curprev11:4911:49, 16 June 2024 Joortje1talkcontribs 44,337 bytes+497 Turin shroud is not considered oopart because of dating problems, but because the circa 700 year artifact looks like a photographic negative and nobody has been able to conclusively identify how it was madeundoTag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev01:0501:05, 30 May 2024 Paul H.talkcontribs 43,840 bytes−932 Your current sources for yout edit are remarkably poor in quality - insufficient to support a claim in Wikipedia. One is a personal web page lacking any credible sourcesand coherent arguments and the other is a short sentence also lackingundoTags: UndoReverted
curprev19:0719:07, 29 May 2024 NekoKatsuntalkcontribs 43,840 bytes−932 Undid revision 1226247213byArgument cat (talk) Debunked - "Some weapons were coated with a 10–15 micrometer layer of chromium dioxide before burial that was believed to have protected them from any form of decay for the last 2200 years. However, research in 2019 indicated that the chromium was merely contamination from nearby lacquer, not a means of protecting the weapons."undoTags: UndoReverted
curprev10:4110:41, 29 May 2024 Argument cattalkcontribs 44,474 bytes+634 The allegations that chrome plating was used are still strong, and the denials presented in this source are only a small part of the allegations.undoTags: RevertedVisual editMobile editMobile web edit