Talk:Visočica (hill)

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Visočica (hill) is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Information on Bosnian pyramids

There's extremely strong consensus that the The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation and its members are not reliable sources, especially for any scientific claims. The discussions have taken place at Talk:Bosnian pyramids, and the information presented in this article should reflect the consensus there. Best to continue this discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pov

It has become very clear that this topic has been "burned". Moderators and Wiki experienced editors exist by the grace of continuously questioning themselves in their neutrality. i.e. verifying if additional information has been disclosed since the last "consensus" has been made on a topic. "Not reliable sources" apparently is a stronger argument that photographs and video footage taken on-site.... I rest my case SterreHart (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Yes, when sources are not reliable, we don't use them. Likewise, we don't rely upon our own observations and original research. Most importantly, we don't ignore expert opinions and scientific consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Visočica hill. 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/20110717134402/http://www.e-a-a.org/statement.pdf to http://www.e-a-a.org/statement.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]