User talk:CHRB

I note that as User: 86.143.57.222 you have already been warned about breaching the WP:3RR, please refrain from undoing other editors work, repeatedly.ALR 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * I am not very familiar with WIkipedia, other than encountering it as a source cited by students in their essays, so please excuse me if this is not the accepted menas o9f getting in touch, but I cannot find another way - possbily a product of my limited computer-literaccy!


 * Please note that I am very careful about which aspects of the works of R. Lomas etc. I comment on. I make no obsertvations about his professional work on EE and manage,ment topics, though with twenty-plus years experience of running a specialist electrcal contracting company, I might.


 * As a trained, professional historian (Ph. D., St. Andrews, 2006)I feel it is my duty to point out that -for example - 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' - is not a work of history, but a series of unsubstantiated declarations, none of which bear critical examination. NBHG is (again, just an example) largely responsible for the grrowth of many modern fables connecting Robert the Bruce, templars, Roslin chapel et alia. This would not be a problem in most countries, but in Scotland, where there people are not exposed to their own history in school, it IS a problem. If HBHG had claime to connect Robin Hood with the battle of Waterloo and the Empire State Building it would have been laughed to death - in fact it rather was among historians and - so I am led to believe - by theologians and Freemasons as well.


 * If I were to make no effort to correct misconceptions I would be complicit in the mythologising that Dr. Lomas and others have found to be so very profitable, hence I point out that he is NOT a historian though I understand, perhpas incorrectly, that he is an amateur archaeologist of some talent. Historians make an analysis of events based on their observations from evidence, not by repeating tall tales ad infinitum in the hope of convincing the credulous - and of course parting them from their money.


 * It is perhaps worth mentioning that Dr. Lomas is unwilling to engage in public debate with historians - he does not even respond to e-mails or telephoe calls to his office at Bradford University. Incidentally, I am led to beleive that the Archaeology department at Bradford is driven to distraction debunking some of Dr. Lomas more lurid claims.


 * There is a good deal in Dr. Lomas' pseudo-historical work that I would not choose to comment on becasue it is out of my sphere, but it is surely only right that I make an effort to correct things that are just not true - Templars at Bannockburn, the idea that Freemasonry is derived from templar roots, the similarity between Glasgow Cathedral and Roslin chapel (if in doubt, just take a look at them!) and such-like.


 * Hope this is of some help. If there is a better way of communicating witjh you, let me know, but I can be reached at...   the_lighthouse@btinternet.com


 * All the best
 * CB CHRB


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, but unfortunately, the Three-Revert Rule doesn't allow any exceptions, and you're clearly on the wrong side of the rule. Please stop reverting HBHG or the administrators are likely to block you (again).


 * Atlant 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr warning
Hi. Please be aware of, and stick to, WP:3RR. This rule applies *whether you are correct or not* and also whatever your qualifications may be. Please step back a bit, stop editing the page, and spend some more time discussing your changes on talk. For myself, I think its a work of fiction, but I'm not going to get involved in the content William M. Connolley 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! SWAdair 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

CHRB, welcome. I'm always pleased to see new editors join Wikipedia, especially those with your educational background. It may take a while for you to get the feel of how things work around here, but that's okay. Each of us had to go through the same learning curve. Wikipedia is a wonderful place; more than just a website, it is a community of people dedicated to knowledge. With the free option for anyone to edit there are going to be differences of opinion, but those can usually be worked out. If there is one piece of advice I could offer new editors, it would be this: don't.  You wouldn't believe how addicting this place can be. If you make one edit, you'll want to make another, and another, and before you know it you're at work counting the hours until you can get back online to Wikipedia. :) Seriously, welcome and happy editing.  SWAdair 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi.... Clearly I am on the 'wrong side of the 3R rule...', but surely (I may not have grasped this perfectly) there is a problem with this. If one constructed a Wikipedia entry which stated that potatoes are made from recycled newspapers, would it be imposible for a botanist to correct that entry? HNHG is not a bona-fide work of historical research, it is, as a judge described it recently, 'pretend history'. It would be tedious to go through the whole book pointing out the failure to examine evidence critically and the fanciful speculations; this has all been done before. By listing it in the introduction as 'non-fiction' Wikipedia effectively endsorses HBHG. The later parts of the article certainly go some way to redressing this, but many people will only read the opening paragraphs and therefore the damage is done. At the top of the page it clearly says that the neutrality of the article is in doubt, however the tenor of the article, despite the 'de-bunking' element is very sympathetic to the authors. It is not the case, for example, that 'mainstream' historians or 'most' academics disgree with the 'conclusions' of HBHG. NO genuinely knowledgeable historian - be they University Professors or independent scholars can possibly accept the methodology of the HBHG authors. A work of historical non-fiction must be clearly based on solid evidence - not on the efforts of the con-man who invented the Priory of Sion in the 1950s. I see that the site now calls HBHG 'a controversial book' rather than a 'non fiction book' - thatt's good enough for me! ¬¬¬¬