User talk:Profsherman

Hello, Profsherman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Robert Sarmast has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpwxacz90ay). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sarmast

I just wanted you to know that I have reported you as engaging with an edit war.

Also, you seem to be completely unaware that it is physical impossible for the Ocean Drilling Sites, which are mentioned and provided references in my text that you keep removing, to have been underwater during all of the Pleistocene and for the area, where Sarmast alleges Atlantis to have been, to have been at any time during the Pleistocene. It does not matter if Sarmat's Atlantis is not part of Cyprus Arc itself, at the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea" or not. The fact of the matter is if the Eratosthenes Seamount has been underwater for millions of years, because of gravity, the physical characteristics of water, and the bathymetry of the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the alleged location of Sarmast's "Atlantis" has been under water for millions years beyond any shallow of a doubt. In addition, if you knew anything about the geology and paleooceanology of the Mediterranean Sea, you would know that the 1975 paper by Y. P. Malovitsky and others, which you cite, has been completely discredited and refuted by thousands of km of seismic line shot, innumerable deep sea cores collected, and analyses of the sediments and fossils from these cores performed over the last 34 years and published in over a hundred papers about the geology and prehistory of the Mediterranean Sea.Paul H. (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a life young man. I'm trying to add content not have an argument about whether or not the theory is right -- this isn't the place for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:NPOV to learn how to write article content in Wikipedia. Your fauning adoration of Mr. Sarmast and his work is not appropriate content. (Taivo (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your refusal to accept, or even allow, contradictory facts doesn't do you much good either young man. Just another dogmatic naysayer erasing whatever doesn't appeal to him, dime a dozen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

FYI, I am not a "young man" nor am I a dogmatic naysayer. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting a self-serving POV, so present the facts with appropriate references without proselytizing, polemics, or editorializing and no one will revert your content. They may, however, present opposing points of view with proper references. Drooling adoration (such as your "biography") is inappropriate content. (Taivo (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The facts are that the ancients knew about the Gibraltar disaster. It's eight miles wide. How did they know if it happened five million years ago? Care to answer? This is a valid point which belongs in the story; the fact that you insisted on removing it is very revealing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

You have given no reliable references for such an assertion. Prove it. (Taivo (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well why do you think it was called the Pillars of Hercules? References? Try Wiki! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Hercules#cite_note-2: "According to some Roman sources,[3] while on his way to the island of Erytheia Hercules had to cross the mountain that was once Atlas. Instead of climbing the great mountain, Hercules used his superhuman strength to smash through it. By doing so, he connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea and formed the Strait of Gibraltar. One part of the split mountain is Gibraltar and the other is either Monte Hacho or Jebel Musa. These two mountains taken together have since then been known as the Pillars of Hercules..."

3 ^ Seneca, Hercules Furens 235ff.; Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 1240; Pliny, Nat. Hist. iii.4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

LOL. That is not "proof" of anything. Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox are just as historically sound tales as the stories of Hercules. Unless you've got real evidence (read WP:RS), then this conversation is over. (And note that the breaking of the rocks in the story doesn't say that the Mediterranean was dry at the time--only that the Mediterranean Sea was connected to the Atlantic. There was already a sea in the Mediterranean basin according to the story.) (Taivo (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's not the story of Hercules that's important, but the fact that the ancient knew the Gibraltar broke, young man. How did they know that if it happened five million years ago?

No answer? Isn't it amazing the way we reveal our true nature, given enough time, young man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste further time with someone who doesn't understand what a reliable source is or the difference between myth and legend, and cold, hard facts. (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As Tavio stated above, the story that you presented fails to provide a single shred of hard evidence that they knew anything about the "breaking of Gilbratar". You are reading something into a story that does not exist. This story does nothing to explain the complete lack of any reported paleosols, weathering horizons, evaporite deposits and subaerial erosional surfaces within any of the Pleistocene sediments examined in the innumerable cores that have been recovered and examined from the eastern Mediterranean Sea below the known depths of sea level falls related to periods of continental glaciation. The above story fails completely to explain why cores recovered from the sea floor below a depth averaging about 102+/-6 meters typically show a record of continuous marine sedimentation throughout both the Pleistocene and Pliocene. Had sea level dropped as deep as you hypothesize, there should exist some painfully obvious evidence, which has been observed in neither these cores nor in the thousand's of miles of seismic data that have been collected from all over the eastern Mediterranean Sea, for such a drastic drop in sea level. For examples of such cores, go read:

Calvert, S. E., and M. R. Fontugne, 2001, On the late Pleistocene-Holocene sapropel record of climatic and oceanographic variability in the eastern Mediterranean, Paleoceanography. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 78–94.

If anyone would take the time to research what has been published about the paleooceanology, paleocirculation, sapropels, oil and gas geology, glacial and interglacial sea level history, and Quaternary geology, and stratigraphy of the eastern Mediterranean, they will find that there exists dozens upon dozens of similar papers describing in detail similar cores from the eastern Mediterranean. This can be confirmed by either you or any other interested party by searching through the [GEOREF database] Paul H. (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing any of that, and I'm not asking you to be sorry, just consistent. You asked for proof that the ancient peoples knew that the Gibraltar used to be a dam, and I provided that proof from Wikipedia itself, with a reliable source from Seneca, one of the ancient world's most authoritative sources. Not sure what's LOL about that, since that's what you requested. He clearly states that the ancient did indeed know that the Straits of Gibraltar, eight miles in width, used to be an isthmus. So I'm still waiting for a scientific answer: How did they know that it was an isthmus thousands of years before science proved them right? Hsu was laughed at the same way I'm sure when he presented his findings, from people who were absolutely positively beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that the Med. was never dry. Answer the question: How did they know? It's a fair question no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

You've presented no evidence that the ancients "knew" anything of the kind. You have simply presented a legend about Hercules recorded by Seneca. I'm certain that Seneca recorded the story accurately, but that doesn't make the story reliable. That's not any more evidence than the tall tales relating Paul Bunyan to the formation of the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River. (Taivo (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, a legend from the ancients saying that the Gibraltar used to be an isthmus, thousands of years before science knew it. It wasn't just Seneca either, google a bit. It's obvious that you're a scientist in name alone, and no lover of truth or investigative research. Dodging the question repeatedly proves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

And, since there is only tall tale and legend in your assertion of "evidence", I can only assume that your idea of reliable source is a Marvel comic. Good luck in getting any of your edits to meet the requirements of WP:CONSENSUS before being added to the article. (Taivo (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think you may need some caffeine bud. Your "evidence" is based on core samples from a completely different area, totally unrelated to the Cyprus Arc, which sits atop three major tectonic plates and several minor plates. Your "evidence" also does not factor in the sinking of the basin itself, which has not been studied. If you were honest with yourself and others you would admit that your "conclusion" is conjecture at best, and not verified fact. Until you get that sample from the Cyprus Arc itself, that's all you have to go on -- conjecture. Please stop trying to pass yourself off as a scientist, and your guesswork as "fact." We'll have to agree to disagree, and let the world judge the facts for themselves, you've become a bore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs)

3RR

You have violated 3RR at Robert Sarmast and will be reported for edit warring if you revert again. (Taivo (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have been reported for edit warring [1]. (Taivo (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Profsherman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm trying to add content for Robert Sarmast, facing a malicious loser with nothing better to do

Decline reason:

Requests with personal attacks are always declined out of hand. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please read WP:NPA as your comments in your unblock request leave me wondering if I was too lenient. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

First, please read WP:COI carefully.

Then read WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE.

Then probably WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE which definitely applies. And refrain from commenting on other editors.

Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see, just mainstream stuff. chao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.103.36 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Source for the Urantia Book comment is based on hearsay, and is not documented.

Conflict of interest

You should not be editing Robert Sarmast - I asked you to read WP:COI. You are welcome to discuss changes you'd like to see on the talk page of course. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]