Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:17, 23 May 2008

DYK update

Any chance you could post it? I just finished it, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I need help

Thank you very much for your help, but unfortunately I need help again → List of New Testament lectionaries — of course this List is not complete (even more notable lectionaries) but it be continued. I want write article about Museum of Bible in Amsterdam (Bijbelmuseum).

I work on "History of the Text of New Testament", it will first this book in Poland. It is really very difficult job (relashionship between families of manuscripts). Most difficult is Caesarean text-type. I do not know when I will finish it. Not quicly. CSNTM is very helpfull for me. From time to time I write some articules in polish, english and russian[REDACTED] (usually about biblical manuscripts). It is not so difficult like that unfinished book. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for mistake. There is exist List of Lectionary Manuscripts. I did not see it before. I recoped table and new link to "external links" in older article. But I think it will better to retitle this article (List of Lectionary Manuscripts), because we have: List of New Testament papyri, List of New Testament uncials, List of New Testament minuscules, and naturally "List of New Testament lectionaries".
• In "External links" (in List of Lectionary Manuscripts) someone placed "Continuation list, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF), Munster", but it concerns to papyri not to lectionaries.
• Maybe definition of lectionaries - in List of Lectionary Manuscripts must be redefined (according pattern in Lists of NT papyries, uncials, minuscules).

Sorry for this mistakeLeszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, huh? History of Japan "660 BC" -> "666 BC" -> "660 BC" -> "666 BC"_"666_BC"_->_"660_BC"_->_"666_BC"-2008-04-23T04:24:00.000Z">

One of us is confused. But since I like knowing when I'm confused (see IP's umbrage on my talk page and his) I gotta ask... why? Did you look at the link in the summary, 660 BC, which mentions 660 BC as the date for the emperor? What did I 'get' wrong? Shenme (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)_"666_BC"_->_"660_BC"_->_"666_BC""> _"666_BC"_->_"660_BC"_->_"666_BC"">

Err, nevermind, he told us, with three references! :-) Shenme (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of the Beast talk page

Would you have any objection if I removed the bottom thread on this page? It's OR, forum-type comments by one user, and then a long-winded, typically OR reply, by Xicsies. I see no reason to encourage him. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This Saint John's idea (people should vote in order to define what money is, instead of obeing to a violent money maker authority) is beeing censored by violent authorities and possesed people 2000 years now. I am not surprised that you also want to censor it. God Bless you, poor Carl... Check again the meaning of the word Ψηφισάτω.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to keep OR out of WP. And what is your problem with having a signature, seriously.... Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This alternative meaning of the word psefisato is not original research. It is written in EVERY dictionary. There are 2000 english transations of the bible and there is NONE mentioning the alternative meaning. Dont you think that is worth mentioning it somewhere? Original research refers to the article page, NOT to the talk page. Why are you trying to hide the alternative meaning of the word psefisato even from the talk page? Isnt the talk page a page where everyone is allowed to talk? Go look yourself at the mirror, Carl.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK Overdue

Much as I like seeing my DYK on the front page, it's now over 9 hours since the update! Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

About the domestic violence article editing

After looking at Wikipedias article on domestic violence, the first thing i saw was how the neutrality of the the article was disputed. I usually pay no heed to these messages as biases in a Misplaced Pages article can be hard to hunt down. I log onto[REDACTED] often, so the words im about to type do bear weight:

Misplaced Pages's article on domestic violence, before i made any typographical changes, was the most sexist and exploitive article ive ever seen on this website.

The article throughout uses words like 'abuser' with 'man'and 'victim' with 'woman' synonimously, and let me give a few examples.

• Under 'Types' it originally read: "IT batterers include two types... the first type include men that...the second type are men that..."
• under Psychological Abuse: "Women that are psychologically abused... Women undergoing psychological abuse..."
• under 'Definitions' it reads Wife Abuse and Wife Beating

...just to name a few

At this point let me mention I major in Behavior and Social Sciences. Anyway, hhen the writer gets to 'Violence against men' she only mentioned men being battered by other men. Furthermore, one of the FIRST things that part of the article said contradicted itself by saying violence against men is (brace youreself) 'not a problem', citing a website that makes references to men as diseased and 'the enemy.'

However, you are right about 2 things, one was that the Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005 did not shed light on violence against... men; I must have accidently put that word in the wrong sentence, you have my full apologies. And secondly, whoever wrote this article used exceptionally biased and most likely uneducated websites as footnotes, so I absolutely AM making edits based on what i disagree with personally.

The last time i got hit by a male was a fight i got into in 6th grade. Since then i have been hit by my mother, female teachers, girlfriends and and many other females, all of which were unprovoked and I never hit back. I logged onto this article cause my ex-girlfriend recently gave me a bloody nose after i got into an argument with her that she was unwelcomly trespassing on my property. I, like so many other men before me, didn't press charges or even call the police. The point of I'm trying to make here, is that only half of the time men are the victims of domestic violence. The other half is women.(obvioulsy)

Honestly, do this. Go back and look at the article before i made the changes, only this time, mentally replace every mention of male with female and vice versa. The article is downright misogynist. But thats not what I did. I changed words like 'woman' to 'victim,' 'batterer' to 'offender,' and 'wife' to 'spouse.' To be honest with you i consider it an act of feminism. The article portrayed women as weak, helpless little sheep, and i elevated them to an equal status as men.

I promise to be extremely careful in the future not to pin to much of my opinion on wikipedia, but do you at least see where im coming from? I just got punched in the nose by my exgirlfriend. It's like a woman getting robbed by a man, then having that woman look up 'Robbery' on[REDACTED] and it ONLY talks about woman perpetrators, and male robbers are immedietly called: 'not a serious problem.'

69.243.83.42 (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Danny

doesn't it seem a little odd

... that you think it's not important to worry about CE or AD, but you took the time to find and revert all my changes, AND to write a lengthy comment on my talk page about it? There is probably something much more important needing your editing than CE vs. AD. Hope this inspires you to do some constructive editing! ;) --JaGa (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm going to get a little defensive here, so beware. No harm is intended) IMO, a line has to be drawn somewhere. If we let people go under the radar, someone would eventually run into a visible enough article where the big CE vs. AD dispute would blow up again (as it has at Jesus and Template:History of China in the past, and as it seems you may have run into yourself to a lesser degree at Freemasonry). I have a zero tolerance policy. IMO, if a user is going around switching CE to AD or vice versa, without seeking consensus first, that user is editing in a disruptive manner. Period. If I revert the disruptive editing, I personally feel I am undoing what amounts to vandalism, instead of perpetrating the era notation dispute. Whether I am justified in my belief or not, is clearly another matter :Þ. Maybe I have a double standard, so you have made me think critically about my editing. But then again, you haven't changed my opinion that your edits amounted to being disruptive (while made in good faith). :) -Andrew c  03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for at least giving me credit for good faith. I believe they were made in good faith. Basically, I was thinking, just as it seems proper for an article about Windsor Castle to use colour and an article about JFK to use color, it seemed proper for Christianity-related articles to use AD instead of CE. I'm not religious, but I do believe strongly in tolerance. And I thought forcing CE onto articles that would probably be edited and viewed mostly by Christians was intolerant. Mind you, the edits were done on a whim, I did no research to prove my point of view. Then again, did you make absolutely sure that each revert you made was in line with consensus for that article? I'm not trying to push one argument or another; I was just trying to remove prejudice from articles. But don't worry, I've had more than enough of that. --JaGa (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

...is ready, if you want to post it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus historicity controversy

Hi Andrew. I see you haven't replied to me on the relevant talk page so I was just wondering what you thought about my reason for deleting the said material and whether you still wanted it reinserted. Thanks. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronouns

Hi, Is the capitalization of pronouns not necessary or is it disallowed by the grammar police, whoever they may be? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, but what I do not know is: Is the Man of Style a suggestion or is not following it against the rules. E.g. wearing colors that do not match well in public may be unpopular or against style, and the fashion designers may faint upon seeing it, but is not against the law. So what is the case here? Thanks History2007 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact 1: You know more about this topic. Fact 2: I don't like their style, but will live with it, for I do not want to start a debate on grammar. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion you'll be interested in

Hi. I see you warned this user. Please have a look at the discussion and see what you want to do. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked them for 1 month. Please review the block and tell me if you think it was to harsh or (more likely) too lenient. Thanks, --John (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RCC

I am OK with your changes to the lead sentence in Roman Catholic Church. I was just trying to help add a reference so it doesnt become a discussion item again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GNL

Thanks for your input. You should have seen the unpleasantness and downright abuse during the GNL war at MOS talk last year ("you motherfucker", etc). We won, with a rather weak result; but it's better than nothing. TONY (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Chair (official)

I don't understand why you made your recent edit here. Is the "longstanding title" the title of the article, or the title of the office?

Also, the article includes a somewhat intricate discussion of the various forms of the word. Your edit, IMHO, clobbered that discussion. (It has been clobbered before, or at least was put into an incoherent state by unfortunate editing.) My opinion is that the article should be "Chairman (official)" and that the discussion should cover the use of "Chair" and the other forms. Robert's Rules of Order, if I recall, uses "Chairman." Lou Sander (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

I've been thinking about your comments on the fertility awareness template. I thought perhaps a template for the menstrual cycle would get around the issue of appearing to define FA: I've worked up a suggestion here. I'm not sure the templates would be similar enough to treat it as a renaming; any comments on that issue or other comments on the template would be welcome.

I'm also sorry to see you're having health issues; I hope it's something transient and that you'll feel better soon. Lyrl _C 12:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation, I think

User:Invocante keeps inserting ICEL draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman Missal. ICEL strongly opposes any premature publication of these texts, as indicated on the Internet here and here and here. I have endeavoured to draw Invocante's attention to this with regard to his insertions in English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use and Gloria in Excelsis Deo. It hasn't worked. There is nothing more I can do. But an Administrator can do something - if something needs to be done. Cheers. Lima (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by Lima

Thanks. I have followed your advice and put a message on Invocante's Talk page. Drawing Invocante's attention to the matter by an edit summary was not enough. To judge by what he has just posted here, perhaps the Talk page message may not work either. I had better also follow the advice of Misplaced Pages:Copyright violation and raise the matter on the Talk pages of the two articles. But I'll wait a little, to see if it is necessary. Lima (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the Future Uses article being deleted if my entry is allowed to remain on the current English creeds page. I have already explained several times why I think there is either a copyright problem with all 20th C versions of the creed - in which case you need to delete them all or there is no substantial problem. I have also pointed out although the ICEL has taken objection to publishing the entire new translation it seems to have no objection to publishing extracts. Lima cited one situation where the ICEL wrote to object but ignore the numerous websites where portions of the text have been cited and the ICEL has taken no objection. He is however unable to deny the fact that most of the text of the ordinary for the mass is already freely available on an official site of the Australian Catholic Church. If the ICEL should to write to Wikiepedia and requests its removal fine but I do not accept that Lima is the sole arbiter on these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Andrew, you are fixing the bible refs but I'm not sure you are doing what is correct. All of our references have a consistent format. You have now made these refs inconsistent with the rest of the refs on the page. Is there some policy you are following that I am not aware of? Let me know, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK then, thank you for identifying that important problem and fixing it, I am very grateful. Good job! NancyHeise (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

my copyright violation for an image

Hi Andrew,

a few days ago you send me a message telling me that i've been doing a copyright violation. to this incident I am apologize to you and also to the Misplaced Pages team. I am so sorry. I give you my word, that i have no idea that what i'm doing is actualy a copyright violation. I am a new user to Misplaced Pages, and i've just made my account a few months ago. I saw a feature wich made me able to put an image in Misplaced Pages page. Since i'm a new user i was curious about this, so i tried it. I thaught it's gonna be like every other site wich I can put my image in. So i am sorry for this missunderstood, wich is my fault. For the image itself, I got it from a video preview of the movie. I captured the image then edited it myself (i just wanna use it as a test) so yes, i do not have the actual copyright for it. So basically, i just wanna try the feature on Misplaced Pages. If my action causes so many trouble, once again I said I'm sorry.

I hope this kind of incident would never happens again.

Regards.

Wiki-guy15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-guy15 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One question, one proposition

Probably External Links in Codex Sinaiticus needs some correction. I divided into two groups. And proposition. From time to time I work on List of New Testament uncials, and this List will complete (I use Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions and To The Theory and Practice Of Modern Text Criticism, 1995, Grand Rapids, Michigan). It will no longer "List of named or notable uncial codices", but 'complete List'. There is one problem, after codex 045 two boxes are empty ('Sign' and 'Name') and they will empty. What we shall do? Maybe it will better to divide into two tablets (from 01 to 045 nad from 046 to the end). It is only proposition, I will not change it without your acceptation. I am not sure is it my proposition is good. After your decision I will do the same in polish wikipedia. This list will complete in his time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thank you for your kind warning. However, if you are following BRD, then note the R, in that you have been reverted. I noticed you have followed D in BRD, and I've responded in kind. Your bold removal has been reverted for the reasons listed on talk. (Clarify, please note I refer to you making the bold move since your removal came after previous discussion related to this matter further up the talk page; Wallace information replaced a different quote objected to by two editors. Therefore, your warning was unwarranted as you walked in and changed an end result of a discussion, then warned me for reverting your BRD changes.). --Faith (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not "revert"; you removed text you disagreed with. There is a big difference, sorry. The text existed as the result of a discussion you didn't participate in, so it was your bold move to take it out, which was reverted once and discussion was responded to with reasons for the revert. Thank you. --Faith (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is my final reply to you on this subject. You did not participate in any discussion regarding any sort of addition or removal of that part of the article until you removed the text that was already in place. I performed a Misplaced Pages:1RR#One-revert_rule of that removal, a single revert to your bold removal of the text. Therefore, you did B, I did R, and we are both doing D on the talk page. Now, further discussion on the talk page is not only acceptable, it's necessary and I'll be happy to discuss further the changes you propose to the article. However, I don't appreciate the false warning, and continued debate, so any further discussion on that matter will have to involve an administrator. Thank you --Faith (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly; as you are involved in the situation, your admin title has no bearing as you are acting as just another editor in this particular situation. You could hardly pass censure against yourself, unless you are into self-flagellation, which presents far worse concerns than need to be addressed here :) I think you simply misunderstood and misrepresented the situation; discussion is revealing we are basically on the same page, or can at least meet in the middle. --Faith (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK Update

Hi Andrew. The next DYK update is overdue and (I think!) ready to go. If you're online would you mind uploading it? Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been done now. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

It may be necessary to semi-protect several pages. See , 172.163.14.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 172.135.27.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 172.167.255.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 172.164.36.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 172.135.41.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Those are all from today but it might be a good idea to wait a couple of days and see which other articles they like. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Institute_for_New_Testament_Textual_Research

Someone renamed this article 8 times: Revision history of Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

I don't know what tag to add can you help? Liguria (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The artist is called Giovanni Maria dell Piane, Image: Giovanni Maria delle Piane.jpg, Private, GPL, no note, the image cam from Italian[REDACTED] as sourced. The Painting is from the 17th century, so more than a hundred years old, how can you help?

I also have a problem with Image: Female_Goddess.jpg and I need to find the right tag for it too, can you help? Thank You. Liguria (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

but we have the permission from the author and the permission to upload it on wipedia as it was uploaded for the Khmer sculpture article. The image has no copyright and we have the permission to put it. So can you help us to clear this mistake so that the image can stay. It was a self image before it was published in a catalogue. Can you help? Liguria (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Female_Goddess.jpg My relative photographed this image myself but it was also published in the Espiritualidad del vacio catalog. and I can permit you to keep it on wikipedia. can you clear this error, mistake please? Liguria (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So do I just have to wait, should I upload a different image??? Liguria (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the Image:Giovanni Maria delle Piane.jpg what about the source, it came from Italian wikipedia, so is the image still safe? Liguria (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Book of Revelation Link?

Why do you persist in deleting a link to a scholarly and professional presentation of the book of Revelation? The linked page provides material that is thoroughly devoted to the understanding of the book of Revelation with 18 PowerPoint presentations resulting in around 1000 charts dealing with numerology, authorship, dating, extra-biblical quotes of the "church fathers" and more. It is not promoting some personal website but is a link filled with professional grade material by an organization that provides it freely. Is it merely a bias on your part as you clearly allow links to "sermons" by other men? Why the double standard Andrew? Just curious.

• Research Revelation Via PowerPoint Numerology, dating, authorship, early quotations and textual research

Stevenjwallace (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

Please note that 20 articles were deleted without any consultation or discussion by Mango. I am extremely angry that you describe my reaction to that as "disruption". I want an immediate apology; retraction and removal of the remarks from the page where you made them. Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)