User talk:Doug Coldwell/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:23, 23 June 2022

Welcome!

Hello, Doug Coldwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Dweller 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch

I tried reading your user page. You place great store in how many words and letters are used by Petrarch. But all that you quote is in English. Surely he didn't write in English? --Dweller 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Appreciate it. It is true that Petrarch's main language was not English. I believe his main language he spoke was Italian. He wrote in the Vulgate Latin. All of his works are in Latin. I quote Petrarch's "works" that have been translated into English, since this is the only language I know. However note that I give the titles of his works in the original Latin words. The first 4 headings are examples, as is the wording of De Viris Illustribus. Do you then know Latin or Italian? Is your native tongue English or another?

However as you can see from my work I have established that Petrarch definitely had a handle on English. He knew this language (as well as many others I suspect). I am told though by many scholars and history books that he did not know Greek. However he knew other scholars that did know Greek, so when he needed something translated or written into Greek he called upon his associates. He wrote this as I am describing as The Petrarch Code with the intention that it would be used in England. John Wycliffe (the first person to translate the New Testament into English) was from England. As far as I know, Petrarch did not know John Wycliffe personally. However I do believe he knew of him, since they were both in the same time period and both were ecclesiastical annoyances. Check back from time to time to see my progress on my User Page. I update almost daily.--Doug 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the reply. The point I was making was that you're basing much of your code theory on the number and combination of letters. However, you're using translations. In his vernacular, the number and combinations would be different. --Dweller 10:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on that point. This Code is definitely directly related to only English, not Latin or Italian. The Code works very good in English, but in Latin would not work (I assume). Petrarch wrote all his famous works in the Vulage Latin. Have given this very question much thought, since the Code works perfect in English. I'm almost positive it would not apply or work in Latin, however I do not know Latin so couldn't prove this one way or the other. All I can prove is that it definitely works in English. This calls for additional research, however this is my thinking on this so far. I believe Petrarch knew English. The reason I believe this is because of the sophistication of the Code. On the overall things Petrarch did on this Code, it is highly sophisticated. In fact the degree of sophistication is so high, it basically takes a modern day computer and the internet (with Wikipedia) to crack it. Who was this smart in the Renaissance period to do this? Only a few: Da Vinci, Boccaccio, Dante, and Petrarch for example. There may have been a handful more of humanists in the Renaissance period.

Here are some more thoughts along this line. I have concluded by cracking The Petrarch Code that it was in fact Francesco Petrarch that wrote the four Gospels. I have figured out that he did have assistance in this. One of his assistants was Giovanni Boccaccio. Boccaccio wrote pretty much the Gospel of Matthew. Petrarch wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles alone. (That's why most scholars to this day believe it is one and the same author that wrote both of these because of the writing style. They are correct: it was Petrarch). The Gospels of Mark and the Gospel of John is a collaborate effort between Petrarch and Boccaccio. The Gospels of Matthew and John are named in honor of Boccaccio. The Gospels of Luke and Mark are based on characters that Petrarch wrote about in his other famous works. Luke is in reference to the close friend of Scipio Africanus of Gaius Laelius. Gospel Mark is named in honor of Hannibal. Hannibal's family name is Barca or Barcas. Marcas comes from Barcas. Marc is short for Marcas. Mark then is our English word taken from Marc.

FYI: The three letters of John are letters from Scipio (the Elder) to Gaius Laelius. Scipio's family name is Cornelius. Scipio 'Cornelius' is this person written about in Acts of the Apostles chapter 10. His father Publius Cornelius Scipio is Acts chapter 11. Chapter 7 is Alexander the Great. Chapter 1 is Persian king; Cyrus the Great.

Appius Claudius Caecus and the Queen of the Long Roads

Doug! How are you? I used to call my self retired but it does not look good on the resume. Take it out, brother. Retired means not in the human race any more. When God calls you to retire to heaven then retire. Now to the topic at hand.

The blood lines of Appius Claudius would make a good topic for research. First I would do a Google search on his name. Then I would do a Yahoo search. What you are looking for is any scientific articles on the man. Do an academic Google search. Be aware, those professors are going to charge you a fee for their articles, but you can usually get the first page for free and some articles are for free.

Then I would go to [www.perseus.com the Perseus site]. Select Classics, so a search on Appius Claudius. That will get you Smith and a few encyclopedists online. You may have wait for the server. They aren't too good at servers, nothing like Wikipedia. Then, do an advanced search on Perseus, select Greek and Latin materials, English (unless you know Latin), enter Appius Claudius. That will get you to every translated ancient work on Perseus that mentions the man. Be prepared, ther emight be quite a few, hundreds even. How patient are you?

After that, well, you can try paper material but for an obscure topic like that none of the general reference works are going to have it. Your best bet is Google. Or you could try Philip II.

As for the queen of the long roads, you have just proposed a hypothesis, that the road was so named because of its straightness. Now you need to prove it. Without contextual evidence it is only a speculation. Find an author who says, it was named the queen, etc., because of its straightness, or find a dictionary entry for longus that says it could also mean straight. there are a number of Latin dictionaries online.

Personally I doubt it. All the roads were straight just like that one except when you got to the coast around Capua. If you read the article on Roman roads you remember that they would go to any lengths to get a straight road: steep grades, causeways, bridges. So, the Via Appia is not singled out for its straightness. Moreover, longus never means straight. You know what straight is in Latin, right? Guess! Of course. Rectus as in rectilinear.

Well brother I hope I contributed something to your start in classical studies. I do advise a search for the scientific articles. They turn up new and startling information all the time. Best wishes. Ciao.Dave 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money

A while back you had responded to a question of someone elses regarding motivation. You mentioned that you knew how to make lots of money. Kindly enlighten me, I live in the year 2007. How do I become extremely rich? --Delma1 07:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite interested in Real Estate too. I recently was taking Architectural Technology (full time) at a Technical Institute in Alberta, Canada (there is a huge shortage of housing in Alberta, due to Oil Sands contruction, low unemployment & because people are moving from other provinces like Ontario to Alberta for work). But then I dropped out before the first semester mid-term because I did not like drawing.

Now I am trying to get a certificate in Contruction Technology via part time in the evenings, which is like project management, & estimating. In order to get the certificate I need to take 6 core courses & 5 Electives. So far I have completed one, that is Construction Products & Materials.

So because you specialized in foreclosures, bank repossessions, Probate Sales, Estate Sales, and fixer-uppers, you were able to buy real-estate at discounted rates? But is that niche still left?

Everybody is nobody at one time so how did you actually start off with the above specializations? Did you just advertise in the newspaper I am a Real estate agent?

--Delma1 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What about your first cutomer? --Delma1 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Petrarch_with_book.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Petrarch_with_book.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Spectrometry

Recently put a question about Mass spectrometry on the Humanities page. Want to just "Move" the entire question over to Science without retyping it.

You can copy the question out of your edit history; go to [1] (which I found by searching your contributions), scroll to the bottom of the edit box, and copy the question. You can then paste it into the edit box on the Science reference desk. (If you want to, you can then go back and blank the section on the Humanities reference desk.) Hope that helps; feel free to put {{helpme}} back up if you have any more questions. --ais523 14:12, 4 January 2007 (U T C)

Re: Splitting a Talk page

Yes, it's possible. You have what's known as a 'userspace', where you can put your own pages, and Talk page archives are one common use for that. If I create a link to /Further on Petrarch (notice the / at the start) on this Talk page, it becomes a link to a page in your userspace where you can store ('archive') parts of your Talk page separately. (I archive my own Talk page every month or so; there's a link to my archives near the top, where you can see old messages I was sent.) You can also link to such a page in full, such as User talk:Doug Coldwell/Further on Petrarch, which is useful when using the Go feature of the search box. Cut-and-paste is one common method of archiving Talk pages (although not the only method used). See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for further details. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:49, 4 January 2007 (U T C)

The Ref Desk is in forward chronological order because it uses a modified version of the '+' tab to add new comments (the '+' tab, present at the top of this User Talk page, for instance, adds a new section at the bottom of the talk page). Reversing the order would require a change to the software (although it's possible it might be implemented if it gained enough consensus). --ais523 15:34, 4 January 2007 (U T C)

I've only just seen your followup question (having been offline for the last 3 days); yes, subpages can have subpages themselves, and are created the same way (/Subsubpage on the subpage, or /Subpage/Subsubpage on the mainpage, preferably using more interesting names). --ais523 10:47, 8 January 2007 (U T C)

Possible good information.

History: Fiction or Science? by Anatoly T. Fomenko, Franck Tamdhu (Editor), Mike Jagoupov (Translator) Publisher: Mithec (March 2004) # ISBN-10: 2913621058 # ISBN-13: 978-2913621053 is written by a member of the Russian Academy, and presents a view of history and goings-on at the time of the late Middle Ages-Early Renaissance in many ways similar to yours. You may find it interesting. --Seejyb 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Sorry I'm a little late:

Happy Birthday Doug Coldwell! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:54, 29 12 2024 (UTC)

I wish you a Happy Birthday! I hope you have a magnificent day! You are a year older now, enjoy it! AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:54, 29 12 2024 (UTC)

.

Your User Page

Hi Doug. I've noticed that you have developed a rather extensive user page, and subpages, to explain your theories. However, you should note that Wikipedia is not a free web host. Wikipedia user page guidelines state that "your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working." Reviewing your contributions, you don't seem to have made any edits to the actual encyclopedia that we are working on here. If you aren't interested in working on the encyclopedia, you may want to find another place to host your theories. - Eron ^Talk 14:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presently working on gathering information to make improvements on Petrarch, Ideas, Innovation, and Inspiration. In contact with others of other websites, University Libraries, and many related authors. Am trying to keep this as neutral as possible, however some points may be a little controversial. Thats why I am gathering here first. --Doug 15:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. - Eron ^Talk 15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading pictures

I have a dozen or so pictures I can add to Ludington State Park. I added this one picture today and it is typical of what I could add to the other sub-categories. However I have dial-up and have to wait a loooog time just to upload 1 picture. Is these a way to upload several pictures at the same time, so I would not have to go through the steps each time. Perhaps there is a way to upload just a thumb (smaller version) of a picture. Normally the JPG pictures are 500K to 900K in size each. I want to upload maybe 10 - 20 to work from to add to the article and to the article Ludington, Michigan. Is there a place where your pictures are in a category by themselves so you can see what you have uploaded? --Doug 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd upload the pictures to the Commons. Xiner (talk, email) 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. You have to upload one at a time (because that's all the software can handle). Commons (Main Page) has tools to show you a gallery of what you've uploaded. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a picture "Ludington State Park 2005 001.jpg" however can not figure out how to get it into the Category "Michigan State Parks" which is under the categories of "State Parks of the United States | Michigan". I see a picture there under "Tahquamenon Falls State Park", but can not place mine in the same place. Also I would like to have another page under the letter "L" for Ludington. I'm sure once I figured this one out, then other pictures I can just place under the "L" (I think). Also if I just have pictures of the town of Ludington, (Ludington, Michigan - Mason County) where would I then place these pictures? --Doug 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I added the category to the Summary section ~~but because I made a capitalization error in my first attempt, now the image also belongs to a non-existent cat. Someone help?~~ Xiner (talk, email) 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzeled on this????
Once I put "public domain" and it did take.
This last time I uploaded the picture, I put GFDL (self made);
apparently that isn't correct either. Really stumped on this one....???
I took the picture myself in 2005. Is it not my picture to give to public domain?
How do I then correct this issue as to whereever I should put this "copyright tag" without uploading again.
Still have no idea where my picture is and can not figure out how to get it to "Michigan State Parks" uder the page (sub-category) of the letter "L" (Ludington State Park).
What if I wanted to upload pictures for Ludington, Michigan which is in Mason County; what do I do?
There is no "Counties in Michigan". --Doug 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your image is here. I've added {{GFDL-self}} to the License section. Xiner (talk, email) 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Ludington State Park 2005 001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ludington State Park 2005 001.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

De Viris Illustribus

In case you wonder what happened to your recent addition to the Petrarch article:

Another editor deleted it, giving as reason that the material would be more appropriate in an article about the book itself, De Viris Illustribus.

I think this is true, but I also think it was a pity to waste the work you did, so I have copied your material into a new article on the book. See link above. Feel free to add more detail, and indeed to create more articles on works by Petrarch!

You might like to know that the usual formatting methods for lists in Wikipedia are: for an unnumbered list, just begin each line with an asterisk; for a numbered list, begin each line with the hash sign (#). I replaced your <br /> with asterisks. Best wishes Andrew Dalby 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, thanks for your note on my user page. It's kind of you to explain your theories to me, but I don't really go for secret codes and hidden numbers. Best of luck, however. Andrew Dalby 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images in a Gallery

I have tried everything on setting up a Gallery of 4 pictures with no luck. I have set the images between two "gallery" (with signs on each side of < >) and still not luck with every combination I could think of. Here is the article I am working on: Ludington, Michigan in the Category Retail I have another level called Fort Daul Murals. My pictures are

Fort Daul1.JPG do not need caption, however if one is necessary then "Mural 1"
Fort Daul2.JPG do not need caption, however if one is necessary then "Mural 2"
Fort Daul3.JPG do not need caption, however if one is necessary then "Mural 3"
Fort Daul4.JPG do not need caption, however if one is necessary then "Mural 4"

Could you please set it up for me to see how it is done. Then in the future I will be able to do more of these. Thanks --Doug 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start with <gallery> than write the names of images separated by a | and conclude with </gallery>. See here for a software generated gallery. --J B 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to make great links

Hi, you seem to have troubles writing intra-wikipedia links :) Just as a reminder, [[article]] allows you to make a link to article, and [[article|title of the article]] links to title of the article. If you want to do a link to an other website, [http://www.google.com Google main page] will appear that way: Google main page. If you want other tips, consider reading Help:Editing or feel free to ask on my talk page. Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it. Thanks for the correction. --Doug 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks again for all the hints. --Doug ^talk 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah I noticed that too. You can't make a link to the page you are currently on ;). Glad I could "Help"! Don't hesitate to ping me back if you need anything else ;) (The {{helpme}} tag is quite effective too). -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One way I learn, Doug, is by looking at a page that does some of the things I want to do. Then I click on edit to study how it does it. I don't make any changes. I just study the way it's done and then use my browser go back one page button to back out without actually editing. Andrew Dalby 13:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great tip! I use it now for my "sandbox experiments". I have set up several "Sandboxes" to play with on various projects I am working on. Sandbox 5 is of the Ludington Murals in Ludington, Michigan. Look at their article under "Retail" and compare it to (multi-task) my Sandbox 5 that I am finishing up on. I will probably then update it tomorrow after I sleep on my "improvements". Sandbox 1 is my work on De Viris Illustribus you started for me. Recently I made some major improvements to Ludington State Park and Big Sable Point Lighthouse since they had no pictures to go with their articles. I added all the pictures. Digital photography is my hobby and I have thousands of pictures. I will in the future be adding pictures to many Wikipedia project articles since I have traveled all over the United States taking pictures. Thanks again for all the excellent tips and hints and improvements on my work. --Doug ^talk 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watching just a "Section" of a Reference Desk question

Can you be alerted on "Watch" only when there is an edit to a particular question you put on a certain Reference Desk (i.e. Humanities) and not be alerted every time anyone puts something on this Reference Desk? Otherwise you have to check back often and go throught many items that you may not necessarily be interested in; whereas if you were alerted only when your question was responded to, then you could go look (saving then a bunch of wasted time). This would be especially helpful when you have several questions on several References Desks going at the same time. --Doug ^talk 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not possible at the moment. Xiner (talk, email) 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appius Claudius Caecus

Sorry, I don't have any information about ACC's wife. Alexander the Great had no descendants beyond one generation, so far as anyone knows (or so far as I remember). Andrew Dalby 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many pictures

{help me}

I have 100 pictures of White Pine Village (an outdoor Civil War museum) that I would like to upload, all at once if I could. Also then is there a way to present these pictures to others by means of some sort of Slide Show. Yahoo has such a system, so I know it is possible (software wise). Maybe it could be set up to play back on Slide Show just the "thumbs".

There presently is not an Article on White Pine Village (an outdoor Civil War museum) yet, however I plan to start it soon.

Also is there a way up to upload and play back short videos (MPEG) taken by a Sony digital camera? An example here would be showing the operation of an old sawmill in action.--Doug ^talk 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well first of all, if the images are freely licences (by the sounds of things you are going to freely licence them - otherwise they could not be used in Wikipedia) you should upload them to the Commons - that is the central place for media like this. For the video: video can be uploaded, but Commons:File types indicates that only the OGG format can be uploaded - so you may have to convert it if possible.

I don't think there is a way to mass-upload the files (unless someone has written a bot or some third party software), but you could have a look around Commons, or ask them at Commons:Help desk. Also, there is no slide show function - maybe a long time in the future this feature will be written, but Wikimedia doesn't have many programmers. For the slide show feature you could see if it has been requested at Bugzilla, and if not request it yourself.--Commander Keane 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Commons:Tools/Commonist which is a program to upload many images - but it looks hard to install (for me anyway).--Commander Keane 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottville Clown Band

The article Scottville Clown Band has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I see you adding information about the band to the Ludington page - wouldn't it be better located on the Scottville page? Ludington isn't mentioned on the site, except to say that it's near Scottville. Just a suggestion. -- Alucard (Dr.) 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludington is considered the original home of the Scottville Clown Band. It is featured on a very large mural in downtown Ludington on Ludington Ave. It is part of Ludington's culture and Ludington's history. In Scottville itself basically there is no evidence that this band even exists. All of its history is located in Ludington. Ludington, Michigan is a large tourist town, Scottville (10 miles east) is a very small village. I live there and I think it is more appropriate on the Ludington article.--Doug ^talk 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair point - I just don't see any evidence of that on the web site for the band, which only really mentions Scottville. Hence my question. -- Alucard (Dr.) 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the process of upgrading their website. I believe this information will be reflected then in their website. If not, I'll consider removing this section then. Also I got this information from personally talking to the Clowns themselves when I saw them at The Museum of Music at the historic White Pine Village just outside Ludington in the last few years in 2003 to 2006. Perhaps I misunderstood, however I will reverify this information about their roots in Ludington the next time I see them there at the Museum of Music or if I see them downtown Ludington. --Doug ^talk 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I would advise you to take a read of WP:OR - my understanding of this is that we should be creating WP pages based out of published information and all the info that I can find that has been published links the Band with the locality it is named after. -- Alucard (Dr.) 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are correct. I moved this section to Scottville, Michigan. --Doug ^talk 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'm kind of new at this myself, so am learning as I go. :-) Alucard (Dr.) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also recently added all the pictures of the murals of Ludington with the new section called Town of Murals.
I also added all the pictures to Ludington State Park.
I also added all the pictures to Big Sable Point Light. (That's my wife next to the sign).
I will be adding many major Sections to Ludington in the future. Keep an eye out (watch) for any mistakes I might make so I can correct them A.S.A.P.
Also I recently started a Section under Petrarch called De Viris Illustribus under Works. I found all the English names to the Latin and did all the wording to Liber I and Liber II. --Doug ^talk 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Please be sure to include reliable sources for assertions of fact that you make on Wikipedia. In particular, if you are creating a new article, it's important to have some form of reference or at the very least an external link to give a source for the information. The encyclopedia can not operate on original research and without a source, you are essentially claiming the fact as something you created because you give no reference as to where you came to know such a fact. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean of the two new articles I did on Mason County Historical Society and White Pine Village. Isn't their website good enough reference to a source? There just happens to be several other websites that make reference to this outdoor Nineteenth Century museum. Should I include some of them also at the bottom under "Additional Information"? Where does one normally put where they obtained this reference information? Apparently then it is not proper to use their addresses and phone numbers (I found this in their online brochure). Otherwise apparently then others could also find this in their brochure or on their website (that I would reference at the bottom). I have since put several "References" under each of these new Articles. Would these be sufficient?- Doug

The new articles, in particular, yes. If you have other references from good and reliable sources (see the link I provided above), then please add those. If you want to reference a particular fact within an article, then you would put it inline using the <ref> tag per WP:FOOT. I saw the changes you made to the Mason County Historical Society page. That is correctly how you add references without commenting on a specific fact (you could use Hoxsey Therapy as a good example of both References and External links). One problem with the links you gave for the MCHS is that the local newspaper is not itself a good reference, but a specific article in the newspaper related to the MCHS would be a good reference/link.

For example, this link would be good for the White Pine Village page, because it is coverage by an independent newspaper discussing what the village entails and its enrollment in a state pilot program of some sort. I'm sure similar articles exist discussing the MCHS as well. As you noticed, I removed the address and phone number. Contact information is the responsibility of the company/organization and not an encyclopedia. On top of that, Wikipedia is often a source of spam because of how the information is mirrored on the internet (making it a popular source for spammers to harvest information). Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any further questions on my talk page. ju66l3r 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punic Wars.

You are very welcome, Doug. I've left an answer at the relevant section confirming your calculations. Clio the Muse 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug, for drawing my attention to the most interesting additional information you have provided. There is really no further comment that I need to make. Clio the Muse 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of pictures

I've noticed that on a couple of pages, you have added tons of pictures. Pictures are great, and can really help a Wikipedia article, but adding too many can also detract from the quality. There are many people with dial-up connections whose pages will never load if there are tons of pictures on them. One page in particular I noticed is Brookgreen Gardens. The pictures are great, but I think there are too many of them that it distracts the reader from the subject matter of the page. I noticed the formatting that you used for the galleries also, and general Wikipedia protocol is to take many pictures and just stick them in one large gallery, as it formats better on different browsers. In addition, the pictures have very little context in the article, so right now they don't really add much. I don't know much about the subject, so could you pick out the most important pictures and remove the rest? Thanks. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioned the pictures into different groups: Stone Sculptures, Metal Sculptures, Bontanical, Flowers, etc. > with then additional pages for the additional pictures. --Doug ^talk 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

galleries

The simple error: why on earth did you put a / at the start of /Brookgreen Gardens azaleas, etc? (In case you were thinking of them as sub-pages - subpages are not supported in the (Main) namespace.)

The slightly more difficult opportunity: for some reason Wikipedians don't seem to like image galleries and certainly articles with absolutely no context are going to get speedily deleted anyway. Since the images are all on the commons, the answer is simple: create the galleries on the commons and link to them from here! I have moved the articles into your user space - check "my contributions". -- RHaworth 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLI streetlight phenomenon

See Unusual phenomena reports: SLI, also Electric humans. Don't be too quick to assume that you're emitting radio waves. Here's a simple experiment: get a big metal waste basket or garbage can and clean it out. Put it over your head/body. It forms a partial shield for radio waves, especially for VHF waves and shorter. Now go walk under that streetlight while wearing the metal can. Does the light still go out? If not, then perhaps your body really is emitting EM waves, and the metal has shielded them enough to distrupt the "putter outer effect."

But if the metal can does not prevent the streetlight from turning off, then you'd need a more complete metal shield. (Heh. Two garbage cans on a cart, mouth-to-mouth to form a metal "egg," with adhesive foil tape wound around their lips? Friends push the cart under the streetlight?) If such a complete shield will still not prevent the streetlight from turning off, then EM waves are not the cause, and the effect is definitely outside of contemporary science.

Another experiment: apply DC high voltage to a small neon pilot light, with a current-limiting resistor in series. Measure the voltage at the terminals of the neon lamp. Parts: NE-2 lamp, twelve 9v batteries in series, 100K resistor. Now let someone observe the voltage reading while you retreat to great distance and then again approach. Does the neon lamp voltage change significantly? (This experiment tests whether your body can somehow raise the arc voltage of an HID lamp, which might cause it to "cycle" one time.) --Wjbeaty 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions that I will have to take up with an electrical engineer or technician. It turns out I have this ability and am one of these so called "SLIders". I have recorded it several times on video this last year with several witnesses nearby. None of the witnesses could effect these lights; only me. I have been able to do this for the last 25 years. In all cases it is ONLY mercury vapour and sodium vapour lighting. It is never tungsten, incandescent, nor neon lighting. I haven't ultimately concluded that it is "radio waves", but have concluded it is of a scientific nature (verses paranormal). It could very well be of a electromagnetic nature or maybe a heat type (i.e. infared or ultraviolet). Thanks for ideas. Doug

I wish I knew someone locally who had this ability. I have lots of instruments for testing various things. "have concluded it is of a scientific nature (verses paranormal)" Concluded? Based on what evidence? To make conclusions in advance of experiments is called "prejudice" and should be avoided. Instead, you could hypothesize that the phenomenon is not paranormal, and then perform experiments which support the hypothesis or not. --Wjbeaty 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely rewrote the article on Street Light Interference showing additional references and more technical items relating to this phenomena that many people have. Doug

Scipio

Did the name "Scipio" always have 6 letters in it (as far as you know)?
- Except for the plural form (Scipiones), as far as I know that's the case. -- llywrch
Apparently you are the one that entered about the family tomb of Scipio being discovered in 1780 that contained information about the Roman Republic. Do you have further information on this (i.e. this source of information)? Doug
- Are you talking about this edit? While I think I drew upon the article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, all of the inscriptions are published in the technical literature. The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinum being the standard collection, but difficult to access unless you live within reach of a reference library that has a copy -- I don't. So you'll probably find it easier to use the 4th volume of E.H. Warmington's Remains of Old Latin, part of the Loeb Classical Library. -- llywrch 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Light Interference movies

I have MPEG movies taken with a Sony P72 digital camera of this phenomena happening. However they are 10 MB and up in size.

1) Can the movie be "cropped" to show just the center portion of the movie (i.e. cut then to about 5 MB in size)?
2) How can I convert this file type to the accepted file type of OGG for Wikipedia? I am not software sophisticated.

Can someone do this for me if I e-mailed them the movie (10 MB).

3) I then want to make reference to this movie in the article Street Light Interference. Is that possible? Thanks for help. Doug

To answer your questios:

Not easily. I know there exist video packages that can do this, but I have no experience doing this myself and couldn't tell you the name of the programs that did.
See this
Yes. You can do it as you would link to any file (with a media: link), or you can use the movie template I created (See Apollo 17).

I hope this answers you questions. Raul654 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. I have entered 3 video files now on the article Street Light Interference. Check them out that they work properly on your computer. They seem to work O.K. on this computer. Dial-up is a long time to download however. Broadband I suspect should only take a few minutes. I noticed when these Sony MPG movies get converted to "ogg" files, they are about half the original size (very helpful). Comments...? --Doug ^talk 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your off-topic complaint on Talk:Street light interference

Your misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy are deep and pervasive. If you're concerned about bog-standard album articles like Wearing Someone Else's Clothes, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums first. Also, read Wikipedia:Fair use#Cover art.

If your concern is for Wikipedia, you would be better off raising such objections against an editor you aren't currently in an unrelated content dispute with; it makes it appear rather dubious that you're raising those objections for the good of Wikipedia and not out of spite.

If you actually think I've broken Wikipedia policies, of course, feel free to bring it up in an appropriate forum (here's one), but be sure you've read and understood the policies you're invoking first, or you will end up looking very silly.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm baffled as to why you have created an article called Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 2 which just seems to consist of a translation. Perhaps you could explain what it's all about on the article's discussion page. Deb 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual chapter articles linked from De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

I'm concerned that these individual articles are a waste of your time. As soon as they get noticed they will be deleted (and rightly so). Wikipedia articles are supposed to give information about topics and their significance. Cutting and pasting an online translation serves no purpose that is not adequately served by putting a link to the online translation in the main article. As in any reference work, the primary texts are quoted only to the extent necessary, and such quotations are always part of the presentation & discussion of the topic. Look through the millions of other Wikipedia articles, and you will not find any others that consist of cut-and-pasted primary texts. Anything there is to be said about this book by Jerome can go at the main page. Let me know whether you understand and consent to the need to get rid of these superfluous articles. Wareh 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "cut and paste", nor just "dumping" of text, but an individual translation from the Latin that Jerome wrote of these biographies. These individual biographies are about the way Jerome wrote them; which has special meanings and significance. Many other articles make reference back to these individual biographies. A similiar article I did (that has been around for months with no objections) is Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. Here is what I have found on a short search to these individual biographies that reference to that particular chapter and notable person of Jerome's biography: Justin Martyr; Lucian of Antioch; Apollonius of Ephesus; Hippolytus of Rome; Amphilochius of Iconium; Ambrose of Alexandria; Pontius of Carthage; Rhodo: Symmachus the Ebionite; Origen; Firmilian; Tertullian;Saint Optatus;Pope Damasus I;Simon the Zealot;Prosper of Aquitaine;John the Presbyter;Methodius of Olympus; Juvencus;Gospel of the Hebrews (Matthew);Second Epistle of Peter;Symmachus the Ebionite;Pamphilus of Caesarea;Gregory Thaumaturgus;Hilary of Poitiers. I'm sure that when I have finished all 134 of these biographies (only half way now) then there will be dozens of additional references and links to these Jerome biographies and the main article I wrote of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. I am following the Wikipedia policy for biographies: "worked to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style" = which I did. I also have another similar one on Boccaccio, with no objections. Doug

On the same topic, regarding Chapter 61 - Usually, articles should be written in a style that would enable it to be read aloud. In this case, I would provide the appropriate transcription of the Greek words, and follow with the actual word in parenthesis, so as not to disrupt the flow of reading the article. For example, ". . .which the Greeks called Ekkaidekaetirida (Ancient Greek: ἐκκαιδεκαετηρίδα)." (with correct transliteration and language) ALTON .ıl 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used your suggestion and worded it the way you suggested. If you see further improvements, feel free to add. This particular chapter is a prime example where it is not a "cut and paste", nor just "dumping" of text. This individual Latin translation is basically the way Jerome wrote it; however not an exact copy of the public domain text. Compare and you (or others) will see. Below are the two, to show the difference for Chapter 61. The first is the public domain text; the second is my version of Jerome's Latin put into English (holding the original meanings and significance Jerome intended to be converyed to the reader. It is not an ordinary biography, but has very special meanings if you look close.) Doug

Hippolytus, bishop of some church (the name of the city I have not been able to learn) wrote A reckoning of the Paschal feast and chronological tables which he worked out up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander. He also discussed the cycle of sixteen years, which the Greeks called ἐ κκαιδεκαετηρίδα and gave the cue to Eusebius, who composed on the same Paschal feast a cycle of nineteen years, that is ἐ ννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα . He wrote some commentaries on the Scriptures, among which are the following: On the six days of creation, On Exodus, On the Song of Songs, On Genesis, On Zechariah, On the Psalms, On Isaiah, On Daniel, On the Apocalypse, On the Proverbs, On Ecclesiastes, On Saul, On the Pythonissa, On the Antichrist, On the resurrection, Against Marcion, On the Passover, Against all heresies, and an exhortation On the praise of our Lord and Saviour, in which he indicates that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen. Ambrosius, who we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion, to the true faith, urged Origen to write, in emulation of Hyppolytus, commentaries on the Scriptures, offering him seven, and even more secretaries, and their expenses, and an equal number of copyists, and what is still more, with incredible zeal, daily exacting work from him, on which account Origen, in one of his epistles, calls him his "Taskmaster."

Hippolytus, bishop of a church (the name of the city I have not been able to obtain) wrote A reckoning of the Paschal feast and chronological tables which be worked out up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander. He also discussed the cycle of sixteen years, which the Greeks called Ekkaidekaetirida (Ancient Greek: ἐκκαιδεκαετηρίδα.) That gave the hint to Eusebius, whom wrote up works on the same Paschal feast, a cycle of nineteen years, which the Greeks called Eννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα (Ancient Greek: ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα.) Hippolytus also wrote Some commentaries on the Scriptures, which are the following:

On the six days of creation
On Exodus
On the Song of Songs
On Genesis
On Zechariah
On the Psalms
On Isaiah
On Daniel
On the Apocalypse
On the Proverbs
On Ecclesiastes
On Saul
On the Pythonissa
On the Antichrist
On the resurrection
Against Marcion
On the Passover
Against all heresies
and an exhortation On the praise of our Lord and Saviour in which he indicates that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen.

Ambrosius (whom we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion) saw the true faith and urged Origen to write in effort and desire to equal or excel Hyppolytus's commentaries on the Scriptures; offering him seven and even more secretaries and their expenses. Ambrosius even offered an equal number of copyists. What's even more astonishing is that with incredible zeal, Ambrosius daily demanded exact work from him, on which account Origen (in one of his formal correspondence letters) calls Ambrosius his "Taskmaster." Doug

The Petrarch article you made is not comparable because it does not include extensive quotations from the work itself. You say, "individual translation from the Latin" — yes, we agree that that is what the articles contain, and each "individual translation from the Latin" has been cut and pasted and dumped into the article from newadvent.org. Wareh 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to: That article is not similar because it does not consist of huge amounts of text.
The article I wrote of Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus has over 100 names counting the references. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus has 134 biographies, plus some other works. The difference in actual "text" is minimal (a few words at best) that the computer memory can easily handle. I am only listing names with links -verses- having the complete text of each biography on one page; which would make it huge. Then the article would be over 200 KB, while now it is under 20 KB (a very reasonable amount of text that even those with dial-up can handle). These Jerome biographies are ABOUT how Jerome wrote up each biography, which happens to have a very special meanings to them (if you study each very close). It is most significant to use as close to Jerome's meanings as possible to get what he wanted to convey (which each biography has of a special significant meaning, not otherwise in the modern biographies of the same people). Most of the links above reference New Advent articles and some even quote Jerome's biographies verbatim; John the Presbyter, which happens to quote verbatim others also; Gospel of the Hebrews quoted verbatim of Jerome's Chapter 3 (for the past 3 years). Some of these article also have large lists of names, very similiar to Jerome's De Viris Illustribus and Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus (without even linking them to anything). Many of these article "stubs" are just a few lines (even just one or two sometimes) for the total article with few or no references (other than perhaps back to Jerome De Viris Illustribus and one of its specific biographies). Presently there are dozens of articles that link to my article of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus and specifically to a particular biography as a reference for their article or a Section of their article.
Per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources it says: Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Wikipedia article on the subject is perfectly OK. You should not just dump the text unedited, but rather should work to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style. The example above of Chapter 61 is just this. It is not verbatim (like other articles do), while it may be be close to hold the original meaning that Jerome meant (which has special significance). Note Jerome's article now is almost identical to Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug ^talk 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names (as in the Petrarch article or the main Jerome article) are fine: that is a summary guide to the contents of the book. But I'm talking about an article like Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 16, and I'm trying to get you to see that the part you have copied from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm (virtually the whole article) is not the kind of material normally included in Wikipedia articles. Can you come up with a single parallel example, among the millions of English Wikipedia articles, that is like what you're doing here? Wareh 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate what you are saying. I looked over the two and they are not verbatim; while perhaps close. I can work it a little more if you like where it is not this close - perhaps like this example above of Chapter 61. I do want to keep the original meaning of what Jerome intended for the reader however. Keep in mind, each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close). Now here is an interesting item (which may or may not be significant here), however I would like to throw this out. I am not what one would call a religious person. I have no bias one way or the other (each to their own). I am not Christian or Budda or Jewish or any other religion. I have never attended church (as an adult and I am now retired). So this may seem strange that I am writing articles about Jerome (whom I never heard of until about a year ago). However I do like Petrarch. I have studied him much and read a lot of his material. Notice that the Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus and the Jerome's De Viris Illustribus are similar (probably because it was the same author that wrote both of these). Did you read over my Petrarch article. It is not all that long and would only take a few minutes. Now here is something I just discovered recently: Did you know that Simon Peter is considered the first person of the Church of Rome? I didn't know that, since I have not studied Christianity or church history. Do you know that Giovanni Boccaccio has a LARGE list of 106 biographies On Famous Women. Many of those are related in one way or another to Petrarch's "Illustrious Men". Jerome's is a list of 134 biographies. Did I point out, each of Jerome's biographies has a very special meaning. That's why I am writing these articles, because they are ABOUT how Jerome wrote them. It is actually quite fun to find out what these special meanings are because they are most significant. Tell me what you think after you read over my article of Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug ^talk 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible code unfounded

The New Testament was not written in code. There are more reliable extant source manuscripts of NT writings predating the time of Petrarch than there are source documents for any other historical event of ancient times. There are also stylistic and cultural features of every NT book that can only be accounted for by it being an eyewitness account of the time in which it is claimed that it was originally written in the first century. Do take the time to investigate the record of Scripture. It is not a mystery waiting to be de-coded, nor is it a fabrication of a later date. It does claim Divine inspiration unlike any other book, but it was written by human hands. It seems to me to be the height of vanity and willful blindness to take the view that there is a secret code to it - and to ignore the plain things that are written there. Mark Twain said that, "It's not the things that I can't understand about the Bible that trouble me - it's the things that I can understand."Brian0324 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you putting forward your religious viewpoints, however I am not a religious person so it means nothing to me. I won't get into religion for a few reasons; mainly since I know little (practially nothing) about it. Its way over my head and understanding. If you want to believe certain things, far be it that I would want to change your thinking. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want and we will BOTH be happy puppies. There is no need for you to present you religious viewpoints any further. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the person vandalizing Ludington, Michigan

If you ever have a suspicion that someone may be vandalizing an article here on Wikipedia, it would be best if you left a template warning from the vandalism policy page on their talk page. If they continue to vandalize a page, add higher level warnings. If they vandalize after the final warning, list them on administrator intervention against vandalism so an admin can sort it out. I have left the user in question a level 2 warning on their talk page because they continued to add their edits in after they were reverted, therefore, disregarding your reversions entirely. --pIrish 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice. Didn't know how to do that, but now I do with your help. Thanks again -> we will get the vandals!!!--Doug ^talk 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of categories and interwiki

Doug, the interwiki links (to foreign-language versions) are only meant to be used if there is an article on the same topic in the foreign language Wikipedia. Thus one is only called for at Letter to Posterity if there is an article in a foreign Wikip. on this letter. The place for links to other-language versions of Petrarch, Boccaccio, etc. is at the articles on those persons.

Categories work the same way. If there is a category covering "writers" or "poets," it would not apply to a book, because a book is neither a writer nor a poet. Again, in this case, the presence of the category at the article on the author is alone appropriate.

Also, did you know that some categories subsume others? In this case, Wikipedia guidelines call for using only the most specific category. For example Category:Greek mythology is a subcategory of Category:Indo-European mythology. Therefore, when you use the former, you automatically include the latter, and it is wrong to put the more general category.

Finally, there is no reason whatsoever for a redirect to have either a category or an interwiki. I hope you can do some of the cleanup for those cases. Wareh 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Titles

Doug, pardon me for replying here to your comment at WikiSource (I am as unfamiliar with WS as you are). I used the chapter titles for De Viris from the PD Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. As to what they "should" be - got me. I just copied them identically from a work that I new to be PD. -- Pastordavid 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'll answer here to keep all the parts together. First off let me say that I realize that was a lot of work and I really appreciate that. Just going for accuracy and verifing the parts. If I am mistaken, then just keep in your version and ignore what I said. Take a look at Chapter 80 and verify for me on this point. Maybe we are looking at two different sources and I could be mistaken. I believe it says: Chapter 80. Firmianus (Lactantius). Give me word for word exactly what you see, then we can compare versions. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am looking at this website. What does your site say: word for word? --Doug ^talk 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The translation/formatting you are using was lifted from newadvent.org (the same site that hosts the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). I did not use that version, because the site states that portions are copyrighted by newadvent -- without making clear what those portions are. I used the version from the classic reference series Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF), hosted by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (www.ccel.org) of Calvin College (De Viris is in Series 2, volume 3. Unless I am mistaken (and I may well be), the chapter headings come from the translator - not the Latin original - which is why I consistantly used their headings (which go with the PD translation) even when the person is better known by another title (thus, "John the presbyter" and not "John Chrysostom"). Chapter 80 is headed: "Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius" in this version. -- Pastordavid 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it does. Thanks for your reply. Do you know Latin? What does the original Latin say? My feelings(strictly a guess) are that this particular heading is an interpretation from of modern times (i.e. Nineteenth or Twentieth Century). The English translation as it goes into it says: Firmianus, known also as Lactantius... From this wording I can see how a "modern" person could assume that to be a surname since our society today has that as a common usage (I.e. Given Name then the Last Name (family name) = John Smyth). However the exact wording (even in the English translation is "known also as" which does not mean First Name + Last Name {surname}). To me this would be "Robert, also know as Bob". In this case it is still the same given first name; one being a "nickname" or shortened version of the other. In some cases, the given name is the same number of letters as the "other" name = "John" is sometimes also known as "Jack". So yes, you did copy that very accurate; so I am not saying it was you that put this in, however obviously that "heading" came from whereever Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) got the public domain text. Do you see my point? I believe the two names to be the same, not two different names. --Doug ^talk 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I know just enough latin to get myself into trouble. The text reads "Firmianus qui et Lactantius" -- literally " ...who (or which) is also...". That said, I would be careful drawing any conclusions from that. Some examples (From Greek, which I know better) - "Thomas who is called Didymus" seems to refer to a nickname (which is what you are saying); but "John who is called Zebedee" refers to what we would call a surname. Add to that the fact that our use of "surname" can often apply to what could also be considered nicknames - thus the name "Chrysostom" (added to John) is both a nickname and a surname. Hope that helps. -- Pastordavid 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We will leave it the way it is. --Doug ^talk 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch

Doug, I happened to come across your article on Petrarch's letter to posterity. As it is right now, it is not an article about the text -- it is the text itself. As we talked about on the De Viris page, WikiSource is the more appropriate place for that sort of entry. -- Pastordavid 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused here, you are speaking of Letter to Posterity? Can you give me a few words for example that is of the "text" you are speaking of? I will then correct. --Doug ^talk 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, sometimes my browser (for reasons unknown to me) loads up a previous version of an article. Not sure how that happened, but I see the current article now. Please disregard. -- Pastordavid 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

In February, you created a large number of redirects with categorizations and crosswiki links properly belonging to authors (Boccaccio and Petrarch). Redirects should not be categorized or crosswikied, as this causes them to show up redundantly (and, in these cases, wrongly) in category lists. I have removed the categories from these redirects; I also note that your sandbox pages are showing up in the same category lists, and I will take the liberty of removing those categories as well, as I presume you do not want your draft work showing up in category lists where it doesn't belong.RandomCritic 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of Biblical quesions

Have I every e-mailed you in the past. Don't have to mention what it was about; just a "yes" or "no" will do.
How many Chapters in Acts of the Apostles?
What is the name of the main person in Chapter 10?
What is his occupation or "line of work" or what he is known for?
What country is he associated with?
How many books all total for the New Testament and Old Testament as in the normal Christian bible you have on your desk now?

If you care not to answer these questions, that is alright. I will understand. I'll check later back here. --Doug ^talk 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

No, I have never received an email from you. In fact, I don't have the email function of my wikipedia account enabled (its not hard to find my email address, I just prefer to keep my conversations about wikipedia on wikipedia). As to your other Questions:

Acts has 28 Chapters.
Depends who you ask. I would answer Peter the fisherman come apostle. Others might say Cornelius the centurion, but he disappears after v.33, and 10:34-10:48 is entirely about Peter.
Oh, Cornelius is (at least according to the NRSV - I don't have the Greek in front of me) Italian - Peter is Jewish (Galillean to be exact).
My go-to reference Bible (the one on my desk at this moment) has 27 books in the NT, and 54 in the OT (39 canonical and 15 duetro-canonical).

Hope that helps. -- Pastordavid 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does. It probably was another Pastor I wrote to. I have been in communication with so many (hundreds) I get confused. Thanks for your answers. --Doug ^talk 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing information for The SLI Effect

I've been editing the street light interference article recently, including adding information based on the Cecil Adams article and verifying its existing sources. (You'll see, for example, that I made the Washington Post citation link to the actual Washington Post archives.)

I've been having a heck of a time tracking down any publishing information for The SLI Effect, which you reference in the article. Its ISBN does not appear in any of several ISBN databases I've checked, making me start to suspect that the book has only ever been self-published by the ASSAP and the ISBN is made up. Do you have evidence that this book has been accepted and printed by a legitimate publisher? (From what I've seen, it would have to be extremely out of print.)

I've made this a topic on Talk:Street light interference, so you can respond there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry suspicion

As you requested "keeping the two parts together", I have moved your original question back here.RandomCritic 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

I could be mistaken, so I thought I would ask you to be clear on this. Do you have multiple accounts and if so why? There could be a good reason why you are running multiple accounts (if in fact you are). I would be interested in knowing why. One such possible account (looking at all the edits that took place over the last two months) is the account of User name "Wareh". There are several issues that make me believe that "Wareh" and "RandomCritic" are from the same person. One such issue is that they both work on the same type articles of Renaissance and Medieval. Another is that both have the same basic education level on these articles and both know Latin well. Another is that they edit at basically different times: while one is editing the other is "sleeping" and vice versa. Another is that since they work on many similar articles (many exactly the same articles), they have never communicated with each other (nor had any differences of opinion between themselves). There are several other coincidences in addition that seem to be too much to be just mere "coincidence" - so I thought I would ask you to make sure these are two different individuals or just one single individual. Can you clear this up for me? To keep both parts in the same place, please answer here on your Talk page. Thanking you ahead of time for clearing this up, since I could be mistaken on multiple accounts for the same person as it looks.--Doug ^talk 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug,

Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. I abominate sockpuppetry and I have never engaged in it. I am not User:Wareh; I have never heard of him (or her) before; and I have no connection with him or her. Wareh is not my sockpuppet, nor am I his (or hers). I appreciate your efforts to prevent sock-puppetry, which I approve of, but in this case there is none. On examining Wareh's page, I see that he (or she) is primarily interested in editing articles related to classical literature. I have only done a little of that, and that was primarily to organize a set of categories related to the classification of Latin language and literature by date. Wareh's edits seem to be considerably more extensive (and with a different focus) from mine.

Anyway, thank you for your alertness.

RandomCritic 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you wrote:

“

Another is that they edit at basically different times: while one is editing the other is "sleeping" and vice versa.

”

And I double-checked and that's not even true -- you could find synchronous edits (to the minute) from just yesterday. Look at 13:09, 17 April 2007. I can countenance a well-founded, if erroneous, suspicion; but you should really not make unfounded statements of fact.RandomCritic 19:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. For what it's worth, I can assure you of the same thing (and to echo what RC just said: I just had to repost this reply because of an edit conflict with RC!). You won't find me displaying any knowledge of electors of the Duchy of Braunschweig, Buddhism, astronomy, or science fiction, which are all apparently among RandomCritic's interests. I had noticed RandomCritic before, since, as you say, there aren't that many editors around using a knowledge of Latin to try to improve the encyclopedia. My greatest interest is in the Classical period, though I like Renaissance and Medieval literature too. Besides watching the article on Dante's Comedy and the Vulgate Bible, I scarcely took any note of articles on stuff from that period, until your ref. desk question alerted me to the unusual pages you'd made on Jerome's book. Based on what I learned at the ref. desk about your original (and, to me, extremely obviously false) theories about the New Testament being written by Petrarch, Petrarch Code, etc., I do have some concerns, as you know, about making sure that your content fits in with the encyclopedic tone of the rest of Wikipedia and doesn't promote those theories. But, despite my strong feelings about that, I will always do my best to assume good faith and keep the focus on the encyclopedia's content & communication. So I hope you don't feel there is anything personal. Wareh 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense from Coldwell

Moved this Talk discussion back to your Talk page where it should be. It is a conversation topic about you, not me. If you will look I did not ask that the conversation be moved to my Talk page, but asked instead: "please answer here on your Talk page." If you are not doing Wikipedia: Sock puppetry then you have no reason to remove this from your Talk page; however by removing this from your Talk page it indicates to others that perhaps you have something you want to hide. Is there a problem with keeping this conversation about you on your Talk page? If you will note I had not actually made any "unfounded statements of fact", but just raised suspicion since there seems to be too many mere coincidences. I even used the wording "if in fact you are" - but since both you and User Wareh are so defensive about this perhaps it does show a smoking gun. --Doug ^talk 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not "about me". It has nothing to do with me. It is about you and your feud with Wareh. Exactly why you chose me to attack, I don't know, but you picked the wrong person. I would like to assume good faith, and I have, but it is clear that you have no good faith to offer. Other people (like Wareh) may be too nice to say so, but it is clear that you are a certifiable lunatic. You may keep your lunacy on your own talk pages. Do not inflict it upon mine.

Not being User:Wareh, I don't know jack about your "reference desk inquiries". Your repeated insinuations, after your initial suspicions were proven to be unfounded, are taking on the character of harassment. If you believe you have a case of sock-puppetry to make, I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. I guarantee you you will be laughed out of court, but that's your privilege. Have a nice day. RandomCritic 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, you raised the crackpot theory about the authorship of the New Testament on the reference desk here. So I guess your suspicion about that can go down as another case of where you are missing the basic facts. Your attempt to present your sockpuppetry case, which flies in the face of obvious evidence, as any kind of reasonable or fact-based good Wikipedia citizenship is ludicrous. "Too many coincidences"? As far as I can tell, you haven't found one interesting coincidence. I hope you will raise a big stink about this, and have a big investigation launched (it will have my full support), so that another example of your inflicting a delusional theory on people trying to make positive contributions here will be entered into the public & official record here. Thought experiment: man makes paranoid, delusional accusations. Question: is he likely to believe that the people he accuses respond "defensively" with their denials? Wareh 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appian Way

Since the Appian Way is commonly said to be the queen of the long roads and one of the most important of the Roman roads, being built in a straight line, could it have been nicknamed or called by the name of the "Straight Street"? Doug 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the name Via Recta ("Straight Road") was applied to two roads, neither of them the Via Appia (Appian Way). One is in Damascus, and the other, in the Campus Martius, was originally called the Via Tecta ("Covered Road") but is now commonly known as the Via Recta because of a mistranscription.[2] Of course, some Romans no doubt used the words via recta to refer to the Via Appia, but only to describe it, not as a proper name. —Keenan Pepper 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd love to read a more thorough answer. —Keenan Pepper 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This of describing the Appian Way of the words via recta (as a description) could then be like a nickname refering to that of a Straight Street or Straight Road? --Doug 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's exactly my point: via recta isn't a nickname for the via Appia, just ordinary Latin words that mean "straight street" or "straight road". It would be accurate to describe the via Appia as a via recta, because it was indeed straight, but no more so that most other Roman roads. On the other hand, via Recta was used as a nickname, not for the via Appia, but for this street in Damascus, which is even described in the Vulgate (Acts 9:11) as vicum qui vocatur Rectus ("street which is called Straight", using a different Latin word for street). —Keenan Pepper 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up Acts 9:11 I see your point of the street which is called Straight. In these multiple translations most do call it that while one says "Straight Street". I see your point of the ordinary Latin words meaning: "straight street". Latin says this, then why didn't the Greek that this supposedly came from say this? It appears that only the Latin says this. Perhaps it was only written in Latin. It also speaks of Tarsus, which I find interesting because the Appian Way (via Appia or via recta of a vey famous Roman road) goes to Taras. Taras looks a lot like Tarsus to me. That then would be a double coincidence in the same scripture verse. Did this section come straight from Naples, where it previously came straight from Rome? --Doug 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Vecchio

The Palazzo Vecchio, constructed in 1299 to 1314, was the home of the Florentine guilds. I understand it had 5,000 guild members. Did it always have this number (or most of the time)? Dante was a member. Was Giovanni Boccaccio or Francesco Petrarch a member of this Florentine Guild of 5000? --Doug 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dante was a member of the guild of physicians and pharmacists, whereas both Boccaccio and Petrarch were members of the guild of notaries. I have no idea if guild membership was maintained at a constant rate. Clio the Muse 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Cylinder

My understanding of the Cyrus Cylinder is that it was basically the first written down set of Human Rights. If I am correct, isn't this when Cyrus released the Jews to go back to their homeland? Is this then the reference to "Captivity of Babylon"? Also the reference to the "70 years"? Is it correct that there were 40 lines that went around it? --Doug 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. Code of Hammurabi and the peace treaty ending the Battle of Kadesh. meltBanana 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am trying really hard not to bite the newbie) The article explains that it is not a set of human rights but rather a list of merciful acts done by that king (ever heard of propaganda?). There is something called Google, I humbly suggest you try to use it before you ask questions. In this case try [3]. If you read the text you will see that Cyrus never talks of any rights. Flamarande 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights is indeed a very modern concept. Throughout history kings were expected to be merciful as part of a general dispensation of justice; but it remained a strictly royal prerogative, dispensed and denied at will. Clio the Muse 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that obvious that I am a newbie? Yiks!!!! I stand corrected: not a set of "Human Rights", however more like a list of merciful acts. Then am I correct in that this is a reference to "Captivity of Babylon" of the 6th Century BCE? Also the reference to the "70 years"? I want to make sure then these are one and the same. --Doug 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH. I seriously recommend you read the provided text. If I told you: "Yes, Cyrus is the king who liberated the Jews from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. It is as written in the bible, Old Testament, etc... .It proves (again) that the bible is always right." Would you seriously believe me? Better you analyze the text yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always think for yourself, and analyze the evidence (story) as far you can, and never ever let other ppl think for you (for they might bull*hit you into submission and blessed ignorance). Flamarande 15:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are right in thinking for yourself. In that process I have concluded that this of the phrase coined by Francesco Petrarch of the Babylonian Captivity is referenced as to that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' of the papacy. It turns out this Captivity also was for "70 years", being from 1308 to 1378. So I have concluded that whereever the phrase of the "Captivity of Babylon" is in the New Testament is really that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' or the Babylonian Captivity; meaning "Avignonian Captivity", same as 'Captivity of Avignon'. Thanks for help. --Doug 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logical error in the above is contained in the word "So". --Wetman 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOUBLE SIGH. Doug, AFAIK "Babylonian Captivity" does not appear in the New Testament at all. The Gospels where written down in the 1st century AD (perhaps even 2nd, I am not sure). The Popes liked to compare their "deportation" to Avignon (where they were under the thumb of the French king) with the Captivity of Babylon of the Old Testament. This comparison was done for all kinds of political reasons. 1st)it presents the Pope as a martyr, and as a prisoner of faith. 2nd) it presents the French king as a tyrant who does not even respect the "Holy Mother church". Either way any of this doesn't appear in the New Testament at all. Flamarande 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that the words of "Babylonian Captivity" do not appear in the New Testament; however "Captivity of Babylon" does. I just do not happen to believe in a 'historical Jesus' (a person roaming the earth in the middle East some 2000 years ago), so do not believe the Gospels were written in the first few centuries (since these events didn't actually happen). I believe the Gospels were written in the Fourteenth Century, hence the reference to "Captivity of Babylon" meaning that of the "Captivity of Avignon". This phrase was coined by Petrarch. In historical records scholars agree that this reference by Petrarch has to do with Avignon. So "Babylonian Captivity" and "Captivity of Babylon" and "Captivity of Avignon" are all the same thing. This is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1. This is sometimes refered to as the "genealogy of Jesus". Now since I do not believe in this historical Jesus then of course I do not believe this to be a genealogy (i.e. family history). I believe it relates to Avignon, being of course a self thinker. I have thought it through throughly and have concluded this of Matthew chapter 1 has everthing to do with the Avignon papacy of the Fourteenth Century. Remember you are the one that suggested: Always think for yourself. Now see what happens when one thinks for themselves. They come up with different answers than the typical Christian story line. Why it even says several times in this chapter "fourteen". What an excellent clue this has to do with the Fourteenth Century. I do believe (being a self thinker) that the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon happened in the Fourteenth Century. This is in agreement with your two reasons why the Popes of Avignon liked to compare this Avignon papacy with this of the Jews of Babylon of the 6th Century BCE; however I have thought it through to the next level figuring out that Matthew chapter 1 has to do with this "deportation" to Avignon (a.k.a. "exil to Babylon"). --Doug 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeography

Would it be correct to say that in the field of paleography that there ultimately has to be a standard reference material to compare to? Logically wouldn't one compare handwriting from an unknown date manuscript to a known dated document to then determine its age? Then when there is several points of similarity, it could then be given a date. How was this original dated standard document established as being a true date in the first place? What was it compared to? Is this standard reference document then reverified for authenticity? Is the manuscript or document used as the standard reference point ever ultimately subjected to scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating)--Doug 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not usually a single, generally-agreed-upon standard example, following the analogy of a holotype in biology, but rather a range of dated material (a treaty, a contract, etc.) against which new, undated material is compared. Paleography is also concerned with placing the origin of the writer's hand: writers move from place to place, retaining the hand that they were originally taught. Particular scriptoria developed quirks that identify scribes originally taught in that scriptorium. --Wetman 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to provide another answer above, with specific references so you can see the dated examples Wetman mentions (see above, under your previous similar question). Wareh 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate both these excellent detailed answers. But being a self thinker I have taken this to the next level. I understand the logic of palaeography, however this still leaves too much to the imagination. For example in your statement: in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available is subjective. In other words, what they think as a correct dated material is being used then as a standard. What scientific evidence is there then to back up this "supposed" date? There is none, only a person's opinion. Another example: new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles then becomes; what is this first principle? back toBottomline you have not given me a standard, but only a direction of places where books are of the field of palaeography. Don't want to learn this field, however am looking for solid concrete physical manuscripts used as the standard as the reference for dating the Codex Vaticanus. I have already asked over 1000 scholars (in this field and related fields) that should have been easily able to furnish this, however to date none have. I have ever reason to believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the Fourteenth Century, not from any of the first few centuries (i.e. 1st - 6th). So I guess bottomline to solve this issue would be actual scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus (i.e. mass spectrometry) and not just someone's opinion of date. --Doug 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a scientists determines the temperature by reading a thermometer, where is the standard that this thermometer is based on? If that is another thermometer, where is the "standard" IT is based on? And if the "scientist" compares the readings of the two thermometers, what scientific evidence is there to back up his "claim" that they show the "same" reading? It is all one person's opinion of reading. I have asked over 10,000 experts, and they ALL deny this is a problem. This shows conclusively that they are NOT! experts. There is NO "standard" for "scientific" measurements. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this question. I believe there are definite scientific standards] that references are made to. Here are a few and still some more and still even more. Here is a large category of standards. Mass spectrometry is referenced back to ISO standards. Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14. Both these have an accuracy within 1%. An atomic clock is a type of clock that uses an atomic resonance frequency standard to feed its counter. These clocks are accurate to the nanosecond because they have a definite standard as a reference. This also enters into the field of Metrology which is based on the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The entire scientific community measures temperature using the Celsius scale, and thermodynamic temperature using the Kelvin scale. These are based on definite standards established by the scientific community and international agreement. Based then on one of these standards (i.e. ISO) and a scientific method (i.e. mass spectrometry) the age of Codex Vaticanus could be determined within 1%. I say it will show a date of 1373. Then given a +/- 1% accuracy it will be then some date for sure between 1360 and 1386. This is 1000 years from when it "supposedly" was written up. Why don't we go ahead and test it to find out for sure. Deal? I'll bet the Vatican will object. I wonder why? mmmm --Doug 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpinism

I understand Francesco Petrarch is the Father of Alpinism. Apparently he did this trip when he was about the age of 30. I am confused on the issue, IF he actually made the trip to the top of Mont Ventoux or if he just wrote about making such a trip? I always thought that in fact (from his letters on this account) that he actually did climb to the top. --Doug 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch, together with his brother and two companions, climbed Mount Ventoux on April 26, 1336. His account of this venture was later described in a letter to his friend, Francesco Dionigi, perhaps with some metaphorical elaborations. In his classic work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Jacob Burkhardt, described this as the first time such an activity had been undertaken for its own sake. Clio the Muse 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. It looks like then I am correct in thinking the climb was an actual event. I will follow up on your great reference you gave me on this. I would be interested in what it says about this. Then Petrarch was 32, if my math is correct. --Doug 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Supper

Has it been determined which name belongs to which Apostle in the Last Supper? I understand John the Baptist is on the right of Jesus. --Doug 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I can say with some certainty is that John the Baptist is not considered as one of the Apostles. He was certainly not at the Last Supper. The John in question is the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. In Leonardo da Vinci's painting the sequence, looking from left to right, is Bartholomew, James the Lesser, Andrew, Judas, Peter, John, Jesus, Thomas, James the Greater, Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon. Clio the Muse 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, now you understand why I am asking this question. I didn't know this was John the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. We are talking about two different "Johns". I've been confused on this issue. Thanks for naming them. What reference do you have on this as to these names? --Doug 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Leonardo you will find the sequence here [4] and here [5] Clio the Muse 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven

In medieval times God was sometimes called The Seven. Why? When was this term used exactly (i.e. 12th Century, 14th Century)?--Doug ^talk 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that term for God... where did you hear about that? That might provide a starting point. I did find this on a website, however, that is interesting, even if not exactly an answer to "when" this name was applied:

Seven Names of God Of the many names the ancient Hebrews had for the deity, the seven names of God were those over which the scribes had to take particular care, the names being: El, Elohim, Adonai, Yhwh (Jehovah), Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyer, Shaddai, and Zebaot. Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins (Hendrickson, 1987) (http://towerweb.net/alt-lib/seven.shtml) ◄Zahakiel ► 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it couldn't be true, but I have never seen nor heard of the use of that particular circumlocution for the divine Name. Pastordavid 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer and appreciate you finding a website with this information. I couldn't find anything. I stumbled across this in a 50 year old encyclopedia called The Reader's Encyclopedia. It says basically what you said, however they say also "In medieval times God was sometimes called simply The Seven." I believe since there is not a Wikipedia article on this I may just start one - what do you think? If you stumble across anything else on this(i.e. further medieval dating) let me know. Thanks again for your help!--Doug ^talk 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. I'll keep my eyes open for further information. Let me know when you have started the entry. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started the new article on the Seven Names of God. I am not a religious person, so maybe you could help me on #5, #6, #7. The wording of my article is almost word for word with just minor differences.--Doug ^talk 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost word for word" sounds like plagiarism to me. Bielle 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured somebody would jump on this. Its really a reworded (i.e. paraphrase) between the two references. Since there is few words involved, some words had to be kept to hold the general concept (i.e. "to excersise particular care"). Otherwise I believe it is far away from plagiarism to not qualify as such. If you would like me to e-mail the exact article I'll be glad to. Used that phraseology so that others knew I didn't just dream this up. --Doug ^talk 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of our article Names of God in Judaism? "Shadai" is more commonly "Shaddai". "Zebaot" is actually the Hebrew word Tsebaoth (צבאות‎), which means "host" (the heavenly army, of which God is the Lord). Many other transliterations are common, generated by {Ts|Tz|S|Z}{e|a}{b|v}ao{t|th}, for example Tzevaot or Sabaoth. In Christian circles Sabaoth is most common, because that is hwat is used in the Vulgate. See also Names of God in Judaism#YHWH Tzevaot/Sabaoth. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware of the Names of God in Judaism, because as I pointed out above "I am not a religious person". That's why I did not recognize the misspelling of Shadai - I linked it, however it didn't work because of the misspelling. Also that's why I didn't know the proper categories this should go in. Thanks for all the improvements you made.--Doug ^talk 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes; and the Names of God in Judaism actually seems to cover much of what might be said in the "Seven names" article after it's expanded. It might be a good idea to make the "Seven Names of God" a sub-section of the pre-existing article in order to avoid redundancy. A redirect to that article with some integration of whatever else we can find might be best. What do you think? ◄Zahakiel ► 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Dweller 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, I'll work on this the next few days.--Doug ^talk 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 <br><div style="align: center; width: 98%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: LawnGreen;">
 <font color="black">
-Happy Birthday {{BASEPAGENAME}}! | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray" size="1">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font color="Tan">[[User:AndonicO/My Autograph Book|''Sign Here'']]</font></sup></small> {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
+Happy Birthday {{BASEPAGENAME}}! | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray" size="1">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:AndonicO|<span style="color:Tan;">''Talk''</span>]] | [[User:AndonicO/My Autograph Book|<span style="color:Tan;">''Sign Here''</span>]]</sup></small> {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
 {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #TR2738; background-color:Yellow;"
 |align="center"|[[Image:Balloons-aj.png|75px]]
-|align="left" width="100%"|<font color="darkblue" size="5">[[user:AndonicO|I]] wish you a Happy Birthday! I hope you have a magnificent day! You are a year older now, enjoy it! <font size="2">[[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray" size="1">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font color="Tan">[[User:AndonicO/My Autograph Book|''Sign Here'']]</font></sup></small> {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</font>
+|align="left" width="100%"|<font color="darkblue" size="5">[[user:AndonicO|I]] wish you a Happy Birthday! I hope you have a magnificent day! You are a year older now, enjoy it! <font size="2">[[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray" size="1">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:AndonicO|<span style="color:Tan;">''Talk''</span>]] | [[User:AndonicO/My Autograph Book|<span style="color:Tan;">''Sign Here''</span>]]</sup></small> {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</font>
 |[[Image:Birthday cake.jpg|100px]]
 |}
@@ Line 468: / Line 468: @@
 My understanding of the [[Cyrus Cylinder]] is that it was basically the first written down set of Human Rights. If I am correct, isn't this when [[Cyrus]] released the Jews to go back to their homeland? Is this then the reference to "Captivity of Babylon"? Also the reference to the "70 years"? Is it correct that there were '''40 lines''' that went around it? --[[User:Doug Coldwell|Doug]] 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-:[http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html This] site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. [[Code of Hammurabi]] and the [[peace treaty]] ending the [[Battle of Kadesh]]. <small><font color="#FF0000">[[User:MeltBanana|meltBanana]]</font></small> 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
+:[http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html This] site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. [[Code of Hammurabi]] and the [[peace treaty]] ending the [[Battle of Kadesh]]. [[User:MeltBanana|<small style="color:#FF0000;">meltBanana</small>]] 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 ::(I am trying really hard not to bite the newbie) The article explains that it is not a set of human rights but rather a list of merciful acts done by that king (ever heard of propaganda?). There is something called [[:Google]], I humbly suggest you try to use it before you ask questions. In this case try [http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon05.html]. If you read the text you will see that Cyrus never talks of any rights. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)