Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:21, 15 May 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Welcome!

Hello, Athanasius1, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

You've done some good work already, I see. Always happy to have another valuable editor around! John Carter (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

Sorry for breaching Misplaced Pages polcy. I am new to WP and I did not understand them properly. I need to clarify some issues and I would like to resubmit my article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out issues with references. I would like to resubmit this article once I have sorted out the issues with the references.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters. Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics. Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?) I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material. When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up? I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first! I won't do this again. Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway. When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not. For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Misplaced Pages does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references? --Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Misplaced Pages currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Misplaced Pages has disallowed them because Misplaced Pages dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Resp on your talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

floatopia discussion

Hi Athanasius

This is the instructor for the Cal Poly freshman english argumentation and research you corresponded with last year, at it again. I hope you'll reconsider your notability objection in light of their last response. Thanks for your continuing help.

Rudolph2007 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a senior moment. I mistook your login name for "Antandrus." Thanks for your reply.

Rudolph2007 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

"someone apparently tagged their blog onto a bunch of existing refs"

Whynot just look who initiated and build the article instead of just comming with false and missleading accusations?

Is it fun to just erase the references to the one who built the articles early historical content? Have a slight look before and after our editing? IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)