Breadh2o

Welcome!

Hello, Breadh2o, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy

Hi, Breadh2o. I'm sorry, because I can tell you put a lot of time into it, but I had to revert your recent addition to the Archaeoastronomy article. If you want to add something like that, I suggest you seek consensus on the talk page first. Even then, it would need to be totally rewritten for tone: encyclopedic, whereas what you added read like a rather opinionated (if colorful!) essay. I appreciate your interest in the topic, so I wanted to say something to you personally about it. Peace, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you're missing the point. I can see you added sources of some sort. The problem is the unencyclopedic tone. I appreciate the effort, but what you added really isn't acceptable without a rewrite. I strongly suggest you rewrite it for tone and POV, if you can. Or let others create the section. Take it to the talk page. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kathryn. Perhaps my entry appears unencyclopedic in tone. I don't really understand what that means. And I won't edit war over this. What I have been attempting to accomplish for weeks now is to establish balance to the archaeologically-centric POV of academic tag-team AlunSalt and SteveMcCluskey, as the Talk forum clearly establishes. We have reached a philosophical impasse whereby they have unilaterally declared a consensus on my RfC which I challenge as inconclusive and premature, justifying their resumption of sanitizing the article to match their exclusive POV, which I find terribly skewed and authoritarian in many respects. My appends to their initiated sections have been reverted to their exclusive authorship of provincial, erudite and scholarly viewpoints, heavily annotated and self-righteous in tone. AND THAT I UNDERSTAND. I felt by initiating my own contrarian, free-standing section this might just be the key to expressing, in a concise, clear, cohesive and logical fashion, the minority viewpoints that are suppressed by these two and leave readers without an understanding of the background politics that is being played out so long as archaeology dominates in its control, unchecked. This is sad, but you have condoned this injustice. I'm beginning to understand city hall rules and prevails, despite the libertarian foundation of Wikipedia, it will and does. Egalitarianism and fairness are sacrificed so the rules can be upheld above all else. My expository style couldn't be any more different than Salt and McCluskey's, no question, and I have addressed this repeatedly and forcefully as well in various talk threads. I communicate. There is a problem that exists with archaeology's dominion over archaeoastronomy. It is reflected in books and numerous contemporary news outlets. And the injustice will continue as long as valid, well-sourced minority opinions get wiped lock, stock and barrel. This discourages good editors with a flair for expression and entitles dull prose with slanted POV to prevail. I try my best to balance, but my best is no good, I suppose. Breadh2o (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've responded. Your reversions without discussion or consensus worried me. While I understand that you feel frustrated by the impasse with other editors on the Archaeoastronomy article, I would like to offer some observations from someone who only just came upon this situation. People with an academic orientation are always going to be more comfortable on WP, because it's an encyclopedia. If you want to write to write colorful essays where you don't have to collaborate with others or follow guidelines, really, WP is not going to be a satisfying venue for that endeavour. I'd suggest starting a blog for that sort of work. I know that others have posted things for you about what constitute Reliable Sources on WP. The thing is, I don't think anyone was doing this to try to hurt you, as WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR are not a matter of opinion here; they are core policies.

I am also concerned with some of what you have on your user page. Another admin has now removed your personal attack on Alun Salt. Please be aware that WP User pages do not belong to us as individuals, they belong to Wikipedia. They should not be used to attack other users or post articles that you could not get consensus to post in the mainspace. I would suggest that you remove the "The Politics of Archaeoastronomy" and "History open" sections from your user page, as that's really not the purpose of a user page on WP.

I realize some of this may be hard to hear, but I hope it has helped clarify some things for you. I would also suggest that if you are really interested in being a Wikipedian, that you calm down about the Archaeoastronomy article. The best editing happens when we are not overly attached to the results, because nothing on WP is ever guaranteed to stay the way we write it. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the draft sections for the aa article have been removed. I'm very discouraged about double standards and selective enforcement. I guess it's OK for others to maintain running logs of my foibles on their user pages so long as they carefully annotate the details. I guess it's OK for some to team up and remove every last word from an article to maintain their POV and ownership of content without rebuke. I guess it's OK to game the system and refuse to get the point and accuse me of all sorts of nonsense about sources alleged to be not as good, reliable or verifiable as the academic citations they present. With the exception of the Stones of Wonder (website essay) footnote in my draft on tonight's Politics segment I attempted to insert, everything else checks out as either high-end mainstream news organizations or published books. My History lead the other day was indisputably true in every detail and was reliably sourced. But it was summarily trashed by Alun with his same intransigent excuse "Metrology is not archaeolastronomy!" mantra, discredited by me many times. For weeks, we've gone around in circles on this persistent mischaracterization by him, and as anyone who reads with comprehension could tell in Thursday's piece, Alun prevailed once again in his refusal-to-get-the-point, considered a disruptive behavior in the WP policy book. For weeks now I have been working to get a word in edgewise in a couple key places of their article, but every last word of mine has been erased with the exception of a lead sentence altered by Steve McCluskey in his insertion of the vague conditional adjective professional between no and archaeologists as being on the scene two hundred years ago. When WP punishes me for my infraction of bad-talking the opposition and allows a pair of collaborative authors to preserve only their words, their POV, and entitle them to delete at will any opinion they disagree with, then it is condoning and empowering violations. I urge you to examine the logs. Good stuff that would have helped to balance the POV, attempted in many different ways, with many different rewrites, vetted in advance on the Talk page, have been systematically trashed by the owners. What has been going on for the past few weeks is disgraceful...and validates everything I have alleged about the problems with leaving hard core archaeologists in control of the shop. Check the logs. Read the threads. Why wouldn't someone want to throw in the towel or let off some steam after all this? Breadh2o (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

With regard to your comments on User:Breadh2o: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your userpage is not a soapbox to rant against editors with whom you disagree. Blueboy96 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, Blueboy. There's a ton of injustice and unaccountability for many things going on with the archaeoastronomy article. I'm not being disruptive regarding the edits, trying really, really hard to make the points that need to be made by somebody without having them inevitably erased. When I put up my intro and history for this article that ran from Jan 5 through March 16, I preserved every essential point and reference from the previous version. When my article was wiped, absolutely nothing I contributed was retained.I wonder if anyone hears my appeal to common sense about the injustices of being squelched. Where's the justice in halting WP:OWN violations? Breadh2o (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o, can you see the irony in accusing other editors of WP:OWN when you write about the article in this way: "When my article was wiped," ? From what I can see coming into this from the outside, you are excessively focused on this article. You seem to be doing nothing else here on WP. While I commend you for sticking to the talk page recently, I would also suggest that you back off and try to understand policy a bit better. You may not perceive what you are doing as disruptive, but other editors are perceiving it that way. Please consider that, as well as refresh yourself on the policies others have pointed out to you. I would also suggest you stop using every exchange as an excuse to berate other editors. That is against the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kathryn, apparently I slipped up when referencing the intro and History sections I rewrote which were on line from January 5 to March 16. I think a fair review paragraph 5 will show I worked to establish this more refined and proper characterization, but, yes, I am fallible. On the other hand, no, I suppose I do not see the irony you do, if actions (not mere words) demonstrate who clearly prevails in violating WP:OWN. Kindly direct me to another major scientific article on Wikipedia where only 2 authors dominate to the degree the other editors on archaeoastronomy do. You dismiss Barry Fell as discredited by Ogham authorities. Yes, Dr. Fell had a battalion of critics in mainstream archaeology, and I'm not entirely supportive of everything he did. But his extensive body of published works are not without meaning or value, archaeology's repulsion toward his diffusionist theories notwithstanding. University of Edinburgh's Kenneth Jackson and Harvard's Calvert Watkins, mainstream Ogham scholars, also wrote letters on the Colorado Ogham debate that demonstrate they made major gaffes as well, when contrasted to the pioneering research of antiquarian R.A.S. MacAllister and his primary source of the Ogham Tract in the Book of Ballymote. Barry was faithful to the consonantal variety (cited in the Ogham Tract and by MacAllister) found in America, but he blew a number of translations by misinterpreting photographic and artistic renditions. There's always uncertainty, as well, when you must insert missing vowels. And let's not ignore University of Calgary professor emeritus of archaeology David H. Kelley's remarks in the Spring 1990 edition of The Review of Archaeology:

I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham. Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has done wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World.

But the Barry Fell digression is a microcosm of the larger issue of content control in WP and when balance is warranted. What you apparently are stating in dismissing Fell is that it's perfectly fine and dandy for the collaborative authors to slam Fell's linguistics as they please AND to allow them to suppress context that might otherwise balance their critique. Who decides? I have been overpowered here. Speaking of irony, it's interesting that criticism of linguistics is now approved, but no criticism of archaeology is to be tolerated (as the author of the linguistics criticism forcefully insists): "Critiques of mainstream archaeology belong in articles devoted to such critiques, not here.'' even though it sets itself up to judge what is and what is not mainstream archaeoastronomy, and, must indisputably qualify as relevant to the topic, particularly when it rules all non-indigenous examples out-of-bounds strictly based on their non-indigenousness, not on the potential of intentionality for valid archaeoastronomy. But I'm not the one owning and managing the article today. I'm the one on probation. And no one in WP, as far as I can tell, is standing up to address the trangressions by the tag team authors, now emboldened. It seems they've been greenlighted to do as they please, and revert any edit of mine they won't accept. (And, they don't accept ANY). To me, that's injustice. Yes, other admin eyes would be nice, here. Otherwise Jimmy Wales' lofty libertarian principles favoring inclusion over exclusion and urging editors to BE BOLD are just mumbo jumbo from Jimbo. Today, it seems, you still can't fight City Hall and the establishment. Contrarians need to be silenced and must bow faithfully to the one truth of the majority's intransigent POV, no matter how flawed that might be. George Orwell's quote from 1984 might rally some WP admins to my defense. Or not. We'll see. -- Breadh2o (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o once again misunderstands the nature of Wikipedia, claiming that Jimbo Wales is an advocate of "libertarian principles favoring inclusion over exclusion." He quotes me in italics as saying that critiques of mainstream archaeology belong in articles devoted to such critiques, not here. But I'm not the source of that idea, it comes from the policy on NPOV which quotes Jimbo Wales on the matter:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all....

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Breadh2o cites very few archaeologists (mainly David Kelley) to support his position, making it an extremely small minority view. As such it only belongs in an ancillary article, as I have repeatedly argued. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic University of America professor of Celtic Robert Meyer, NASA astronomer Rollin Gillespie, research chemist Jim Guthrie, Regis University professor Dennis Gallagher, epigrapher Phil Leonard, authors Bill McGlone and Gloria Farley, in lingustics Harvard professor Barry Fell, in chemically dating the rock art to antiquity ASU Tempe professor of Geography Ron Dorn, in support of "apparent" intentionality of the Crack Cave archaeoastronomy, USGS Robert K. Mark (Ph.D. Geology) and Evelyn Newman. These people are at least as distinguished in their fields as W.H. Lesser and R.B. Wise. The media attention over the years of SE Colorado archaeoastronomy is far more notable than the companion claim in WV. The lesser one gets all your attention, exclusively, as an easy straw man to pick apart and mock. The far better examples get swept into the revert dustbin, as irrelevant and unworthy of at least parallel mention. Having Carte Blanche to make judgment calls on which people and which sites are worthy of discussion and which are not is a pretty sweet advantage. -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been talking about Breadh2o's insistence that critiques of mainstream archaeology belong in this article. Kelley has apparently published a critique of mainstream archaeology in refereed publications, have any of these others? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I want and expect: fairness and balance. The choice to initialize discussion of Fringe archaeoastronony within the article was yours. You also decided to target deficiencies in the WV site as one of only 2 examples you chose at the outset. In the process, you have included an attack on Barry Fell's linguistic errors in translating Ogham. My efforts to balance this with even-more-notable, companion Ogham-in-America examples which, unlike the WV site exhibit high precision archaeoastronomy and for which Dr. Fell has participated in translations that did indicate seasonal cusp events prior to actual modern observations of such, have been repeatedly erased by the tag team. Kelley's quote has been repeatedly erased by the tag team. Verifiable and reliable sources that speak to the notable myopia archaeology has for non-indigenous pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact have been repeatedly erased by the tag team. We're talking TIME, the BBC, CBS News and the Atlantic (I could throw in a 1986 AP article as well, if you'd like an even handful) -- all high end sources from mainstream news organizations which qualify under WP guidelines for reliable and verifiable sources. (no, they're not published in peer reviewed archaeological journals --- one would not expect tolerance to permit such heresy there --- but the Fifth Estate is a check and balance on issues precisely like this, where science runs amuk drinking too much of its own KoolAid.) The subject matter is notable. The advocates do not constitute a tiny minority, but few outside of Kelley hold the golden passkey that opens doors for archaeological peer review or publication. If they did, they probably wouldn't be in the minority (Catch 22 here, folks!). I'm not out to attack archaeology wholesale, top to bottom, but in the context of it sitting in judgment on archaeoastronomy, it's impartiality or lack thereof when it comes to evidence that rocks the institutional dogma IS FAIR GAME. You opened up the topic, now open up the discussion. There's more I want, such as a reality check in the History section on the fact that the Great Pyramid was a catalyst in astronomy's adolescence which paved the way for diverse specialties such as archaeoastronomy, and perhaps inclusion of Vine Deloria, Jr.'s observations about less-than-comprehensive analysis of AmeriIndian ethnographies (to likewise whitewash anything suggestive of diffusionism), but let's focus on this issue first. Archaeology either needs to be called to task or share judgment calls with other scientists who don't have the blindspot archaeologists, by and large, DO.

Oh, one more thing, as a housekeeping matter, I'm removing Dennis Gallagher (the present Denver City Auditor) as an advocate. He's probably more of a sympathizer and was a student of Meyers. But I am adding author Martin Brennan as a proponent. He had encountered major interference with archaeologists in trying to nail down an assortment of new archaeoastronomical alignments in the Boyne Valley and at Loughcrew a generation ago. He visited the Anubis Caves a year ago this vernal equinox and was blown away by its sundown archaeoastronomy. He was also pretty thrilled with a cross quarter sunrise event nearby that has more purported Ogham. -- Breadh2o (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not archaeology needs to be called to task, it's: How can we best write an archaeoastronomy article within the Wikipedia guidelines?'. So WP:NOTE would be a helpful guide to notability.

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.
Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.

Of the sources you've cited, only the CBS story supports your position and the TIME and BBC articles don't even mention archaeoastronomy. Archaeologists talking about pre-Clovis archaeology is not relevant, unless you have some pre-Clovis archaeoastronomy.

If there's something which fits WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR then that's great - if it's about archaeoastronomy. That's why I'm tending to cite archaeoastronomers in archaeoastronomical publications. If you want to tackle the problems with archaeology then an archaeological entry may be better or, if it's original research, another venue.

While I don't agree with your conclusions, that's not the problem. It's the method that's the issue, because if I were to adopt your methods the article would mainly be about Atlantis and ancient astronauts which have gained far more coverage in the popular media than Celts in America. If you think the RS policy is unfair I'd suggest taking that up on the RS talk page. Alun Salt (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(unident) My intended rebuttal or balance, as I prefer to term it, to the WV Ogham-archaeoastronomy-in-America and Fell-linguistics-bashing in the present Fringe archaeoastronomy section is 3-pronged, as my short-lived March 31 attempt demonstrates.

Firstly, with footnotes 110, the first McGlone/Leonard book (primary source) and 111, the CBS News report (secondary source), the CO/OK companion sites are introduced. To further establish notability, here are two brand new refs I'm adding to the mix today: a Rocky Mountain News article and an Associated Press report as printed in The Sacramento Union. The Atlantic article also includes an image from the Nosepointer Cave in OK and a lengthy discussion of the Barry Fell conundrum, as well as quotes by archaeologist David H. Kelley and Native American activist Vine Deloria, Jr. To further offset the "just a short burst of news reports" concern expressed above, there's also the November 2004 Colorado Daily article where CU archaeologists and anthropologists engaged in condemning updated evidence regarding the CO/OK sites a day before its presentation. Sometimes the imperative to attack first and examine the actual evidence second is simply too irresistible. What ever happened to the scientific method?

Secondly, with footnotes 112, the TIME article, and 113 the BBC radio transcript, the notable issue of archaeology's resistance to pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is addressed, as well as the institutional intimidation directed at researchers bold enough to investigate matters that would undermine the dogma. Alun, you exasperate my patience yet again with your statement above, "Archaeologists talking about pre-Clovis archaeology is not relevant, unless you have some pre-Clovis archaeoastronomy." As I stated 2 days ago in Talk duplicated on my User page:

When the WP article authors purge all traces of Kelley and every uncomplimentary mainstream news media report about archaeology's myopia w/r/t diffusionism, then the article's neutrality is being sacrificed to preserve an institution's unblemished reputation. WP:NPOV. And when such a blindspot colors the evaluation for claims for either non-indigenous archaeology (the Solutrean hypothesis) or non-indigenous archaeoastronomy (CO/OK sites), then science fails the public trust.

Your refusal to get the point that the BBC transcript reference is not cited in any way, shape or form to validate any archaeoastronomy claim, but rather to shed light on archaeology's machinations, has been incurable for weeks now. Despite my best efforts to make this important distinction, you won't grasp it, clinging to false linkage. The kernel of insightfulness that emerges in this article has nothing to do in particular with the era of investigation, but everything to do with what Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford has to say about archaeology as an institution, to wit, "When you dig deeper than Clovis a lot of people do not report it because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues." This problem endemic with archaeology is something you refuse to concede, but must I continue to tolerate disruptive behavior in denying Stanford's observation and relevance to the attempted balance I seek to bring to this article? The intimidation Stanford suggests is palpable. Anyone reading the TIME or the Atlantic article understands there's bias and dogma ruling archaeology today. And it has direct consequences for archaeoastronomy claims that might imply non-indigenousness running the gauntlet lorded over by archaeology.

Thirdly, with footnote 114, the quote from Kelley exactly nails why archaeologists are perhaps not the best equipped for evaluating intangibles, such as astronomy. This is an authoritative archaeologist addressing an issue with a perspective inside the club. To deny by repeatedly deleting this fair commentary worthy of inclusion in context of Fringe, and within an article that aims to establish archaeology as the primary authority for determining what is mainstream and what is not, is to silence an important and notable minority opinion. I am not asking to rewrite the article from a minority POV. But 3 to 5% devoted to some balance here seems reasonable and proportional; right now the meter is pegged at ZERO per cent. I highly doubt there's any imminent danger of the archaeoastronomy article falling into disrepute out of fear that advocates will come to defend Atlantis or Erich Von Dăniken --- it stretches creduity to think they'd find the quality or quantity of WP:RS and WP:V sources that I have assembled in arguing my case. But if they should, that's not a fight I would join. So let's avoid such senseless speculation and exaggeration, shall we? I continue to vigorously deny I am POV pushing here. My aim is to neutralize imbalances that persist, and which Kathryn_NicDhàna seems to endorse by her choice to side with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey, permitting them carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continue the discussion here, I am replying on the article talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

You may want to rethink the quote on your user page. One way to get blocked is to immediately repeat an offence, and following your comments on the Archaeoastronomy talk page it could be read as an attack on the editors rather than the content, and a signal of intent to continue edit warring. I thought it best to raise it here rather than with the editors because it could be a sign of passion rather than malice.

Unfortunately the two can be confused and you may find people become less tolerant. Alun Salt (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, we do not see eye to eye on many issues, the interpretation of the George Orwell quote, among them. There is no personal attack. I suggest Orwell's insight is instructive on the profound consequences of attempting to whitewash history and the inordinate fear that conveys. If tolerated today, future historians will likewise be encouraged to continue practices we, the most enlightened so far in the river of history, apparently condone. They will take the raw history and revise to their proud perspectives evolved over time, superior in all ways to what makes sense to us, contemporaneously. Take the quote as you will. I think it is what it is. I would hope some compromise and egalitarianism might prevail, but zero tolerance for minority opinion in the archaeoastronomy article is unrelenting. WP:EQ#A_few_things_to_bear_in_mind -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

Hello, Breadh2o. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on Archaeoastronomy, final warning on civility issues

A copy of my post on ANI, in case you didn't see it:

Enough of this. This is the same time-wasting behaviour and exact arguments that appear to me to have been going on endlessly, despite multiple warnings. I think we have consensus for a topic ban on Breadh2o. Indef is fine with me. If he respects the ban, manages to keep from getting blocked on NPA/CIVIL violations, and becomes a productive Wikipedian, I would consider lifting the ban at a (much) later date. However, Breadh2o, if you keep yelling at people you're getting blocked. Consider this your last warning. And don't think you can go and try these same tactics on other articles. This warning applies across the board. To clarify if it's not clear to you: a topic ban means you are being asked to stop editing articles related to Archaeoastronomy. It is also preferred that you stay off the talk pages. If you violate this ban, you'll have your ability to edit the encyclopedia at all taken away by physical means (that's what a block is, you won't be able to edit anything on WP). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that this is clear. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)