| Revision as of 20:47, 28 June 2004 editRickK (talk | contribs)36,836 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:13, 29 June 2004 edit undoOrthogonal (talk | contribs)2,330 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :Ah, my mistake, then. As for the spelling (the orthography, so to speak), it's actually a spelling used by the Puritans themselves. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, you see the spelling more often than "Puritan." One thing that happens to me is that I can internalize period spellings. I ''think'' that "Puritain" was an acceptible British spelling into the 20th c., because I'm relatively sure that I've seen it in secondary literature. It is, regardless, just a spelling mistake. (I've got it better than my friends who were Middle English specialists. Those poor folks ended up entirely unable to spell anything). | :Ah, my mistake, then. As for the spelling (the orthography, so to speak), it's actually a spelling used by the Puritans themselves. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, you see the spelling more often than "Puritan." One thing that happens to me is that I can internalize period spellings. I ''think'' that "Puritain" was an acceptible British spelling into the 20th c., because I'm relatively sure that I've seen it in secondary literature. It is, regardless, just a spelling mistake. (I've got it better than my friends who were Middle English specialists. Those poor folks ended up entirely unable to spell anything). | ||
| ::Yeah, I saw the "Puritain" redirected to "Puritan". If you would, please consider adding to the "Puritan" article a brief para. on the alternate spelling; I can see this helping both readers of period works and transcribers, such as those over at Distributed Proofreaders. And once gain, you're doing a great job on Annotated Vicar. One problem with Wiki is the lack of articles that giving a broad overview and tying together more specific article; Annotated Vicar, thanks to you, is really becoming both an overview of the period ''as well as'' a specific gloss of the song. ] 00:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sid McMath== | ==Sid McMath== | ||
Revision as of 00:13, 29 June 2004
Hi, nice work on American Eskimo Dog. Regards -- sannse 01:13, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. My own American Eskimo Dog is never more than a few inches away, when I'm home. They're fantastic pets and friends.
Thank you for fixing Catholic Encyclopedia. I posted it earlier today on clean up, I think you fixed it quite well. The Stuart 14:55, 21 June 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. The original author did a good job of outlining the Encyclopedia, so it nice to be able to work on a well written piece.
Thanks, Geogre, for adding a useful point to Sanctification. I thought your prose was fine, no need to apologize. Cheers, Opus33 15:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's certainly one of those areas where people have beliefs so strong that they can't hit NPOV, even if they want to. In particular, it's one of those magic words that means a lot more to the speaker than to some listeners.
George, thanks for your valuable additions to Annotated Lyrics to The Vicar of Bray. I didn't want to mussy the waters on VfD, but I'm not particularly strong on Stuart Age history, so please don't hesitate to correct any misapprehensions I may have inadvertently introduce in my gloss of the song. orthogonal 18:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi Geogre. Thanks a lot for helping to fix articles on the cleanup page! However, it would be really great if you could delete the entries on the cleanup page- just to help keep it as small as possible. Just a friendly reminder, so please don't take it as an insult or anything :) -Frazzydee 23:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- You bet. Normally, I do delete. When I don't, it's because I think that the article could benefit from other cleaners coming along behind me. CU is getting extremely ponderous, and that's either because more good people are nominating bad pages, or because WP's increasing popularity is leading to more bad people writing pages. I suspect the latter as well as the former.
Geogre, you spell "Puritans" "Puritains", a form I've never seen. What's the origin and significance of this form? (And oh dear, I apologize, I've been calling you "George" not "Geogre") orthogonal 18:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake, then. As for the spelling (the orthography, so to speak), it's actually a spelling used by the Puritans themselves. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, you see the spelling more often than "Puritan." One thing that happens to me is that I can internalize period spellings. I think that "Puritain" was an acceptible British spelling into the 20th c., because I'm relatively sure that I've seen it in secondary literature. It is, regardless, just a spelling mistake. (I've got it better than my friends who were Middle English specialists. Those poor folks ended up entirely unable to spell anything).
- Yeah, I saw the "Puritain" redirected to "Puritan". If you would, please consider adding to the "Puritan" article a brief para. on the alternate spelling; I can see this helping both readers of period works and transcribers, such as those over at Distributed Proofreaders. And once gain, you're doing a great job on Annotated Vicar. One problem with Wiki is the lack of articles that giving a broad overview and tying together more specific article; Annotated Vicar, thanks to you, is really becoming both an overview of the period as well as a specific gloss of the song. orthogonal 00:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sid McMath
Thanks for the comment. Any NPOVing of that article is a major undertaking. RickK 20:47, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)