Jump to content

User talk:Doug Coldwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Berto (talk | contribs) at 13:21, 8 January 2007 (help given (or, at least, I tried)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please click the [+] button to start a new section, and remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks!

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]

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

{{help me}}

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)
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 (UTC)

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 16:14, 20 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 16:14, 20 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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Coldwell&oldid=99314715"