Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 3 July 2008

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 Misplaced Pages. 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. - 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 Misplaced Pages 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)