User talk:ClovisPt/Archive 3
New World PlantsYou have rightly asked for a citation for my claim that there are carvings of Trilliums, Agave and Sunflowers in Rosslyn Chapel. First do you require evidence to show that these plants are not only exotic, but that their provenance is North American as this can be verified by Wikipedia? Second, my source is the Rosslyn Trust Chapel Guide who identified the plants she described as Aloe Vera. (She claimed these were North American provenance - which is not correct). However, they more closely resemble Agave Americana. http://s3.amazonaws.com/sws-product-images/ROSSLYN/27_X.jpg This image is from the Rosslyn Chapel site. http://www.rosslynchapel.org.uk/ The guide also pointed out the Trilliums near the entrance and there are sunflowers underneath. I think the information about the Trillium is well established and may be in the guide book. The Guide wore a trillium badge. I can't find photos of either of these plants since visitors are not allowed to photograph. There are sunflowers on the external parts of the building. http://www.handdance.com/page24.html I make no claims about any conclusion from this evidence. I believe that the Indian corn carvings are 19th century due to the style and smooth finish, but the Trilliums and internal sunflowers appear to be 15th century based on the style and weathered appearance. My main source is observation and knowledge of horticultural history. I don't believe that this information has been published and I am happy to explain this in detail on a web page and to cite it. What is a mystery and will be of interest to many is the question: why did 15th or 19th century masons carve images of exotic plants in this Scottish Chapel? I would be grateful for your advice on how to proceed. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Los Lunas Decalogue Additions by YclorfeneHi, I'm sorry I didn't respond in a timely manner, I rarely check my Wikipedia messages. I came across the Los Lunas inscription a while back, and was amazed that there hasn't been a serious scientific investigation into the issue. The only published discussions I could find were those of pseudo-archeologists with a pre-established conclusion. As a native hebrew speaker and Paleo-Hebrew "expert" I found it exceedingly easy to decipher the inscription, and quickly realized why the real experts didn't take it seriously – nothing about it adds up. I wish authoritative materials existed on the subject, and I wish I could bring more sources, but until the scientific community sees it as more than a pathetic hoax (and I don't think it is), I'm afraid the translation of someone like me is the best we have...
Yisrael Clorfene 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yclorfene (talk • contribs) Hi!I always find you working in the same articles than me... And doing a good job too!! Lol --Againme (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hip hopThis is inappropriate regardless of the persistent nature of the other editor. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the additions. -Reconsider! 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
ContactIs there a way to contact you via e-mail? Akuvar (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Dispute ControversySee Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology. 03:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Mediation of Cryptozoolgy ArticlesA Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [1], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hunter-gatherer articleWikiProject Anthropology needs your help improving Hunter-gatherer. Given your presumed interest in the prehistoric Clovis people. I was wondering if you might be up for helping out. Thanks for your work. 99.146.26.159 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"Pro-life legislation"We're in the midst of a discussion on my talk page over these edits. I'm arguing that, while Wikipedia respects people's self-identification, even if that self-identification is not strictly NPOV, non-people things like "legislation" or "tax policy" aren't sapient and can't self-identify - meaning that we must describe them in neutral terms (whether by choosing a neutral descriptor "anti-abortion legislation," by attributing the descriptor "a law which he describes as pro-life," or by eliminating the descriptor "a law which would define a fertilized egg as a person"). Care to join? Roscelese (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
ThanksFor watching my talk. Happy Holidays. Stephen 12:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
inserting personal political biasmakes unwarranted personal attack of me being an "unproductive editor" while undo-ing a very old edit which removed a non-reputable source from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_Corporation&action=history (Media matters is a highly partisan political action group, not a journalistic source). ClovisPT obviously crawled over all of my edits after not agreeing on political points on an unrelated DISCUSSION page. I view this as an act of revenge / vandalism by ClovisPT.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
|