User talk:RAYLEIGH22

Welcome!

Hello, RAYLEIGH22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Azores

Basically, Wikipedia is not a place for our own research or opinions, it is based on what reliable sources say about a subject. For what we mean by 'reliable sources', see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. WP:NOR goes into more detail on our policy concerning original research. 13:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I noticed your Atlantis related edits to Wikipedia. Coincidentally, I started an Atlantis page on Wikiversity, here. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, but it is allowed on Wikiversity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where facts are not supposed to deviate from proven or well documented sources. You are free to write this on the Wikiversity page of Atlantis, and try to keep your input organized. Thanks. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

O.K., The island "Sabrina" is a well-documented fact. It belongs where I put it. It is factual, documented by two sources and it does not represent any opinion. What is the reason why you cannot leave it where it was placed?

Thanks. RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It was placed to prove that the Azores Islands HAVE risen and subsided recently from a geological standpoint. Furthermore, if you carefully read the Satorini location of Atlantis, you will find that volcanic activity is at least implied. So, the source of the island rising and sinking IS volcanic in nature.

Can accuracy be claimed when facts are left out? Pertaining to Atlantis, what may or may not have caused Atlantis to sink, if indeed it did really sink into the ocean as Plato claimed?

Thanks in advance for being fair about this.

Of course, this is not original research. It is instead documented history. I am sure that the archives in Great Britain will show that the island "Sabrina" did sink into the Atlantic. The sources of reference are reliable.

Again, if you omit the history surrounding the demise of the island "Sabrina", then you must omit the statement that the Azores islands have not risen or subsided in millions of years. Obviously, this simply is not true and it is misleading to the readers.

Respectfully,

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, sources need to discuss the subject

Your edit was what we call original research. The source doesn't mention Atlantis, so you can't use it in an article about Atlantis. Doug Weller (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Doug,

Can I use Otto Muck then?

This is about volcanic activity that exists on the Azores. Nothing more, or less.

Plato mentioned volcanic eruptions. Yes there is a conection. SO how do I present it?

Thanks!

User:John Garner (talk)

Once again, we are having this conversation.

The Azores are mentioned as a site for Atlantis. Atlantis sank according to the sources. Stating that the islands in the Azores have not changed in elevation is 3 million years is not accurate. Yet this is an encyclopedia and makes a claim to be accurate. So, if you must remove the post about the island "Sabrina" you must remove the statement about the land rising or subsiding in the last 3 million years. This statement simply is not true. The island "Sabrina" is a well-documented fact. It belongs where I put it. It is factual, documented by two sources and it does not represent any opinion. What is the logical reason reason why it is insisted that the readers of wikipedia be misled about the volcanic activity in the Azores?

Thanks.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC) RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Tone

We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, please keep your tone neutral and professional. "Remember, ..." and "Happy researching!" are not that. Basically, never directly appeal to the reader. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the misleading by omitting facts and contradictions. It is obvious that the land in the Azores HAS risen and subsided in the last 200 years, so how can you claim that it has not and hope to call Wikipedia accurate?

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know/remember what you're talking about, that's not what my message was about. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Gryphon,

I am sorry. I should not have addressed my question to you. I apologize that it has taken me a long time to get back with you.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Location hypotheses of Atlantis, you may be blocked from editing. CrashUnderride 04:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Second Pillar states "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view:"

The present neutral point of view is not neutral. I have presented research from legitimate sources that do not agree. Your only case is that I do not agree with your statement of fact.

For an encyclopedia to be accurate it must present representative research. This I have done. I have NEVER erased or overwritten your statements on Wikipedia, I have only added factual information which you are denying as factual. How can this be neutral?

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources. Also, you've been warned about WP:OR on this article before. CrashUnderride 16:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Crash Underride,

I have NOT been warned about accurate information. I started posting in this place in 2009. Nobody complained until recently, the last 2 years or so. You are guilty of suppressing accurate information by researchers.

The post was NOT disruptive. It was additional research and information. You and others are harassing me because my edits present addition information that has existed prior to the edits that you leave in place.

Therefore, I must insist that it be placed back. The post is below if you care to be fair about this. Otherwise, I shall issue a harassment complaint against my edits.

Thank you!

M. Ewing wrote that beach sand from prehistoric times was brought up in two deep sea cores, one from 3 km and the other from 5.5 km. These two cores came from an area over 1000 km from the coast on the Mid-Atlantic-Ridge. There were two layers in one core of sand which dated according to sedimentation rates at 20,000 to 100,000 years and in the other at 225,000 to 325,000 years.

R.W.Kobe found numerous diatoms from freshwater on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from several cores that were taken over 900 km distance from the coast of Equatorial West Africa. He claimed that this was evidence that the area in question was islands 10 – 12,000 years ago. The diatoms that he found he said were deposited as sediment in fresh water lakes which were later inundated under 3km of sea water. He states that this was a more plausible explanation than the claim that turbidity currents had moved the diatoms 930 km along the sea bottom and then lifted them up over 1000 km and deposited them on a the top of a submerged hill .

B.C. Heezen et. al. reports that at 37 degrees North the Atlantis seamount located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is flat topped at a depth of around 180 fathoms and has a current-rippled sand and or cobbles. Around a ton of limestone cobbles were brought up from the summit a sample of which gave a radio-carbon date of 12,000+/- 900 years. B.C. Heezen and colleagues states that that the limestone was lithified in a location above the water and that his is evidence that the seamount had once been an island but was submerged in the last 12,000 years <ref> B.C. Heezen, M. Ewing, D.B. Ericson & C.R. Bentley, 'Flat-topped Atlantis, Cruiser, and Great Meteor Seamounts' (Abstract), Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 65, 1954, p. 1261; Corliss, 1988, p. 88.

What you are doing to my edits is truly unfair.

~~~~