Talk:Hueyatlaco

message: I have made numerous changes in order to make this page intelligible to the average reader. I do not have experience with this subject, so I would ask anyone who does to please rectify any errors I might have introduced. Thank you--Spurius Furius 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The stuff under the section labeled "Dating" is inappropriately POV. But I don't know if I'm supposed to just delete it or what. Or mark it? Or tell somebody? Or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.132.102 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Virginia Steen-McIntyre is not notable enough on her own. Her page is mostly just content about Hueyatlaco. I think the pages should be merged with Virginia Steen-McIntyre redirecting to here. Then the POV issues and reliable source issues can be worked out on just this page. Tmtoulouse 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging the pages seems reasonable to me, unless there is any notable information relevant to Virginia Steen-McIntyre that could not be presented here. In other words, I support the proposed merger, unless someone can provide a good reason as to why the articles shoud not be merged.--Spurius Furius 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you and I might be the only ones interested in editing this material at all. I know its customary to wait a week or so after the proposed merger for further comment but I don't think anyone is forthcoming. I will probably start the merge this weekend and if someone comes around later and disagree we can address it then. Tmtoulouse 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea.--Spurius Furius 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And today there is also Cerutti site, an who knows more 'pre-pre-pre' Clovis ones. Times are changing, not always to worse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: I have yet to see one article anywhere...one...where this site does not act as an utterly single-minded mouthpiece of the atheistic establishment.  This is yet one more case in point, where the laughable obscenity that is this site's "policy," is used as a means of advancing the agenda of atheistic, scientistic trolls.
You make me sick, Wikipedia.  You have my eternal contempt.  I am also aware that the atheistic, pseudorationalist trolls will be falling over themselves in their haste to revert this edit of mine, as well.  Go ahead, you cowards.
Jimmy Wales can keep asking for donations for as long as he wants.  He will never see a single cent of my money, nor that of anyone else with any sense.  Wikipedia has degenerated into a farcical waste of bandwidth, that should be removed from the Internet at this point.
Petrus4 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest you'd be happier here. --LiamE (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly, distressingly predictable 

message: Shouldnt this be in the Out-of-place artifact article as a link?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.21.86 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ooparts 

message: "have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community." Is this accurate? Aside from a link that fails, there is nothing in the article that suggests this, more that the discussion continues with dating on the side of the older dates.Halbared (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the article does not detail any repudiation of the dating of Hueyatlaco. I edited the sentence to be more neutral. If there is information about a final repudiation of the findings, then it should be added and my edit can be reverted. 173.21.190.87 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repudiation