User talk:Ecopeacevision

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bottom of Red Sea
Ron Wyatt, an anesthesiologist and Christian who believed there might be artifacts to better prove some of the very old stories in the Holy Bible, found major artifacts and some related to the Exodus Journey. Wyatt has a written testimony of Red Sea Crossing artifacts:    and This is a video with drama of his scripture-based hypothesis of the Red Sea Crossing and home videos of their findings:

Wyatt had other testimony and pictures related to evidence at Mt. Sinai on his web site. Ecopeacevision (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Ecopeacevision

Not verifiable:

See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chariot-wheels-found-bottom-red-sea/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ecopeacevision (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Ecopeacevision

June 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Exodus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If you continue to violate WP:VERIFY and add original research yhou'll be blocked
The ability to veryify that text in an article comes from reliably published sources and is not the editor's own ideas, opinions, or research is fundamental in this encyclopedia, and editors who continue to ignore policy and guidelines get blocked. We do not use primary texts as sources to make an argument, we rely on experts opinions of those texts. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sapienti sat
There is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wyatt's cow
Even Creationist sources debunk this.. Please don't bother trying to argue with me about this, the point is you must stop trying to use it as though Wyatt met our criteria for sources at WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2019
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Exodus seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Ecopeacevision! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:33, Tuesday, November 24, 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Ecopeacevision! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:34, Tuesday, November 24, 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Ecopeacevision/sandbox has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Ecopeacevision/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Original research
Your edit at Momona was reverted because you added your own original research, you have previously been warned about this, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit. Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)