag in only *one* article. Anything more is arrogance, and allowing it is a recipe for disaster.
As for the trivia sections, note that every such entry (and every cleanup edit that others have done on those sections --- which was not a trifling amount of work, I can tell you!) is one vote in favor of those lists, no less valid or weighty than the votes of those editors who dislike them. So the editorial tag that requests their elimination reflects the opinion of a microscopic minority of the editors.
It is true that the Britannica does not have such lists; but Wikipedia is a wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. As Douglas Adams brilliantly foresaw, that sort of "non-stuffy-old-paper-encyclopedic" contents is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is much more popular and useful than all classical encyclopedias of the world put together. (Indeed you will not find mention of the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster in the Britannica, but Wikipedia does have a half-page section on it --- longer than the Hitch Hiker Guide's entry, in fact! 8-)
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Four years ago, when I became a wikipediaholic, editing was fun and intellectually rewarding. Now I find that an increasing fraction of my login time is is wasted checking purely cosmetic zero-value edits by robots, and defending my previous work from a growing army of robot-wielding wikivogons and deletionazis. It is not so much fun anymore. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All the best to you as well. It sounds like some of the things you're upset about don't directly concern me or my edits. In my view, lists of trivia are not positive additions to an article. I have made, and will probably continue to make, a great number of cleanup edits to those kind of sections, and I would hate for those edits to be construed as votes in favor of retaining such content. Sorry that editing Wikipedia isn't as enjoyable for you as it once was. It is a weird hobby, without tangible gain; I've always felt that as soon as my enjoyment declines so will my contribution. By the way, I appreciate the comparison to the Hitchhiker's Guide. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

IP hopper

I'm off to bed, I don't know if you want to report this guy to ANI or what, but I've noted all his IP addresses so far at Talk:1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. They all are editing the same articles and geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina, so it's a WP:DUCK. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In an astonishingly brilliant move, he/she seems to have reported him/herself. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ica stones

Hello there. Hopefully everything will be okay now; I've looked up quotes from the original studies and scientific reports.MXVN (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

I believe you undid my edits at Zodiac Killer and left the message "reverting recent edits be editor who insisted on inserting a signature." Why was my edit undone?

The Zodiac Killer page is presently stating the "Vallejo Police Department tried to contact him to charge him with the murders." I believe that is incorrect and at any rate, the listed source, chasingthefrog.com doesn't state that.TL36 (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted my edits, except that I again removed your signature from the article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for removing my signature. That was an embarrassing oversight on my part.--TL36 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. EuroPride (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cabot

Samuel Morison refers to him as "the first discoverer of North America since the Northmnen's voyages" - Columbus never saw North America. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I know this. Maybe you misread the sentence you reinstated? Anyway, I've explained my reasoning on the talk page. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that some definitions of the term "North America" include Central America and much of the Caribbean. Just food for thought, the article probably doesn't need to include this. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag Epics

Would you please take a look at this and the associated AfD (and if that interests you, the associated articles by the same author). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment seems spot on. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)