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 Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   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. - Sidelight 12 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)

Doug Weller,

John Garner again (aka RAYLEIGH22)

I know that you do not think that Wikipedia is the place for current information about Atlantis in the Azores. What sorts of posts will you allow? My Wikipedia meta analysis of existing scientific research regarding the Atlantis in the Azores is not original research. It is only a meta analysis. Please, I do not wish to offend or war, I'd just like to start posting on the talk page to see what you would allow and what you would not.

Thanks, I hope all is well with you.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (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.  Crash Under  ride  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.  Crash Under  ride  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 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.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:RAYLEIGH22/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:RAYLEIGH22/sandbox Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:RAYLEIGH22/sandbox reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:RAYLEIGH22/sandbox


Hello, RAYLEIGH22. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do some of the other contributions not contain references to Atlantis within the reference yet are allowed in Wikipedia?

[SPECIFICALLY...] The Azores are steep-sided volcanic seamounts that drop rapidly 1000 meters (about 3300 feet) to a plateau. Cores taken from the plateau and other evidence shows that this area has been an undersea plateau for millions of years. Ancient indicators, i.e. relict beaches, marine deposits, and wave cut-terraces, of Pleistocene shorelines and sea level show that the Azores Islands have not subsided to any significant degree. Instead, they demonstrate that some of these islands have actually risen during the Late and Middle Pleistocene. This is evidenced by relict, Pleistocene wave-cut platforms and beach sediments that now lie well above current sea level. For example, they have been found on Flores Island at elevations of 15-20, 35-45, ~100, and ~250 meters above current sea level.

Atlantis is NOT mentioned in this part of the Azores location hypothesis. THEREFORE, if you do not allow my submission you should remove this one.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
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. How many times have editors told you this? Doug Weller  talk 18:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I should appreciate this more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_8#/media/File:Admin_T-shirt.PNG

You all work pretty hard here.

A story is in order.

As a radiologic technologist, there is a train of thought that holds that to protect a patient from excess radiation, the acronym, ALARA should be followed. (As Low As is Reasonably Achievable).

So, in addition to using a collimnator, a device that only allow radiation to reach an area illuminated by a light beam, that areas should be covered by lead. (a rubberized lead apron or a flat lead shield). The claim is that x-radiation produced during the exposure is also accompanied by "off focus radiation from the x-ray tube", "leakage of radiation from the collimnator" or "Xray tube housing leakage" all 3 of which are limited to leakage equivalent to average readings of background radiation from the environment by federal regulation.

So, the lead covering is commonly placed between the patient's body and the xray source or xray tube outside of the useful xray beam as indicated by the light from the collimnator when the exposure is made to obtain the image. The belief is that the lead shield protects the patient from the three sources that cannot possibly reaching the patient. Furthermore, the standard measured radiation is in the microGray range when significant scatter is in the milliGray range. (A microGray is 1/1000 of a milliGray)

The problem with all of this is that whenever xradiation is used in a diagnostic room setting, there can be only 2 kinds of radiation present. The first is the beam from the tube. The second is the scatter radiation produced by the Compton effect inside the atomic structure of that which is being radiated. (Patient, wall, equipment, etc) Furthermore, we can measure this with radiation detectors.

So. the question remains, what happens when you cover the patient's body outside the primary beam with lead. Experiments show that less radiation is present under the lead apron next to the patient's body. More is detected next to the patient's body if lead is not used outside of the primary beam.

What is happening is not what it seems. During the short exposure the patient's body becomes a source emitting scattered radiation. If you cover it with lead, you create a third interaction that prevents the scatter from leaving the patient's body. Therefore, the patient is absorbing more radiation. However. We are only talking about microGrays. You would get a thousand more time radiation in a commercial aircraft flying at 35,000 feet going from Los Angles To New York. But still, that radiation is only the equivalent of a diagnostic radiograph of your chest at high kvp technique.

'''Well, what you believe will work can be justified by somebody's research. I cannot pick the geology apart. I can only say that there is controversy.

My Atlantis Location hypothesis is only a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an idea that is supported by reasonable existing scientific data. I am not an ancient history expert. I am not an expert in the study of known ancient antiquities. I am a scientist with an interest in imaging using tomography, in this case "P" wave tomography. I have used CAT scanners in practice. I know what they can do. I am not "believing" in anything. I am presenting existing research and an explanation regarding a possible scenario of how it can be put together with science to solve an ancient mystery.

Like mathematics, my hypothesis could represent something that exists, and it may not represent something that exists. Make no mistake, that are super volcanoes like the undisputed one at Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Keep in mind 80% of volcanic eruptions occur underwater. Most go undetected. My Atlantis in the Azores is a product of something that could have happened.

We know the last ice age ended abruptly. We know that oceans rose 10,000 years ago. I am presenting the hypothesis. If it can be elevted to a theory and then a scientifically proven occurrence, only time will tell. I do not apologize, and I do not back away from the science supporting the hypothesis. It is no more disruptive, it is no more obnoxious than any scientific hypothesis that remains as yet unproven.

As the example of lead shielding in my technological profession, this will continue until research accepts or rejects it. as we still do not know a lot of things about the dynamics of the planet Earth, we do not know if this hypothesis is correct. However, you cannot dispute the emerging science.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Atlantis/Location_Hypotheses

Hiding it won't work, either.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since your Help Desk question was archived, I'll comment here. It's not that we are trying to hide anything. It is that you have to get your theory published in a reliable source before Wikipedia can use it. Fringe theories are mentioned all the time in Wikipedia, but only as fringe theories, and they have to be well-documented and written about extensively before Wikipedia can include them.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

hi Vchimpanzee!

Reliable sources can disagree or can be contradictory. The sources of my edits ARE just as reliable as those that are being allowed. The truth is that the site is supporting Santorini (Thera) as the site for Atlantis. The truth is, until Atlantis is found, there IS NO Atlantis. IT is merely a legend.

You and I both know that all of these theorized locations for Atlantis are not being presented in the same light. But that is O.K. IT would be better if we removed the Azores entirely as a possible location for Atlantis.

So I will let it rest for now. However, if fringe theories were not wanted, then why was the statement placed there that said fringe theories were accepted. I think that all of them should be removed now except for Satorini since that is the dig that is being financed. As I have stated more than once, it will never be possible to excavate the areas in the Azores that could yield remains. The nature of a supervolcanic eruption leaves nothing. Nothing covered by 3300 feet of water.

Time will tell. Doggerland is recognized as being a submerged area inhabited by man over 10,000 years ago. There will be others. Why don't you watch my very first reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3BVnTi9y_o ? You should look at them. Read this one. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1343737.htm

This thing is a monster as is Campi Flegeri https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giovanni_Orsi2/publication/225382182_Probability_hazard_map_for_future_vent_opening_at_the_Campi_Flegrei_caldera_Italy/links/004635188ea66452c6000000.pdf

Now look at the earthquake swarms under the Azores http://www.cvarg.azores.gov.pt/seismic/index.html

Thanks for taking your time to reply to me. I may try to publish a work about the Azores. It won't be until after I retire and run out of other projects, though.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "However, if fringe theories were not wanted, then why was the statement placed there that said fringe theories were accepted." There have to be extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims. A lot of coverage would have to be devoted to any fringe theories.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone see the National Geographic Channel presentation "Atlantis Rising" last night? Why has there been no excavations on 8 of the 9 Azores islands to explore the extent of the ancient ruins and pyramids located there that were mentioned in the program? I believe it is possible that these settlements date to Plato's time.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Repression of science is doomed to failure. Even the works of Tesla are haunting the modern world as with Elon Musk's electric roadster.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration request
Hi Rayleigh22,

I've temporarily removed your request for arbitration. While I won't insist on it if you still disagree after reading this, I'm doing this as a favor to you.

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Arbitrators won't accept a case if all other parts of WP:DR haven't been tried first. As an old hand at watching arbitration cases, I promise you they will ultimately reject this with a response of "Please use other dispute resolution processes first". But in the mean time, it takes several days to go thru the motions of rejecting the case, where things will be at a standstill on the talk page. And people are free to kibbutz about it, and they can sometimes be unhelpful. Keep in mind that if a case was accepted, it takes weeks to slog thru.

I suggest you read WP:DR and follow those steps. In particular, it doesn't look like discussion has been going on for very long on the article talk page. There's also asking for a 3rd opinion, and an RFC, and the dispute resolution noticeboard.... Lots of choices before arbitration.

I should also have mentioned, Arbitration is pretty much a behavioral forum; they don't make content decisions.

If you disagree, it is not my place to tell you you can't request arbitration, so you can re-add your request there. You'll have to fix the formatting and notify the other parties.

Let me know if you have any questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just remove it. It's really not worth the trouble.
 * OK, I have. If you decide to revisit the issue in the future, WP:DR is a good first stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)