User talk:Drnhawkins - Knowledge (XXG)

2202:

the grunge work for the project. If your hope is to continue to add information based on unreliable web sites, there probably is no hope, because such material is not allowed anywhere in wikipedia. If you can find books from reliable publishers, or material from similarly reliable websites, that would be another matter. Again, the people who would be most familiar with the kind of content you seek to add are the people at the alternative views project. I would once again urge you to contact the more active members there. Even there, however, articles which do not conform to encyclopedic standards, such as taking advocacy positions like the last one, have no hope. The people at the AV project would have a better idea how to structure articles based on sources and ideas similar to the one you are so interested in. Also, your own comments above indicate that you have a rather weak idea of how things work around here. This is somewhat to be expected, given that, so far as I can tell, you have worked on comparatively few articles. It would very much benefit you if you were to carefully read all the pages linked to in the welcome notice you received earlier, if you haven't already done so. Thereafter, you will probably have a better idea of how things work around here.

1433:

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. Knowledge (XXG) has disallowed them because Knowledge (XXG) 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

1443:

author a general endorsement, then his work isn't quite up to the level of "reliability". Based on your own statements above regarding Wyatt, at this point he is not seen as a particularly reliable source within the field, for whatever reason. Lastly, in wikipedia, we do not propose hypotheses. Our fundamental purpose is to repeat what other reliable sources have said regarding a subject, and that's about it. If you are seeking to include the article on the basis of it being a hypothesis, this probably isn't the best place to start. Regarding Wyatt's works, however, it is certainly possible that if any of his books has been significantly discussed in at least two reliable sources, then a separate article on that book would certainly be possible. To stand a good chance of being retained, it would have to give a comparatively large amount of space to what the sources discussing it said about it, but that's standard and shouldn't be much of a problem. I hope that helps a little.

1030:. WP needs all the editors that it can get, who will undertake constructive work on the encyclopaedia. In dealing with Biblical subjects, you need to ensure that what you write will stand up to criticism from skeptics, and I am afraid that your theory is so offbeat that there is no hope of it doing so. I would suggest that you avoid pious language, which is likely to be like a red rag to a bull. Do not amend what other people have written on talk pages (including Articles for Deletion pages), save possibly to correct minor errors of syntax. Your article was essentially a historical one; this means that the Bible must be treated only as a historical source book, not one that carries the authority of divine inspiration. I write this as an evangelical Christian, who believes in the Bible, though it is difficult to correlate the early parts of it with secular history. This applies particularly to Genesis, whose chronology certainly presents difficulties. 1438:

evidence that this theory is widely accepted. If it isn't, then by the definition of the term it is a "fringe theory". Secondly, specifically regarding Joseph and the presence of the Jews in Egypt at all, I have seen several academic sources which seriously question whether that had any basis in fact at all. Some of them contend that the Jews were, effectively, making themselves look better to their neighbors by creating an impressive "family tree". I myself don't have a clear opinion one way or the other, but do note that I have never seen any particularly clear nonbiblical evidence that the Jews ever were in Egypt. If they weren't, as that theory contends, then the story of Joseph could have been made up entirely or perhaps altered from some other extant story. Third, regarding Ron(n) Wyatt. We do not count sources per se based on the reliability of the source in other matters, but in the source's specific reliability regarding the subject in question.

1058:. 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.-- 1170:, where some one was propounding a theory for which he had no evidence, only imcorronprated theories. If you look at the earliest part of the history of that article, and the archive on my talk page, you will see what happened. I had to defer posting my view until I had published it elsewhere (in J. Railway and Canal Hist. Soc.). This generated correspondence in that journal, and a competing editor kept trying to put his view back in. I had consisderable help from an ADMIN who was monitoring (and moderating) what was going on. At one point I had to entered into correspondence with a producer at the BBC, because the other editor was citing their website as an authority: they had evidently been fed the same false story. That was all several years ago, when WP was a much less well developed encyclopaedia and had a poor (and perhaps underserved) reputation for reliability. 2153:

various conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy as I, as a citizen of the United States, am. But, basically, trust me, somewhere on the web, virtually every person of even moderate notability who was alive at the time, and several other people as well, are thought to be the second gunman. I think you can understand that we can't have articles in what is designed to be an encyclopedia on every basically non-notable web site that alleges any given person is that second gunman. Just like in any other encyclopedia, all of our information has to be reflect that of reliable sources elsewhere and has to be written in accord with the expectations of most readers regarding what an encyclopedia article would look like. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament prior to David, is not today considered to be an at all reliable source.

2279:, based on the fact that you have made few contributions that have been kept in main article space and seem to be, basically, almost exclusively interested in this one topic, which has repeatedly been found to be, at least in the forms yet created, unacceptable by wikipedia standards. I would urge you to make some meaningful contributions to the mainspace article pages, should you not want such a development to take place. I would once again urge you to contact the WikiProject Alternative Views and seek some input on what extant articles there are on the subject and how you can most effectively develop them. Alternately, I believe that the people at 2025:) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) The profile of Joseph given by the Bible is critical to the arguement. The estimated dates of Joseph calculated from the Bible are also critical. If the Bible did not support this theory then there would be no point having this article. The fact is the dates of Joseph calculated from the Bible and the Profile of Joseph in the Bible are quite consistent with what we know about Imhotep from Egytian history. What is more, the modern understanding of the Egyptian dynasties chronology also matches the Bible and can no longer be used as an objection to the theory that Joseph was known by the Egyptians as Imhotep!!-- 1186:

periods there is a difficulty: secular archaeology has failed to find evidence for the change in culture that would be expected if the old Canaanite population had been replaced by a new Israelite one. The fallen walls of Jericho were once said to be evidence of the Israelite conquest; then some one revised the chronology and they did not match; now some one else is suggesting a further revision that (I understand) does match. This is a controversial subject. It partly depsnds on what date one thinks that the Exodus took place. The Isaelite sojourn in Egypt is even more difficult. It is possible that it coincides with the

1122:

absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It's amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been thoroughly discredited by various Christian organizations such as Creation Research in Calif. For the latest on his "discoveries" I suggest going into the WWW (use Vista) someone called Tentmaker decided to do an expose of his various claims. Here you will find the truth, which is more amazing that his (RW) fictions.

1392:

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)

1559:- that his positions would be considered normative on wikipedia. You could do some work on the article in question, and then try again. But, I would discourage you from doing so. As I said in my earlier comment: get to know wikipedia a little better. Spend some time editing other articles. Learn the ropes of policy and community first. Writing a new article that fully meets policy requirements take some knowledge of how things work -- especially when editing topics that overlap with your own faith. 2721:

validity, no matter what the actual evidence says, just like every other scientific discipline. But this is totally beside the point. The point to all of this is, WE ARE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WHICH USES RELIABLE SECONDARY AND TERTIARY SOURCES, we do not do original research, we do not synthesize research to promote our own religions and world views and we strive to maintain a neutral point of view in the material we add here. Read and follow the policies for editing here, or your time here may be limited.

1550:- is dubious. Very few scholars outside of the community of faith accept Bible as a historical source for anything prior to the United Kingdom. This is not calling the veracity of one's faith into question - rather it is acknowledging that the Bible is written by people of faith for people of faith. In terms of editing other people's words. Yes, within an article we can and should edit one another's work. However - it almost never acceptable to edit another person's comments to a talk page. See 591:

that material is not counted as historically reliable, the Pentateuch in particular. On that basis, we can't really put forward possible linkages between Biblical characters and historical characters in our main articles on those people, because unless there are very strong evidences that they are considered reasonable by the academic community, they tend to carry little weight. Such proposed changes as you sought to make would probably also count as falling under

1091:

completely confirm the findings as stated by the late Ronald E. Wyatt during his periods of excavation during the years 1979 to 1989. We no longer have the personal account of Ronald Wyatt to help guide us. For these reasons, until further research, the Ark of the Covenant materials presented by Wyatt Archaeological Research prior to 2005 have been removed from circulation." By Calvary I presume you mean 'Gordon's Calvary', one of 4 sites claimed to be Calvary.

2041:

having this article." The Bible does not support this article, which is one reason I have consistently voted for deletion. Your claim that the dates for Joseph and Imhotep match is yet another false statement on your part - even your version of the article admitted that conventional dating places their lives hundreds of years apart. Further, even if you could prove the two men were contemporaries that does not prove the two men were the same person.

2445: 2309: 1762: 1635: 868: 2639: 1873: 2785: 1298:

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.

1511:

There's bound to be conflict on an article like that and I really would like this editor to get some experience in some less contentious articles. Wyatt is fringe, and our NPOV policy applies there and means that the article will have to clearly portray Wyatt as having a minority view, and in this case a minority within a minority.

1264:. We would be more than happy to welcome your help to most of the content we already have. There are several particular functions within the project, including review, assessment, and others, which can use additional workers. We also have a short list of the comparative quality and priority of most of our articles at 2408: 2171:

might be of limited use as well. That project unfortunately is not particularly active. Once you find the required sources mentioned above, then add the relevant content to whatever articles are most appropriate, or start other articles if the given subject meets the notability requirements linked to

2158:

If I were in your position, by which I mean wanting to add content regarding theories based at least in part on the concept of biblical inerrancy, what I might try to do is find some books on the subject from a reliable publisher, preferably a university press like Harvard or Oxford, although a major

2155:

I do however note that there is comparatively little content on wikipedia relating to the concept of biblical inerrancy and the associated historical ideas. Part of this may be due to the fact that there isn't much information out there from reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability.

2137:

I am currently the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject. I dare to say that I am more than a little informed on the subject. I also took as my major in college archaeology, specializing in Middle Eastern archaeology, with a minor in history of religions. Like I said on either the AfD page

1537:

Drnhawkins, John carter has provided some good responses to what look like the same comments you posted to my talk page. At the risk of being repitetive, I will post my responses here. First, the conversations about the Bible as a source take two different, yet also important, directions. The Bible

1424:

A separate article should have at least two separate reliable sources which give substantial content to it. I'm not sure if this one does, because I've forgotten. In any event, it might make more sense to try to add it to another article first, and then develop it there until it grows large enough to

1259:

Agreed. Trust me, sir, there are a lot of articles we already have that are in less than impressive shape. Most of the articles on in the individual books of the Bible would be included in that number. I say that with some awareness of the religious content here because I am currently, somehow, don't

1243:

Drnhawkins, at this point consensus is leaning toward the deletion of your article. Please do not take this personally. My advice would be to spend some more time editing and learning your way around wikipedia and its policies before attempting to start any more new articles. We are always looking

1073:

The blood thing is nonsense, which may be why at least one of his past associates was telling people not to talk about it. You should know that there is no evidence of a report on it. There isn't even archaeological evidence of an Exodus, and Genesis was written centuries after it supposdly happened,

2363:

deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the

2056:

Where do you say Jospeh fits into Egyptian history? Which Pharaoh did he serve? If Imhotep was not Joseph, what archaeological evidence is there for Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt? I hope that you are not one of those people who think he was fictional. If you cannot find any evidence that he

2040:

I have no problem with you quoting the Bible, but as a Christian I am grossly offended by your repeated attempts to falsely portray those who do not agree with your personal theories as opposed to the Bible. You are correct that "If the Bible did not support this theory then there would be no point

1689:

1558:

the definition of a fringe source. That his claims have been roundly rejected by the academic community says something. Not saying that you can't personally believe him - you are certainly entitled to that. However, it is highly unlikely - given the position of his views in the academic community

1391:

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. Knowledge (XXG) does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai,

1297:

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

2704:

What solution can you offer that allows some discussion (in main space) about who was the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham, Joseph, Moses (and also the Isralites who were in Egypt for 430 years and grew from 70 to 2 million in that time). I understand about what you say about original research and

1432:

Knowledge (XXG) 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

986:

Can you please justify why the Bible cannot be used as a source of information about characters mentioned there in and why it cannot be crossreferenced with other manuscripts and artifacts such as egyptian heiroglypics who may be referring to a character in the Bible. Obviously, it is necessary to

775:

Knowledge (XXG) has a strict policy on no original research. Making that comparison is original research unless you can find reliable, independant sources that claim the two men were actually the same. No ancient accounts of either Imhotep or Joseph claim they were the same person, so they do not

590:

He has a point. Several recent developments in history, psychology, sociology, etc., have called into serious question the factual accuracy of much of the Jewish Bible/Christian Old Testament. So seriously, in fact, that, speaking as someone with an academic background in religious history, much of

2201:

The hope is a good one, provided the material which you seek to add meets the three requirements outlined above. It is actually fairly simple, if that requirement is met. Also, do not place too much emphasis on my being in an elected position. All it means is that I am trusted enough to do some of

2071:

If the two men were contemporaneous, there is more than enough evidence to prove that they were the same person. The profile of imhotep and Jospeh match very well. And there were only so many non royal second in charge visors who saved egypt from a 7 year famine by interpreting Pharaohs dreams in

1914:

The Bible says that Joseph went to Egypt and was appointed by the pharaoh to be in charge of all Egypt. Joseph stored up grain and so saved Egypt. He was able to buy all the land for pharaoh except that of the priest's by selling grain and so the pharaohs became wealthy and the people became his

2152:

as all other articles. If you have not already read the three pages linked to here, please do so now, because any article and content to be introduced has to meet those criteria. Why are they required? I think the answer to that is fairly simple. As a European, you may not be as familiar with the

1899:

The Bible no more supports your theories about Imhotep than it supports the theories of people believe the moon landings were hoaxed. Most people who believe the Bible do not support your theory. Your continued false statements about the Bible and those who believe it that you use to attempt to

1437:

One, it is not our place to "offer candidates" for being someone. We only repeat what reliable sources say, and if they don't say anything, neither do we. And a fringe theory is any theory which has not met with substantial credibility from the appropriate academic field. I haven't seen any clear

1185:

Accordingly, the Bible as a source needs to be approached on the same basis as any other historical work from the ancient world. It can be treated (in my view) as a reliable source in so far as it is dealing with history. That certainly means events from the time of David onwards. For earlier

1121:

Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the

2720:

Puts Christianity at a disadvantage? Knowledge (XXG) does not exist to promote christian theology. Real archaeologists and historians do not accept any ancient text as holy writ, not just the bible. Real scientific investigation is not about taking a preconceived notion and trying to prove its

1442:

is counted one of the most reliable figures in the history of religion field, and his work there does count as extremely reliable. His political statements do not fall within the same field, and are not considered reliable. If the relevant academic community hasn't effectively given the work or

1220:

That's a bit unfair. A lot of Christians don't believe that the Old Testament is completely historical (including some Biblical scholars), and the same is true for some Jews. I'm an atheist, but I think that some of the Old Testament is historical but certainly not all of it. Just as with other

686:

about the subject matter. I strongly suggest that you read these guidelines, so that you have a better idea what is required. All you need to do to avoid deletion is to demonstrate that the article can meet the above. If the sources are available you should be able to do this fairly succinctly.

1510:

I think this is probably a bad idea as it will once again lead to disagreements. There is discussion there already about merging the article into some of our other articles. It's got the active attention of several editors, including me (I've been involved in Wyatt discussions for many years).

1173:

In a world where many people (unlike you and me) are not Christian believers, it is not entirely surprising that they do not regard the Bible as a reliable source. If they did, they would not be unbelievers. Theri attitude is "The Bible is a religious book; I believe in religion is rubbish;

1090:

As for the Ark of the Covenant, where do you get the idea that the Israelis claim to have it? I know the Ethiopians claim to have it. And what evidence is there for a new permit? I note that the Wyatt site says that "The excavations of 2005 and 2006 at the Garden Tomb, in Jerusalem, did not

1405:. They are a bit harder to deal with, because that becomes more a matter of how much weight to give the content. Also, unfortunately, particularly regarding material relating to religion, there are a lot of comparatively unconfirmed assertions, and they have to be dealt with with great care. 2591: 661:

Out of curiosity, was this originally written as an academic paper before it was added to Knowledge (XXG)? It uses a lot of formal expository writing techniques. I found the article interesting, but I'll admit I think it falls firmly under rules barring original research. Regards.

2331:. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. 2254:

Just thought that you might like to know that you would probably be very well served if you were to make some contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to just your userspace articles. I see from your contribution record that you have really only contributed to

1657:. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. 1201:

In the meantime, I would suggest that you spend time going through articles in WP, looking for errors and articles lacking detail, the shortest being classified as "stubs". This will give you experience in editing before you bring forward controversial views.

1542:. Solid research - the sort that could be used in an encyclopedia, comes from secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to supplement the material culled from secondary sources, but drawing one's own conclusions form primary sources is considered to by 1396:

However, it does call into question the reliability of his conclusions. For a source to be counted as reliable, it has to be on, basically, which is relied on by other similar "respectable" sources. If the source does not meet the standards on this page,

1054:. 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. Knowledge (XXG) has disallowed them because Knowledge (XXG) dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliable 1045:

1265: 1268:. You might be able to find some topics in the various listings there which interest you. If you should ever want any assistance in working on any of these articles, please drop me a message on my talk page or e-mail me and I'll do what I can. 1193:

I would recommend you not to bring forward your article again, even with full in-line citations. Only if you can find a reputable academic source, would I even suggest that you think of it. I would suggest that you develop it initially in a

2365: 1691: 1305:

It may not be necessary to quote the Bible, actually. One other alternative is to provide a link to an external site which does quote the Bible. I don't have a ready example of such in front of me, but it is done in several articles.

1851:

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

846:

677:

I've noticed that you've added a long reasoning to the deletion discussion. Just a point of advice, but people don't tend to read a long spiel of information. All the deletion discussion is doing is deciding whether there is enough

1776: 2159:

publisher something like Doubleday would work as well, and add whatever content can be determined to be notable based on those sources to relevant articles. Most of the existing content on that subject can be found in the

1496:, by describing briefly what he asserted, if you have access to his work. If you stick to reporting what he said, it will be uncontroversial fact, even if many people may consider his views highly controversial. 37:

from Knowledge (XXG). The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Knowledge (XXG). The external links I reverted were matching the following

54:, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's 2138:

or the now deleted article talk page, the fairly universal academic view of the subject of Joseph is that he either never existed at all or was somehow a conflation of various other stories and or people.

701:

I've removed the text, essentially per Quantpole. If you want to leave a rationale, fine, but 1) make it shorter and 2) base it on actual Knowledge (XXG) policies, not what goes on inside your head.

2172:

above, and maybe ask for some help from the members of the Alternative views project on how to construct articles on such non-mainstream ideas. That would probably be the best way to go from here.

1163:

Do not alter what other people have said on talk pages. This is putting your words into their mouths. Similarly, so not alter what other people have written in discussing Artilces for discussion.

969:

Sir, your recent comments on the page in question will be more likely to have people think ill of you than enhance your cause in any way. I would urge you to cease making such comments. Thank you.

990:

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

2163:

or its subcategories. Also, you might seek help from other editors who work extensively with ideas which are out of the academic mainstream. The best such group out there right now is

125: 2009:) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) NO, I do not admit this. You must be crazy if you think I could write an article like Joseph and Imhotep are the same person without quoting the BIBLE. -- 2647: 2631: 2625: 2222:

Just to make sure you are not laboring under a misapprehension: adding links to online Bible verses will not make your article more acceptable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG).

880: 631: 599:, and such content as that isn't considered acceptable either. This is not saying that there could not be separate articles on these subjects if they are notable enough as per 2650:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

2602:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

2481:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

2419:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

1814:

I would move a copy of your article to Google Knol, and a copy to Google Sites. The information will be preserved, and have a wide audience. Write me if you need help. --

255: 715:

Note that sources need to be not only reliable and verifiable according to our criteria, they have to discuss the concept that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person.

2140:

That does not however mean that there is no place for alternative views in wikipedia. There is. However, those alternate views have to meet the same requirements of

1779:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 1221:

ancient writings, one has to try to weed out what might have some historical value and what doesn't. And not just ancient writings but modern day secular writing.

21:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

2755: 2520: 2416: 2400: 2394: 2276: 1609:

I plan to submit it for consideration as an article again. I am proofing the references and making a few improvements but it is close to it's final form. --

946:

Does this apply to articles or discussions because some of my comments have been removed or modified or reverted by others in both articles and discussions.

2759: 2705:

reliable sources but your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.--

2545: 2164: 1018:

I would have liked to be able to extract something useful from your article, but I fear that this is impossible. WP is an encyclopedia, not a home for

299: 1294:

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.

2599: 2583: 2577: 2525:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

2355: 2298: 1624: 1819: 1579: 1190:

period, which is poorly documented, but (accoridngly to conventional chronology) that is too early. Nevertheless, it is long after Imhotep's time.

2820:

is presumably yours but it isn't signed. Without being signed it probably doesn't belong where it is as it looks as though it's from someone else.

1166:

You have chosen a highly controversial subject for your first article. This was unwise. My first encounter with WP conmcered an article on the

755:

But we are trying to say that it doesn't, it comes down to our poliies and guidelines, and reliable and verifiable sources discussing the issue.

2349: 2316: 2302: 1915:

subjects. Pharaoh invited Joseph's family to come and stay in Egypt where they grew to become the nation of Israel over the next 430 years. --

1457:

John has already given you a pretty thorough response to the questions you also posed on my talk page. I will add that we have an article about

2489: 544: 162:

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the

1301:

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

295: 1372:

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

478: 2156:

However, I personally, as well as several others, would probably welcome content that meets wikipedia guidelines regarding that subject.

2556: 2230: 1815: 1790: 1590: 1473: 1075: 926: 642: 2640:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt

2328: 1750: 1654: 522: 273: 2160: 421: 2470: 2280: 1877: 350: 277: 67: 1321:

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

1880:. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a 1848: 1681: 843: 159: 129: 2786:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person (2nd nomination)

1324:

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

456: 451: 400: 90: 382: 214: 82: 2272: 918:

do it again. Argue with the comments; say why they are incorrect or why you disagree with them, but you may not remove them.

2168: 1768: 1754: 1675: 1642: 1628: 734:

It comes down to comparison of credentials / achievements etc vs guestimates of dates. The discussion will be profitable.--

536: 387: 311: 634:. You are welcome to comment there. If you want to argue for keeping the article, that is the page where you should do so. 2856: 2086:

Imhotep was the High Priest of Heliopolis. Jospeh married the daughter of the priest of On (the capital of Heliopolis)!--

2324: 1881: 1650: 518: 412: 404: 328: 324: 286: 78: 63: 567:

Hi -- you'll notice I've reverted your edits. You need to read up on our policies and guidelines to see why. Start with

1772: 1174:

therefore the Bible is rubbish". However, that is not a proper sylogism, and the second premise anyway involves their

888: 500: 460: 346: 307: 1845:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 840:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 575:, and although you can use the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, going beyond that is fraught with problems. 2516: 1726: 473: 469: 333: 290: 74: 2186:

What hope have we got on wikipedia if you are the administrator/co-ordinator for Christianity on Knowledge (XXG)??--

2729: 85:, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Knowledge (XXG)'s 2141: 607:

to justify a separate article. But that is as a separate article, not as material to be included in the main one.

429: 315: 282: 2072:

the name of God, lived till the age of 110, imposed a 20% tax and brought up all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh.--

1775:. I do not think that this article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at 2409:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

2369: 1695: 1346:

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

425: 416: 208: 204: 2444: 51: 2145: 531: 527: 482: 1079: 2801: 2660: 2612: 2563: 2268: 2237: 1943:

This article presents the evidence to say that the Joseph of the Bible is the Imhotep of Egyptian history.--

1929:

One would expect Joseph to be mentioned in Egyptian history. The Egyptians, however, knew him as Imhotep.--

1797: 1597: 1501: 1480: 1207: 1035: 933: 649: 2638:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 2590:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 2457: 2407:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 2149: 1838: 833: 600: 354: 320: 153: 2847:

Just to note that you should also read and use the talk page, eg I've responded to your last edit there.

2512: 1834: 1354: 876: 829: 596: 508: 504: 395: 378: 341: 250: 59: 55: 2722: 2592:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt

2530: 2497: 2453: 2288: 2207: 2177: 1564: 1448: 1410: 1381: 1362: 1333: 1311: 1273: 1249: 1026:. It is possible within WP to bring forward original ideas, but they need to have in-line citations of 974: 624: 612: 2267:, once. It might reasonably be possible that someone so inclined might decide to nominate for deletion 911: 391: 200: 1971:

What I have said is that if Joseph was Imhotep, Egyptian history would be consistent with the Bible.--

2852: 2825: 2775: 2767: 2687: 1516: 1226: 1145: 896: 760: 720: 580: 171: 137: 1195: 514: 447: 2046: 1991: 1905: 809: 795: 781: 706: 692: 1402: 1047: 1019: 218: 2793: 2652: 2604: 2549: 2323:, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a 2223: 1783: 1649:, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a 1583: 1497: 1466: 1203: 1031: 919: 635: 102: 1876:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept

1543: 1198:(within your user pages - a place where people will not usually make changes unless invited to). 540: 2828:) 09:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) yes, I didn't realize I was logged out I will go back and sign it-- 2334:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding

1660:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding

2648:

User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt

2632:

User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt

2626:

User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt

2456:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge (XXG) takes 1857: 1401:, it isn't counted as reliable. There is also the additional matter of fringe sources, as per 1182:. That is sometimes best done by ensuring that both sides of the argumetn are fairly set out. 852: 667: 163: 94: 2283:

are always interested in adding new editors with a real knowledge of the subject. Thank you.

2001:

YOU AND AND THE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS just do not like me quoting the BIBLE - full stop.--

1551: 1539: 1179: 1178:, and we are as much entitled to our POV as them, provided the result is an article shoing a 465: 337: 245: 34: 2526: 2493: 2428: 2381: 2284: 2264: 2203: 2173: 1738: 1707: 1560: 1444: 1406: 1377: 1358: 1329: 1307: 1269: 1245: 996:

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.

970: 608: 22: 2643: 2635: 2595: 2587: 2412: 2404: 2320: 1646: 1175: 241: 223: 30: 2848: 2829: 2821: 2771: 2763: 2751: 2706: 2683: 2673: 2475: 2339: 2187: 2124: 2101: 2087: 2073: 2058: 2026: 2018: 2010: 2002: 1972: 1958: 1944: 1930: 1916: 1665: 1610: 1512: 1222: 1141: 1059: 1000: 956: 949:

also how can an article be tidied up or improved without altering the comments of others?

892: 756: 735: 716: 576: 167: 145: 2791:

I don't see that you have been notified of this discussion, and I thought you should be.

2680: 1462: 1398: 1343:

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first!

1328:

If you mean the comments on the talk pages, only if the comments clearly violate policy.

1055: 1051: 1027: 1023: 683: 604: 592: 568: 86: 2319:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under 1645:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under 2758:

has been filed concerning your conduct on Knowledge (XXG). The RFC entry is located at

2042: 1987: 1901: 1420:

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

1140:

Joe also asked for a copy of the blood report, but didn't get one. No one has seen it.

805: 791: 777: 702: 688: 630:

There is a discussion about whether or not to delete that article which you created at

1266:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Christianity articles by quality statistics

1261: 679: 2353:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 1679:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 1439: 98: 952:

I need to have this clarified so that I do not breach the rules or upset you again.

1853: 1244:

for quality editors ... sometimes it just takes a little while to learn the ropes.

848: 663: 42:: rule: '\bwordpress\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a 166:

field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

2017:) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) What the Bible says is crucial to establishing this.-- 2420: 2373: 1730: 1699: 1376:

I'd need to see the details there to be able to make any reasonable statements.

1111: 1106: 1101: 66:. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see 2308: 2100:

Circumcision did not become common practice in Egypt until the third dynasty!--

1761: 1634: 867: 1167: 603:

and there is enough content to be added to them from reliable sources as per

1777:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

1555: 1493: 1458: 2260: 1986:

So now you're admitting that the Bible in no way supports your theory?

2837: 2807: 2779: 2736: 2714: 2691: 2666: 2618: 2570: 2534: 2501: 2434: 2387: 2292: 2244: 2211: 2195: 2181: 2132: 2109: 2095: 2081: 2066: 2050: 2034: 1995: 1980: 1966: 1952: 1938: 1924: 1909: 1889: 1872: 1861: 1823: 1804: 1744: 1713: 1618: 1604: 1578:

Hi, what are your intentions regarding what you have been developing at

1568: 1520: 1505: 1487: 1452: 1414: 1385: 1366: 1337: 1315: 1277: 1253: 1230: 1211: 1149: 1083: 1067: 1039: 1008: 978: 964: 940: 900: 856: 813: 799: 785: 764: 743: 724: 710: 696: 671: 656: 616: 584: 175: 106: 2417:

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

2401:

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

2395:

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

2277:

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

2256: 1847: 1465:

that discuss his work, that could be a good article for you to expand.

987:

quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events.

842: 158: 1187: 2460:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

1782:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

2634:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 2586:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 2546:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Christianity#File:Apocalypse1.gif

2403:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 1842: 1547: 837: 152:

on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to

47: 39: 1837:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion, you should

832:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion, you should

43: 2842: 2600:

User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt

2584:

User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt

2578:

User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt

2488:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

1546:. Secondly, the historicity of the Bible - especially prior to 2646:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

2598:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

2468:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

2415:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

1957:

I have not said that the Bible identifies Imhotep as Joseph.--

1580:

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

1492:

I would endorse the suggestion that you should try to expand

365: 187: 119: 2443: 2359:

explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for

2307: 2259:, in contributions which have, I believe, all been deleted, 1685:

explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for

1633: 1833:

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

1288:

Your comments and responses from me, intended afterwards.

828:

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

2317:

The Historicity of Biblical Joseph (Son of Jacob - Israel)

2303:

The Historicity of Biblical Joseph (Son of Jacob - Israel)

1349:

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

993:

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

1900:

justify your personal opinions do not change the facts.

29:

was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

881:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep

632:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep

132:

to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out

2818: 2482: 1050:. What is more, this article is not original research 26: 2843:

Don't forget to read and use the talk page at the RfC

2511:

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

2121:

the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject'

1159:

This is response to a long message on my talk page:

2057:

existed, why do you think that this is the case? --

1723:

Please add references in the text using <ref: -->

1260:

ask me how it happened, the lead coordinator of the

2119:

The comment below this was written by John Carter '

875:you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you 2760:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Drnhawkins 2681:WP:AN#Proposed community ban of User:Drnhawkins 2544:A discussion about your images is happening at 1554:for more info. In academic terms, I would call 1429:--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 790:Please post comments to the BOTTOM of the AfD. 2440:File copyright problem with File:Day_Lord1.gif 2321:section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion 1647:section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion 2350:the page that has been nominated for deletion 2165:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative Views 1676:the page that has been nominated for deletion 8: 2746:RFC/U discussion concerning you (Drnhawkins) 1074:so to talk about where it was is pointless. 682:for a subject and that there are reasonable 571:- I'm afraid Wyatt is not a reliable source 62:), or they are not written by a recognised, 804:Again, please post comments at the bottom. 2372:the page or have a copy emailed to you. 1698:the page or have a copy emailed to you. 1096:Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:13:12 +0300 (IDT) 2507:File:Apocalypse1.gif listed for deletion 1884:for all of your information. Thank you. 2364:page does get deleted, you can contact 1690:page does get deleted, you can contact 1353:Basically, the best source for that is 1022:. These will tend to be classified as 251:Where to ask questions or make comments 1769:Joseph and Imhotep are the same person 1755:Joseph and Imhotep are the same person 1643:Joseph and Imhotep are the same person 1629:Joseph and Imhotep are the same person 2762:, where you may want to participate. 2492:. Thanks again for your cooperation. 1461:. It is quite brief, and if you have 879:Knowledge (XXG) again, as you did to 93:. For more information about me, see 89:for more information, and consult my 7: 2281:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Medicine 1131:Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology 906:I'm backing that up. You absolutely 2679:I have proposed a community ban at 2548:. You might wish to comment there. 2540:WikiProject Christianity discussion 1771:, an article that you created, for 224:Intuitive guide to Knowledge (XXG) 128:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for 14: 2700:So what is an acceptible solution 2517:commons:Commons:Deletion requests 2169:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bible 2161:Category:Christian fundamentalism 91:list of frequently-reverted sites 2756:user conduct request for comment 1871: 1846: 1760: 866: 841: 157: 115: 73:If you were trying to insert an 2813:Is this you editing logged out? 1888:, his otters and a clue-bat • 256:Request administrator attention 2770:) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) . 2490:media copyright questions page 2273:User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph 1816:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 1727:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources 1: 1134:Israel Antiquities Authority 300:Biographies of living persons 183: 25:has been reverted. Your edit 60:Linking to copyrighted works 2263:, about a dozen total, and 914:the comments of others. Do 325:Policy for non-free content 296:What Knowledge (XXG) is not 107:12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 2872: 2672:Proposed community ban of 1569:14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1521:15:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1506:14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1488:13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1453:13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1415:13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1386:13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1367:13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1338:13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1316:13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1278:18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 1254:17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 1231:15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1212:14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1150:05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1084:05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1068:01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1040:17:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 1009:01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 979:16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 965:01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 941:15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 901:15:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 857:14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 814:12:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 800:12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 786:04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 765:17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 744:17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 725:16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 711:16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 697:16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 672:15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 657:15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 617:00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 585:15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 242:Frequently asked questions 176:15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 156:on talk pages by clicking 77:that does comply with our 2857:10:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 2838:10:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 2808:02:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 2780:14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2754:. Please be aware that a 2737:23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 2715:14:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 2692:12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 2667:02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 2619:14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 2571:02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2535:23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC) 2502:00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 2315:A tag has been placed on 1895:False claims on your part 1641:A tag has been placed on 2833: 2710: 2452:Thank you for uploading 2435:10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 2388:10:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 2293:15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 2245:03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 2212:18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 2196:18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 2191: 2182:14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 2133:18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 2128: 2110:02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 2105: 2096:02:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 2091: 2082:01:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 2077: 2067:01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 2062: 2051:13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 2035:18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 2030: 2022: 2014: 2006: 1996:21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1981:15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1976: 1967:15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1962: 1953:15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1948: 1939:15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1934: 1925:15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1920: 1910:14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1890:13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1862:13:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1824:10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1805:15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1745:14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1714:13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1619:08:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1614: 1605:03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1552:the talk page guidelines 1262:Christianity WikiProject 1063: 1004: 960: 739: 87:external links guideline 52:free web hosting service 2269:User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox 1115:Subject: Re: Ron Wyatt 479:Pages needing attention 265:Policies and guidelines 2642:and please be sure to 2594:and please be sure to 2476:image description page 2449: 2448:File Copyright problem 2411:and please be sure to 2368:to request that they 2312: 1729:for more information. 1694:to request that they 1638: 1425:be a separate article. 2515:, has been listed at 2447: 2329:articles for deletion 2311: 1751:Articles for deletion 1655:articles for deletion 1637: 1180:Neutral point of view 274:Neutral point of view 219:upload and use images 2513:File:Apocalypse1.gif 983:Sorry about that. 889:blocked from editing 351:Conflict of interest 278:No original research 68:conflict of interest 2366:one of these admins 1692:one of these admins 1137:POB 586, Jerusalem 457:The perfect article 401:No personal attacks 124:Hello, Drnhawkins! 2644:sign your comments 2624:MfD nomination of 2596:sign your comments 2576:MfD nomination of 2454:File:Day_Lord1.gif 2450: 2413:sign your comments 2393:MfD nomination of 2313: 2250:Your contributions 2115:Joseph and Imhotep 1724:TEXT </ref: --> 1639: 1544:original synthesis 1291:Sorry about that. 1284:Joseph and Imhotep 625:Joseph and Imhotep 528:Join a WikiProject 452:Develop an article 448:Be bold in editing 130:your contributions 2519:. Please see the 2433: 2386: 1878:original research 1829:Your recent edits 1767:I have nominated 1743: 1719:Adding references 1712: 1052:original research 1024:original research 824:Your recent edits 573:in Wikiedia terms 563:Your recent edits 560: 559: 556: 555: 552: 551: 388:Assume good faith 362: 361: 312:Three-revert rule 182: 181: 136:below, ask me on 2863: 2806: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2733: 2726: 2665: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2617: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2568: 2561: 2554: 2431: 2427: 2425: 2384: 2380: 2378: 2345: 2344: 2338: 2265:Premillennialism 2242: 2235: 2228: 2142:WP:VERIFIABILITY 1887: 1886:Ten Pound Hammer 1875: 1850: 1802: 1795: 1788: 1764: 1741: 1737: 1735: 1710: 1706: 1704: 1671: 1670: 1664: 1602: 1595: 1588: 1485: 1478: 1471: 1463:reliable sources 1118:Dear Mr. Searcy 1028:reliable sources 938: 931: 924: 870: 845: 684:reliable sources 654: 647: 640: 537:Useful templates 439:Writing articles 413:Community portal 405:No legal threats 383:Resolve disputes 366: 329:Image use policy 287:Reliable sources 209:Getting mentored 205:Our five pillars 188: 184: 161: 150: 144: 120: 116: 23:Premillennialism 2871: 2870: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2845: 2815: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2792: 2789: 2748: 2731: 2724: 2702: 2677: 2674:User:Drnhawkins 2661: 2657: 2653: 2651: 2629: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2603: 2581: 2564: 2557: 2550: 2542: 2509: 2442: 2429: 2421: 2398: 2382: 2374: 2342: 2336: 2335: 2325:deletion debate 2306: 2299:Speedy deletion 2252: 2238: 2231: 2224: 2220: 2117: 1897: 1885: 1882:reliable source 1869: 1841:by typing four 1839:sign your posts 1831: 1812: 1798: 1791: 1784: 1765: 1758: 1739: 1731: 1721: 1708: 1700: 1668: 1662: 1661: 1651:deletion debate 1632: 1625:Speedy deletion 1598: 1591: 1584: 1576: 1574:Sandbox article 1535: 1481: 1474: 1467: 1286: 1241: 1157: 1056:reliable source 1048:fringe theories 1020:fringe theories 1016: 934: 927: 920: 864: 836:by typing four 834:sign your posts 826: 650: 643: 636: 628: 565: 493: 461:Manual of style 440: 379:Build consensus 371: 347:Deletion policy 308:Manual of Style 266: 234: 193: 192:Getting started 178: 148: 142: 114: 64:reliable source 19: 12: 11: 5: 2869: 2867: 2844: 2841: 2814: 2811: 2788: 2783: 2747: 2744: 2742: 2740: 2739: 2701: 2698: 2696: 2676: 2670: 2628: 2622: 2580: 2574: 2541: 2538: 2508: 2505: 2441: 2438: 2397: 2391: 2305: 2301:nomination of 2296: 2251: 2248: 2219: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2157: 2154: 2146:WP:RELIABILITY 2139: 2116: 2113: 2054: 2053: 1999: 1998: 1896: 1893: 1868: 1865: 1830: 1827: 1811: 1808: 1759: 1757: 1753:nomination of 1748: 1720: 1717: 1631: 1627:nomination of 1622: 1575: 1572: 1540:primary source 1534: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1427: 1426: 1418: 1417: 1389: 1388: 1370: 1369: 1341: 1340: 1319: 1318: 1285: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1215: 1214: 1199: 1191: 1183: 1171: 1164: 1156: 1153: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1087: 1086: 1044: 1015: 1012: 944: 943: 863: 860: 825: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 627: 621: 620: 619: 564: 561: 558: 557: 554: 553: 550: 549: 548: 547: 534: 525: 511: 495: 494: 491: 488: 487: 486: 485: 476: 474:Disambiguation 463: 454: 442: 441: 438: 435: 434: 433: 432: 419: 409: 408: 407: 398: 385: 373: 372: 369: 363: 360: 359: 358: 357: 344: 334:External links 331: 318: 304: 303: 302: 293: 291:Citing sources 280: 268: 267: 264: 261: 260: 259: 258: 253: 248: 236: 235: 232: 229: 228: 227: 226: 221: 211: 195: 194: 191: 180: 179: 154:sign your name 123: 113: 110: 31:unwanted links 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2868: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2840: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2812: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2797: 2787: 2784: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2745: 2743: 2738: 2735: 2734: 2728: 2727: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2699: 2697: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2682: 2675: 2671: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2656: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2627: 2623: 2621: 2620: 2616: 2608: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2579: 2575: 2573: 2572: 2569: 2567: 2562: 2560: 2555: 2553: 2547: 2539: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2523: 2518: 2514: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2484: 2479: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471:copyright tag 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2446: 2439: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2426: 2424: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2396: 2392: 2390: 2389: 2385: 2379: 2377: 2371: 2367: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356:the talk page 2352: 2351: 2341: 2332: 2330: 2327:, such as at 2326: 2322: 2318: 2310: 2304: 2300: 2297: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2249: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2236: 2234: 2229: 2227: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2151: 2150:WP:NOTABILITY 2147: 2143: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2114: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1894: 1892: 1891: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1866: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1849: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1828: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1809: 1807: 1806: 1803: 1801: 1796: 1794: 1789: 1787: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1763: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1736: 1734: 1728: 1718: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1705: 1703: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1684: 1683: 1682:the talk page 1678: 1677: 1667: 1658: 1656: 1653:, such as at 1652: 1648: 1644: 1636: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1603: 1601: 1596: 1594: 1589: 1587: 1581: 1573: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1532: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498:Peterkingiron 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1486: 1484: 1479: 1477: 1472: 1470: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1440:Mircea Eliade 1436: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1238: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204:Peterkingiron 1200: 1197: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1154: 1152: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1076:81.105.226.60 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1032:Peterkingiron 1029: 1025: 1021: 1013: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 997: 994: 991: 988: 984: 981: 980: 976: 972: 967: 966: 962: 958: 953: 950: 947: 942: 939: 937: 932: 930: 925: 923: 917: 913: 909: 905: 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 869: 861: 859: 858: 854: 850: 844: 839: 835: 831: 823: 815: 811: 807: 803: 802: 801: 797: 793: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 774: 766: 762: 758: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 726: 722: 718: 714: 713: 712: 708: 704: 700: 699: 698: 694: 690: 685: 681: 676: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 659: 658: 655: 653: 648: 646: 641: 639: 633: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601:WP:NOTABILITY 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 562: 546: 542: 538: 535: 533: 529: 526: 524: 520: 516: 512: 510: 506: 502: 499: 498: 497: 496: 492:Miscellaneous 490: 489: 484: 480: 477: 475: 471: 467: 464: 462: 458: 455: 453: 449: 446: 445: 444: 443: 437: 436: 431: 430:Mailing lists 427: 423: 420: 418: 414: 411: 410: 406: 402: 399: 397: 393: 389: 386: 384: 380: 377: 376: 375: 374: 370:The community 368: 367: 364: 356: 352: 348: 345: 343: 339: 335: 332: 330: 326: 322: 319: 317: 316:Sock puppetry 313: 309: 306: 305: 301: 297: 294: 292: 288: 284: 283:Verifiability 281: 279: 275: 272: 271: 270: 269: 263: 262: 257: 254: 252: 249: 247: 243: 240: 239: 238: 237: 231: 230: 225: 222: 220: 216: 212: 210: 206: 202: 199: 198: 197: 196: 190: 189: 186: 185: 177: 173: 169: 165: 160: 155: 151: 147: 139: 135: 131: 127: 122: 121: 118: 117: 111: 109: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 84: 80: 76: 75:external link 71: 69: 65: 61: 57: 53: 49: 45: 41: 40:regex rule(s) 36: 32: 28: 24: 16: 2846: 2816: 2790: 2749: 2741: 2730: 2723: 2703: 2695: 2678: 2630: 2582: 2565: 2558: 2551: 2543: 2521: 2510: 2487: 2480: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2451: 2422: 2399: 2375: 2360: 2354: 2347: 2333: 2314: 2253: 2239: 2232: 2225: 2221: 2185: 2136: 2120: 2118: 2099: 2085: 2070: 2055: 2000: 1970: 1956: 1942: 1928: 1913: 1898: 1870: 1832: 1813: 1799: 1792: 1785: 1781: 1766: 1732: 1722: 1701: 1686: 1680: 1673: 1659: 1640: 1608: 1599: 1592: 1585: 1577: 1536: 1482: 1475: 1468: 1431: 1428: 1419: 1390: 1371: 1355:WP:VANDALISM 1348: 1345: 1342: 1323: 1320: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1242: 1239:Keep Working 1158: 1139: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1114: 1109: 1104: 1099: 1043: 1017: 1014:Your article 998: 995: 992: 989: 985: 982: 968: 954: 951: 948: 945: 935: 928: 921: 915: 907: 884: 873:only warning 872: 871:This is the 865: 827: 733: 660: 651: 644: 637: 629: 597:WP:SYNTHESIS 572: 566: 545:User scripts 426:IRC channels 417:Village pump 233:Getting help 164:edit summary 141: 138:my talk page 134:Getting Help 133: 72: 20: 17:October 2008 2527:John Carter 2494:Chris G Bot 2348:the top of 2285:John Carter 2204:John Carter 2174:John Carter 2167:, although 1674:the top of 1561:Athanasius1 1445:John Carter 1407:John Carter 1378:John Carter 1359:John Carter 1330:John Carter 1308:John Carter 1270:John Carter 1246:Athanasius1 971:John Carter 609:John Carter 532:Translation 483:Peer review 215:edit a page 140:, or place 95:my FAQ page 2849:Dougweller 2830:Drnhawkins 2822:Dougweller 2817:This edit 2772:Dougweller 2764:Dougweller 2752:Drnhawkins 2707:Drnhawkins 2684:Dougweller 2522:discussion 2218:References 2188:Drnhawkins 2125:Drnhawkins 2102:Drnhawkins 2088:Drnhawkins 2074:Drnhawkins 2059:Drnhawkins 2027:Drnhawkins 2019:Drnhawkins 2011:Drnhawkins 2003:Drnhawkins 1973:Drnhawkins 1959:Drnhawkins 1945:Drnhawkins 1931:Drnhawkins 1917:Drnhawkins 1835:talk pages 1725:tags. See 1611:Drnhawkins 1513:Dougweller 1223:Dougweller 1196:WP:sandbox 1168:River Teme 1142:Dougweller 1060:Drnhawkins 1001:Drnhawkins 957:Drnhawkins 910:remove or 893:Dougweller 862:April 2009 830:talk pages 757:Dougweller 736:Drnhawkins 717:Dougweller 680:notability 577:Dougweller 513:Clean up: 509:Talk pages 505:User pages 470:Categories 355:Notability 321:Copyrights 201:A tutorial 168:Dougweller 97:. Thanks! 83:guidelines 2483:this link 2458:copyright 2043:Edward321 1988:Edward321 1902:Edward321 1556:Ron Wyatt 1533:Responses 1494:Ron Wyatt 1459:Ron Wyatt 1403:WP:FRINGE 1128:Joe Zias 877:vandalize 806:Ironholds 792:Ironholds 778:Edward321 703:Ironholds 689:Quantpole 523:Vandalism 501:User name 396:Etiquette 342:Vandalism 56:copyright 2636:deletion 2588:deletion 2464:and the 2405:deletion 2261:Prewrath 1867:May 2009 1773:deletion 912:refactor 908:must not 422:Signpost 392:Civility 213:How to: 112:Welcome! 99:XLinkBot 79:policies 2803:Shalott 2750:Hello, 2662:Shalott 2614:Shalott 2566:Shalott 2474:to the 2462:license 2257:Imhotep 2240:Shalott 1854:SineBot 1800:Shalott 1600:Shalott 1483:Shalott 1125:Shalom 936:Shalott 849:SineBot 664:Mattnad 652:Shalott 623:AfD of 515:General 126:Welcome 2466:source 2423:Verbal 2376:Verbal 2370:userfy 2361:speedy 2340:hangon 2275:, and 2148:, and 1843:tildes 1733:Verbal 1702:Verbal 1696:userfy 1687:speedy 1666:hangon 1188:Hyksos 1176:WP:POV 1100:From: 883:, you 838:tildes 776:help. 146:helpme 1548:David 1538:is a 1399:WP:RS 1155:Reply 605:WP:RS 593:WP:OR 569:WP:RS 541:Tools 466:Stubs 58:(see 48:forum 2853:talk 2834:talk 2826:talk 2795:Lady 2776:talk 2768:talk 2711:talk 2688:talk 2654:Lady 2606:Lady 2552:Lady 2531:talk 2498:talk 2430:chat 2383:chat 2289:talk 2226:Lady 2208:talk 2192:talk 2178:talk 2129:talk 2106:talk 2092:talk 2078:talk 2063:talk 2047:talk 2031:talk 2023:talk 2015:talk 2007:talk 1992:talk 1977:talk 1963:talk 1949:talk 1935:talk 1921:talk 1906:talk 1858:talk 1820:talk 1810:Knol 1786:Lady 1740:chat 1709:chat 1615:talk 1586:Lady 1565:talk 1517:talk 1502:talk 1469:Lady 1449:talk 1411:talk 1382:talk 1363:talk 1334:talk 1312:talk 1274:talk 1250:talk 1227:talk 1208:talk 1146:talk 1110:Cc: 1105:To: 1080:talk 1064:talk 1036:talk 1005:talk 975:talk 961:talk 922:Lady 897:talk 885:will 853:talk 810:talk 796:talk 782:talk 761:talk 740:talk 721:talk 707:talk 693:talk 668:talk 638:Lady 613:talk 581:talk 519:Spam 338:Spam 246:Tips 172:talk 103:talk 81:and 44:blog 35:spam 33:and 27:here 2732:iro 2346:to 2123:.-- 1672:to 916:not 891:. 887:be 595:or 70:). 2855:) 2836:) 2799:of 2778:) 2725:He 2713:) 2690:) 2658:of 2610:of 2559:of 2533:) 2500:) 2485:. 2478:. 2343:}} 2337:{{ 2291:) 2271:, 2233:of 2210:) 2194:) 2180:) 2144:, 2131:) 2108:) 2094:) 2080:) 2065:) 2049:) 2033:) 1994:) 1979:) 1965:) 1951:) 1937:) 1923:) 1908:) 1860:) 1852:-- 1822:) 1793:of 1669:}} 1663:{{ 1617:) 1593:of 1582:? 1567:) 1519:) 1504:) 1476:of 1451:) 1413:) 1384:) 1365:) 1357:. 1336:) 1314:) 1276:) 1252:) 1229:) 1210:) 1148:) 1082:) 1066:) 1038:) 1007:) 999:-- 977:) 963:) 955:-- 929:of 899:) 855:) 847:-- 812:) 798:) 784:) 763:) 742:) 723:) 709:) 695:) 670:) 645:of 615:) 583:) 543:• 539:• 530:• 521:• 517:• 507:• 503:• 481:• 472:• 468:• 459:• 450:• 428:• 424:• 415:• 403:• 394:• 390:• 381:• 353:• 349:• 340:• 336:• 327:• 323:• 314:• 310:• 298:• 289:• 285:• 276:• 244:• 217:• 207:• 203:• 174:) 149:}} 143:{{ 105:) 50:, 46:, 2851:( 2832:( 2824:( 2774:( 2766:( 2709:( 2686:( 2529:( 2496:( 2287:( 2206:( 2190:( 2176:( 2127:( 2104:( 2090:( 2076:( 2061:( 2045:( 2029:( 2021:( 2013:( 2005:( 1990:( 1975:( 1961:( 1947:( 1933:( 1919:( 1904:( 1856:( 1818:( 1613:( 1563:( 1515:( 1500:( 1447:( 1409:( 1380:( 1361:( 1332:( 1310:( 1272:( 1248:( 1225:( 1206:( 1144:( 1078:( 1062:( 1034:( 1003:( 973:( 959:( 895:( 851:( 808:( 794:( 780:( 759:( 738:( 719:( 705:( 691:( 666:( 611:( 579:( 170:( 101:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index