User talk:Stronzina

Please stop misrepresenting sources
I meant to warn you the first time you did this. You wrote " A genetic study published in 2021 indicates that horses, that were directly related to the modern horses, were still present in Yukon at least until 5,700 years ago or mid-Holocene." despite the fact that the sources do not actually say that. Then you added "Scientists have pointed out however, that "small refugial populations (of horses) might have survived in remote pockets at sizes too small to be readily detected by macrofossil collections derived largely from a small set of resource extraction and development sites." Again, nothing in that source suggests what you are implying, that horses may have survived into BOM times. If you disagree, argue you case at WP:RSN. Note that although I won't do it as I'm involved, you can be blocked from editing specific articles (leaving you free to use talk pages however). Pinging User:Epachamo so that he's aware of this warning.  Doug Weller  talk 10:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Second post was not to say that horses were present in BOM times, simply that the citation indicates that the scientific evidence and the article indicates that extinction was not uniform. As far as the 5700 BC date, that is exactly what the article says. I am a scientist with advanced degrees, perhaps Epachamo is not a scientist and is unfamiliar with this type of soil/permafrost analysis. Kind of surprised of your threats to cancel me based on a simple objection to a post. Seems like you and Epachamo are emotionally vested in Mormon related topics which is not really becoming for a Wikipedia editors tbh. Stronzina (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Where does it say related to modern horses? I’m not questioning the 5700 date. Im not sure what the relevance is of saying the extinction wasn’t uniform, which of course they rarely are. As for the soil/permafrost analysis, all we care about is their conclusions. Epachamo does a lot of good work of Mormon related topics, much more than I do. As for emotionally vested, I don’t understand that at all. All 3 of us are editing related articles, although Epachamo knows a lot more about them than I do. Finally, we don’t “cancel” people on Wikipedia. I should have been more clear. You need to get a agreement that your sources back your edits, continuing to revert add the same material without doing that and getting consensus is what can get editors blocked, but that’s easy to avoid. Doug Weller  talk 17:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doug,  I am not sure what Epachamo is telling you.  I did not revert any post.  I posted a long section.  Epachamo challenged a portion of it regarding one of the articles cited (not my statement) that contained statements by the scientist, but then Epachmo reverted the entire post.  Instead of getting into some protracted vitriolic argument of which Epachamo is famous for, I reposted again but without the material that Epachamo objected to.  Pretty much standard Wikipedia posting procedure.  As far as emotional, as I have looked through all the talks and posts on these Mormon related pages Epachamo (and also Taivo) in their responses and talk posts often use vindictive and belittling language.  The fact that they are ex-Mormons seems to cloud their objectivity the same way that extremely faithful Mormons who get defensive and post vindictive and emotional posts do the same on the other side.  The only difference is they are formal editors, and as such are expected to apply an even higher level of objectivity and professional behavior on Wikipedia.  I am just a scientist who likes to make corrections and post accurate information on Wikipedia on a variety of topics.  I try to apply scientific standards of objectivity.  All I am asking for is that official Wikipedia editors do the same. Stronzina (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We're all editors, there's no "formal" or "official" involved, if you edit at all, you're an editor. First, how do you know Epachamo and Taivo (I'm not sure who you mean) are ex-Mormons? I do know that Epachamo is a member of the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement as that's on their user page. I'll come back when you respond. Doug Weller  talk 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Further misrepresentation of a source, ie about the compass.
I read your source. It doesn't say there were definitely pre-Olmec compasses. It says that the hypothesis that lodestone compasses were used "can still explain the observed site layout and building orientations. But more accurate and extensive information mainly from paleomagnetism and archaeology is needed to reject or accept the hypothesis. A proof of knowledge of a compass in Mesoamerica prior to Chinese would be important for our understanding history of the ancient world." Not at all the same thing. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Doug,
 * You didn't read far enough. The article establishes that there was definitely was a compass among the Olmec based on the known magnetic flux of various statues made with, then the question is still not settled as to whether it was used by the later Maya in the layout of their cities. This article establishes that there were compasses, but leaves the question open as to how the Olmec or the Maya used the compass beyond utilizing it for geomancy. My citation provided the page number to that section of the article 519-520.  Here is the exact quote:
 * The magnetic turtlehead is a large stone 256 × 144 × 122 cm large  with
 * carvings executed so carefully that the magnetic lines of force came to a focus in the snout
 * of the animal, wrote Malmström (1976). We verified that fact by our own measurements
 * with a precise compass (Klokočník and Vítek, 2005). The carving so precisely located
 * must be intentional and can be achieved only by a compass. The statues of the so called
 * Fat Boys are of pre-Olmécs origin, about 4000 years old (claims Malmström, 1976). “The
 * gifted artisans did not insert magnetic rocks into the figures, but apparently carved them
 * around natural magnetic poles in the original basaltic boulders”. A compass needle held
 * close to the Fat Boys is turned in some cases to the navel of the statues, for others the
 * needle points to their necks or right temples.
 * Certainly not a misrepresentation. In fact, not to be offensive, but the interpretation that you are making of the section you cited is a misrepresentation of their work. You are quoting from the abstract where they are stating their hypothesis and that it would me an important to know whether there is a compass that predates the Chinese, which they then proceed show in the article.  Out of deference to you I will await your response before reposting this information.  If you would like, I can quote further information from the article. Stronzina (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The conclusion is :The Fuson hypothesis about possible orientation of Maya and other ceremonial centers by (paleo)magnetic pole, using (a lodestone) compass cannot be simply rejected in the light of existing facts; it still provides an explanation for the “strange” alignments, where the other interpretation are not helpful. Our new measurements and computations from
 * 2003−2005 support the hypothesis. More precise and more extensive information from
 * geodesy (more reliable and detailed maps of the archaeological localities), from
 * astronomy (the correlation between Mayan and our calendar), from archaeology (age of
 * the structures, namely the absolute age), and namely better paleomagnetic/
 * archaeomagnetic data are needed to finally reject or accept that Olmécs/Maya actually
 * used the compass. If they knew and used a compass (well before Chinese), then one has to
 * think about rewriting a part of history of Mesoamerica."
 * So I still say you can't use this as proof of anything. Also, your quote is followed by "These example seems to prove the Olmécs primacy over the Chinese discovery of a compass by more than a millenium". Doug Weller  talk 16:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The article says there was a compass, the only thing at question is whether used it for other types of things, I'm not using it as proof of "anything".  The only way to produce these types of figures is the use of a compass, that is what these experts, much smarter than you for sure, no offense, but I highly doubt you are an expert in this area, have clearly stated. Why are you trying to violate Wikipedia standards of evidence?  If you attempt to strike a post, please provide the Wikipedia standard you are using. I used to respect you as an editor, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you just like to use Wikipedia to push your personal agenda for whatever reason.  Perhaps you have been doing it too long. Stronzina (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking this to WP:NOR. Doug Weller  talk 08:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes: join the discussion at No original research/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)