talk page notes - originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used

You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war.

There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here.

But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content.

1. Know the editorial background and don't pick a fight you can never win. Sometimes you won't know which other users will have these pages on their watchlist. If too many users will object strongly, you can never win. In this case it's probably better not to fight in the first place. All you will gain is some unwanted fame and maybe a block or two.
2. Do not violate WP:3RR, otherwise your opponent can have you blocked, and will thus be free to have his or her version of the particular page or pages for at least the length of your block. Being blocked also increases the chances of future admin intervention coming down against you.
3. Be dogged. Persist as far as you can and never give up. If you persist longer than your opponent, you will win. Revert-war stamina will bring victory.

1. Know that the initiator has the advantage! Insertion of new content is not a revert. If your opponent inserts something first, this doesn't count as a revert. It goes like this: OPPONENTEDIT -> YOURREVERT1 -> OPPPONENTREVERT1 -> YOURREVERT2 -> OPPONENTREVERT2 -> YOURREVERT3 -> OPPONENTREVERT3 -> YOUR3RRVIOLATION. OPPONENT thus wins because OPPONENT moved first. SO then, if revert and counter-revert follow, your opponent will be emerge with an advantage. Your opponent will always win within any 24-hour cycle. If the reverting happens quickly, your daily allowance of reverts could be over in minutes. You must therefore pick your revert timing carefully. And know that the above rule can actually be used to your advantage. As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version.
2. Buffer your reverts and make boring edits also count! After you've performed a major revert to your opponent, make a number of small basic edits improving the language or formatting of the article. Do as many of these as you can, preferably in separate edits. Then if your opponent reverts you, they will either have the added work of adding your small edits back or mass reverting you. I.e. you can either waste their time (more than you'll waste performing them) or make them look bad to any admin or commentator.
3. Know your opponent's schedule. Most human beings sleep for around 8 hours each day. If you know when that will occur for your opponent, revert them just after their sleep probably begins, and you will have the whole sleep with the right version. Additionally, the opponent may have other regular hours he or she spends away from wikipedia. If you know those too, you'll be in an even better position.

Beware of RanSAI, random sanctimonious admininstrative intervention. This force of nature is unpredictable, and could come along at any time. As a result, you have to ensure you are as prepared as possible.

1. Make an appearance of using the talk page now and then. This will ameliorate the bad appearance of "edit warring" in any random admin's eyes.
2. Try to appear to follow wikipedia guidelines on editorial interaction, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Serious violations of these are considered by many trigger-happy admins to be blockable offenses in their own right, and they also increase the chances of being blocked for edit warring by reducing the admin's sympathy for you.
3. Be as subtley discourteous towards your opponent as possible. This may require detailed knowledge of the opponent's character, but if pulled off can be very rewarding. Causing your opponent offense and frustration without obviously doing so can make them violate WP:CIVIL with no loss to yourself. Your opponent will be discredited, and if blocked, you will be allowed to edit unopposed and retain your own preferred versions of pages for at least the length of the block.
4. If a RanSAI does occur, try to get in the admin's good-books as quickly as you can. Appeal to the admin's self-righteousness. This may mean apologizing immediately for any offence you "may have caused". Try at least to seize the initiative, and if you see it coming, get to the admin before your opponent does. You can even, if your opponent has violated WP:CIVIL (or even if he hasn't), collect some diffs and bring it to the admin's attention. If new to the situation, the admin will probably take the view that things have just got heated, so you should say this before the admin does and suggest that you "probably need to cool down".
5. Once RanSAI has occurred, it is likely that the intensity of your opponent's opposition will die down for a while. You should be very careful about how you take advantage of this, as the admin may still be watching. One approach in many cases is to bombard the admin with more info than he or she will be interested in reading or be able to process. This will at least discourage some other admins from fresh interference, and it may even cause the de facto end to the entire RanSAI, leaving you once again one-on-one.

The good news is that on wikipedia, despite being an encyclopedia, knowledge is egalitarian, discipline is not. This is one of your biggest advantages. The enforcers of wikipedia policy, its administrative class, are unlikely to be a big deal to you, as long as you aren't too clumsy. Admins enforce disciplinary policies, not encyclopedic policies. Yes WP:NPOV is in theory a policy, but they won't have any knowledge of your pet-topics or much interest in them, being primarily a collection of seasoned vandal-fighters and talk-loving, action-shy mandarins. The only policies taken seriously in general and in practice are policies concerning behaviour and discipline. With encyclopedic information, all you need to prevail are numbers! Thus, even if some "neutral" has more knowledge than you, you can still make him your bitch.

1. When engaged in a revert-war with this "expert", bombard him with endless posts on the talk page. If he makes any arguments which are hard to refute, well, just skip over them in your response and they are as good as nullified (who else is reading, after all!). He then may do one of the following. 1) Get tired and go away ... good! 2) Ignore you and continue reverting ... in which case you can try to have him blocked for revert-warring without discussion. 3) Get frustrated and become "uncivil" ... again, have some champagne, you can get him blocked.
2. Bog him down. The "expert" doesn't have a lot of time, and probably wants to do something else. With all the time you have, with any luck you can drive him into the ground and away from your issues and perhaps from wikipedia.
3. Tag sentences elsewhere. Staying with the theme of time-wasting, check out some of this "expert"'s other articles and see if they have many sentences in "need" of citations. Stick some tags on them, especially if the article in question was written long ago. Either your "expert" will need to find and write out a bunch of citations, killing loads of his time, or your "expert" will, knowing he can never prove you've only done this in bad faith, get frustrated, lose his restraint and perhaps get himself closer to that block or warning you're after.
4. Find brothers-of-the-faith. With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe!
5. If the above doesn't work, you can always create brothers-of-the-faith. This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war Thatmanbolt (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the old controversy has erupted again. I think we put in a lot of work to make the article acceptable. We will need your input to reach an acceptable compromise.Wapondaponda (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1]. As far as I'm aware there is no coven. However, thank you for your advice to Wpp. That account is blocked; all edits made by it and socks will be reverted; if it gets too boring I will semi protect the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Thank you.--Caspian blue 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned, per [2], for six months from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page. After review of the article and its talk page, I see a pattern of POV-pushing a fringe theory which has led to this ban. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking editors as racist and red-neck is a violation of WP:NPA and also your attack of Bush violates WP:BLP. It also doesn't help make you look any less like a fringe promoter if you accuse editors of racism unjustly. I suggest you remove or strike your attack on that page. If you continue to make attacks like this, you will most certainly be blocked from editing at all. Please reconsider your behaviour here. Auntie E (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reviewing WP:ADMINABUSE to see how best to resolve the matter of our banning. I think it is best that we stick together on this one. The page I am reading says that you need atleast two people to certify that there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. AncientObserver (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a request here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_Panehesy for Ice Cold Beer to be removed from administering the article and Dbachmann's RFC to be rescinded. --Panehesy (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am tring to make sense of what appears to be a huge mess at ancient Egyptian Race Controversy. I am hoping you can at least answer one question. Of all the people who have edited the article or talk page over the past couple of months, which editors are established (e.g. by checkuser or a preponderance of evidence) sock puppets? And are they all sock puppets of one user, or more than one user? I assume the one user is Muntuwandi but if there is more than one user can you tell me wich sock-puppet gos with which puppeteer? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today (14th) I left a lengthy comment at the bottom of the talk page for Ancient Egyptian race controvesy. Right now it is the last set of comments on the talk page. I'd really like to know what you think. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wdford, I agree with your proposal to make a new approach of the article, a historical approach. But as long as we will be banned from editing the article, this proposal will remain just a dream!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them on DougWeller's page. If you do not mind my forwarding an answer: first the approach you raise will lead to all kinds of NOR problms. Just take your time and think aout it and iu think some will some to your mind. No proposal will fly if ther is a risk of violating NOR. Second, there is a risk of making the article arguentative, i.e. using evidence to suport one side of an articl. This violates NOR which isnsiste all views be presnted neutrally. No proposal will fly if there is a risk of violating NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion: that you and Ancient Observer create, through a sandbox/sub-page from one of your user-pages, an alternative article on the topic in question. I suggest the two of you work at it until you are satisfied that you have an article that meets all of Wikipedia's standards, is compliant with all policies, and considers all reasonable objections and concernes people have raised about this article in the past. No ban can prevent you from working on your onw in this manner. When you are ready, you can slowly seek wider and wider comment from a more and more diverse group of editors. If you find this advice constructive, I would further beg you to consider my own comments about the value of a clear content fork and how I think such an article should be developed. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion to rename the article cannot hurt - but I am going to distance myself from the matte now, I am no expert on it and have said all I can imagine to be constructive. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Panhesy's comment "Bring an administrator on who is not so knee jerk against the black side of the issue, ". Is this statement something you support? Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, I have the impression that you don't have the whole picture of theories on ancient Egypt. The black side doesn't mean the side supported by Blacks. There are actually Black scholars, like Snowden, who support the hegelian side, that of a Caucasian Egypt. Egyptologists like Champollion, support the herodotean side, that of a Black Egypt. This herodotean side is the black side of the article. It is not a racist term. It is an epistemological term. About Egypt one can be on one side: the Africoid (Black) Egypt, or on the other: the Caucasian (White) or the mixed Egypt. Panehesy is for reporting facts, facts of the history of Kemet as seen by all sides. But it seems as if it is not allowed to report the black side of the theories on Kemet. That is my understanding of Panehesy.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a mediator who is not knee jerk opposed to any side of the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)& net problems. No, I misinterpreted him and missed his clarification. I've struck my comment. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slrubenstein, I think we should attempt to get a mediator. Vassyana has offered to mediate. I think that is best way to make progress. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what absolute twaddle. There is no "black side" vs. a "white side". There is a "racist side", which thinks that there is a meaningful dichotomy of "white Egypt vs. black Egypt", and there is an "academic side" of an actual scholarly ethnographic approach. The blocks handed out were not "anti-black", they were "anti-racist" and "pro-academic" as is good and proper within Wikipedia's principle of WP:RS. If there were any racist editors pushing a "white Egypt" they would meet exactly the same treatment as the team of racist editors banned over their pushing of a "black Egypt". WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dab, it is the ignorance of the African historiography which is making you so blind as to qualify well informed people of "racist editors". Why don't you take time to read more, and all sides?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that ArbCom has formed a new council to devise new forms of Wikipedia governance(Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development)? I thought you might be interested in looking over who has been made a member of this council. They were not selected through any kind of transparent process. I have strong doubts about at least one of them, based on this comment, which I believe would be of interest to you. You and I know Wikipedia has problems that need to be addressed. Is a council with this member going to address them? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this provides more context and discussion of the issue at hand.... if we are going to have a real conversation about race at Wikipedia, this might be the place to have it (or to use it as a spring board into a discussion of how the policy council should investigate raceialized conflicts). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the decision to reduce your ban to 22 days, effectively unbanning you. You are free to edit Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the article anywhere near long enough to be able to support one version or the other. Your edit may indeed have improved the article. But the fact is, it was opposed. So rather than changing it back, policy dictates that you should seek a consensus, or at least make some attempt to discuss. If your edits were so obviously better, then you'd have nothing to worry about as the consensus would soon go your way. You just have to be patient. Start a discussion on the talk page if there isn't one already, request a third opinion if it's just you and Zara involved, and if it still goes nowhere request for comment. Your edits were a major change to the article so Zara was well within her rights to oppose them, leaving you in a position to initiate discussion. Edit warring between the two of you is not helping anyone's cause. Although I agree that in a lot of cases the "wrong" (for want of a better term) edit is left in when a page is protected, in this case Zara's edit should remain standing while discussion is going on. My advice? Forget about this mess, start a new talk page section and explain exactly why you feel your edits improved the article. And whatever you do do not redo your changes to the article without a clear consensus going your way. U-Mos (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the Ancient Egypt article is a focal point for scrutiny, I strongly suggest you find other subjects you can edit while those issues are sorted out. In addition to the encyclopedia benfitting from a broadening of your editing interests, it will also help establish you as someone who isn't focused on one particular subject that's in dispute. Take care. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I think that Wdford must remain present in the article, but more conciliatory. To make the article balanced, one has to avoid leaving it if one has something to contribute. Else, I don't see the problem limiting the article to the history of the controversy as somebody suggested in the talk page. There is a lot of things to say about history! When it started, who are involved in it and what they wrote.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can still create an article. The problem here is that certain editors do not want to have an article at all. So they will revert, disrupt and edit war at any opportunity because they know protection or deletion favors their point of view. We shouldn't fall into their trap by edit warring because that is exactly what they want. The best approach is to try and gain a sensible consensus on the material, there will always be some editors who disagree, but if the material is good quality and from reliable sources, there will be no basis for disagreement. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right Wapondaponda. It's better to have something than nothing! So one has be very careful dealing with this explosive article. Many interests are involved in it under the conver of rules!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'd appreciate it if you didn't edit war anymore; technically, you should be blocked for edit-warring, even if you haven't violated 3RR yet. Try to agree on a compromise on the talk page. Neither you or Zara are allowed to make controversial changes to the page; if Zara does (willingly or unwillingly), do not revert, just come talk to me and we'll sort this out. Thanks in advance for your cooperation! :) Any questions are welcome on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've also left the same operating conditions on Zara's page. Everything said there applies to you also. Again, if you have any questions, let me know. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I struck out that portion of my comment, I hope this helps set things right. Thank you for calling this to my attention, and correcting me, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I personally see asking an admin to topic-ban someone as a veiled personal attack. I think Zara is not a disruptive editor, I think she just typifies the kind of antagonist all of us editing controversial articles must learn to collaborate with. She probably views you the same way. I have worked on articles with people I frankly hate. It doesn't matter, that is Wikipedia. In any conflict with Zara ask first of all if either of you is violating NPOV, V, or NOR. These are the real standards and if either of you may be seen as violating one of these policies, the proper response (whether it be by you or Zara) is NOT "Aha! You should be baned" but rather "Look, you are violating this policy so what you wrote canot go in. What are you trying to say and I will see if I can help you find a way to put it in so it complies with policies." You may fail, but then she'll know that you tried, that it was a good faith effort and that the conclusion that some material cannot go in is good faith. For anything that does not violate any of the three core content policies, my advice is just to split the difference. Tell her "I will accept your edit x, if you will accept my edit y." Or, "If you make this change to edit x, I will accept it. Now, I really want to make edit y, what change would make it acceptable to you?" You will end up with an article YOU would never have written, yourself. But that is the nature of the Wikipedia game. Learning to compromise so you nd up with an article that is not your ideal - but that is acceptable. And you may even decide over time, is pretty good.

I hope this advice helps. I would give it to anyone editing the artile, feel free to share it with Zara. you two have to figure out how you can work together. If you think there is a serious diference in how you view the topic, take it OFF the article talk page and to her user talk page, and focus on understanding, not agreement. Just make sure you understand one another. If you think she does not understand a policy, take it OFF the article talk page and to her user page, and again, focus on understanding, not agreement. Do these things on your user talk pages, focusing first of all on mutual understanding, and thn you can go back to the article talk page and begin working on comrpomises. Accept that on some matters you will never agree, so the question is, what is an acceptable compromise. You Do have to agree to compromise. I promise you, everyone will benefit, when you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wdford. Your comment has been answered at my talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent update to the Historicity of Jesus article, I agree that it would be a good addition to wikipedia to have a mention that many of the actions attributed to Jesus Christ were also attributed to a number of other "gods" or "god-men" of the competing religions of that time period. Also it seems that being born on the 25-Dec was quite popular. Though I wonder which article it should go into? Bill Maher discusses this in his Religulous documentary, see link.
How about the putting it onto the Criticism of Jesus article?
It might also be worth looking into whether it is already mentioned in some article in wikipedia.
What do you think?
Pnelnik (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an official edit war warning to avoid a personal conflict.

Wikipedia disputes from one article can not be carried over to other articles edited by the editor who is having a discussion with you, creating a personal war that will lead to edit wars. As I was discussing the article on Contradictions in the Gospels and added flags and tags to it, your retaliation edit to the article Holy Face of Jesus created and edited by me to add similar tags and flags is tantamount to a personal war declaration and is against Wikipedia policies. I will remove that tag to avoid a wideranging edit war. Please restrict discussions to "regional conflicts" to avoid being blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am not going to continue to engage with you on the jesus talk page because we do agree about most things, and it is becoming a tangent. However, I urge you for your own sake to strikeout what you write about Colmbus. You are quite right that the Greeeks knew the earth is a sphere. You are quite wrong to suggest that Columbus, and Europeans at the time of Columbus, thought the world was flat.

Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat - this is the source of the "flat earth myth" and Washington Irving, no historian, just made it up.

In fact at Columbus's time the knowledge that the Earth was spherical was widespread, and the means of calculating its diameter using an astrolabe was known to both scholars and navigators. The problem was, they did not know about the Americas, and given their beliefs about the circumference of the earth (which was retty accurate), no ship at that time could carry enough food and water to last the voyage to the Indies. This was the fear: not a flat earth, but rather running out of fresh water because the ocean was just too big.

Columbus did not argue that the earth was a sphere 9since everyone knew it is a sphere). What he did was argue that it was much much smaller than everyone thought (in fact, much much smallet than it really is - Columbus was dead wrong; all the people scared of a sea voyage west were right).

Columbus believed the (incorrect) calculations of [Marinus of Tyre, putting the landmass at 225 degrees, leaving only 135 degrees of water. Moreover, Columbus believed that one degree represented a shorter distance on the Earth's surface than was actually the case. Finally, he read maps as if the distances were calculated in Italian miles (1,238 meters). Accepting the length of a degree to be 56⅔ miles, from the writings of Alfraganus, he therefore calculated the circumference of the Earth as 25,255 kilometers at most, and the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan as 3,000 Italian miles (2,300 statute miles). Columbus did not realize (or wish to know that) Alfraganus used the much longer Arabic mile (about 1,830). The true circumference of the Earth is about 40,000 kilopmeters (25,000 mi), and the actual distance from the Canary Islands to Japan 19,600 km (12,200 mi). No ship that was readily available in the 15th century could carry enough food and fresh water for such a journey. Most European sailors and navigators concluded, probably correctly, that sailors undertaking a westward voyage from Europe to Asia non-stop would die of thirst or starvation long before reaching their destination. They were right, Columbus was wrong - except NO ONE knew about the Americas, and lucky for Columbus, he reached them before running out of fresh water. If the Americas were not there (and Columbus did not believe they were there) and his three ships would have had to continue sailing westward, they really would have run out of fresh water, and they would have died.

So European fears of sailing west were very well founded. They did not believe in a flat earth. Really! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your actions at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Apparant harassment by User:Wdford. Zara1709 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me. You will never get the Immunogenics reference or anything remotely like it included in the article. This is a medical article so any references will undergo extreme scrutiny from many editors who haven't even commented yet. Your structure has good points, but stick to reliable independent sources so you don't shoot yourself in the foot. Beaupoint 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)