If you look at the page now http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/7408 you will see that it is now flagged as being 'of dubious antiquity'.
The site type should still be selected so that people know that it's a dubious barrow or standing stone or whatever.
If you see a site that fits the 'dubious' category then just email the Eds and we'll look into it (asap).
Thanks
TMA Ed
Reply | with quote | Posted by TMA Ed 1st March 2006ce 21:06 |
Is this really a standing stone? (Kammer, Mar 01, 2006, 13:28)- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Rhiannon, Mar 01, 2006, 13:44)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Vybik Jon, Mar 01, 2006, 13:54)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (wolfnighthunter, Mar 01, 2006, 14:27)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (FourWinds, Mar 01, 2006, 14:43)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (wolfnighthunter, Mar 01, 2006, 14:46)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Kammer, Mar 01, 2006, 14:55)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Moth, Mar 01, 2006, 14:56)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Kammer, Mar 01, 2006, 18:41)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Vybik Jon, Mar 01, 2006, 18:44)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Moth, Mar 01, 2006, 18:52)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (StoneLifter, Mar 01, 2006, 18:53)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (moss, Mar 02, 2006, 07:35)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (StoneLifter, Mar 01, 2006, 18:11)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (jason lives, Mar 01, 2006, 17:40)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (Hob, Mar 01, 2006, 17:48)
- Re: Is this really a standing stone? (wideford, Mar 02, 2006, 12:35)
|
|