User:Paul Bedson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of my talk page. Link back to my current talk page here

Hello, Paul Bedson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kharsag Epics

I have nominated Kharsag Epics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your edit on my talk page

Hi Paul

I'm afraid I have, as you may have seen, a big problem with this stuff about Kharsag.

Basically, Wikipedia is a collaborative work with articles meant to reflect what reliable sources have said about a subject. You really need to read WP:RS, WP:Verify, maybe WP:OR. And the crux of the matter WP:Fringe alongside WP:NPOV. The 'nutshell' version of WP:Fringe says:

Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

Now ever since I found the article, I have searched for sources that will establish that mainstream archaeology, etc has seen this notable enough to mention. I've come up empty. It really isn't even very notable among fringe writers. It's mentioned on a few fringe websites, some self-published books, and by a few UFO types, etc. It looks as though O'Brien's own writings on this were essentially self-published, ie he paid Christian Brann to print them (the 'official website' says 'print', not 'publish', and the only other book by Dianthus is a cricket book. I've briefly read your sandbox work on 'Kharsag'. Fairly similar problems. There doesn't seem to be a place recognised by that name. If you mean what I've seen called the mountains of Hursag, then the title of the article should be Hursag and should draw on the work of the archaeological survey you mention. O'Brien would be a reliable source for geology perhaps, but not for archaeology or linguistics. And I don't understand why you've copied our Çatal Höyük article into your sandbox. Çatal Höyük isn't in Lebanon, you haven't established a relationship, etc. By the way, if you do copy paste from another article, read WP:COPYPASTE first as you have to preserve the ability for people to find out who wrote what. So, we are at a bit of an impasse here. Did you notice that I've nominated Kharsag Epics for deletion? You might want to comment there - arguments for or against deletion should be based on our policies and guidelines, by the way. It isn't really a vote although it looks like one. I see you've replaced your edit, with a reference, at the List of biblical artefacts. Unless Barton relates these documents to the Bible, it shouldn't be there (any reliable source will do). As for Sitchin, O'Brien seems to be linked with him at times, but O'Brien is usually referred to as a 'Biblical UFOlogist' a term not used normally of Sitchin. I don't know what else to say right now. I'll help you where I can. If you want to challenge anything I can tell you where to do that, eg if you want to put forward O'Brien as a reliable source you can post at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you've added some references. You won't have had a chance to read what I wrote above, but self-published books virtually never can be used as references, eg the Scales book published by iUniverse, Sullivan's book which he's published himself, etc. I don't think you can demonstrated that they should be used, but I'd prefer it if you removed them yourself. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the Sullivan one going if self published, but have moved the Scales book to influenced literature where i think it belongs better. i.e. not as a primary citation. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I think you need advice from other people, I've raised this at [1]. You are clearly trying to cooperate and work within the guidelines, but you need more advice. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kharsag Epics, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Rees11 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am currently under contract to a UK telecoms company and cannot profit financially from Eden Tourism at the current time or be employed by any other organisation. Hence it is a non-active, not-for-profit venture, any potential future profits will be directed into further scholarly research of the subject. I am personally involved after having visited the theorised location of Kharsag recently, but this is only for experience in the subject. I was not an associate of Christian O'Brien when he was alive and so should not be directly associated with the topic of that post. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing my best

I just wish the Kharsag Epics had been listed in more mainstream areas, we'd have more to work with. Even negative press would work. SilverserenC 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if we could find some mainstream criticism, that would help. I keep looking, but nothing turns up. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the Emilio one won't do (Doug removed it, by the way). We have no way of verifying that it was actually from his stuff and it was also published on the website of a seconday school, which is hardly notable. We need stuff that is actually published on the webpages of notable newspapers, journals, ect. That way, they are verifiable. While his stuff may be notable, we cannot verify the accuracy of the link you put in the article. SilverserenC 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: George Aaron Barton

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as George Aaron Barton, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.archives.upenn.edu/faids/upt/upt50/bartonga.html#1, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:George Aaron Barton saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your tone on that one Moonriddengirl! And my apologies for not noticing the copyright rules on that one. I have re-written as you suggested. Will try to ensure that never happens again! Paul Bedson (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you ever need help

Hello {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}},

You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject,
a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing!

Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Wikipedia articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. ~~~~

The Rescue Squadron is there to help people find references to save articles from deletion. If anything goes to AFD, just tag it for rescue, and help is on the way. You might also look for Wikiprojects that deal with history, to speak to others who regularly work on those articles. Dream Focus 03:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproject_history exist, and then different civilizations and locations have their own Wikiprojects sometimes. [2] Dream Focus 03:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this! I'm much obliged after a hard day trying to find suitable references for these Kharsag pages. Once they're finished, I'd love to move on to helping with other articles. Ideally, I'm hoping to earn a M.Phil in Archaeology or Egyptology next year and eventually gain a doctorate to work on and publish suitable material in this field. Your encouragement is appreciated. Paul Bedson (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag Epics

You're welcome! I'm sorry if I've been a bit harsh on you. I find the subject interesting and hope it survives the deletion discussion. Try not to be discouraged, and stick around if you can. Rees11 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Eden website

Try taking a look at [3] as though you knew nothing about Barton, could you honestly tell what were his words and what weren't? It looks as though Barton wrote about something he called the Kharsag epics. Where does Gardner fit in? Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag

Paul, if you want an article on this, it needs to be about the use of the word in Sumerian texts and reflect the thoughts of established scholars in the field. Your sandbox article is not about the word in the Sumerian texts, it is about O'Brien's take on it and his claim to have located it. And since so far as I know there have been no reliable academic sources agreeing that it has been located, that claim again belongs in his article as it isn't significant enough to be about the use of the word in ancient Sumerican texts, see WP:NPOV. I am really sorry to be raining on your parade like this, but it's part of the learning process. Again I need to repeat that Wikipedia is not a place to promote new ideas. This doesn't mean fringe stuff can't be in Wikipedia, we have a lot of it, but it needs to meet our criteria as stated in our various policies and guidelines (did I mention WP:Fringe? Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I've amended and posted the article, which I am aware, probably needs some clean up and citations that I hope we can work positively on together. I've cited satellite imagery from Google Earth as my reliable academic source for it's location and added the co-ordinates to verify existence of watercourse remains amongst other features clearly visible. I will be interested in your opinion of this source and thought it valuable to publish the article to assist with the merge of the Epics page after some of the suggestions in the discussion about that. I also hope it won't get COI-ed I have shown in recent posts my neutrality and independence on this subject from Christian O'Brien's views (along my independence from the views of biblical literalists that this place was 'created in a day' around 4-6000 years ago by some form of supernatural power). I am out campaigning today in the ward I am challenging for the UK Independence Party in our upcoming elections and working the next 3 days, but will be interested to see how discussions develop. Paul Bedson (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remove my name from your website. You can use the material, but not my name. The COI lies in the relationship between you, your website, and these articles. Using Google is not a reliable source unless it actually shows the name Kharsag. Otherwise, what you are doing is what we call original research, have you read WP:OR? That's a frequent mistake by new editors -- there's a big difference between an essay, where you can do that, and a Wikipedia article. I see this article as a different approach to the same subject and still don't see it as independent from O'Brien's views. Patrick1982's views still apply: " Kharsag is never mentioned in any scientific paper I've found so far. I tried to Google every tablet, but information remains scarse, as there are no recent translations of these tablets it seems. There is referral to them in serveral old books and publications, but most are only accessible through membership library websites (i.e. jstor.org & atypon-link.com). Hursag just means "natural dam" or "foothill", so there's plenty of references of this word, but not as the name for a settlement for some "shining ones"! in fact, tablet 8384 talks about a temple of Kêš in Erech (so no Kharsag!), where "the Anunnaki are the high priests" ([4], P.50-57). It really looks like "Kharsag" is just fictional and nothing more. How about it's notability then? It is reffered to in some (fringe) books like 'From the Ashes of Angels' by Andrew Collins and some websites, but this does not meet WP's criteria enough to justificate it's own article, " Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed your name from my site as requested, sorry for any offence and again many thanks for the contribution. Notability is not affected by time as previously argued also, so the fact Kharsag, Kes and Erech appear in notable texts of the time should allow them to meet this criteria. Ive wandered into OR mistakes and try to bear it in mind. It's hard to tell which of O'Brien's is OR still however have you seen my survey maps vs. O'Brien's? They match so closely, it's hard to consider my research original (and I'm really trying not to mention it).

I have read the translation of 8384, which is fascinating, so thanks to Patrick's contribution. I think he missed Barton, and his comment about Kes and Erech seems a little under-researched. Firstly Kes is a placename a bit like Olympus (where Gods live), not a temple or deity to be worshipped at one and as you can read in his Wiki link, those places locations have not been settled with any accuracy whatsoever and are as much a mystery as Kharsag, if not the same place, part of or other originating Sumaerian settlements to the NorthWest. The location of Kes remains unsettled, but the evidence of the texts seems to indicate that it was either part of Erech, or in the vicinity of Erech([5], P.50) - Erech's location again being unsettled. Ninkharsag/Ninhursag being the primary deity of this location would seem to offer some speculation that Kharsag was indeed translated one-in-the-same O'Brien's interpretation of Kes. Which may come into our name change discussions later on the topic.

It doesn't read like it has to be the same place either. Surely Annunaki priests (which I agree is acceptable translation) from one settlement can compose liturgies to priests temples in other settlements, potentially in the past. A bit like we sing about the rivers of Babylon nowadays perhaps ;-)

If these texts are covering the invention of religion, worshipping the first deified 'real people' (Enlil, Ninhursag, etc) in a mystery location, surely anyone affected by religion encounters conflict of interests, but find this a topic worthy of great consideration, especially if you can put a google marker right on the "foothill" that's near the "natural dam" of the ancient reservoir with the remains of a great big visible watercourse right through it. Your point about it's inclusion is noted, but I hope you sense my frustration on this issue. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Kharsag appears in Barton's translation but no one else seems to mention it. If it was notable, why is this? I'd expect it to be mentioned by other scholars, but it doesn't appear to be, as Patrick1982 pointed out (he may have missed Barton or taken it as read). Kes, on the other hand, is mentioned a lot, and Erech even more. Kharsag is notable only for the fact that no one mentions it. Unless he meant Hursag, but I can't find any source (any academic source) that says he does. This is a very real problem given the frequency with which Kes and Erech are mentioned and note that they continue to be mentioned in modern scholarship.

Looking at Google earth is fine for essays, articles elsewhere, etc, but as I've said, not here.
I don't think any scholar thinks this represents the development of religion.
Thanks for removing my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Christianobrien.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Christianobrien.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged this with a public domain license which has been granted for the image. Paul Bedson (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Content policies

Paul, since you are new here, you may not have read through Wikipedia's core content policies: no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If you have not read these policies, it is well worth your time to do so, since a number of editors (including me) believe that your desired version of Kharsag would contravene the original research and verifiability policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice but along with the majority of editors, I feel that the article has met all these policies and have argued them convincingly within the various discussions. I would also remind you that your claims regarding Kharsag being a common noun are a great example of breaching no original research and verifiability, and am still awaiting any citations for such a claim. Your continued claims that is it such could also be construed as breaching neutral point of view. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a helpful response, Paul. I've provided plenty of citations for such a claim, including the citation of two dictionaries and an article by Jeremy Black. To refresh your memory on the latter, please see [6]. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
To refresh your memory of my argument against that in the discussion, that citation (along with all the others you have presented so far, which have been fascinating incidentally) is from a business document dating to the Ur III dynasty, mentioning hursag, which is a common noun in later Ur III cuneiform, dating later than ca. 2047BC. The Archaic cuniform proper noun Kharsag or phonetically gar-sag used on it's own or as part of a phrase that the article is about, NEVER uses this word as a common noun and is estimated to date from the reign of Naram-Suen ca. 2254–2218 BC or before. All using short chronology, which is highly debatable. It is also only ever referenced to the original pantheon of Gods, to my knowledge. I was wondering if you could prove me wrong, but not yet it seems. To understand the differences between the 3 main different versions of cuneiform (Archaic, Ur III and Standard Assyrian) I'd suggest looking at the chart halfway down this page [7] or within wikipedia[8]. This is definitely an area of Wikipedia that needs some expansion (along with chronologies, which seem misleadingly definite when arguments still exist in this area and most sources admit they are not fixed) and topics I look forward to working on and improving once this debate is out of the way. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you need to refresh your memory once again. I appreciate your summary of the different versions of cuneiform, but you don't seem to be paying attention to the dictionary citations, or the fact that Black's article talks about the Barton cylinder and the Debate between Sheep and Grain. Moreover, without a citation to secondary literature, you assertion Kharsag in archaic cuneiform means something different than it does in later cuneiform is another example of OR. Seriously, Paul, I do hope you re-read the no original research policy and take it to heart, because you do not yet seem to understand what it means. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
10-12 professors that you chopped out of the article assert it has a different meaning in earlier cuneiform. Please don't remove them and then try to accuse me of OR. Please spend your time finding a source of kharsag or garsag in context, time period or with the original pantheon as a common noun or else your simple claims that 'they are in the same book' will hold no weight and make it look increasingly like you are doing both original and uninformed research to counter a word that was clearly highly notable at the time it was discussed. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? Which one says "kharsag" means such-and-such in archaic cuneiform, but its later form hursag simply means "mountain" in Ur III cuneiform? Did any of the 10-12 professors spell that out, or is that a conclusion you've drawn from reading them? And, please do me a favor, since you seem to think that Jeremy Black's article agrees with your argument, can you provide a quote from that book illustrating this? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jastrow mentions a variation as 'the sacred mountain where the gods are born', Hilprecht mentions a variation as the 'great mountain', Massey 'Mount of the Nations, Langdon 'Netherwold Mountain, etc, etc. I could go on, but have to go to bed. I'm not saying Blacks agrees with any of my arguments, it just disagrees with your own. If you want to form an argument against this, please for the 6th or 7th time now provide the cite requested above, otherwise I see no point in continuing the discussion. Which has been useful I must add, I have revised the article heavily considering your suggestions r.e. hursag. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, Paul, because you seem to be missing a basic point: these "variations" are not the word kharsag, they're different words. Nothing that you just mentioned says that the word kharsag changed its meaning and use over time—this is, apparently, your own argument, i.e. OR. As for Black, what he says is that hursag is a common noun; he doesn't qualify it as to time period. That is, again, something that you're saying, apparently without any secondary literature that says that the word changed meaning/use over time. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
They are clearly variations of the same word. Thousands of Sumerians, a whole bunch of professors and 9 our of 13 wikipedia editors would agree. I've removed hursag, so that whole argument's dead. We need to concentrate on what was notable at the time of Barton, Jastrow, Langdon and Hilprecht, as well as in ancient Sumer, where they all clearly understood the same word or central part of a word as the same concept. Please read about Notabiliy not being temporary WP:NOTE for further explanation. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"variations" is vague. If you think Mount Olympos is a "variation" of mountain, I suppose I can agree that e-kharsag is in some sense a "variation" of kharsag; but they're not the same word. They mean different things. And there's no evidence that the ancient Sumerians all understood these as the same word or the same concept. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are comparing modern english to ancient sumerian regarding variations and haven't read my quotes above showing clear evidence of what the Sumerians understood. Imkharsag, Kharsag-kurkura and E-khar-sag-kurkura and gar-sag-da clearly are the same word amongst others. I'm afraid it's getting late for me to be of any more help tonight, for further details please read the evidence in the sources just 2 replies back. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing for Cuneiform

You need to read WP:Canvas. You only notified certain of the editors who commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, ie only the ones who !voted keep or made favorable comments. It's a bit late, but I'll notify the rest. In one case you actually suggested how you would like them to respond. Dougweller (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about this Doug. I promise to play fair in future. You had armies of skeptics behind you back then though and I just needed a few friends. Thanks for your help in the end to let Kharsag stand. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, let me suggest in all courtesy that instead of spending a week arguing with other editors it may be more productive to go to a library and spend five minutes looking up the term in an authoritative dictionary, such as Borger (2004). You will then have extremely detailed information on the spelling variants of the word in question and on top of ending the debate on talk you will also have made a valuable contribution to the article. ḪURSAG and ḪAR.SAG are the Sumerological representations of two separate cuneiform spellings of the same word. The latter is etymologizing, and I assume it is also later (Middle Bronye Age), although I didn't verify this. This doesn't mean that the term's etymology is or is not ḪAR+SAG, you need to cite academic opinion on this. Sumerology has a history of more than a century of academic effort. Use it. You appear to be trying to recreate this effort ad hoc, on Wikipedia, armed just with google. This isn't the way Wikipedia works. Go to the library and come back with a decent summary of the philology of the term.

If, however, you are not interested in learning about and contributing to topics on bona fide Sumerology and simply want to discuss pseudo-scholarly publications such as those of Christian O'Brien, you are perfectly welcome to do that. I would just ask you to restrict your activities to the Christian O'Brien article, based on our WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE guidelines. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been away doing some reading as suggested and it turns out that the authoritative dictionary Borger (2004) is of Neo-Assyrian period cuneiform only. This is not the cuneiform of the Barton Cylinder and associated Nippur Tablets. I would be very interested on your views about the similarities and difficulties faced when using your list to transliterate Archaic cuneiform?

We really need to have a discussion about how the Near East Portal has standardised on Cuneiform, when there are seperate inventories of Sumerian cuneiform signs for the pre-classical Fara period (Archaic) period, the classical Sumerian (2600 to 2350), Akkadian (2350 to 2100) or Neo-Assyrian (or Neo-Sumerian) (21st century; all dates short chronology) periods. This really needs to be pointed out if Wikipedia is to expand to cover individual sources some rare, ancient (yet doubtless highly important) scripts.

Evolution of the cuneiform sign SAG "head", 3000–1000 BC.
Evolution of the cuneiform sign SAG "head", 3000–1000 BC.

Cuneiform did not just "pop up out of nowhere" and standardisation on the assumption that it did severely limit's Wikipedia's coverage of the Development of Writing. The image below from the cuneiform page's brief "history" section shows various other stages of the word 'sag' meaning 'head' (as in gar/khar-sag or suggested 'head enclosure' or 'head garden'). They could all do with better documentation in order not to restrict our knowledge and understanding of what the most important texts for our early ancestors really meant.

Exceptionally early, ancient cylinders such as The Barton Cylinder were written in Archaic Cuneiform and special importance and exception is noted to this in Westenholz and Barton. Study of the difference between Archaic Sumerian and Neo-Sumerian will show vast differences, for one, there are about twice as many signs in the Archaic form. and I suggest this is why were get Westenholz et al.'s incomplete, incomprehensible nonsense translation when compared to Barton or O'Brien's earlier and more intuitive ones.

I think the discussion was worthwhile and look forward to it going on, when you get back to Zurich after your break dab. Kind Regards! Paul Bedson (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Hope you don't mind me adding a summary of the extract from Borger's introduction below to the Cuneiform list page, just to gently nudge you into a discussion I am keen to see happen on this point:

"Of course, all cuneiformists must be well acquainted with this classical (Neo-Assyrian) script, including Sumerologists. Regrettably, it is practically impossible to arrange other versions of cuneiform writing (including the Ur III signs) by the shape of their signs in a consistent and unequovical way."

Paul Bedson (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tell Ghoraife

Hello Paul. Thanks for starting these articles on Ancient Near East archaeological sites, the area needs as much documentation as possible. I'll try to expand the Tell Ghoraife article, and hopefully we can nominate it for DYK as well. One small note though, try not to use the same phrases/constructions in the articles, like "is noteable as one of the few sites fundamental to our understanding of the origin of agriculture." that you used in both Tell Ghoraife and Tell Ramad. Rewording is more fun ;) Cheers! Yazan (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the refs, and expanded the article a bit, and will nominate for DYK now! Cheers! Yazan (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure Paul, will take a look at them tonight and tomorrow. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hey Paul, welcome to WP:LEB, we are eager for active members. I noticed we have similar interests. Let me know if i can be of assistance with anything. Sincerely Eli+ 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

hey again, i had a peek at the nachcharini article, it's a wonderful addition to the caves list and it was a pleasant surprise as i have never heard of it before. i think i can find some more lit. resources under different spellings of the grotto's name. I'm currently in the middle of a bio, i'm quite sluggish lately on wikipedia, but i hope ill be done with it soon. I also left many articles i had initiated unfinished, i have got to get back to those and i have been planning a complete rewrite of the baalbek article, possibly create a separate article for the baalbek temple complex; it's a very good candidate for becoming a featured article but i always chicken out when i think of the time it would take :S. I'm very pleased someone who writes with the passion you have, please let me know if you need help with anything. Eli+ 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tell Ramad

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tell Ghoraifé

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to copyvio

Please avoid linking to any site that violates copyright, as you did here. Please also remember to use informative edit summaries. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Leper Stone, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

  • If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
  • If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. Which link was copyvio? Paul Bedson (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the link you added here, you find an article from the Sunday Telegraph Magazine on a site that asserts copyright over the material printed there. I cannot find any indication that the publisher has signed the copyright to that site or given them permission to reprint the material. As detailed in the link above, linking to such material can be contributory infringement, and repeatedly adding such material may lead to your account being blocked. If you wish to cite the article reprinted at that site, please verify that the copy is faithful and use {{cite news}} (Magnus' reference generator makes this simple) without linking to the infringing material.

Ah, gotcha, it was the same site you warned me for above. Sorry for the repeat on that site, but thanks for clarifying. I won't use it again. You had me worried about lots of my other sites, but now I understand it, I think that's the only violating link and won't use it again. Cheers! Paul Bedson (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There may be a larger problem. I've always taken the view that linking to a site that holds copyright material without permission is against our policy. That means there should be no links to the site at all so long as it holds copyvio material. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, good point Doug. I'll do what I can to sort that. I'll try to de-link ones I notice too. Haven't been linking to that site much recently apart from the Wandlebury pages. I personally don't want my wikipedia work linking to it too closely in it's current format. Plus you may have noticed I don't really need it after finding the 3 or 4 Western Daily Press Article citations to replace them with. Don't worry, I won't link them, but they say what I need them to make various subjects notable. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about this a little further, I'm not sure Doug's rule would be enforcable at the current time with pages like Little Hallingbury having substantially violated copyright of the same Sunday Telegraph Article by David Hoppitt, which directly quotes:

The earthworks at Hatfield Forest including Portingbury Hills, and a large lake and ditch, also indicated that midsummer sunrise and other events were marked and observed.

The lake at Hatfield Forest, and the 50-foot-wide ditch (15 m) emerging form it, is enclosed by ancient woodland. The lake itself was formed only 230 years ago by the damming of a stream, but one of its shores forms the continuation of the sweeping half-circle of the ditch into which the water has also spilled.

along with

It consists of a rectangular mound measuring 100 by 70 feet (30 by 21 m) surrounded by a strong ditch up to 35 ft wide (11 m).

also direct quotes of the Sunday Telegraph's copyrighted material, totally in breach of copyright by Wikipedia.

If we were all to take Doug's view on this, then logically Wikipedia would no longer be able to link to Wikipedia, every page would have to go into AfD immediately and then Wikipedia would have to get banned and shut down.

I don't really want that to happen, cos I like Wikipedia, so I have to take an opposing view, again. Hey ho. What say we redirect the Wandlebury-Hatfield page to the Enigma and I'll get on with sorting all the pages out, including further clear up of Little Hallingbury and removing repetition and any other violating links so Robocop 2/0 doesn't have to. smiles. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

After consulting, I think you are ok so long as you don't link to a page with obvious copyvio (and that I think would include the page with a summary of the Telegraph article). Little Hallingbury clearly broke our copyvio policy and I cleaned it up. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well done Doug, that saves me some bother. I am trying not to link directly to GAP in any case, but take some of its sources and update Wikipedia with them where missing, but linking to the original sources on Google Books or Newspapers for Wikipedians to check themselves for independent verification. Hope you see all my work on Near East Archaeology. Glad I can get back on with documenting sites like El Kowm properly. Must submit that for a DYK? as the Middle East's most important pre-historic site, after a whole load more translating French. That page should be massive. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Could you watch your 'it's' and 'its' - I've tried to fix them but if I nag you now maybe that will help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
LoL, nag all you want. It's all good! *fixes that for Doug* Paul Bedson (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Scorhill

I recently nominated Scorhill for DYK. The reviewer suggested that the article get more inline citations before it is approved. If the sources were online, I would do it myself, but as they're not, is it possible you could add some more inline citations? You can see the DYK entry here. Thanks, --E♴ (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this, I've expanded it with loads more inline citations. Hope that helps. Am hoping to do a nice set of Bodmin Moor circles soon too. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tell Aswad

Hello! Your submission of Tell Aswad at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Astronomical Complex

Hello! Your submission of Astronomical Complex at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've boosted this one over the 1500 character limit. It looks much cooler now. Thanks!
Thanks, but could you try to expand it with prose? I am not sure if lists are enough, I've commented on T:TYK. Feel free to ask at WT:DYK for a clarification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've replied at T:TDYK. Unfortunately, a major problem remains. I hope you can address it, I find the article interesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Have tidied this with Vilma Fialko's citation for the definition of the term. Hope that works. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wandlebury Enigma

Hello! Your submission of Wandlebury Enigma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ► Philg88 ◄ talk 10:36, Friday March 11, 2011 (UTC) 10:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Willem van Zeist

Hello! Your submission of Willem van Zeist at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good to go in case you didn't see...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Scorhill

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Scorhill so needed a DYK? award. Devon should be proud! Thanks a lot for the nomination. This is my 3rd award. Going to have to start reviewing some others soon if I get a couple more! :-) Paul Bedson (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Woohoo! 3,200 hits in one day! Raised up Scorhill if nothing else. Paul Bedson (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of El Kowm

Hello! Your submission of El Kowm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Neba'a Faour

Hello! Your submission of Neba'a Faour at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Sandstein  20:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kfar Qoûq

Hello! Your submission of Kfar Qoûq at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! With due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

El Kowm, DYK in general and some other issues

Hi Paul, El Kowm is good to go now. Since I noticed that you have a lot of problems getting your articles to DYK, here are some suggestions that you might find useful:

  • write the articles first in your namespace (eg User:Paul Bedson/article name) and then move them to mainspace with the Move button. In that way you can spend as much time on an article as you want, since the time it spends as subpage of your user page doesn't count toward the 5-day DYK limit.
  • learn to use DYKcheck; in that way you can check for yourself whether you have 1500 chars; that saves reviewers time.

And some more general issues:

  • section headings are not capitalised (except for names etc).
  • try to avoid signs like & in captions and text (per MoS).
  • have a look at citation templates; they will help you format your references in a consistent way.

If you have questions about these things, just ask. Happy editing! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for El Kowm (archaeological site)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wandlebury Enigma

Hello! Your submission of Wandlebury Enigma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kfar Qouq

Hello! Your submission of Kfar Qouq at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Kfar Qouq

Some problems here: Moufarrej, Tony., Mawsou' at Qoura wa Modon Libnan

Freiha, Anis., Mo'ajam Al-Qoura wal Baldat Al-Lubnaniyya

Where can these be located? WP:VERIFY: "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." What are these documents?

I don't think tourist brochures qualify as reliable sources, but you might use [9]. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff though, don't take this the wrong way. You just have to tighten up a bit on sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a good point that requires careful consideration. If we are to expand coverage on Lebanese towns and villages, many of which have a notable history and features, but few verifiable sources for them. The best information on the web are the Promenade Tourist Brochures [10] which are hosted on a Lebanese Ministry of Tourism website called Lebanon 961 (their dialling code). These brochaures credit the Ministry of Tourism for their collation and production from sources such as the Mayors of the villages and towns, along with Anis Freiha and Tony Moufarrej. I've found a reference for the Anis Freyha / Anīs Furaiḥa's book [11] and replaced that. I have to argue these are valid sources, indeed the only available source for in-depth information about all these places. I wouldn't with any commercial brochures, but really strongly argue that as they are produced by the government (although not in all the splendour and to the standards of western governmental tourist literature) they should be considered reliable, verifiable sources, at least while they can be linked to online on a Ministry of Tourism website. Let me know what you think? I have seen other Lebanese place pages such as Ehden using them.

Now as for Tony Moufarrej - I'm having a hard time with this one and am starting to agree we should pull that source. The title isn't in any detectable language and the only other reference to a Tony Bechara Mouffarej, Al-maoussou'a al-loubnaniyya al-moussawara, cited in this source [12] is only identifiable as him as his book cited with in that reference is similarly written in a language unknown to Google Translate - it came up with Maltese and Polish before deciding it couldn't translate a single word! I think this is a very old Lebanese book and I'll pull the reference for now and replace with Freiha's. I need his other book - A dictionary of non-classical vocables in the spoken Arabic of Lebanon - to translate this language I think... Paul Bedson (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tourist brochures are about tourism, and tourism is about money. That's how you get things like the local government support for bogus Bosnian pyramids. But ask at WP:RSN. I've seen local authority websites with wrong information, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your April 1 nomination

Hi Paul, I do not believe you used a regular DYK template to make your April 1 nomination. Could you please renominate it using the template? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Portingbury Hills for DYK?

Hello, Paul Bedson. For DYK purposes, could you add some footnotes and refs to your Portingbury Hills article for the presence of the series of stone monoliths, please? (Whether they form a rhumb line constructed thousands of years ago is another story...) Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I've added a good cite about the other monoliths in the Geology of Essex. Hope that helps. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Brown Willy Cairns

I've raised this at FTN, but quite honestly I don't think these cairns are notable anyway and may take it to AfD. I don't understand your use of Castleden for dates either. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Replied and added Barnatt to keep you happy they're notable. Loads of old Cornish folk surveyed these last century too. imho the cairns are the most exciting thing in Cornwall after the Eden Project. Nothing else I'd rather go and see on a Summer's day! You reminded me to go and add the tourist attraction category... Paul Bedson (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've seen the Eden Project and I can't agree with you about the cairns, as I think Chysauster Ancient Village must be more exciting (although I haven't seen the cairns). I see you've fixed the Castleden problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neba'a Faour

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Willem van Zeist

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I am really, really pleased that this information made it out there. I so wanted Tell Aswad to win. It was my first and biggest archaeological page. Facts like this about an event as crucial as Emmer domestication at 8200 BC might start making people look further south an further back in time for their suggestions about the PPNB Neolithic Revolution at Kharsag/Kfar Qouq. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Craddock Moor

Good stuff. I hope you stay with the mainstream authors. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it you don't want me to mention that if you stood in the supposed centre of Craddock Moor stone circle at approximately 2600 BC, Procyon (α CMi, α Canis Minoris, Alpha Canis Minoris, the Little Dog Star), could have been observed setting behind the middle cairn of Brown Gelly Cairns[13] on Brown Gelly? ...etc..stellar alignments..etc...

It's a rubbish article and you know it! I need to add lots more measurements in there, and more prose. Fortunately there's actually a lot of mainstream authors saying all the right things on this one, so I thought I'd give you a break from chasing me for a bit ;-) I so hate citing Barnatt though. I was reading his rubbish, and probably have to buy his rubbish book. He confidently claims "There are no lunar alignments in the whole of Cornwall", c'mon please! 15 of O'Brien's 28 major alignments on Northeast Bodmin Moor are lunar! I'm sure something in Cornwall must line up with the moon. I have heavy criticism of his Archaeoastronomy review of The Megalithic Odyssey too, which has kinda pronounced it fringe. O'Brien didn't claim all cairns were 8-12 metres at any point in the book, he claims some of the bigger ones were, but I haven't spotted this sweeping generalisation that Barnatt criticises him for. Again, it is not unreasonable to assume stone circles had some astronomical or ceremonial purpose in connection with seasons and agriculture, even if O'Brien may have got some of his dates a bit late for this. The dates of first agriculture and the dates of the stone circles construction are different and I get the impression O'Brien had an understanding of that, not that his shining ones beamed all the stone circles into place all at one time.

Anyhow, I hope as you read more about this landscape, you'll realise why I think it deserves good coverage, this is real Cornish heritage that I feel gives people a glimpse into the landscape of the past, which I like to imagine as comparable to the Eden Project in notability. ;-) Have you given any thought to Stone Age or Bronze Age on these? Putting Avebury and the early parts of Stonehenge on the last cusp of the Stone Age, I thought I had better class most of these sites as Bronze Age, although they may only just barely be so. Another thing I'm going to cover is logan stones, which O'Brien goes and takes the sceptic, non-fringe view on and strongly pronounces natural outcrops, describing how they formed by erosion through horizontal fractures in the granite mass, which he would know being a geologist, I'm sure you'd agree is better than saying giants, pixies, aliens or even shining ones put them there. I guess in this regard, I'm hoping you'll excuse my use of O'Brien in his non-fringe topic of geology on that one.

Anyhow, I'll get on with some more circle articles. Will keep them as mainstream as I can for now so we can discuss what's appropriate fringe to add later (when Cope's nice mainstream reprint of The Modern Antiquarian comes out in April at least), Regards. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

DYK for Out Of The Ordinary Festival

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Good one. It's a special little festival and 1.1K hits from this will help make the event even more legendary! Paul Bedson (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Balquhain

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  • An undiscovered gem in the Scottish countryside. Nice to see it getting some attention. Paul Bedson (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bodmin Moor map

Hi, glad to know the maps are appreciated :) With regards to Bodmin Moor, the problem is getting hold of the boundary data under a free licence - OS copyright often applies to that data. I'll contact Cornwall Council to see if I can get a release. By the way, {{Location map Cornwall (mainland)}} is probably better for your needs than {{Location map Cornwall}} - the exclusion of the Isles of Scilly helps.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Update - the Council data is derived from Ordnance Survey data, and is therefore unusable. A map showing the boundary for the AONB, similar to the Dartmoor map showing the National Park boundary, is not practical. However - there is free geological data available, and the Bodmin Moor pluton is a fairly good match to the AONB.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Beidha (commune and town)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Beidha (commune and town), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Beidha. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Mr. Bot. This was just the process of disambiguating a major archaeological site from a less notable Algerian commune. It's all sorted with no repeat pages now. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, even when there's not much creative content on the page you should move the article whenever possible to retain the attribution history instead of performing a cut/paste move. I'm fixing it for this article. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for that. I didn't understand how to move articles. Will make sure I do in future. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Abu Madi

Cheers, BigDom 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brown Willy Cairns

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Labweh

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jacques Cauvin

Hello! Your submission of Jacques Cauvin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ivolocy (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you reply to the sourcing concerns at Template talk:Did you know#Jacques Cauvin? Does the single source for each paragraph verify the entire content in that paragraph? Cunard (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sources cover much of the same ground. I've gone back over it and made the sourcing more visible. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Aammiq

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aammiq, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://aammiq.gov.lb.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's funny because I'd not visited, seen or copied anything from that site making the Aammiq page. I presume the bot is confused and will remove the tag - I can't find any archaeological details on that website, they're really quite scarce on the web. The bot has found a great source though about the village, which really needs distinction from the archaeological site - even if it only has 20 inhabitants. I'm going to remove the tag and make a village page - without any copyright infringement, don't worry! Paul Bedson (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Museum of Lebanese Prehistory

Hello! Your submission of Museum of Lebanese Prehistory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! P.S. Loved the museum topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Beidha (archaeological site)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It's one of the world's most important archaeological sites imho. The images of house reconstructions showing the different levels make the chronology clear. The round type houses found in the early Neolithic stage are identical to the ones we found in the Rashaya basin - limestone plaster floors, earth mounds hiding presumably remains of stone structures like Beidha's dwellings beneath them. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Cauvin bibliography

Hi there, despite the fact that I suggested to limit the bibliography in the Cauvin page over at DYK, I am certainly not a "power out there that wants the prehistory of the Lebanon to remain hidden (for now)". On the contrary; I am a regular contributor to ANE topics and the PPNA/B used to be my favourite periods (although my current (research) interests ly elsewhere). I was simply under the impression that a complete biography was beyond the scope of WP. I was proven wrong and I hope that did not put too much extra work on your shoulders. Anyway, it's good that the ANE is recently receiving so much attention at DYK!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

After consideration, I think you're right, it was sensible advice, thanks. My thanks also for chasing me around clearing up my mistakes. It's clear that you have a great deal of expertise in this subject area and I am very grateful for your help. Sorry if I was a bit grumpy in that post. I can still use the reference in the history of the page and it is only sensible to cut it down. The DYK is more important than my own personal reference tools at the end of the day. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your support means a lot to me as well. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Lebanese prehistory is pretty obscure, even among archaeologists who specialize in the Ancient Near East, so it is good that WP is catching up on that. Keep up the good work!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for InSpiral Lounge

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Want?

Hey, you seem to be creating quite a few pretty good articles (especially with all those DYK's above!), so I was wondering if you'd like the autopatrolled user right. I'd be happy to grant it to you if you want. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, that would be great. I've just read up on that and it looks quite useful. Thanks for thinking of me! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. It is done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lake Lisan

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lake Lisan, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1986_num_12_2_4406.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure this bot is working quite correctly but it is a handy recommendation for further sources of my articles. Indeed, Lake Beisan will make a great follow up and this source is quite handy for Lake Lisan, which still needs more work.

I had never seen this source before your comment though, so will run off and use it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Museum of Lebanese Prehistory

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

When another user makes a reasoned objection to an edit you have made, continuing to make the same point is edit warring, a type of disruption. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project built by consensus and the weighted average of the most reliable sources. The best way to argue your point is through civil discussion, bringing in neutral outside editors when you cannot reach agreement. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility and vandalism

Your edits here seem to be intended to drive away your fellow editors. The Civility policy requires that all editors make our points while maintaining a civil and collegial tone. Please keep this in mind.

Please also note that "vandalism" has a specific meaning in this context, and should not be applied to good faith contributions. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as you've stopped that behaviour and your good faith contributions stop wiping out good work, that is cool. Feel free to discuss anytime. Peace. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sands of Beirut

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jacques Cauvin

Orlady (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Measuring rod

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tablet of Shamash

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

signature

Hey Paul - minor point, but your signature is pushing the boundaries on good taste and visual comfort. The combination of the shadow, the bolding, and the largish font kind of punches one in the eye. May I suggest that you remove the bold element? that would produce Paul Bedson ❉talk❉, which is easier on the eyes, but still stands out enough to be easy to find on the page. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, good suggestion. Will go change that! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Testing Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, much better! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility again

Paul, you should know better, especially after being warned recently. Phrases such as "mindlessly deleting" and "even if that is beyond you" are unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will endeavor to explain more civily. You are deleting the details about the British Measuring rod without having thought through the most basic of maths in calculating the diagonal of 2 remen squares. Please think about this and revert yourself when you've figured it out. Please excuse my incivility, I can get a bit riled up when people make edits without the most basic of thought processes involved. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It may be true that they theoretically could take a square root of 5 geometrically, but then dividing it by 2 and adding a half? Why on earth should they do that in the first place, and how would they compute this with their mathematical system? The answer is they would not. They would have had to mix some odd calculation that was part geometric in nature and part algebraic. There is no evidence in their mathematical works they did anything like that. And just as a point of reference for you: I actually have a PhD in mathematics and teach history of mathematics. Insulting my integrety and intelligence in completely uncalled for. And there is nothing thoughtless or mindless about anything I said. It is based on a thorough knowledge of the conventional literature about Ancient Egypt and mathematics. You still continue with your insults here: "think about this and revert yourself when you've figured it out". This time not aimed at me, but rather condescending. Implying others are just too slow to catch up with you is rude and in this case far from factual. I hope you will try to work this out through consensus and a civil discussion.--AnnekeBart (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't care what qualifications you have, deleting good faith content without discussing is simply rude, so don't accuse me of being un-civil. You are not a qualified surveyor in any case, which is where your area of expertise should lie. As you have some knowledge and are starting to figure this out by showing your understanding the multiplication of the Remen by the square root of 5 and being the Megalithic Yard, and I'm pleased to overlook this and explain further. You may well ask why the Royal Cubit is the square of the Remen and how they computed that. They probably didn't - this wasn't in the field of mathematics that it was used, it was in the field of surveying and construciton, and also in art as Kielland explains. Angles like the 5 diagonal would have been used in this was and indeed Kielland (the source you deleted) found the factor that most commonly controlled the compositions of art in ancient Egypt was a geometrical construction for the derivation of phi, of which the framework was a 2 units by 1 unit rectangle. Ivimy (another source deleted) recognised that this construction was used more widely than just in Egypt and discovered a geometrical relationship between the archaic measurement quanta of the Remen, Royal Cubit and Megalithic Yard; a relationship which on his arithmetical calculations was accurate to 0.026% - this has been further documented and reviewed so how it can be labelled fringe, Doug only knows. Perhaps he wants to keep it secret. Anyhow, back on topic. The Remen given by Ivemy is 370mm but this varies between Mhenjo-daro in Pakistan at 0.3704mm, which is the same as the early Egyptian Mastabas and Pyramids. Within this span of four tenths of a millimetre, (or approximately one sixtieth of an inch), numerous other world-wide measurement quanta based on these three measurements have been determined from Broadbent S.R., Quantum hypothesis, Biometrika, 42, 45-57 (1955). To name a few quanta of mensuration in order of age, Catal Huyuk, Eridu, Uruk, Mohenjo-Daro were all based on a half remen measurement. Baalbek podium and trilithon, Nippur, Early Egyptian Mastabas and Pyramids, Ebla, the Dur Untash Ziggurat, Persepolis, Pompeii were all built to a Royal Cubit measurement. British stone circles, the Wandlebury Enigma (Cam Valley Loxodrome), and certain Mayan monuments were built to a Megalithic Yard measurement with Chuitinamit, San Jose - Belize, Mayapan - Yucatan were all built to half Megalithic Yards with Mayan Ball Courts built to a one quarter Megalithic Yard quantum. The average Remen in these cases works out at 0.3701 metres and the Remen derived from these geographically widely-dispersed, groups of archaeologically-defined sites - covering a time-span of more than five thousand years - is computed at 0.37014 to 0.3705 - a variation from the mean of only three quarters of a tenth of one millimetre. This represents an 'error' of less than 1 part in 10,000 - a level of error which would be found acceptable in modern Tertiary traversing by the Ordinance Survey of Great Britain.

The validity of the Remen Mensuration Rectangle as a statement of a geometrical relationship between the remen, the royal cubit and the megalithic yard, is established by these minute variations between the theoretical and the host of practically-measured lengths. By inference, the measuring rods usied in the building of these ancient sites were as universally accurate as the steel tapes used by the Ordinance Survey of Great Britain today.

Ivimy drew attention to the use of phi by the architect (Ictinus) of the Parthenon in determining it's proportions, and to the fact that:

In geometry, phi appears in pentagonal forms of symmetry, notably in the five pointed star which was the emblem of the Pythagorean brotherhoods. In biology, there are many plants, molluscs and other living orangisms that manifest an extraordinary predeliction either for numbers of the Fibonacci series, or for pentagonal arrangements of petals and other parts, or for logarithmic spirals (notably in seashells) which expand in the ratio Phi:1 with every quarter or half turn. No written records have been found on papyri or in inscriptions in tombs and elsewhere to prove that the Egyptians knew anything about phi-ratio, but there is strong circumstantial evidence in their art and architecture that they knew how to construct it from a 2x1 rectangle and how to derive it arithmetically from numbers in the Fibonacci series.

Hence, you can determine that phi is a numerical attribute that is part of the basic structure of the Remen Rectangle. Pictured here [[14]] the arc DH is drawn from centre D with a radius of one remen, cutting AC at H; the arc HG is drawn from centre D with a radius of one remen, cutting AC at H; the arc HG is drawn from centre H with a radius of HF (5 - 1 remens) to cut DF at G. If GF=HF measures 0.827540 metres (Megalithic Yard) minus 0.370087 (Remen) and, therefore equals 0.457453 metres; GD is 2 remens long, less GF, and has a measurement of 0.282721 metres. The ratio of GF over GD, therefore is 1.618037. The figure for Phi given being 1.618034. The difference between these two calculations, the one based on practical numerology, and the other on extensive field measurements, is only 0.000003, or 1 part in 500,000. The common factor of 5 in the phi-ratio and in the remen/megalithic yard relationship, of course, controls this association, but serves to establish the connection between phi and ancient mensuration. What is likely in some structures such as Knossos in Athens is that there were two sets of 'Remen Rods'; the one standard at 0.3701 metres and the other phi-modified at 0.3701 x 1.618033, giving a quantum of 0.5988 metres (a quarter of which was the Knossos construction quantum of 0.1497 metres). Then by using one rod for, say, the north-south direction and the other for directions at right angles, the non-mathematically trained craftsman, automatically could produce buildings based on phi-ratio proportions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Measuring rod. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm stopping now, you should try not to hit even 3RR Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for White Ware

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aaiha

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lebanese Barnstar of Merit

Awarded to Mr. Paul Bedson for his outstanding and valuable contributions to ancient Lebanon topics. Keep up this vital work in this area!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Doing great Paul, keep it up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Blofeld. That's a great honour and means just about more than any present anyone could give me right now. You have encouraged me to get right back to covering some great related articles for Wikipedia, like the temples around Mount Hermon, Yanta (village), Dahr El Ahmar, Ain Harcha, Amuq, Bouqras and a series on Levantine arrowheads (with my own drawings), and that darn "largest hewn stone of mankind", only Ralph Ellis, Ruprechtsberger and sheep seem to have visited, currently detailed as a sidenote as unnamed rectangular block on Wikipedia at Baalbek and helping User:Poliocretes excellent work on Archaeology of Lebanon. Will have to get and develop that and all sorts of fun soon too. Thank you so much for the encouragement! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to seeing articles on those!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Archaeology of Lebanon

Thank you, though I can can't claim to have written the article text myself. Most of it was previously available as a sub section of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, I simply forked it off. I hope to contribute more to the article, but just in case I don't, you might find this useful. Poliocretes (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Megalithic Yard

Hello. You've made numerous edits on this article in the last few days and I have to say that perhaps you need to slow down. Several of the assertions you have added to the article do not seem to be accurate reflections of the sources you cite. Please take more time to review the sources. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I am wearing you out. I have stopped for a bit to nominate it on DYK? and will probably move onto the Dalmore Bone now, think most of the coverage I wanted is on there. Sorry if there were some mistakes. I thought we were doing some good teamwork on it, I'll see if I can put you in the credit for DYK? if you want. Regards. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Look, you really need to slow down. You're adding references at a tremendous rate and obviously not checking them. I've just seen a reference that turns out to be a Letter to the Editor in New Scientist, a self-published book, a reference that explicitly contradicts the text you added ... Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about this again. There's just such a wealth of information missing from this area and I'm used to placing edits, then giving them deeper examination, usually due to computer problems. Thanks again for your patience and sensible assistance. I'll move on to other things archaeologists will need to look for when they find Aaiha soon. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dalmore bone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalmore bone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have a Scottish family name originating from Fife as "son of a bead-maker" (not Beds), I hope you don't try and delete the Dalgety bone bead too. My ancestors could have made that! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nomination of Megalithic Yard

Hello! Your submission of Megalithic Yard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

List additions to Roman Temple

Hi Paul. Nice to see your Lebanese additions to the list, and their related articles. Do you happen to know - or could you find out - which deity or deities each was dedicated to? For the purposes of internal linking, most (not all) the temples in the list are identified wherever possible by deity, location and province. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal theory is that they date all the way back to Enlil and Ninkharsag, however the only intact one enough to have busts is Ain Harcha dedicated to Helios and Selene from what I can tell from the sources and the images. There's a good image in the panoramio external link that I think is Helios. I'll so some research on the others and post here if anything else turns up. Cheers. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's interesting. Admixtures of local and complementary "Imperial" deities are more likely than not. I'll see what I can come up with via archaeological reports, jstor and assorted whatnots. Of course, I'll also watch this page. Haploidavey (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added another, fairly demolished temple at Yanta (village). There's no record of who it was dedicated to that I can see, probably lost to legend. Hope to get back there one day so I can ask some locals. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I have requested review of your edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Paul Bedson. Please comment there. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC) This seems to be a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revoluiton in Aaiha.

It seems based on this spiteful editor trying to promote his own pseudoscience opinions that vertical standing stones in the middle of England were positioned by Glaciers tens of thousands of years ago.

It is also an attempt to prevent coverage notable topics that has reduced coverage on Wikipedia on valid metrological and archaeological topics due to people's personal interpretations either not understood, or ignored and prejudiced against to protect personal reputations. If there has been some civility breaches, it is normally to do with wild and crazy POV pushing suggestions like the megalith-building-glaciers and those suggesting the pyramids were surveyed with a desk ruler.

This type of behaviour has led to other websites such at The Megalithic Portal, Quantitative Archaeology Wikipedia[15] and Archaeowiki [16] providing far better academic coverage of valid topics way ahead of Wikipedia. Due to certain editors failure to understand the relatively easy and widely covered statistical analysis [17] that has caused the unit in question to reach the mainstream with such an overwhelming number of sources including other archaeological encyclopedias. Barbara Ann Kipfer (2000). Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology. Springer. pp. 344–. ISBN 9780306461583. Retrieved 23 April 2011.

If some sources have been debated, this is purely due to the massive and overwhelming number that represent the mainstream opinions on this outrageously uncovered topic.

I certainly won't resort to such petty and vengeful action as this editor when he deleted my posts and replaced with barmy glacier theories. I have no interest in covering such madness, or ley lines or atlantis for that matter. So I'll proceed to ignore this. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the entire basis for the subject area in question has no evidence whatsoever and is labelled with "Citation needed" on Alexander Thom's page "mainstream science which generally labels it as pseudoscience[citation needed]."

In response to Doug Weller's completely libellous remarks -

  • 1. I have never argued Sumerians or anyone built stonehenge or avebury - complete rubbish! I suggested well sourced material that Beaker People made the Dalmore bone and even this was immediately deleted! I am here because O'Brien first noticed the most important archaeological site on the planet, that could heavily revise our views on the neolithic revolution and is about to be destroyed. There are plenty of his theories that I have never represented here, this includes any speculations about "Shining Ones"
  • 2. John Neal's book "All Done With Mirrors" is one of the most comprehensive and up to date reviews of ancient metrology and is prominently featured with it's own section in the pseudoscientific metrology page, yet Doug deleted this as unreliable without deleting from pseudoscientific metrology. This is the one I commented on as improving the neutrality in my edit summary NOT "Celtic New Zealand".
  • 3. I have never run a tour to Aaiha, I have expended all my monetary resources in order to survey the tell where I recovered lime plaster from the surface similar to White Ware and saw the northwestern chasm that Edward Robinson didn't visit, which Josephus claimed was the source of the Jordan (and met Lebanese Red Cross who put red dye down it similar to his story of the "Chaff of Phiala"). I have also see the building work about to demolish the principle tell mound (similar to the hill at Tell Marj) and that is why I am writing here. To get archaeologists like Doug to pay attention and go survey, research and save that archaeological site for world heritage.

If you have archaeological training (and that goes for you too ResidentAnthropologist), shame on you for seeing the evidence [18] and sitting on your hands, or supporting this action. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misread me. I didn't say you argued that the Sumerians etc, I said you supported O'Brien who does make those arguments. Reread my comment about improving neutrality, it says " today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [19] which is published by the author [20]." And the rest of my comments on the enforcement request page - please see what WP:NLT says about calling remarks libelous and retract them. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review the John Neal discussion section of the Megalithic Yard for clarification - either restore Neal there or delete from Pseudoscientific metrology, the choice is yours. I'll happily retract the remark if you retract the accusation that the edit concerned New Zealand Sacred Geometry. And you should well know that I am supporting O'Brien only in his identification of the Aaiha plain as a neolithic archaeological site. I do not support the majority of O'Brien's ideas such as Atlantis being the Azores (although there does seem to be an ancient riverbed there) and the diffusion of Sumerians into Britain, his views on spiritual plains I don't even understand, etc. Such statements make me look like a quack when I am primarily writing articles about a) big missing archaeological nearby sites like Munhata, Bourqas, Bouqaia and Tell Marj this week. These metrology and archaeoastronomy pages are just articles I see noticably lacking from Wikipedia that O'Brien touches on. Even Barnatt has reviewed Bodmin Moor independently of O'Brien with a vague amount of competence and after deletions, you'll see that's mostly what I'm writing about. In Archaeoastronomy, collections of similar sites like this and Callanish are generally regarded as highly important. Rephrase the "supporting O'Brien" statement, retract and decide what you want to do with Neal and I'll be happy to withdraw the libellous comment. And unless you're suggesting to go back there with me, I still haven't run any tours to Aaiha so that's an outright lie as well. Regards. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Neal last night. I never mentioned New Zealand Sacred Geometry, my comment was about a book about Celts in New Zealand. And this is the first time I've seen you reject any of O'Brien's ideas. What I have seen is you linking to a website that supports all of his ideas. I'm glad to hear that. You've said you are trying to bring O'Brien's ideas to the general public without, so far as I can recall, any qualifications. And since I have not said you have run any tours to Aaiha I'm at a loss to know why you are calling me a liar for something I didn't say. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, cool, we agree then on all points (except I have no post-grad qualifications). I withdraw all comments and think you're great. Thanks again for all your help cleaning up the metrology areas, and for your understanding. *shakes hands* Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Formal notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision.

This is per the AE thread, so there is little need to repeat the filing there. Courcelles 04:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep on ignoring this until you guys find the citation that's needed to label Archaeoastronomy as Pseudoscience. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 04:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be unwise to ignore this warning. You seem to be misunderstanding the issue—the problem is not that anyone's trying to call archaeoastronomy a pseudoscience, but rather that you are using poor sources to insert pseudoscientific views into Wikipedia articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean Archaeoastronomical views? It's not me missing the point. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 04:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation or no citation, there's enough consensus against you that they can block you for persisting. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Then that will be another example in history of trumphed up evidence less charges with the primary intention of labelling Archaeoastronomy pseudoscience and allowing the tell mound in Aaiha to be destroyed. I can only say I tried my best to protect it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You are actually saying that editors here want to have the tell mound destroyed? I've seen a variety of personal attacks, but this is one of the most OTT ones I've seen. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I am saying by your actions you are sitting on your hands, judging newspaper sources and books by publishers on "family welfare" fringe and letting it be destroyed. I'm just ensuring everyone knows as much as possible and doing my best to prevent that happening [21] here's the satellite images of the mound both in 2005 and the latest from 2010, please note the new building next to the primary site suggesting that by this summer, the critical research area will be condos-for-retirees and all that will be left will be the surface finds like those A.M.T. Moore documented, the watercourse, reservoir and Edward Robinson's chasm to go investigate. This isn't entirely the fault of witch-hunting editors. It's just everyone's vested interests. From greedy people with vested interests who want to sell "Shining Ones" books, to greedy people with vested interests that are still with-holding the video-documentary and images I paid in excess of £3000.00 (two year's savings) to recover. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
And just to clarify this for anyone reading it, our article Archaeoastronomy does not carry a pseudo-science label or suggest that it is pseudo-science, it does say that there is fringe archaeoastronomy which is undoubtedly true. No one is trying to label archaeoastronomy itself pseudo-science no matter what Paul says. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I have no intention of writing about pseudoscientific Archaeoastronomy. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paul Bedson. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Jean Perrot at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Paul_Bedson/Archive_1&oldid=1142410814"