Talk:Ring of Brodgar

message: Norse in my case is swedish. 
*Norse for stone = sten
*Norse for isthmus = näs (or næs). (the vowel "ä" (or "æ") sounds wery much like a long "e" like in "cheers").
*Stenness (Stennäs) = Stone(s) isthmus.
// Solkoll 11:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norse 

message: If this monument is dated to 2500BC, it is surely contemporary with, and not pre-dating Stonehenge? --Grumpy444grumpy 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always heard that the Ring of Brodgar dates from 2700 BC.  I'm not sure what the source is for the 2500 BC figure quoted here - possibly Sigurd Towrie's Orkneyjar site, which mentions that the site has never actually been dated, but the stones are assumed to have been erected between 2500 and 2000 BC. Thorf 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: This article can still utilise the term British Isles and remain accurate. I suggest the refereces are left as per Bardcom's edit, but we can also maintain the disputed term. At the risk of 3RR I'll revert again and hopefully other editors will offer an opinion. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As some of are aware, Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia. In some circumstances remvoval of the term is justified, but not in all circumstances. It seems appropriate here.Doug Weller (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil and no ad hominen attacks like the one above.  --Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: how the hell is the above an "ad hominem attack"? This is purely about your on-wiki activity. No remarks on your intelligence, your looks or your mother were made. Address the issue. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised at your needlessly aggressive and admonitory tone.  Please look again at the comment "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia".  A baseless accusation that is propagated by a number of editors, many of whom also attempt to paint me as a drooling anti-British Irish nationalist that unjustifiably and irrationally removed the term from Wikipedia.  My edits are scrutinized by many editors, and while I don't have a perfect 100% record, my accuracy at identifying and correcting articles that use the term incorrectly is very high - at a guess about 95%+.  Since most people assume good faith (as they should), when good editors start flinging baseless accusations like this around, other editors (and even admins) react.  Look at your own knee-jerk and aggressive reaction as an example - which also fails to see the sneaky and underhanded method used to undermine my edits.  So I say again, comment on the edits and not on the editor - which is exactly what was not done in this case - hence the warning.  --Bardcom (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I have just added which was already being used in the article says "the Brodgar ring is the third largest stone circle in the British Isles", therefore I expect no further censorship of this article. Ducks play football (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, good reference. --Bardcom (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: There's not much to be suprised about. As anyone can see, almost every last edit by User:Bardcom (for the month of April alone) has something to do with removing "British Isles" from articles, or battling in talkpages about the removal of the term "British Isles"--Celtus (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[British Isles]] 

message: Please see:
* Talk:Loch of Stenness
Ta, --Mais oui! (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offshore stone circle found? 

message: See this month's National Geographic.  Clearly our interpretations of events and societies lost in time needs a periodic re-viewing.184.144.76.115 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Required 

message: Watch hereLPF plod (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: The undefined term has been brought into question at: 
:Talk:Maeshowe#Definition of "low road". 
--75.188.199.98 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neolithic low roads? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ring of Brodgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624055013/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ARCHway/toc.cfm?rcn=150&vol=34 to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ARCHway/toc.cfm?rcn=150&vol=34
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In this Episode 5, Orkney, of Secret Scotland, https://www.my5.tv/secret-scotland/season-1/episode-5 transmitted 8 March 2019 on Channel 5 in the UK, a guide (not sure if an official guide) said that the stones had been analysed an had been found to have come from various local places (within Orkney I seem to remember), and that they had been placed in the circle positions relating to the direction from which they had come (something like "pointing in the direction they had come from"). I have not been able to find any more info on this, and I am not sure that this source is good enough. FrankSier (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geological analysis of stones shows they 'point in the direction they have come from'