Talk:Sphinx of Giza
[edit] HELP
I have a couple questions:
- How do I protect this article?
- What this the code for declaring a section NPOV?
If there are any sysops here, plz halp. Thx Neveruse513 21:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Hey Neveruse513, thanks for your questions. First off, we don't really protect articles unless there is a real need to protect them, and I don't notice any reason to lock this article to editing. Second, we don't have a NPOV on this wiki, and we perfer to focus on a SPOV, a snarky point of view, or a scientific point of view. I hope this answers your questions, if not, feel free to ask more. Javasca₧ My computer has two mowses!
- Got the first one done. And here, there is not such thing as NPOV. You should know that by now. There is such a thing as slightly less snark, but no NPOV. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistorfeline fanatic 21:35, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- CUR he has been here only 6 days, and in that time has made more main space edits than you. - User
21:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Doing a 90/10 rule, hmmm? He made it sound like he was a sysop. And I originally made more mainspace edits, but that stopped a bit later. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistorfeline fanatic 21:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- First of all he is a sysop and second edit warring is not mainspace edits. - User
21:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- <puts hands up> Sorry! --"ConservapediaSubwayResistorfeline fanatic 21:47, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Jesus, CUR--repeat after me: "Can't win, don't try." Doncha get tired of getting pwned alla time on dis wikiblog? TheoryOfPractice 21:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Hahahahaha Ace McWickedRevolt 22:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Jesus, CUR--repeat after me: "Can't win, don't try." Doncha get tired of getting pwned alla time on dis wikiblog? TheoryOfPractice 21:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- <puts hands up> Sorry! --"ConservapediaSubwayResistorfeline fanatic 21:47, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- First of all he is a sysop and second edit warring is not mainspace edits. - User
- Doing a 90/10 rule, hmmm? He made it sound like he was a sysop. And I originally made more mainspace edits, but that stopped a bit later. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistorfeline fanatic 21:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Ravaged by too much use of 'the white powder' - and was preweathered prior to construction. — Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] age and snark
The section on the age being 10,000 reads very straight, as if we are giving it a lot of weight. do we want to be suggesting that it's 10,000 years old?--
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- My history lecture this morning was on ancient Egypt and according to the notes I took, state-level society there never even took off until 3000 BC. There's no way the Sphinx can be that old. SoCal 212 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Couldn't be bothered to edit with snark, so instead the old school crank claims about the incredibly ancient Sphinx were simply crossed out
It seems that Rationalwiki has again had a visit from someone from the "history is much older than those pesky orthodox historians and archaeologists will admit"-crowd. Referencing Robert M. Schoch's personal website as a "recent study" is just bunk. I might be slightly more impressed if it had been published in a geological journal (Schoch's field), or even better in an Egyptology journal. Using Schoch becomes even more inane when a simple look at his Wikipedia entry reveals that he not only apply his Michael Cremo'esque ideas about a "prehistorical" global civilisation to the Sphinx but also to the Giza pyramids as well as the Mesoamerican pyramids, and dabbles in Yonaguni woo as well. In a stopped clock moment, he did at least declare the Bosnian "pyramids" to be BS. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)