User talk:Athanasius1/Archive 1

Joseph and Imhotep

Sorry for breaching Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia 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)

Resp. on your talk page.

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)

Responded on your talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted about on WP:EAR. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you wery much cooperation. The question was why you did come with false accusations like this one "someone apparently tagged their blog onto a bunch of existing refs" we acctually built a large part of the 1800 - 1900 ADHD history ... article from scratch can you se it or not? Or do you have to ask anybody else about your false accusations? Can you see the question? Can you find a better source on the net? Can you fin better sources for the articles than thoose we used? Then Pls tell me where. Please assume good faith! IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As per earlier comment, responded at Editor Assistance, and notified editor in question. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

re: backing out edits of Athanasius as "the black dwarf" ...

I understand why blog posts in general are bad sources - lack of peer revue, blanket statements etc. - but in this case, it was the only way to go. First, why add this information about Athanasius - why add that "he was never called the black dwarf by his enemies? Because it's a commonplace on the internet and popular histories. Christians use it. So do writers on black history. But it's wrong. As I wrote in the backed out edit, it first arose in a 1984 Christian history book which warped something attributed to the emperor Julian.

Which brings me to the blog post cited. The post goes into the long chain that created the moniker and quotes and cites every source it uses, detail too long for an encyclopedia entry. Presumably this is the standard of backup Wikipedia requires. To warp MLK - shouldn't we judge attribution on its character, not on its medium? Yes, blogging as a medium is rife with nonsense but in the case of Athanasius, so are award winning history books cited in this post. I think the post is sufficient foundation for "Athanasius was not called ..."

But that's just what I think! Are you adamant that the medium of its attribution makes the edit unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleexit (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at user talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

surely someone has published on it? If not, then it is not material that would be acceptable for wikipedia. We only carry information that has been already put forward by other reliable sources.

Unfortunately this isn't in other reliable sources. The reliable sources say he was "called the black dwarf", though none give a source. Hence the chase. I understand that qualifying every source on its own merits would be impossible, that encyclopedias must rely on "received wisdom" and third party publishers. But when the only published sources are wrong, surely a touchstone like Wikipedia should be open to put them right, to fact-checking as long as it is thorough. The post is - it cites, it quotes. It doesn't hide behind sweeping statement.

Removing this information leaves inaccuracy out there, in the wild. If Wikipedia is about knowledge, surely that's wrong? If it's about accuracy, surely it should promote fact checking and exposure of inaccuracies and common myths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleexit (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So wikipedia is not just about knowledge, it is about verifiable knowledge BUT not all verifiable knowledge because looking at primary sources and then drawing conclusions ... is frowned on. But what's more verifiable than original sources? Take Athanasius. And you know him obviously. Bishop in 328 or 326? When did Alexander die? 326 wikipedia says. But Athanasius' page reflects 328. Why? Some (original source) church histories have Alexander dying right after Nicea, others later. The benefit and drawback of sources is that they as much expose what we can't know as what we can. Muffling them, privileging selective quotation lets certainty reign where it shouldn't or sprinkles inconsistency or leads to both. (Thx for the answers BTW and the signature tip.) Gentleexit (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

<undent>Responded at user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your great cleanup effort! ThemFromSpace 02:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Prayers in the Lutheran Church

If you see something that I missed on the Template:Prayers in the Lutheran Church, please add it. Shark96z 2:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Template talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT AfD

Comment to AfD participant. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WIBC (FM)

You are welcome to add bits, but don't delete things willy-nilly without a good reason AND without comment. For instance, WIBC. You didn't add anything to the article, you just took things away. Next time, be polite enough to say WHY you want to change an article. Mmm-Kay? Good. Dana (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Congradulations! You have succeeded in getting the article deleted. Thank you.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)