User talk:Roylee: Difference between revisions

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. While interesting, you recent article Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin looks rather like original research, and that is unfortunately one of the things that Wikipedia is not. If you want to write an article about such a topic, please make sure to cite sources and concentrate on reporting what is already widely known or accessible. Thank you. Kosebamse 11:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All sources are precisely cited and appear in blue. If you find any statement perplexing, please let me know, and I'd be more than happy to elucidate further. - Roylee  :)

Firstly, your sources are almost entirely Wikipedia articles. "Sources" of encyclopedic quality means essentially scientific publications published under appropriate review processes, at least as far as scientific topics are concerned, and as far as I can see, your article deals with a scientifc subject. Secondly, while I don't understand your article in detail, it's obvious that you are proposing a new hypothesis, and that falls quite clearly under what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps Wikibooks would be a more appropriate place for your work, but I am not sure about that, as I have not been active there and don't know their policies. Kosebamse 11:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

G'day and Weclome!

Your articles and edits are fascinating, but you're riding roughshod over too many established conventions to list. Suggest a serious reading program! NPOV and what Wikipedia is not for a start. At the same time, we do encourage people to be bold.

Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin may not be salvageable, I don't know. Perhaps Wikinfo would be a better place for it.

When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp. We normally do this on discussion pages as a courtesy, but not in articles.

• Welcome is a good place to start.
• Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
• Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
• Wikipedia:Village pump is a place to ask questions.
• Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

Please feel free to drop me a question on my talk page if there's anything you think I can help with. Andrewa 17:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Roylee, you may have noticed that I reverted your edits to Origins of chess. I think it is not a good idea to promote your article Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin by linking it elsewhere while it is on Votes for deletion (and it looks it will not have a chance of surviving in its current form). Please dicuss your ideas about chess on Talk:Origins of chess and feel free to reinstate your edits if there is consensus about their merits. Thank you. Kosebamse 09:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the ancient "Suez Canal" connected the Nile with the Red Sea. In which case, I would think it facilitated Egyptian trade with East rather than West Africa? logologist 14:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feel embarrassed by the following. (I am fortunate to having had contact with some very bright and exceedingly experienced historians in my lifetime who informed me of the following. Yes, you may declare the above, and it is a very common mistake.)

Ancient manuscripts refer to the "Mediterranean Sea" as the "Red Sea." Exactly why this is so is uncertain. For some reason or another, ancient references to both seas in many instances carried the same name. Even the Gulf of Suez is referred to as the "Red Sea" in some instances! However, I'm not an historian, and my memory fails at recollecting precise references for you. Sorry.

It was Necho II (610 - 595 BC) who dug the canal from the Nile to the Gulf of Suez.

The use of the term "Red Sea" in the article, Suez Canal, is only to appease those who want to claim this technicality in the ancient documents discovered (from the 13th century BC) of the canal's origin. They prefer to state that some other canal was constructed. However, try as energetically as we may, we always fail at locating any evidence of any other canal which these ancient documents must be referring to. Nevertheless, they prefer to argue that such evidence may show up some time in the future. So, we publicly leave the term as it is, yes probably in error, but maybe not actually so.

If you'd like a good map to reference, here is a really good one I have located on the internet, but it takes a few minutes to download. So be patient! [1]

The Egyptians wouldn't have needed to dig a canal to get to the Mediterranean Sea. All they needed to do was sail downstream. logologist 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians to Mediterranean Sea? Yes. West African Saharans to eastern "states?" No.

The West African Saharans were the major shipbuilders of the era, not the ancient Egyptians. But, both populations were African. Perhaps the initial motivation to dig a Suez canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Suez was of West African origin??? Perhaps the actual dig was a joint effort???

Perhaps the Phoenicians were West Saharan Africans??? According to Phoenicia: Phoenician Merchantry, Egyptian pharoah Necho II sent a Phoenician expedition out to circumnavigate Africa. Why would the Phoenicians oblige to an Egyptian pharoah? Maybe because Egypt dug the canal for them? Seems reasonable, but we'll never know.

1. You reference the above ... my debut on Wiki. However, as you may find, the above finds modern research support.
2. I'm allowing the edits to stand. So let's leave it at that. However I sense and suspect underlying hostility and deception in your writing styles. Therefore, I don't want your words here. Maybe my personal feelings are to blame. Either way, please don't revert my Talk page. Sincerely, Roylee