User talk:StevenAvery.ny: Difference between revisions
response to Leszek on mss and heavenly witnesses |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== Comma == |
== Comma == |
||
Your work in Comma is really nice. Perhaps there are no more errors (Codex Legionensis was described as palimpsest, several wrong manuscrits, etc.). I have created seven articles, you can see them here: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Ravianus]]. [[User:Leszek Jańczuk|Leszek Jańczuk]] ([[User talk:Leszek Jańczuk|talk]]) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Your work in Comma is really nice. Perhaps there are no more errors (Codex Legionensis was described as palimpsest, several wrong manuscrits, etc.). I have created seven articles, you can see them here: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Ravianus]]. [[User:Leszek Jańczuk|Leszek Jańczuk]] ([[User talk:Leszek Jańczuk|talk]]) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
Thanks, Leszek. I'm learning to really try to do my homework before making any scholarly substantive changes. |
|||
Your articles look great, however so far I am not really fully up to speak on the manuscript issues. I 'll try to take a closer look, I have noticed a number of corrections you have made, which are nice to see. |
|||
There is always room for tweaking, the manuscript area is now the strongest part of the article. I've been focusing on removing errors, adding references very relevant but missing, with a special emphasis on early church writer accuracy, and removing some POV out of place, especially things like the presumptions of insertion. Also clarifying doctrinal perspectives that are often subjective, wrong or anachronistic. There is a lot more that could be done in an overall sense, factual accuracy and sensible tone is the main initial goal. |
|||
[[User:StevenAvery.ny|StevenAvery.ny]] ([[User talk:StevenAvery.ny#top|talk]]) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:14, 30 September 2011
Welcome!
|
September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Comma Johanneum has been reverted.
Your edit here to Comma Johanneum was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.avdefense.webs.com/wallace.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Comma
Your work in Comma is really nice. Perhaps there are no more errors (Codex Legionensis was described as palimpsest, several wrong manuscrits, etc.). I have created seven articles, you can see them here: Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Ravianus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Leszek. I'm learning to really try to do my homework before making any scholarly substantive changes.
Your articles look great, however so far I am not really fully up to speak on the manuscript issues. I 'll try to take a closer look, I have noticed a number of corrections you have made, which are nice to see.
There is always room for tweaking, the manuscript area is now the strongest part of the article. I've been focusing on removing errors, adding references very relevant but missing, with a special emphasis on early church writer accuracy, and removing some POV out of place, especially things like the presumptions of insertion. Also clarifying doctrinal perspectives that are often subjective, wrong or anachronistic. There is a lot more that could be done in an overall sense, factual accuracy and sensible tone is the main initial goal.