User talk:Wareh - Knowledge

3094:

list is sound and reflects similar lists in Greek (such as the apparatus for NA27, UBS4, Pierpont-Robinson, and the comparison edition of the Westcott and Hort). As you’ll recall, I invited you to show ANY source that would disagree with the sequences these numbers represent. Instead of doing so, you simply threatened to have the numbers deleted. You can, of course, do so – but it would be disingenuous in the extreme since you did not even attempt to check any statistical sample you wished. Again, check it out. Please show me any source that creates different sequences for accuracy and dynamic equivalence. If you have to search less than ten sites before you find a difference, I’d be shocked. I’m trying to work with you, here, for the sake of the Encyclopedia. Threats without any attempt to check the sources I provided doesn’t help me work with you, and doesn’t help the accuracy of this site. If the APPEARANCE of absurdity is what we need to avoid, then I’ll work with you to make sure that others don’t fall into the misapprehension that you did from the numbers. I accept your own reaction as empirical evidence for how someone COULD react. But a reaction is not the same as actually checking it out. Check it out, and THEN react. I do agree, however, that using the New Testament as an indicator for a dynamic equivalency rate represents only a statistical sample of 25% of the Bible. But hard numbers have been based on far smaller samplings than 25%. For your first point – as far as agreement is concerned, the translations themselves agree with the kinds of differences represented by the lists compiled by Marlowe, the ISV, and the COM NT. A simple review of several translations against Marlowe’s list would bear that out, and the ISV and COM NT did their own translation maps against the text forms. Again, I invite you to check it out for yourself. The numbers are more than the UBS, because the UBS itself contains only a partial list. I believe it was around 1400. The NA27 has a far greater number. Marlowe also has a far greater number, and lists the editions he derived them from. And yes, the NRSV does indeed deviate 18% of the time. Again, please pick any random sample from Marlowe’s list and check it out. If you do 60 of them, in 10 cases the NRSV will either agree with a different reading or demonstrate a hybridized one. If you really are incredulous – then do the count yourself. You say that “any such list would be easy to refute.” You don’t need to refute an entire list. Just check out any sample for yourself and you’ll end up with a similar percentage. Specifically, the NRSV deviates 1197 times out of 6219 NA27 readings, with 202 of those deviations being hybridized readings and 995 firm agreement with a different text form. The translatable differences represent 6219 NA27 readings, against 6219 Pierpont-Robinson comparisons (some agree and some disagree), 3047 Minority Greek readings, 504 readings from ancient translations (such as the Vulgate and the Peshitta). Those total 15989 selections that were part of the COM NT study, which did not disagree with the items also selected by Marlowe on his site or the ISV on theirs.

3323:

Seminary nor the COM NT seemed concerned enough with it to even include it. So, I have a Jehovah's Witness source that puts it in the same category as the KJV, RSV, and NIV -- which are already listed as Formal, Dynamic, and Free. By "I put it into" I meant exactly that. Given the utter dismissal from one end (Christians) and the complete devotion to it on the other end (Jehovah's Witness) and the range of translations it was thrown into (already listed from Formal, Dynamic, to Free), the middle ground for a neutral POV would have to be somewhere around the RSV range -- Dynamic. This is the same problem as the reading levels. WHO is doing the analysis, on WHICH formula, from WHICH program? Even the same formula gives different answers depending on which program is processing it (which makes no sense to me, but that's what happens). The information in books and online that I research throws a range based on the terminology that the source happens to decide to use, and it's unfair to simply use anyone's terminology without seeing what other translations are being thrown by that same author in that category. To give another example -- the data from the Master's Seminary put the Message and Philips in the same category as the Living, which was already listed as a Paraphrase. Finding no other sources to contradict that grouping, I listed those as Paraphrases. Had I found other sources that listed Philips with the NJB, it perhaps could have gone into either Free or Paraphrase. But, let's say that another source listed it as Formal. Then there is a problem. And that's where the NWT falls. BeDuhn lists almost all of the versions he studied as formal! Using just him everything but the TEV and Living would have been listed as formal. Using just Jehovah's Witnesses, most versions would be dismissed in favor of the "most accurate" NWT. Using just Christians, the NWT would be dismissed. So -- for the info box it seems best to split the middle. That's been the whole question that I still need an answer to:

3274:

of undertanding), I would find it possible to defend, as perfectly literal, many of the translations that are being scored with such judgments as not-possibly-literal." Where's the insult? "Garbage in, garbage out"? It's just a true principle standing in the way of an accurate measure. The infobox should report valuable information. If the judgments about what constitutes "literalness" are collectively more valid than this particular one you mention, collectively valid enough to inspire confidence in the measure, then the infoboxes can report the results without fear. "To use sources as fairly as possible" is a nice slogan, but if it means "regarding as impossible translations given word-for-word in the most authoritative existing lexicon of Ancient Greek," then there's a problem. This is not meant personally. The only insult I see in the exchange here so far is the implicit insult in such judgments as "unacceptably paraphrased." The question is whether even less judgmental labels such as "freer" are based on rigorously thought-out methods; I don't know, as I haven't seen a list of all of the individual judgments (like "οὕτως must be translated by one of these 2 formulas to get a score of 100%"), but I do know that the only example you're giving me is mistaken. P.S. Giving the NWT a cursory glance (I'd never heard of it before today), I see that it's basically the KJV modernized with the occasional substitution of explanatory paraphrases of terms that are more Biblical English than plain English (e.g. "undeserved kindness" for "grace," "congregations" for "churches"). It's obviously quite literal on the whole, since it's basically word-for-word in the KJV/RSV tradition. From what I understood of your methodology (which, again, is little, since I haven't seen a list of the scoring criteria—are they secret? if so, we're back to the

3052:

differences, with textual mapping: 1) www.bible-researcher.com, 2) the International Standard Version (and its website), and 3) the Comprehensive New Testament. I was only updating the figures because a contact at the Christian Booksellers Association had asked about the availability of the numbers for the complete New Testament instead of the Matthew sample. He said the Matthew sample numbers didn't give a complete picture for the translations he deals with, and he was correct. The other day I did not finish the updates, and plan to do so this Sunday. The deviation rate is the percentage of 14992 translatable differences between the Greek, Latin, and Syriac text-forms as they relate to the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. The numbers show the New American Standard as the closest to the Nestle-Aland 27, and the King James Version as the furthest from the Nestle-Aland 27(which would be expected since it was based on a different textual family). The paraphrase rate is based on the percentage of those deviations which do not agree completely with ANY text type. Those numbers show the King James as the least paraphrased and the Living Bible as the most (again, as would be expected). There is nothing novel about these numbers at all. If you want to test the numbers, I'd suggest counting any given translation against any ten deviations listed on any of the above listed sources (I know two are currently on-line, and I've been told that the third will be online soon). Your own statistical sample will not be as exact as the complete count, but would loosely correspond regardless. Here is the table I'm updating to Knowledge. Feel free to test the numbers yourself.

1133:

respectable and attractive in the public sphere (Knowledge, academia, etc.). (And, let's be honest, if you succeed well enough in promoting your site, you could make significantly more money from it, which is why the only way to deny the profit motive is to eliminate it.) Then, understand that on Knowledge, self-linking is simply a total taboo (I got myself in trouble once before by giving an editor advice on the conditions under which linking to his own website might be acceptable; he did everything I suggested, and still got blocked for persistently linking to his own website, which is why I'm being so sure not to repeat that mistake with you); all you can do is build the best site possible and trust that it will get noticed (there is nothing wrong with suggesting it to other editors on a talk page, although, again, any promotion of your own wares will be met with a good dose of instant skepticism). Now, the copyright issue is a very serious one. "Assuming it would be" is a dangerous strategy that won't get you very far with the publisher's lawyers; the law will also not respect the argument that you don't have to worry about the copyright if someone else broke the law & put it on the internet before you. You should never put any text that is under copyright online without permission, and (as a corollary) you should always know the publication info, including year, for anything you host. Otherwise you will (1) have no credibility with the law-abiding world (Knowledge, academia, etc.) and (2) expose yourself to very predictable legal trouble. The ac.nice.fr site seems to be breaking the law as well. But something like the

3885:, which was my idea about what to do about the latest rash of Boccaccio-based nonsense, but it's the least successful AfD I've ever nominated. The problem is precisely that he's using real facts (even if only literary facts), but without any understanding and only to promote his own agenda (I don't know how far you've dug into his agenda, but it includes the assertion that Petrarch composed the New Testament from scratch). I certainly support reverting his edits aggressively, as he has no idea what he's talking about and uses poor sources, or else uses good sources very inappropriately. You are certainly correct that Boccaccio is not a valid source for an assertion about any aspect of Greek or Roman culture, and that what B. says belongs, at most, as a short mention in a section on "Reception." Moreover, it has been demonstrated that much of the garbage he's adding is plagiarized. Unfortunately my experience has shown that Knowledge policies are not well adapted to dealing with such an editor, whose activity creates a huge workload for those editors who (incompletely) keep his edits from damaging the quality of the encyclopedia. He should be banned, but at this point I'll be surprised if he gets an official slap on the wrist. (He also works under such other names as 3423:'s "monstrous" does sound quite visceral (a context would be useful), but I assume that if he said it in print then it was backed up by some kind of better argument than religious prejudice (exactly as in your comparison example: the thoughts an astronomer might express on the flat-earth theory). However, I don't see how such criticisms can provide you with data for an infobox. Presumably, a Bible translation can be quite "literal" according to the criteria being consistently applied in such a comparative analysis, while nonetheless being reasonably criticizable as "monstrous" in some of its results. Obviously, "monstrosity," "right-thinkingness," etc., are even less susceptible to numerical measurement than "paraphrase rate." So, what do you do with such visceral judgments? Apparently, disregard them because (based on information you've provided so far) they are irrelevant judgments insofar as they have nothing to say about the variable being measured. If you can quote Metzger as saying "monstrously non-literal," still, unless it's the result of impartial comparative measurement of some kind, it might rate a quote in the text of the article, but it would be extremely deceptive to translate it into an infobox label in my opinion. I persist in thinking that 3289:

you, I put it in the same category as the RSV, which was dynamic equivalent (i.e. "as literal as possible, as free as necessary"). I took the two extremes and cut them in the middle. No doubt neither side would agree, but that was the approach. If you don't like the NWT as an example, then please at least answer the question in general. Also, I've drilled down in Bauer and found an application for houtos in the third of four definitions, although I've not yet found a Christian translation that has done so for John 3:16. As for measures of concordance in translation, I gave you a link to a different source that had almost the identical sequence to the one I was looking at, and I believe we discussed four categories: Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, Free Translation, and Paraphrase -- with a list of what would go in each category. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Master's Seminary literal sequence or the classifications at the time -- and neither of those are secret. If you don't mind, again -- could you please answer the question? Neither of us have time to waste dancing around it, and I gave you the compliment of ASKING. Please do me the compliment of answering.

2616:, he's responded to most of the messes he found with a sense of responsibility, and he seems to try to have civil and friendly dealings with his fellow editors. If he can deal more rapidly with the good-citizen parts of the job, maybe he'll have a few more odd minutes to write some good paragraphs for our articles." Personally, I think it would be a good thing to have my demographic (people with some academic credentials editing Knowledge in their spare time) better represented at all levels, but I don't feel too strongly about being an administrator, because (A) I harbor no illusion that I would have much more of a policymaking voice with the title, and (B) nothing is significantly holding me back now from making the contribution that best suits my interests & abilities. Finally, in the coming years there may be periods where book manuscripts, family responsibilities, etc., restrict my time for Knowledge, so if the standard is only to appoint editors promising a sustained high level of activity, well, I could make no promises. 3098:

selections that you pick from the list, approximately 6 of them will not agree and one of those will be paraphrased or hybridized. Those hybridizations are a statistical sample for the paraphrase rate as a whole. If 1/6th of all textual deviations cannot be perfectly mapped to any identifiable text form, then the paraphrase rate as a whole is higher than another translation in which only 1/30th of deviations could not be mapped. I agree that it is a no-brainer to expunge these numbers. That is why I invited you to do more than a no-brainer, and actually do a statistical sample for yourself. In the mean time I will also do as YOU have asked and pull the different sources together for an article. Hopefully both of us can avoid no-brainers and actually help the Encyclopedia instead of merely wiping things out because we don’t want to write an article (me) or do a separate statistical sample (you). If we both do what the other asks, we’ll probably do the best for the Encyclopedia as a whole. Is that fair?

3439:

particular problem I wrote you looking for some guidance. I can't find any scholars who are even willing to measure it along with other translations. I don't expect another problem like this except perhaps Joseph Smith's changes to the King James. From what I've been able to find on this BeDuhn source so far, he's being dismissed by other scholars as well as the NWT. Metzger wouldn't even include the translation in his book on translations, but instead devoted a series of separate articles to the NWT. Please understand, I'm not the one introducing BeDuhn. I'm trying to deal with another person doing so, and I'm trying to be as generous as possible and then move on. The only information I can find on my end is utter dismissal of it -- which really isn't helpful to me when it comes to measuring it. The whole article is a mess, to be honest, and it's sucked up way too much time (and yours) on something that would have been five minutes for me and none for you had it been virtually any other version.

3128:

Septuagint influence" on most of them for the Old Testament and "Septuagint, with some Vulgate influence" on the Apocrypha. The only questionable translations would be the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version, which are much less influenced by the Septuagint than others, such as the English Standard Version (Isaiah 7:14 is normally a good pointer on the degree of LXX in a translation, with "virgin" for LXX "parthenos" and "young woman" for Masoretic "almah"). I think for those two it might be best to say something like "Masoretic Text, with some Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint influence." Anyhow, please give it a look and let me know how it looks before I do the rest. My only concern is the lack of a metrical basis for the descriptions. They seem to hang out there like a subjective statement instead of an objective measure. But if subjectivity scares people less than objectivity, I can go with it until a good metrics description can go up.

3408:

he's ALSO a Christian, and has nothing resembling neutrality to the NWT. The Jehovah's Witnesses consider it the "most accurate." And I really have no idea who this BeDuhn guy is other than what the people on the talk page are telling me. When normally scholastic sources have vicereal reactions to something, what do you do with them? If I read you correctly here, Metzger and Wallace can't be used, since they are Christian. And that leaves me with no reliable data at all. As it stands, I told the people on the talk page to the NWT that this wasn't a fighting issue with me. If they want to call it literal, fine. But I brought it up with you before I continued with other info boxes. It's kind of like the flat earth theory. You really can't FIND any neutral scholarly positions to the flat earth. And if I read you correctly, we can't use scholarly dismissals of a flat earth because they are not neutral to the position. Is that correct?

2595:)—I would continue to try to be a good Knowledge citizen, going after problems as I see them. I can add, I would continue my curiosity about the Knowledge project, i.e. (slowly) learning more about hitherto-unexplored functions and policies that help the encyclopedia's mission. Does this count as "serving"? I'm not completely sure; I would want to keep my main focus on improving the content of articles (directly, by adding good material with references to reliable sources). In short, I would use my "mop" to spend the time I do give to Knowledge more efficiently, with the same goal (a better encyclopedia). Now, I doubt you would hesitate to award the extra rights & responsibilities to me to be used on these terms. But, while I haven't read a lot of RfA's, I have gotten the vague impression that candidates say things like, "I would spend 1059:), but I'm not sure why, you said they were 'linkspam', but my intention is to build the most complete collection of philosophy resources online, and in each section, nietzsche, plato, aristotle, bertrand russell etc it has more content online than all of the other listed sites in the external links section, in some of them, it has more content than all of the other sites do _combined_. In the section "Knowledge is not a directory" in the faqs it only says that you should not post links to "repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons", "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries... wikipedia is not the white pages", or "Knowledge is not the yellow pages." In wikipedia's 'spam' page it says no social networking sites, no products, no businesses, no blogs, and again this site meets none of these criteria. 294:

My point is, it is a dead issue. Preference for dating system is to be determined by those people active in editing a given article. Around that time editors on several religion related articles reached an entirely informal and unofficial compromise which was that articles about Christianity or privileging a Christian POV would use BC and AD, articles on Jewish or Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian etc. topics would use BCE and CE, and articles representing the views of different faiths including Christianity would use both systems. This has been a pretty stable arrangement for the past year. I want to reiterate that it is not a rule but rather a way for editors of diverse views to get along with one another and move on to actual content. the actual policy is, both systems are allowed, it is up to the editors of a given article.

2316:

talking about. So, I got no problem with that. Some like short intros and some long. I've been working on botanical stuff and they seem to like very long up front material. I can see it both ways. In hylomorphism I deferred that as it is clear that much of what can be said for matter and form is being or will be said under PLato. Before you can link to anything there has to be something to which to link. I see you took the book out. Well it was only deco to relieve the tedium for ordinary readers. The format is a tool to attract and retain interest. I'd like to see more pics but they are tough to find for philosophic articles. The German article has a most excellent pic but the captions are in German. If you know how to access and change those pics the equivalent in English would be nice.

2450:

ancient Greeks called hybris. Given that I spent twelve years to produce the first critical edition of the entire corpus of cantigas d'amigo since 1926 (reviewed by top scholars in Portugal and Galicia and called a 'magnificent work'), and that I have actually read all 500 texts in the manuscripts and studied all relevant problems of paleography, metrics, colometry, historical grammar, etymology, interpretation etc., it takes an awful lot of chutzpah (to use the technical term) for a couple of proktoi to inform me that I cannot read the language, and require their approval to remove a vowel that was never there in the first place. I thank you, in any event, for a courteous and thoughtful reply. XAIPE

3223:..." The Greek word for "so" cannot possibly be understood as "so much" but is instead "in this manner" or "thus." Also, the controversial nature of the version doesn't leave any middle ground for a neutral POV. To Jehovah's Witnesses it's the most literally accurate version ever made. To Christians it is unacceptably biased and not literal by any stretch of the imagination. How do you put that into an info box? Since "Dynamic" is somewhere between "most literal" and "unacceptably paraphrased" I put that in there -- but it's not an accurate or acceptable representation in EITHER pov. Have any suggestions? 2121:, where the issue is being discussed on the talk page. In addition, CE seemed to make more sense to me on all three of these articles. In regard to a "substantial reason", my training in anthro/history makes me a BCE/CE advocate, as the term is more neutral and less culturally loaded. Consequently, I would consider any article on culture, particularly prehistoric, i.e. Minoan, or on an invention predating the birth of Christ, i.e. Threshing-board, to be better served by BCE/CE. Hebrew language, as you implied, speaks for itself. However, I am not militant on this topic. Best wishes. 3308:

Christians would differ. I'd still like to see a source for the constituent judgments. The only answer I have to any individual determination, after the previous discussions is, "Follow the algorithm that is impartial and not original research; let the chips fall where they may." If (I'm sorry if this shows some prejudice) mainstream scholarly translations are being labeled as "paraphrases," I think it's a problem. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are shown not to be as wrong in everything they've done as some people would have it, that seems a non-issue to me

1121:

this, if not more details available. publisher details seemed irrelevant where the texts are in public domain and normally available in many different editions. the advertising on the site will just about pay for hosting costs, which is the reason its there, so far the site has made about $ 10 in two and a half months. i typed up the text of halcyon myself, simply because it wasn't available anywhere else online, without thinking to check whether it were were in public domain or not, assuming it would be. the text of clitophon is from

1289:

intervene more occasionally and concisely. I can't afford the time involved in writing fruitless footnoted explanations on the talk page every time Doug adds something irrelevant to an article. My hope under this policy would be that less is more, in the long run (because I'll stay involved rather than giving up). If I need to sound the alarm, I think I'll go to RfC instead of Third Opinion, because the latter did not attract anyone willing to get to the bottom of the situation when it was used for Doug's 62 sub-articles to

2225:"At the very first line of his opus magnum" (specifically, "at") is not idiomatic English. You also added typos like "imforms" and a backwards slash (\). As you say, all you changed was the wording, not the content; accordingly, I did consider cleaning up your edit instead of undoing it. But I thought it was plainer and clearer the way it was before. For example, I thought the previous writers had good reason for repeating the word "plague" for clarity, and I thought " 274:, I've included it because it's vivid information as to how Boof actually describes the subject of the article. The rest of the Boof stuff in the article is in the category "fiction that gets to stay in Wiki because a source can be cited." In a just world, Boof's role in this article goes down to two sentences: a vivid representation of her own delusional statements, and the comment that she is generally regarded as delusional. I've provided the first half of this. 3243:ἣ ..κιρνᾷ (i. e. ὥστε κιρνᾶν) Hdt.4.52; οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτω μῶρος ὃς θανεῖν ἐρᾷ S.Ant.220; τίς δ' οὕτως ἄνους ὃς ..; Ar. Ach.736, cf. D.8.44; also δυσχείμερος αὕτη ἡ ..χώρη οὕτω δή τί ἐστι, ἔνθα (i. e. ὥστε ἐνταῦθα) τοὺς μὲν ὀκτὼ τῶν μηνῶν ἀφόρητος οἷος γίνεται κρυμός Hdt.4.28: sts. no connecting Particle is used, αἱ οὕτω δή τι ἰσχυραί, μόγις ἂν λίθῳ παίσας διαρρήξειας so excessively hard, you could scarcely break them, Id.3.12. 2659:

discussions (not to mention closing them, etc., which would probably cause me undue agonizing), which is something I could do even now if I were so inclined. So really, to that typical question "What do you need it for?" my answer is, "Not much; I'm just so darn trustworthy that the encyclopedia will be better if I have it & use it as little as I like." I don't think this is what the community is looking for in its

998:

they were created under non-standard names, so they need to be moved if they remain as articles. In theory, it would be great to have good articles on every minor treatise Aristotle wrote. In practice, the only reason to have these articles exist now is because one editor wanted to linkspam. While I wouldn't ever want something deleted without total consensus, I will consider just changing these into redirects to

1584:! Whatzz amatter you? Anyhoo Doug seems like a nice person. But man using bad sources is unforgivable and very sophist and bad for the truth. Anyway the nous article is a better place for the psychological components that different Hellenic based philosophies based their schemas on. But tackling the nous/demiurge topic and trying to explain why I have all this compunction is a real real mess. Keep soldering on! 2408:. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This encyclopedia would not function at all if editors had the right to demand that their contributions be used only on special terms they invented. So your assertion of control over your contributions will not impress the community of editors. I am not a lawyer; of course there are 1315:

unless the citation can be shown to be false. Having a few friends watch for unsourced additions helps you not break the 3R rule. People may not be able to assist you by adding any well-referenced content, but they can certainly help by throwing out unsourced nonsense. Nonsense that is sourced is more difficult, since Knowledge does not have good procedures for vetting sources.

2634:. I don't think you have to promise a sustained high level of activity, but of course if you go into an RFA saying "I mostly want to write articles and add sources, and I don't know if I'm going to be able to spend as much time in the future at Knowledge as I have up till now", people will say "Then what do you need the admin tools for?" and vote against you. But if you 3064:-- between the New American Standard (NAS), Revised English Bible (REB), and The Living Bible (TLB), the NAS is most accurate, followed by REB, followed by TLB. The NAS is least paraphrased, followed by REB, followed by TLB as most paraphrased. The relationships for any three you pick here will show up in the same or very close sequences on any site that list them. 1089:). You're linking to your own website, and any argument over the quality or aims of your website is beside the point. If you want Knowledge editors to leave the links alone, the minimum first step would be to remove advertising from the pages linked to; no one is going to countenance a campaign to generate advertising revenue by placing links in Knowledge articles. 1629:. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. 1427:

one talk page, this snowballed into a very intense and wordy (and, in all honesty, a little bit too fussy) series of disagreements. I don't think there are any particularly active issues going on right now; I don't think he's been focusing on Jerome and Petrarch lately, and I decided I don't have the energy to clean up a problematic article by Doug like

3899:

on for quite some time but I rarely deal with classical or Renaissance topics so I hadn't noticed before. The reason this can go on so long is apparently that superficially he looks exactly like a good editor. He can format articles, make pretty little footnotes, cite policy and he seems generally friendly and looks like a nice guy. I'm sure he

1776:, where I call attention to the fact that he seems to be going increasingly anonymous to get under the radar.) I don't think he's an Opsopausite; I think, more likely, since he knows nothing about the ancient world and ancient ideas, but instead generates new garbage articles based on Google searches, he actually thought that the writings of 1238:; further options are mediation, and eventually the Arbitration committee. I doubt the situation will get to that point, though--as I've already said on the article's talk page, article content is governed by the policies WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, and The Petrarch Code doesn't meet those, and won't even if Doug publishes his theories in a book. 3565:

Judaic. Quite the reverse. It may be that there are 'theological traditions' in Islam and Judaism which are inspired by Aristotle. But you should provide references for these. And in any case these traditions would not be in the mainstream, unlike in Catholicism and, to a lesser extent, non-Roman but Catholic Christian traditions.

210:, I realized that the FAQ had more detailed information about the variety of brewing methods and their proper classification than has yet been incorporated into this Wiki article. So let's leave the link there as a stimulus to someone who can do a good job of enhancing the article to the point where it can be deleted as superflous. 2469:

Knowledge, and even if you feel certain that some aspects of the article are not in as good shape as you tried to put them, it would still be the more generous thing to do not to begrudge (to the people who will read the article & aren't involved in the conflict) the benefit of that material of yours which the other editors

2193:. If any of his work is notable enough to be linked from an encyclopedia article (which might be doubted, given that it's all basically self-published material put on the internet as resources for courses), then the authoritative source (the author's web page) only should be linked, and there is still no reason whatsoever to 3247:

measurements, then that's a sign of a flaw in your methodology. Obviously any numbers or sequence should be determined objectively and not in deference to opinions and claims that can't be defended. But if you start with incorrect premises about what is "literally accurate," then, garbage in, garbage out.

1431:. You and I, it seems, were both recently involved in sorting out Renaissance and Medieval categories (I was of the opinion that Petrarch should not be classed as Medieval, but stronger feelings on the other side prevailed, so I let that one alone too). We also both noticed Doug's categorized redirects. 3898:

I've been looking some more into this and I'm stunned. I had no idea how deep this ran. He has more than a hundred sandboxes for cooking his broth in. He has a "Petrarch Code" based on the assumption that Petrarch knew 20th century English. And he has a lily white block log. I see this has been going

3712:

Many thanks for finding the origin of the quote. I tried googling it with no success. This reference desk has been wonderful for desktop research. I used to use the New York Public library on-line service, but found it very haphazard. When I revise "A Yankee Engineer Abroad: Part II" I'll probably be

3322:

Wareh, I have no data on the NWT other than the BeDuhn data that one of the contributors to the site is putting on the talk page. But it's so broad that it has almost everything listed as formal except the TEV. I can't find any Christian data on it other than utter dismissals. Neither the Master's

3242:

to such an extent, so, so much, so very, so excessively, καλὸς οὕτω Il.3.169; πρυμνόθεν οὕτως so entirely, A.Th.1061 (anap.), cf. Th. 2.47, X.Cyr.1.3.8; οὕτως τι Ar.Av.63: freq. folld. by ὡς or ὥστε, Hdt.1.32, X.An.7.4.3, etc.: sts. the relat. ὅς takes the place of ὥστε, κρήνη οὕτω δή τι ἐοῦσα πικρή,

3131:

PS -- how can we make the Flesch Kincaid levels show up? I've noticed that someone else put most of the numbers in there, and I've tried to get them to show up on a couple, but they aren't visible. The numbers I've seen on there are consistent with what's online in other places -- and close to what

3063:

Also, since these numbers merely quantify what nearly ANY translation comparison site would indicate for both accurate and paraphrase relations, there is, again, nothing novel at all. Again, I would suggest checking any of your own sources. They will certainly show the same relationship listed here

1854:

I see that the category has been removed, and this seems right. I am interested in Pythagoras in the ancient context, and I think the idea of "occult" (whatever its adherents say) is definitely modern. Since later occultists have claimed Pythagoras as part of their tradition, I don't think it would

1426:

feuds. But I did call (successfully) for the deletion of 62 articles Doug had put considerable work into, and then raised the question about the appropriateness of some of his content and its relation to his original theory that Petrarch wrote the New Testament and designed a numerological code. On

875:

status. The reviewer made some wonderful comments, some of which I've implemented. However, I'm not very well versed in Sappho's works. Would you mind taking a look at the other suggestions and seeing if you can do anything with them? It was a learning experience for me - I know now that I should

539:

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work.

293:

Although i disagree with you I appreciate your comments on the proposed policy page. But, you need to know that the discussion of this proposal pretty much ended over a year ago - it was clear that the proposal would not be accepted, the proposal was defeated, although the vote was relatively close.

3677:

Okay. But it's impossible to know what text you used because you have not made any references that the reader can follow or verify. My suggestion would be, if you feel there is ancient evidence that should be considered in the article, quote it and cite it properly on the article's talk page. The

3584:

by Kennedy-day, discusses the legacy of Aristotle in Islamic philosophy - i.e. almost nil. "It is accurate to say, however, that Aristotelianism as a school of philosophy in the Islamic world found no Muslim successors after the death of Ibn Rushd." There is some evidence that Aristotle's had some

3104:

PS -- I just got your latest note and do not have time to rewrite this one before I leave -- but I DO want to work with you here for what's best for the Encyclopedia. The numbers DO sequence the translations for accuracy and dynamic vs formal equivalence comparisons in exactly the same way as would

3097:

For your second point – the paraphrase rate is based on hybridized readings. Again, I invite you to compare the NRSV with Marlowe’s list and you will find that it does not clearly agree 1/6th of the time, and that about 1/6th of those instances are paraphrased or hybridized readings. Out of any 36

3093:

Although the treatment of real numbers appears absurd to you, you can reproduce them yourself. Just pick up any version and count any sample from Marlowe’s list (although not complete, it lists thousands). Hybridized readings are obvious, and since you have a knowledge of Greek you’ll see that his

3055:

Translation Paraphrase Rate UBS4 Deviation Rate KJV 3.14% 56.36% NKJ 3.52% 54.85% ASV 6.18% 17.43% DRA 6.46% 41.07% NAS 8.53% 17.16% NAU 9.25% 17.91% MRD 9.96% 50.18% RSV 10.29% 21.56% ESV 11.57% 18.35% NET 16.35% 21.14% HCS 16.70% 18.78% NRS 16.88% 19.25% NIV 19.78% 27.72%

2658:

Hmmm, in reality, I probably do spend more time chastising vandals & keeping things tidy (not to mention answering Ref Desk questions) than writing content. While I'd love to have less red tape in the way of moving pages, etc., I don't see myself becoming a regular presence in, for example, AfD

2502:

Thanks. I vowed not to contribute another word, but I'll see. It does take up a lot of time. But I am writing to say that I just checked out the Sappho article (noticing that you had worked on it, and also because I still teach ancient Greek and Roman poetry and was wondering if it would be useful

2449:

Dear Sir or Madame: I do indeed have copyright to those materials. Elsewhere (in the Galician-Portuguese talk page) I reversed myself and said to keep the stuff. It is not the 'merciless editing' that bothers me (I am also a writer), it is that unpleasant mixture of arrogance and ignorance that the

2427:

that can serve you. But deleting content you freely gave to the encyclopedia doesn't seem the best way to approach it. Moreover, I hope that the spirit of generosity that first moved you to give your work as a gift to this 💕 still carries some weight, despite your disgruntlement & frustration

2412:

for disputes involving copyright. But on reading the text I link, it seems obvious and implicit that, since you admit contributing your material under the GFDL license, deletion is not required. (While, again, I am not a lawyer & do not speak on behalf of Knowledge, it does seem that if you do

2353:

I'm glad to subject this matter to a proper discussion. I'd be grateful for you to visit the talk page and see if I haven't given an acceptable rationale for keeping the palaeographic e caudata separate, as it is historically distinct from e-plus-ogonek (and the term "ogonek" is not correct for it,

2285:

headings were needed to articulate the article), and, in the same spirit of improving the clarity & keeping the long paragraphs and quotes from deterring the reader, some way to set off the quote. I really don't feel strongly about the formatting, so I'm going to leave it the way you changed it

2248:

The transliterated Greek - it is customary in such articles and is a sign you know what you are talking about. The problem is you see that many English words come from the Greek words of the text but do not mean the same, so you need a referent. English might use form but it does not appear in Greek

2062:

The question that really interests me is whether documented blatant plagiarism (especially after explanation and warning) is the kind of thing that can lead to some more definite sanction than the whole gamut of other offenses obvious to informed readers of Doug's work. And his blatant lies (at the

1266:

I stumbled across your interesting problem quite by accident, and just wanted to offer condolences. If it is any consolation, you are not alone. The more obscure the topic, the lesser the probability that you will have anyone rational working with you on it. Try to get some outside editors to put

1120:

Ok, point taken, but i try to put bibliographic information where i can, you say there is no translator information, yet you have cited two examples where the translator is clearly stated, and the majority of the other texts which have been translated from a language other than english have at least

700:

Hi W, Just to let you know that there seems to be records of gears being used by "North African Hellenistic culture" at 360BC, but I have no "hard" reference - this was a commercial website, and the facts are stated as "while historians generally accept", without saying who the "historians" are. I'm

3438:

How much in the others? None, actually. I haven't had this problem after we settled on the four categories to put everything into (and categories themselves are used drastically differently in different sources -- Comfort has Dynamic as more paraphrastic than Free Translations!). When I hit this

3273:

I'm sorry you perceived that as impolite; it's my best attempt at a polite answer. The answer is, "Based on the example you cite, I'm pretty sure that if I sat down with my knowledge of Greek (far from infallible, but at least I routinely read books written in Ancient Greek with a reasonable level

2399:

for the first time recently in connection with a minor discussion about an unrelated merge.) If I did know more, I can assure you that I would respect your academic credentials and do my best to make sure that everything valuable in your contributions receive a warm welcome into Knowledge, subject

2262:

PS. The other changes were OK (so far). Thanks for improving the transliterated Greek. Believe it or not in other articles in which I used transliterated Greek they started demanding the Greek. Unbelievable. I'm putting in refs and adding sufficient detail to clarify. I actually like the article. I

1225:

Anyway, there are no easy answers in a situation like this. Unfortunately, the wiki method favors people with unusual viewpoints--they're very passionate about their chosen subjects, and users with less energy get tired of arguing and move on to other things. So, one piece of advice is: be patient.

3564:

Reasons: 1. Catholic theology is hardly parochial, as you state. 2. It is not true, that Aristotle's metaphysics underpins Judaism, and Islam. It is well known that Islam decisively rejected the insights of Aristotle. Certainly there is no equivalent of Aquinas in the Islamic tradition or the

2188:

I believe the spam warnings I posted raise some important points you're not addressing. First, any Knowledge account (or anonymous IP) being used solely to promote the offerings (free or not) of a single website is strongly suspect. More importantly, Ian Johnston makes all his works available on

2116:

Thanks for your note -- I'm well aware of the guidelines and often cite them myself. At the time of these edits, I was reverting an anon contributor who was making CE to BC and anti-abortion edits on a number of pages. His motivation could conceivably been a religious pov. I was also monitoring

1527:

I took no offense from what you said. My response was on the heels of having my response to another question removed from the Misc desk in which I stated that people object to the ideals of the National Rifle Association. Thanks for the compliment on the response that I supplied the questioner.

1314:

If he adds something to the article with no reference, just revert it. You do not have to do much defense for reversion of unsourced content. No footnote, no entry. If you follow the same practice yourself, you will add fewer remarks, but each will be well-cited and therefore difficult to remove

997:

Well, these are unnecessary articles that need additional clean-up chores, so I'm not sure it wouldn't be better just to delete. Basically, there are far more significant works of Aristotle that have no articles. It's hard to believe that these stubs are destined to grow anytime soon. Moreover,

899:

I'm definitely interested in helping this article. In fact, while you were leaving that comment, I was looking (unsuccessfully—but I think I can find it when I go home) for the reference to the Italian article that showed the connection between Sappho and Gregory of Nazianzus' poetry! Meanwhile,

3449:

I'm glad to hear this isn't a typical case. All the more reason why you should act decisively not to undermine whatever credibility the existing categories have by allowing such an exception! Again, a comparative infobox is meaningless if the criteria (of sources, of methods) are not completely

3427:

is more relevant than you're allowing; when at Knowledge I hear "what the people on the talk page are telling me" instead of "what I found in a book I checked out from the library, which got very favorable reviews in scholarly journals," that raises a red flag for me. My question for you is, how

3407:

The first three links didn't answer the question. The last did. I can't find ANY neutral sources for the NWT. Bruce Metzger is normally cited as a scholarly source -- but he's ALSO a Christian. His take on the NWT was "monstrous." Wallace is normally cited as a scholarly source -- but again,

3288:

Wareh, what I was trying to convey is that Christians don't regard this as accurate and Jehovah's Witnesses do. My question remains unanswered. I'll repeat it: how do you fairly describe something from a neutral point of view in which there are no neutral points of view in an info box? Now, as

2625:

Well, to be honest I haven't followed many recent RFA's, so I don't know how recent successful ones tend to go, but I don't think you really have to make "campaign promises" to spend X number of hours a week doing task Y. But I do know they like to see people who have spent time discussing policy

2590:

Thank you for the kind thought. Would I serve? I would do my best to use any additional tools responsibly. I would certainly be grateful to use them to accomplish things I already do more efficiently (deal with vandalism, rapidly revert edits of users spewing spam into the external links, move

2468:

I'm not going to take up as my mission to keep your material in the encyclopedia, so if you have further concerns about its inclusion, I would recommend the dispute mechanisms I linked above. I'd just like to repeat my suggestion that, even if conflicts have dissuaded you from continuing to edit

1438:

many editors out there obviously using a knowledge of classical languages to improve the encyclopedia! (My checking out your contributions may have led me to edit some articles I otherwise wouldn't have seen; I don't remember.) Let me know here if any issue comes up you think I can help with or

848:

Great work at WikiProject Spam! The project pages gave me valuable pointers to the right templates and procedures. I'll continue dealing with linkspam as often as it crosses my path, and I appreciate the warm welcome to join, which I'll do if I become a more active force in the antispam wars...

3625:

The nav box should only appear on articles that are listed on the template. Hence the "Part of a series on..." at the top. The portal link should appear on Chritianity-related articles that are not part of the series. This is consistent with nav box usage throughout WP. Also, there is now the

3127:

I've made some updates to the King James Version, New King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard, and Revised Standard Version. The textual basis pertains only to the New Testament at this time, although it would be safe to put something like "Masoretic Text, with some

2315:

This is quite a lot of work for one man I dare say. The tags should be on. I started out not wanting to do the notes but I've been totally converted. The whole series lacks notes, what a pity. As to the headings, often your first spontaneous thoughts are the best if you already know what you are

2164:

Hello Wareh, I've received a few notices from you about the external links I've posted on a few of the Greek plays and epic poems. I am posting the link again here so you might have a chance to look it over again, and fully understand what it is I'm linking. This is not spam, it is a free online

308:

I sort of realized it was a defunct discussion. Just thought I'd add another perspective to the record. I think an informal and flexible policy is certainly the right solution in practical terms, and I do sympathize with the desire to avoid inappropriate religious biases, as I hope is evident,

3396:

data. A scholarly source such as Bauer's lexicon is not a Christian source; if the data has been run through a Christian lens at any point between the Greek texts, scholarly tools like Bauer, etc., and the Knowledge, then something very wrong has occurred (because if so, the label should read,

3373:

in it for the NWT. This answer seems like a no-brainer to me based on my understanding of what you're saying; if it's not clearly acceptable to you, then explain why not. (I have not seen any of these sources myself. Phrases such as "the DeBuhn data" are completely meaningless to me. I have

2532:

I should really add, just because I think you accept that I speak with good will, that it would always be better to add nothing than to resort to profanity, blanking of an entire page, etc. If you can carry on putting the emphasis on contributions of high quality with good references, you will

2383:

Dear Sir: I have withdrawn my own texts and translations of the cantigas d' amigo from the article on that topic. They are copyrighted material. Other 'editors', through their ignorance and arrogance, insults and abuse, have made me give up all hope of trying to improve anything in Knowledge,

195:

Hello! Instead of the link you added to this article, do you think you have the time to incorporate any additional info it has? If it has a lot of info that the article doesn't, it would be really good to improve the article. If not, it doesn't really add a lot to people's understanding of the

3468:

Wareh -- thanks. Not sure what to make of the article as a whole, since BeDuhn is so integral to it. After toning down some potentially antisemitic wording in there I need to move away from it for a while until I can find out more about BeDuhn. Til then, I'll finish with the info boxes on

3307:

of the "paraphrase rate" numbers should appear in the encyclopedia. If the second formulation is accurate, then the number can be used without and reference to concerns like "Christians don't regard this as accurate"; "Christians" are not so monolithic anyway, and I'm sure a great number of

3215:

Wareh, the New World Translation is turning into a puzzle to categorize. I rather generously udated the info box to "Dynamic Equivalence" but even the sample text in the info box are more paraphrased than the Living Bible. For instance, "God's active force" instead of "wind" or "spirit" is

3059:

Since these numbers were taken from nearly 15,000 translatable differences and can be approximately reproduced from any given sample on several possible sources, I'm not sure the judgment of being "unscientific" is an accurate one. However, if you have any suggestions on how to avoid such a

1288:

Thank you both for your comments, and especially to Akhilleus for all of those leads which I may follow up as the situation prompts & as time allows. I think the best thing for me to do is to keep the page (and possibly some of Doug's other pages) on my watchlist, but to force myself to

1132:

the way you're formatting the Plato texts on your website. And I'm also one of those people who would just as soon have free access to the best of everything. The low ad revenue you cite is all the more reason to consider going ad-free on parts of your website you really want to be seen as

1107:? These are obviously not public domain texts, and the fact that your website, in general, does not provide even minimal bibliographic information on the texts you've harvested (translator, publisher, year), it is hard to know how many other texts under copyright you have in your collection. 3051:

Thanks for the note. The original figures were based on a limited set taken from translatable textual differences on the Gospel of Matthew. The newer numbers are from the complete set for the entire New Testament. There are three independent sources for all or part of these translatable

3246:

Human language is complex and messy. If it were possible to measure accuracy so rigidly as you suggest with such unsupported claims as "cannot possibly," then computers would be as good at translating as well-read human beings. If that "cannot possibly" is figuring into your numbers and

1642:

Ah, a minor perversity of Knowledge: to keep the millions from festooning their user pages with humongous copyrighted pokemons, I mustn't be allowed illegibly tiny thumbnails of sample Ancient Greek book pages and covers I've scanned, which, even in higher resolution, would be permissible

1357:

Thank you! I noticed; appreciate it. There's a lot more I can think of offhand (MLK letter from Birmingham jail ... Marquis de Sade, 120 days of Sodom ... Mein Kampf ... Civil Disobedience ...) I can add some when I'm home from work and have more than a few seconds to spare. Cheers,

3105:

be found on other sites. The only difference is that they use numbers based on actual textual comparisons, instead of loose judgments. Still -- since the numbers agree with those loose judgments, those loose judgments do seem to have the validity the numbers themselves demonstrate.

1408:

of being your sockpuppet. I gather I came to his attention after I cleaned up some category tags he had put in a lot of redirects, but I notice he's mentioned in your talk as well. Am I right in guessing that there's some kind of feud going on here, and I got caught in the middle?

1249:--this page is a guideline, not policy but something that has a force akin to policy. However, Doug's behavior, as far as I've seen, is not anywhere close to the level that would warrant a block or a ban; for the moment, we'll just have to deal with it. I'll keep watching the page. 3262:

That's it. I don't have to be perfect to honestly have a conundrum here, and if you'd slow down from reflexive crassness long enough to answer that question, I'd appreciate it. You have time to formulate a polite answer, since I won't be back online until Saturday night. Best

3418:

No, you're not understanding my (and Knowledge's) idea of neutral. A Christian scholar may make arguments on scholarly grounds free of religious prejudice. Otherwise, peer-reviewed scientific journals would have to disclose the religion, etc., of their authors. I agree that

3386:

might emerge, and that if you were to give the due weight to all of these considerations, you might find yourself confronted with less of a "simple question" in a case like this.) I'd like to make another point, which I believe very strongly, and which the Knowledge policy of

2280:

had grown indigestibly huge. I thought the structure would be clearer with new section headings (by the way, I'm also not invested at all in the section headings I added—please feel free to alter them to something more appropriate, move them, etc.; all I feel strongly is that

2834:

Could you reproduce here (or better, on my page) the current OED pronunciation? My e-copy of SOED doesn't have this word (only parallelepipedal). The OED CD version is clearly wrong: you cannot have the sequence /lˈɛ/ within an English word; to do so would make it two words,

3257:

Wareh -- my methodology is to use sources as fairly as possible. That does not make me (or you) infallible. I would suggest that it be more constructive for you to answer the question at hand rather than to find a single chance to insult someone. Here is the question --

1803: 753:

Hey Wareh. If you are able to leave messages on talk pages other than your own, you are not blocked. It may be that you're coming from a network that requires login. Please let me know if this is not the case, or email me at the address listed on my userpage.

3865:

with no reservations as a source for some rather spectacular claims. I reverted it - but I see that this is not a single incident, the guy is Boccaccio-ing up the place. I see you've had some dealings with this user before - do you know how best to address this?

900:

please contact me again if a more specific question comes up that you'd like help with—anything concerning this article or the rest of Archaic and Classical Greek literature. I'd be glad to look at texts in the original and maybe try to find some references.

2417:

possess the copyright to your contributions, then, perhaps, you infringed on your publisher's rights by licensing it to Knowledge, and your publisher might be able to make a valid protest.) Of course, contributions from scholarly sources should receive due

3089:

I’ve changed the format on the King James Version page and the New Revised Standard Version page, with links to Michael Marlowe’s translatable differences in the New Testament (which include NA27). Please let me know if that at least seems better to you.

3889:, where he's preparing a lot more garbage in sandboxes in order to harm Knowledge articles.) Please let me know if I can be of help in any particular matter; while I don't have energy equal to the Doug Coldwell situation, I would like to help if I can. 2138:

article on Thomas Preston. I adjusted the Elizabethan theatre article assessment page accordingly. I rated it a B, but only because I thought it premature to rate a new article any higher. If somebody asserted that it should be an A, I doubt I'd argue.

2886:

You removed the series categories for this article, but the article is in fact about the Abbey series not just the book of the article title (for which the series is named). Should I move the article to 'Abbey Series' or 'Abbey Books' do you think?

1221:

Wow. This reminds me of the theories of Edo Nyland, who really deserves his own WP article. He believes that all modern European languages were artificially created from Basque roots sometime in the Middle Ages. (I wonder if Petrarch knew Basque...)

235:

I honestly didn't think that was garbage. If the article is going to have a whole section on that deranged woman's ludicrous fiction, it should have a sentence with a reputable source at least giving the substance of her ravings, n'est-ce pas?

2081:

It probably isn't. Something very strange about this encyclopedia is that you can be easily blocked or banned for interpersonal offences, but behavior that harms articles--e.g. giving undue weight to fringe theories--is viewed less seriously.

2229:

first" and "opus magnum" sounded unnecessarily dramatic. This is just my opinion, but I hope that, if you believe the section still requires rewording, you can take these points into account for your next stab at it. Respectfully yours,

2199:

to richerresourcespublications.com. This is not an idiosyncratic quest on my part, and in the past I've seen users completely blocked for doing exactly what you're doing. Please stop promoting the richerresourcepublications.com website.

2020:

Wareh, thanks for locating that conference program. You might want to note its existence at the AfD. Personally, I think the lack of good sources in English still warrants deletion, but the notability guidelines aren't clear on that point.

2665:, so I don't think I will accept your offer (for now—I appreciate your confidence in me and will let you know if I become more seriously interested in taking on the office). This way, if circumstances permit, I can turn without guilt to 2422:

when appropriate, and you should bring it up on a talk page if you think this would be appropriate. I want to end this by saying for the third time that I'm not a lawyer, and for all I know you have a legitimate claim, and there is an

2067:), claiming not to be associated with IP's that are obviously him, ought to be put front-and-center in any future explanation of his methods to the wider community. (Perhaps also the outrageously unsupported claims I complained of at 3391:

cannot fail to back up consistently: there can be no such thing as "Christian data." I'm going to hope that's just some kind of imprecise shorthand, because if there is actually anything "Christian" about any "data," then it is not

2286:

back—but you must see something different on your screen, because what I did was an improvement for me, despite the fact that I am rarely partial to the cquote template. By the way, since I see you've been inspired to work on

3181:

I haven't looked at the edit history of Iaso much, but I certainly noticed the anon making edits there. As he or she is being disruptive and demanding that information be added, while that information is essentially a misread

732:. Thankfully, since then, her name has entirely disappeared from the OBL article (I had intervened when there was a credulous reference, by inserting some of the quotes from her own memoir that are hard to take seriously). 3791:, the description of Letter 4 reads: "This letter, written around October or November of 1352, is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial there." At 1569:

already actively engaged in making substantive contributions based on their knowledge of Neoplatonic doctrines. Sorry to disappoint you if you thought I was offering help on a subject where I was begging for others' help!

2869:. So far it only exists in the parallelepiped article and the chart, so it's an easy fix. (It's not actually IPA, but an unofficial extension of the IPA that's been around for years and was just in 2005 adopted by the OED. 2677:." Again, not that many administrators don't find the time to outwrite me many times over, and not that I won't continue to putter around dealing more with vandalism, spam, moves, etc., than strewing pearls. Yours truly, 1479:

Well, to say what I trust is obvious, I hope you'll call on me here if there's anything I can do. Don't the higher-up admins have the power to confirm that we are accessing Knowledge from different places? Really, I'd

1110:

I encourage you to make positive contributions to Knowledge. But first it is necessary that you understand that strewing links to your own website (even if it were not for-profit) is the very definition of linkspam.

2599:

hours weekly fixing such-and-such backlog." I don't think you should nominate me unless you think the crowd is likely to be enthusiastic about a nomination that can only say, "He may not ever spend the sorely-needed

1226:

This situation will probably last a lot longer than you want it to. Second: get more input. This is already happening because of your posts to the Wikiprojects, but other methods of getting more editors involved are

3469:

translations covered by Master's, Comfort, Metzger, etc. I'll let you know when I run against another puzzle (and I'll limit the question to the question so we don't drive each other nuts again). Thanks again.

1863:

says, "most everything that isn't claimed by any of the major religions is considered to be occult (and many things that are). Even religious scientists have difficulties in defining occultism." A browse through

3454:, there is no material ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need help reverting additions of material without proper sources in this article, let me know specifically (or, if it's persistent, try 2572:

Hi Wareh, going through your contribs I realized you're not an admin, and going through your contribs I realized I think you'd make a good one. If I nominated you, would you run? If elected, would you serve?

1092:

What I've written above is the full reason and the point of view held in consensus by the Knowledge community. But I'd like to raise an additional point. Can you reassure me that, for example, your hosting

936:

is found in some inscriptions, but it's not standard. The Dutch, German, Finnish, Danish, and Croatian Wikipedias have articles on this phrase (I'll add the interwikis after the move) and have all gone with

1990: 3515:

Done. Thanks for the tip. That's the only one of mine where it's PD and I did the scan. But I have a lot of photographs of a Plato manuscript facsimile; when I share these, I'll try to determine whether

2404:). What I do know, however, is that every time you clicked "Save" to make a contribution to Knowledge, you did so on these terms: "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the 2378: 1937:, and it was known as "the tongue of Scripture". Until the seventeenth century it remained the favourite commentary on the Bible; and it was only gradually superseded by more independent works of exegesis. 3368:

source for labeling the NWT in this regard. You yourself point out how the data available to you is not useful in the confident discrimination it allows. Therefore, that part of the infobox should have

3299:

I am honestly confused what outstanding question you would like me to answer, which I am competent to answer. What confuses me is that you say "I put it in the same category," not "The impartial and non-

3799:

Letter 5 reads: "One of Petrarch’s favorite rhetorical devices was the metonymy and here he uses a synecdoche, a type of metonymy, when he describes his frustration with Biblical words and phrases." At

1192:

Yipes, no wonder you asked for more people to watch this article! I wonder: does Doug know that these works were written in Latin? The numerology seems to proceed by counting the letters in English...

1125:(i think thats the url, try copying any section of the text in quotes into google). anyway, the question is, do you think my site should be listed anywhere in wikipedia's external links or not? -dave 1484:

for there to be an investigation, so Doug can plug a definite case of hysterical error on his part into his worldview, though I haven't noticed that facts have gotten much traction there before.

796:

uses the Jerusalem Bible in the credits section of the introduction page. I have reverted back but if you want to press on with the citations for both we could, but is it really needed here? (

1895:

that it was "patristic exegesis" (four levels to every story: personal, anagogical, allegorical, and apocalyptic) and that it was one of the things that informed the various versions of the

2473:

seen fit to leave intact (you want to punish FilipeS, but your act works against readers throughout the world who share your interest in this literature). Just a suggestion. Best wishes,

660: 3845: 1182:

Ok. As I said, I had no knowledge on the subject in question, I simply wanted to help out. That was why I did not empty the list as I thought it best for another opinion on the matter.

590:

today, and I'm wondering if the IP address oughtn't to be reblocked. (It serves multiple users through the Georgia Dept. of Ed., but the contribution history seems mostly vandalism.)

3428:

much more of the "data" presented in these infoboxes is based on such a loose and internally disagreeing mass of confusingly sourced opinion as you seem to be sketching in this case?

2245:

Hi there. The quotes you put in are not working in this context. What shall we do? I suggest not using the big quotes here. I've used them a lot and I am not all that happy with them.

1723: 1944:

better and improving our article on it (and, if needed, further bibliography): (1) a chapter "Memory and the glossa ordinaria : liturgy and interpretation" in Candler, Peter M., Jr.,

1387:

I'm sure I've missed something obvious, but I'm hoping it has some critical mass now. Thoreau got a lot of mileage out of that night in jail, but I don't think that'll qualify him.

1472:

talk to each other. Definitely sockpuppets!" With that kind of range of reasoning, it's no wonder he thinks that the Bible was originally written in English by Dante (or whatever).

3692:, and (to quote from that Knowledge guideline) "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page." 2354:

except perhaps in some very generalized sense as modern typographical jargon). I would be glad to see all the usages properly parallel to the other letters-plus-ogonek merged into

3190:(hopefully, anyway). This user will continue to troll and POV-push otherwise. I was wondering if you could help make a case, as you may be more familiar with the Iaso article.-- 1902:

but I don't know. Do you know of an author who discusses the Glossia that I can go look upon. I don't mind doing the leg work, as I dig hermeneutics (+5 obscure pun, that).

918:

If you're sure, please do proceed. I wasn't and Google hits didn't help. Seems you have expert knowledge - if you can fill the requested citation in the article, please do! --

2929:

Thanks for the note. I did note in my edit summary that, if it does cover the whole series, "it should be in appropriate subcat(s), not in main category." So please do add

1772:

is laborious and imperfect, but I would certainly support it, given the evident quality decline in every area of the encyclopedia Doug has touched. (I assume you've seen

1561:

I would love to have a hand in improving the content of these articles, but I just don't have the ability to sit down with the material at this time. Which is why I was

1137:(where you enter the text yourself from a book published in the 1990's and are the sole provider of it on the internet) really ought to set off a red flag in your mind! 1073: 2388: 1933:, for the purpose of illustrating the various senses -- principally the literal sense -- of all the books of Holy Writ. This gloss is quoted as a high authority by St. 1015:(which actually caused me a copy and paste error), so I just thought I give it a try. Now, I really have no definite opinion, but having a stub for the missing article 2941:. So it would be a great service if you'd move it to that title (just use the move tab at the top of the page) and do the necessary rewording to reflect the change. 2902:. But when I came new to Knowledge, it was called 'Abbey Girls', and I didn't at that stage know it was possible for it to be changed...what do you advise please? ... 1804:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doug_Coldwell.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29.3B_original_research.2C_content_forking.2C_and_material_in_userspace

2409: 2478: 1157: 316: 3636:

which being added and is 100% identical to the old nav box which is overused right now. I will revert your revision, please help with the change over. Best. --

1011:

Well I wasn't aware of the naming problem, but merely noticed that the translation can be sourced somewhere else and that there are other similar stubs such as

1745:

Hm, very interesting! Has Doug been pushing an Opsopausite line all along? Because, you see, repeated attempts to include fringe views in Knowledge constitute

1069: 600:

As the last warning was a blatant vandal tag, I have reblocked the IP vandal for one week. Thanks for letting me know! You can report these vandal attacks at

3768:

Wareh, I haven't had much time for Knowledge the last few days, but I'll try to address this. At first glance, plagiarism does look like a potential issue at

3260:

on a subject that is highly charged between two opposing camps that cannot compromise with each other, exactly HOW do you state a neutral POV in an info box?

972:

I think you'd be fine deleting it. If anyone follows up the references to the ancient sources, they'll see that it was one man's clarion call at any rate!

167: 3590: 3570: 2451: 2385: 3875: 2863:

does not display with your fonts? (I'm wondering how you saw it to know what it was.) If so, we shouldn't use it, and instead can strike out ɪ manually:

2726: 2508: 1153: 3011:

Think I've finished for now - updated all but the bot & historical links from 'what links here', & tweaked bits of the article itself. Cheers,

2638:

feel that you'd like to help clean up the messes around here (which means not only vandal-fighting, but also helping out with deletions--take a look at

2064: 1773: 1497:

In general, sockpuppet investigations to prove one's innocence are not performed. The appropriate places to report cases of suspected sockpuppetry are

1016: 2395:

I do not know enough about Galician-Portuguese literature to adjudicate your dispute with FilipeS. (I noticed your page blanking only after watching

3714: 2298:, etc.). I'm the one who put the cleanup tag on it; I keep meaning to come by and replace it with something better, but I've never found the time. 987:

Thnaks for falgging two Aristotlte texts for possible linkspam. I've changed the link (for the same translation), so I guess they can now be kept. --

3502: 2755: 2735:

The stream of vandalism from this IP is comparatively light, and the normal course of warnings has not yet gotten to where seeking a block through

2384:

namely on the subjects which are my main area of research, medieval Galician-Portuguese philology and poetry. Please do not put those texts back.

1956:, translated with an introduction and notes by Mary Dove (Kalamazoo, Mich.: TEAMS, 2004); (3) the chapter "Glossa ordinaria," by Jenny Swanson, in 771: 3882: 3755: 3586: 3566: 1777: 1581: 1019:

with a link to the translation as well as to Aristotle might be practical, while there may be indeed little sense to keep the ambiguous redirect

876:

have more than a little knowledge about the subject before nominating an article :) Live and learn! Anyway, your help would be appreciated! --

3903:

a nice guy. Combine this with the inclusionist, get-along philosophy of Knowledge and we have a situation that is incredibly hard to deal with.

566: 1033: 1020: 701:

looking into it, but may need to get help from our engineering library. You had a good question - WP is short on melding science and history.

3067:

I would invite you to test any sequence for yourself and please tell me if there is any resource at all that will give a different sequence.

1614: 3794:, we find "Letter 4 is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial." 3600: 3347:

I guess I have a second question by this time -- why on earth is it so devilishly difficult to get a straight answer to a simple question?

3056:

NAB 20.09% 17.85% JNT 20.49% 26.68% NJB 22.71% 28.25% TEV 27.49% 32.58% REB 28.00% 30.15% NLT 33.09% 35.66% TLB 38.35% 47.68%

1610: 1268: 767:

Yes, I was still getting the autoblock message when I contacted you, but it turns out that I simply needed to clear my cache. Thanks!

98: 86: 3337:

when different sources contradict, is it fair in a neutral POV to split the middle, even when neither side would agree to a compromise?

3325:

when different sources contradict, is it fair in a neutral POV to split the middle, even when neither side would agree to a compromise?

278: 257: 240: 123:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

3655:

Thank you Wareh for your time and effort. But before I write more, please let me know what exactly you mean by "the text of Manetho's

3557:

Hello - thanks for the further constructive work on the intro. Only one thing I reinstated 'His metaphysics has formed the basis of

749:((unblock-auto|1=149.106.224.2|2=repeated additions of unsourced and potentially libellous content|3=Can't sleep, clown will eat me)) 2753: 2165:

e-book, asking for no money in exchange for reading it, and is completely relevent and useful to anyone studying these plays/poems.

1242: 3831:. I found this username accidentally while doing a Google search for "orithya amazon". There's a lot of stuff in those sandboxes... 1821:

Wareh, knowing your previous involvement with this editor over a long period of time, you would be in a good position to write up a

2267: 1829: 1699: 1275: 1267:

the page on their watch list in order to help out with the reverts. For a cross-cultural example of a numerological crackpot see:

102: 82: 3803:, we find: "One of Petrarch’s favorite rhetorical devices is the metonymy. In Letter 5 he uses a synecdoche, a type of metonymy." 1707: 619: 94: 3817: 2997: 2485: 2454: 2440: 1378: 1187: 152: 2775:

Ooops didnt mean to template you, I take that this is just a mistake, um yeah please move it to the relevant namespace. Thanks!

2747: 2537: 2511: 2234: 1452: 1443: 3828: 3594: 2937:, whichever you think is more appropriate (or both). As far as your other question, I see that it really is an article on the 2159: 1651: 1319: 1297: 910: 140: 3737: 3701: 3501:

so they can be used on projects like Wikisource. Also, as you are interested in Aristotle, perhaps you could help us over at

2669:

backlog, which consists not of thorny copyright questions and problem users, but of things like, "Provide a better article on

2335: 2302: 1872: 1574: 1547:

Yes I agree could you help with the issue of ontology. Also please pretty please with money and cherries on top-work over the

3535:

Ooh, that was a very bad mistake on my part. I was unaware of what I had done. You were right to draw it to my attention.

3478: 3032: 3006: 2971: 2945: 2714: 2105: 2098: 2075: 1788: 1716: 1693: 1514: 1391: 1215: 1175: 1101: 1077: 758: 689: 3921: 3912: 3893: 3612: 3462: 3432: 3401: 3316: 3282: 3251: 2766: 1258: 1201: 1040: 1027: 1006: 648: 155:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

3204: 2930: 2372: 2176: 1815: 1794: 1734: 976: 966: 954: 945: 922: 904: 819: 755: 715: 214: 3524: 2153: 1972: 1784:

on ancient Pythagorean doctrine. By the way, I think I've already rooted out the worst links to the utk.edu collection.

736: 3808:

Not all of the material is plagiarized, I think, but the parts that are original with Doug are not of very high quality.

3509: 2817: 2796: 2779: 2626:

matters, who have contributed to deletion discussions, and the like; in short, people who are interested in encyclopedia

2432:," then I have faith that, eventually, even obscure article talk pages will attract enough notice that the view based on 2256: 2204: 1141: 1094: 1050: 2729: 2681: 2653: 2620: 1208: 853: 182: 3754:

article. See what you think, interested in any comments or changes. I was rather drastic on the 'overview' section.

2562: 2551: 1161: 1012: 825: 2642:

to see what I'm talking about), even if means spending less time writing articles, then I'd be glad to nominate you. —

1115: 3758: 3585:

influence among Jewish philosophers. Whether among theologians is a different matter which I will have to research.

3342: 3002:

To my casual eye, it looks as if you've made the needed adjustments perfectly seamlessly. Thanks for your efforts!

2240: 2166: 1636: 1618: 3945: 2219: 1448:

Thanks! This came out of the blue, quite suddenly, and I wasn't sure what to make of it -- now I have some context.

842: 815:, is just that I'd like good reasons for believing that every bit of the text in the article is precisely correct. 3561:

since medieval times, and many aspects of his philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today.

3473: 3443: 3412: 3351: 3330: 3293: 3267: 3227: 2331: 1887:! A bit stubby, but I'd love to know more about it, myself. I know it exists, but it's one of those things whose 1502: 1498: 1465: 1085:

You're conveniently leaving out the prohibition on "links to web sites with which you are affiliated" (see further

73: 37: 3159:

I hope you realise that Kirata is not one people but many different peoples. There was no one "Kirata" kingdom.

3114: 2143: 1999: 1371:

Oh, oops, never mind: you already put those in. I was remembering a version I saw from several hours ago... :)

594: 3743: 3722: 3025: 2990: 2964: 2916: 2639: 1428: 1100:

is not in violation of copyright law? And do you have Francisco Gonzalez's or Hackett's permission to reproduce

571: 347: 3931: 3544: 1997: 3574: 3530: 3143:

Wareh -- instead of cluttering your page, I've put a long post on my page with a question at the end. Thanks.

2846: 2720: 2215:

I cannot understand why you undid my change. I just tried to make the sentence a little bit more well-written.

2130: 1227: 1086: 200: 3671: 2533:

become known for reliability, a reputation that can only be hurt by public attacks, whatever the motivation.

2001: 1749:, and if severe enough justify banning; unfortunately there's all sorts of tedium to go through first, like a 1580:

Well you deleted the Divine Nous article, there goes the neighborhood! Next you'll deleting articles on about

1365: 172: 3210: 3076: 1984: 1176: 991: 887: 3840: 3781: 1802:

Wareh, if you're around before it gets archived, I started a discussion on some of Doug's recent editing at

1146:

Ok, thanks for your advice, if you think of anything else leave a note on my talk page, best regards, Dave.

800: 229: 3484: 3081: 2252:

I need a decision on the format or I have to put it back. We could move the picture; it is decorative only.

1602: 1593: 1246: 893: 302: 128: 120: 114: 62: 26: 3149: 3138: 2923: 2864: 2860: 1848: 1762: 3630: 2697: 1965: 1505:. However, since Doug's allegations don't pass the laugh test, there would be no point in investigating. 1434:

You might not have noticed me, but I certainly noticed your good work, since, as Doug says, there aren't

705: 584: 3497:

to make it PD status absolutely beyond doubt in all countries; then they will be automatically moved to

1293:; I had to go and nominate them all for deletion myself. Thanks again for the counsel & sympathy. 1062:

If you could explain why you've done this then please leave a comment here or on my wikipedia account.

667:

for excellent scholarly contributions in general, and for contributions regarding Greek history and the

2552: 2210: 1606: 1413: 835: 679: 352: 188: 2873: 2362: 1673: 3707: 3549: 2584: 2195: 144: 3645: 2428:

with FilipeS. If you take the time to document such points as "All competent scholars use the term

2125: 2047:. I just don't have the energy to check right now--documenting that stuff yesterday was exhausting. 1588: 1555: 1537: 1468:. I begin to see how he thinks: "Hmm, two people don't talk to each other. Sockpuppets? Ah, they 638: 3374:

nagging doubts that say that if I saw the "guts" of this operation, more issues along the lines of

3171: 2725:

Just block the IP next time, it is a school account. Lots of vandalism from kids messing around. --

2704: 2180: 2091: 2068: 2056: 2030: 2015: 1906: 1464:

page). This is beginning to feel like harassment. Just so you know, I have told him to take it to

1347: 812: 606: 559: 524: 254: 226: 3303:

algorithm put it in the same category." If there's a difference between the two statements, then

2249:

or you might assume two English instances of form come from the same Greek word when they do not!

3744: 3194: 3046: 2169:. Just click on the book cover and the full pdf document will be pulled up. Thanks for reading. 1352: 1231: 982: 779: 724:

Thanks for the information. The silly little controversy above had to do with the references to

668: 604:, which may get a quicker response than leaving a message on an individual's Talk page. Regards, 3917:

Sounds like you've got it. The more independent minds aware of the issues, the better. Cheers,

2477:

15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I saw that you independently put it in these very terms at

2039:. I have to wonder how extensive this problem is, and whether there are problematic passages in 1912:

I'm glad you're excited! My contribution was really only finding the Google Books links to the

1662: 1488: 3650: 2895: 2829: 2036: 1685: 1461: 859: 580: 529: 406: 299: 163:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --

124: 3886: 3824: 3763: 2934: 2674: 1647:

on any web page where I could conceivably put them, except for at wikipedia.org. So be it.

1633: 695: 431: 148: 3278:

problem), I'm surprised this doesn't score as more literal than something like NJB or NEB.

1621:. Hello Wareh, an automated process has found images tagged as nonfree media, specifically 675:

It's about time someone recognized your excellent contributions. Have a barnstar. Cheers! --

3941: 3718: 3667: 3167:

article to its original state. The correct and standard spelling is Kirata, in any case.

3119: 2327: 2319: 2172: 1149: 1065: 929: 808: 548: 411: 69: 33: 2503:

for my students) and burst out laughing when I read on the talk page that someone thought

2263:

see a lot of the series need the same sort of work; however, they seem to vary in quality.

8: 3836: 3813: 3777: 3517: 3491: 3019: 2984: 2958: 2910: 2878: 2567: 2346: 2087: 2052: 2026: 2011: 1865: 1811: 1758: 1740: 1727: 1669: 1510: 1375: 1362: 1254: 1245:, I can see the application here, but that page isn't policy. Another page to look at is 1197: 1184: 962:

Thanks for enhancements. Do you the the cn tag at the start is still needed/justified? --

911: 831: 785: 443: 401: 156: 48: 3908: 3871: 3858: 2276:

I'm glad you're working on the article, and I only intervened cosmetically because the

1940:

Here are three sources I'm sure will give you an excellent basis for understanding the

1844:

listed in his category as an occultist? Would this not make Socrates then one as well?

1835: 1769: 1750: 1680: 1622: 1405: 807:

Citations are always nice; my main concern, though, which I'll try to state clearly at

367: 189: 136: 3788: 3769: 3713:

able to footnote somethings which went unresolved in the first edition. Thanks again.

3641: 3558: 2396: 2216: 1914: 1473: 1449: 1410: 1342: 883: 744: 511: 377: 357: 295: 288: 207: 21: 249:

If we're going to be referring to something so peculiar on the grounds that it's in

3680: 2891: 2870: 2843: 2792:

No, please delete it. It is the result of a typo, and a move is not appropriate.

1884: 1826: 1630: 1535: 1522: 1316: 1272: 1055:

Hi Wareh, It seems you deleted the links i posted to my philosophy website online (

654: 3581: 1946:

Theology, rhetoric, manuduction, or, Reading Scripture together on the path to God

1929:

made extracts chiefly from the Latin Fathers and from the writings of his master,

3937: 3663: 3620: 2710:

I've weighed in. I hope my somewhat ambivalent take on the question is useful.

2670: 2323: 2264: 2253: 1923: 1878: 1845: 1822: 1657: 1585: 1552: 729: 563: 493: 471: 396: 321: 90: 3397:

percent agreement with the theological interpretations of such-and-such sect).

1961: 1949: 3832: 3809: 3773: 3540: 3393: 3388: 3160: 3154: 3012: 2977: 2951: 2903: 2701: 2648: 2579: 2405: 2277: 2111: 2083: 2048: 2022: 2007: 1934: 1930: 1807: 1754: 1710:. A fairly good answer? What do you think? Looking forward to your thoughts. 1665: 1506: 1372: 1359: 1331: 1250: 1193: 789: 676: 625: 552: 506: 426: 416: 372: 362: 342: 206:

I sympathize. I added this link, because in the course of improving the entry

1991:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination)

1968:, but this seems hard to find and not well-linked from the expected places.) 3904: 3867: 3689: 3470: 3440: 3420: 3409: 3375: 3348: 3339: 3327: 3290: 3264: 3224: 3183: 3146: 3135: 3111: 3073: 2851: 2740: 2736: 2592: 2424: 2419: 2401: 2122: 1919: 1796: 1399: 1024: 988: 635: 601: 479: 132: 867:

Hi, Wareh! I recently (and admittedly as a total experiment) nominated the

583:, you apparently blocked the user for vandalism on 4 August 2006. The user 3637: 3455: 3451: 3383: 3361: 3300: 3275: 3191: 3187: 3176: 3168: 2938: 2813:

Ah therein lies the problem, just leave the tag on, as I'm not an admin :)

2691: 2559: 2433: 2369: 2291: 2287: 1978: 1781: 1746: 1713: 1542: 1337: 1269:

Subhash_Kak#.22The_Astronomical_Code_of_the_Rigveda.2C.22_and_its_critiques

1235: 963: 951: 919: 878: 872: 797: 488: 466: 197: 1032:

All right. I'll write a stub as you suggest and add the prod template to

950:

Great. If you can enhance the article today, we can probably get a DYK. --

3801: 3792: 3506: 3424: 3379: 3365: 2661: 2591:

pages when appropriate, block persistent warned vandals without visiting

2347: 2295: 2140: 1903: 1897: 1855:

be impossible for there to be a category that indicates this. But occult

1530: 1056: 712: 702: 659: 501: 220: 1689:

a big expansion that did not seem even vaguely appropriate or correct.

324:

predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

3918: 3890: 3729: 3693: 3604: 3521: 3459: 3429: 3398: 3313: 3279: 3248: 3201: 3003: 2942: 2814: 2793: 2776: 2763: 2744: 2711: 2678: 2617: 2534: 2482: 2474: 2437: 2359: 2299: 2231: 2201: 2150: 2102: 2072: 1969: 1869: 1841: 1825:

on him - since that seems to be what the AN/I thread is turning into.

1785: 1731: 1690: 1648: 1626: 1595: 1571: 1485: 1440: 1419:

Hullo to you, and greetings! I'll add a note to Doug on his talk page.

1388: 1294: 1212: 1138: 1112: 1037: 1003: 973: 942: 901: 850: 816: 768: 733: 686: 664: 645: 591: 587: 573: 421: 386: 310: 275: 237: 211: 179: 2890:

I have done 2 other article on Oxenham's books: the connecting series

2481:. Good for you—those appreciative readers out there really do exist. 2400:

to the normal collaborative reworking & pursuit of consensus (see

838:

so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Knowledge.

3854: 3550: 3536: 2643: 2574: 2379:

Assertion of copyright to what an editor wrote and added to Knowledge

2118: 2044: 1868:

shows that it intends a narrower sense inappropriate to Pythagoras.

999: 839: 725: 164: 558:

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on

3498: 2190: 2040: 1644: 1548: 631: 337: 3450:

consistent. "I can't find any scholars" means that, according to

711:

PS: I glanced through your discussion page. Who/what is Boof/OBL?

3132:

I've come up with on my own readability tests in Microsoft Word.

540:

Your contributions make Knowledge better -- thanks for helping.

461: 448: 391: 3357:

I think my answer to your question is, it sounds as if you have

3164: 2355: 1964:). Best wishes! (By the way, fourfold exegesis is covered at 1860: 1859:

seems wrong. "Occult" is so broad a term that, as the article

1422:

I do like to think my involvement in Knowledge doesn't include

868: 861: 793: 3216:

impossible to quantify. Also, John 3:16 "God loved the world

3234: 1708:

User_talk:K.C._Tang#About__French_Book_Titles_on_the_Ref_desk

519: 453: 253:, you'll have to provide the issue and page number. Thanks. 3881:

Short answer, no, I do not know. You may be interested in

1768:

There's no question that Doug is a tendentious editor; the

1730:

too), which I hope will help in clarifying the standards.

2358:, and in fact I agree that this is good for consistency. 1891:

I kept hearing and the substance of which I never met. I

51:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

270:

Done! I haven't included it on the grounds that it's in

53: 630:

The "long" mark follows the "p" in Sappho because it is

3163:

itself is badly defined. I request you to restore the

1460:

Coldwell is still claiming I am your sockpuppet (on my

784:

Do we really need to cite it here also even though the

562:. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- 2739:(I am not an administrator) would be appropriate. Do 225:

Please do not put garbage in the articles. Thank you.

3503:

s:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Categories

2149:

Thanks, I hope this will attract some further work!

928:

I am sure and am just waiting for an admin to delete

2976:

Done the move - now updating/correcting links ;) ...

1722:

Thanks for the notice. I've put up more comment at

1122: 547:

on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on

2762:Yes, that was a goof, thanks for the speedy help! 1926:is no longer accounted the compiler): the compiler 1960:, edited by G.R. Evans (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001 – 1234:. These are initial steps in the process known as 1017:On Youth, Old Age, Life and Death, and Respiration 834:. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in 3335:Now -- once again -- this is the ONLY question: 317:Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 196:subject. Just a thought. I'm rabidly anti-link! 3883:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata 3013: 2978: 2952: 2904: 2368:Hi. I have no objections. Proceed as you wish. 3186:of information, I think a case can be made at 2743:if you would like to contribute responsibly! 2097:For future reference, I note the existence of 1615:Image:Teubner Gk type original digital age.jpg 2898:, so this article would fit in better as the 1806:. You may wish to contribute your thoughts. 1611:Image:Teubner Gk type Griechische Antiqua.jpg 147:. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 3750:Hi. I have made extensive revisions to the 3239:. Liddell and Scott rightly note the sense: 1565:for help on needy articles from editors who 790:http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/6/wansbrough.html 2950:Thanks - I'll do that this evening :) ... 1922:gives a pretty good brief account (though 1625:. The images, listed above, were found at 309:despite my quirky opinion on this point. 61:Revision as of 21:18, 29 December 2007 by 3728:You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. 1954:The glossa ordinaria on the Song of songs 1918:text (which I am proud of, though). The 1243:Knowledge:Expert Retention/Crackpot users 3599:I've moved these important questions to 932:so I can move the page there. The form 658: 2507:meant plectrum! That is really funny.-- 728:'s self-advertised alleged affair with 60: 14: 3849:as a source for everything conceivable 3829:Special:Contributions/Douglas_Coldwell 3684:you cite Angelopoulos, Athanasios G., 2425:established dispute resolution process 3101:I won’t be back online until Sunday. 2696:Hello, Wareh. Would you like to join 2099:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 178:Thanks, I have figured this out now! 44: 25: 17: 2931:Category:Series of children's books 159:, ask me on my talk page, or place 111: 80: 3861:showed up on my watchlist, citing 3787:Yeah. After Doug's latest edit at 3686:New Lexicon of the Greek Mythology 3659:... because I have used Manetho's 1619:Image:Teubner Gk type original.jpg 1013:On Longevity and Shortness of Life 112: 3956: 3020: 2985: 2959: 2911: 2608:, but he knows a good deal about 2183:) 19:41:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 2035:Wareh, thanks for the comment at 1095:Brad Inwood's translation of the 326: 47:. The present address (URL) is a 3060:perception, please let me know. 1700:French titles ref desk follow-up 1503:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser 1499:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets 1466:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets 2640:Category:Administrative backlog 1429:De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) 1002:. Does that seem reasonable? 348:Gregory Wright (astrophysicist) 2538:18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2512:16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2486:15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2455:15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2441:14:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2436:will prevail. Respectfully, 2406:GNU Free Documentation License 2389:13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2373:11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 2363:23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2336:12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 2303:03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 2268:01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 2257:00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 2235:17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 2220:17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 2160:Greek Plays and External Links 1228:Knowledge:Requests for comment 1087:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 756:Can't sleep, clown will eat me 620:14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 595:14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 567:04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC) 303:22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 13: 1: 3946:21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 3738:03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 3723:15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 3702:22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 3672:20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 3646:01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 3613:15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 3595:12:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 3575:12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 3545:04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 3525:14:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3510:08:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3485:Image:Bekker 1831 page184.jpg 3479:Image:Bekker 1831 page184.jpg 3474:16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3463:16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3444:16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3433:15:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3413:15:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3402:15:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3352:14:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3343:14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3331:14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3317:14:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3294:00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2894:and the non-connected titles 2294:(we also have a stub article 1985:Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro 1603:Image:Teubner Babyloniaca.jpg 1177:De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) 1142:13:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1116:18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1041:20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1028:20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1007:19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 992:17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 690:21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 680:14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) 663:I award the Epic Barnstar to 168: 125:The five pillars of Knowledge 3922:00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 3913:23:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3894:18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3876:12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3841:05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3818:05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3782:04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3759:14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3688:, gives the impression of a 3283:19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3268:19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3252:18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3228:18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3205:01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 3195:23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 3172:22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 3150:15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 3139:15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 3115:18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 3077:16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 3033:18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3026: 3007:18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2998:17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2991: 2972:16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 2965: 2946:20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2924:20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2917: 2874:16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 2847:22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 2818:15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2797:15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2780:15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2767:15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2748:19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 2730:19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 1950:Google Books limited preview 1336:Thanks for the information. 1247:Knowledge:disruptive editing 977:01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 967:15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 955:18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 946:18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 923:18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 905:20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 894:19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 854:23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 843:13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 820:20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 801:20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 737:15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 716:12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 706:12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 141:How to write a great article 7: 3200:Thank you for your advice. 2715:14:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2705:02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2682:21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 2654:20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 2621:18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 2585:17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 2563:16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2290:, you might take a look at 2205:19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2106:18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 1966:Allegory in the Middle Ages 1952:); (2) the introduction to 1664:. (I reverted it already.) 1607:Image:Teubner covers Gk.jpg 1207:His answer to this is that 1051:Links to my philosophy page 772:17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 759:15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 649:23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 639:22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 560:the SuggestBot request page 279:14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 258:23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 241:03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 230:02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 24:of this page, as edited by 10: 3961: 3235: 2553:The covenant of the pieces 1515:19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1489:14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1453:19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1444:19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1414:18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1404:I've just been accused by 1392:00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1379:19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1366:19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1348:17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1320:18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1298:13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1276:01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1259:01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1216:00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1202:00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1188:12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 1102:Gonzalez's translation of 836:Knowledge:WikiProject Spam 830:Hey there! I nice work on 826:Invite to WikiProject Spam 555:, SuggestBot's caretaker. 485: 437: 383: 353:Evagrius of Constantinople 329: 215:19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 201:18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 2410:guidelines and procedures 2241:Theory of forms right now 2154:14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2144:08:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2126:22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2092:16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2076:16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2057:16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1873:13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1849:01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 1830:04:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC) 1816:05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1789:15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1763:15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1589:12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC) 1211:. Jerome too, I guess. 183:21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 173:21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 3936:Please see my talk page. 2630:as well as encyclopedia 2069:Talk:Letter to Posterity 2031:20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2016:18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 1973:18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1958:The medieval theologians 1907:17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1780:constituted a scholarly 1735:17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 1717:10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 1694:16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 1674:22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 1652:13:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1637:22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1575:13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1556:13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 813:Talk:New Jerusalem Bible 525:Biblical Hebrew language 3745:Metaphysics (Aristotle) 3601:the Aristotle talk page 3483:Hi, could you also tag 1538:01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1232:Knowledge:Third opinion 669:Bibliotheca Teubneriana 45:21:18, 29 December 2007 3603:and responded there. 3487:(and any others) with 3245: 3233:You're mistaken about 2896:Oxenham Non-Connectors 2721:205.155.48.5 vandalism 2131:Thomas Preston article 2117:the recently featured 2037:Talk:Liber sine nomine 1996:Potential canvassing: 1939: 1795:Discussion re:Doug on 1726:(and linked this from 1679:The latest mess is at 1036:with an explanation. 672: 581:User talk:168.10.112.2 549:SuggestBot's talk page 530:Marcus Terentius Varro 407:Alcibiades (dialogues) 3887:User:Douglas Coldwell 3825:User:Douglas Coldwell 3240: 3211:New World Translation 2935:Category:Novel series 2675:Euthydemus (dialogue) 2479:Talk:Cantiga d' amigo 2175:comment was added by 1927: 1920:Catholic Encyclopedia 1209:Petrarch knew English 662: 432:John Anthony McGuckin 3932:Manetho's Aegyptiaca 3863:De mulieribus claris 3847:De mulieribus claris 3690:conflict of interest 3082:More Text Discussion 2391:Rip Cohen, alias MB 1962:Google Books preview 1439:should know about! 1291:De viris illustribus 930:Carthago delenda est 809:Talk:Jerusalem Bible 788:article sites this? 585:blatantly vandalized 412:Charmides (dialogue) 115:Welcome to Knowledge 3580:PS E.g. an article 3518:Template:PD-release 2754:Speedy deletion of 1823:request for comment 1747:tendentious editing 1728:User talk:K.C. Tang 912:Cartago delenda est 832:User_talk:Jay_ryann 786:New Jerusalem Bible 444:Torrefazione Italia 402:Alcaeus (mythology) 157:Knowledge:Questions 87:← Previous revision 3859:User:Doug Coldwell 3631:Christianityfooter 2211:Thucydides article 1724:the reference desk 1686:I've just reverted 1681:Eidos (philosophy) 1406:User:Doug Coldwell 1236:dispute resolution 673: 368:History of Animals 190:Coffee Preparation 129:How to edit a page 119:Hello, Wareh, and 3823:Ugh. Please note 3789:Liber sine nomine 3770:Liber sine nomine 3708:Cologne Cathedral 3559:Catholic theology 3276:original research 3031: 2996: 2970: 2922: 2741:create an account 2397:User talk:FilipeS 2338: 2322:comment added by 2184: 1948:(Eerdmans 2006 – 1915:Patrologia Latina 1346: 1165: 1152:comment added by 1123:http://ac.nice.fr 1081: 1068:comment added by 644:I see. Thanks! 537: 536: 512:Southeast Alabama 378:Laches (dialogue) 358:Commentary on Job 208:Napoletana coffee 3952: 3756:edward (buckner) 3683: 3635: 3629: 3587:edward (buckner) 3567:edward (buckner) 3496: 3490: 3238: 3237: 3028: 3022: 3017: 3015: 2993: 2987: 2982: 2980: 2967: 2961: 2956: 2954: 2919: 2913: 2908: 2906: 2892:Abbey Connectors 2868: 2862: 2839:like you get in 2837:Parallel Epiped, 2434:reliable sources 2317: 2198: 2170: 2065:Talk:Divine Nous 1942:Glossa ordinaria 1885:Glossa Ordinaria 1774:Talk:Divine Nous 1770:user conduct RfC 1751:user conduct RfC 1688: 1631:User:Gnome (Bot) 1533: 1340: 1147: 1063: 892: 891: 618: 616: 611: 327: 170: 162: 99:Newer revision → 77: 56: 54:current revision 46: 42: 41: 3960: 3959: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3934: 3851: 3766: 3748: 3710: 3679: 3653: 3633: 3627: 3623: 3555: 3533: 3507:John Vandenberg 3494: 3488: 3481: 3213: 3179: 3157: 3122: 3084: 3049: 3047:Textual Figures 2881: 2859:Are you saying 2854: 2832: 2759: 2723: 2698:this discussion 2694: 2671:Brunetto Latini 2570: 2556: 2430:Cantiga d'amigo 2381: 2351: 2243: 2213: 2194: 2191:his own website 2171:—The preceding 2162: 2133: 2114: 1981: 1924:Walafrid Strabo 1881: 1838: 1800: 1782:reliable source 1743: 1702: 1684: 1660: 1599: 1545: 1529: 1525: 1402: 1355: 1353:Prison writings 1334: 1180: 1070:194.247.227.222 1053: 985: 983:Aristotle texts 916: 881: 877: 865: 828: 782: 780:Jerusalem Bible 747: 730:Osama bin Laden 698: 657: 628: 612: 607: 605: 577: 551:. Thanks from 494:Gregory Douglas 472:Yiannis Dritsas 397:Gregory Vlastos 319: 291: 223: 193: 160: 145:Manual of Style 117: 110: 109: 108: 107: 106: 91:Latest revision 79: 78: 67: 65: 52: 31: 29: 12: 11: 5: 3958: 3933: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3850: 3844: 3821: 3820: 3805: 3804: 3796: 3795: 3765: 3762: 3747: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3709: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3657:Apotelesmatica 3652: 3651:Helios article 3649: 3622: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3554: 3548: 3532: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3480: 3477: 3466: 3465: 3436: 3435: 3405: 3404: 3320: 3319: 3286: 3285: 3255: 3254: 3212: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3178: 3175: 3161:Kirata Kingdom 3156: 3153: 3121: 3118: 3083: 3080: 3048: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 2880: 2877: 2853: 2850: 2831: 2830:parallelepiped 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2770: 2769: 2758: 2756:Talk (Ariston) 2752: 2751: 2750: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2693: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2662:servi servorum 2569: 2566: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2444: 2443: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2350: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2271: 2270: 2242: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2177:69.143.176.122 2161: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2132: 2129: 2113: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2079: 2078: 2005: 2004: 1994: 1988: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1935:Thomas Aquinas 1931:Rabanus Maurus 1880: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1799: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1711: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1659: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1598: 1592: 1578: 1577: 1544: 1541: 1524: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1492: 1491: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1432: 1420: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1382: 1381: 1354: 1351: 1333: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1219: 1218: 1185:Seraphim Whipp 1183: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1108: 1090: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 984: 981: 980: 979: 960: 959: 958: 957: 915: 909: 908: 907: 864: 858: 857: 856: 827: 824: 823: 822: 781: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 762: 761: 746: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 719: 718: 697: 694: 693: 692: 671:in particular. 656: 653: 652: 651: 627: 624: 623: 622: 576: 570: 535: 534: 533: 532: 527: 522: 517: 514: 509: 507:Cuban espresso 504: 499: 496: 491: 484: 483: 482: 477: 474: 469: 464: 459: 456: 451: 446: 441: 436: 435: 434: 429: 427:Gregory Barker 424: 419: 417:On the Heavens 414: 409: 404: 399: 394: 389: 382: 381: 380: 375: 373:Targum Onkelos 370: 365: 363:Gregory Serper 360: 355: 350: 345: 343:Liqueur coffee 340: 335: 333: 318: 315: 314: 313: 290: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 263: 262: 261: 260: 244: 243: 222: 219: 218: 217: 192: 187: 186: 185: 153:sign your name 116: 113: 63: 49:permanent link 27: 16: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3957: 3948: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3923: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3892: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3848: 3843: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3790: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3764:Iesous, redux 3761: 3760: 3757: 3753: 3746: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3678:fact that in 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3632: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3562: 3560: 3552: 3547: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3493: 3486: 3476: 3475: 3472: 3464: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3434: 3431: 3426: 3422: 3421:Bruce Metzger 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3411: 3403: 3400: 3395: 3390: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3372: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3341: 3338: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3326: 3318: 3315: 3311: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3284: 3281: 3277: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3261: 3253: 3250: 3244: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3226: 3222: 3219: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3152: 3151: 3148: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3117: 3116: 3113: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3079: 3078: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3034: 3029: 3023: 3016: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2994: 2988: 2981: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2968: 2962: 2955: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2920: 2914: 2907: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2884: 2876: 2875: 2872: 2867: 2857: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2842: 2838: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2778: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2728: 2716: 2713: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2583: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2565: 2564: 2561: 2554: 2539: 2536: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2487: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2456: 2453: 2452:137.73.120.57 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2421: 2416: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2390: 2387: 2386:137.73.120.57 2374: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2349: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2304: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2255: 2250: 2246: 2236: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2218: 2206: 2203: 2197: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2168: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2137: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2077: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2002: 2000: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1936: 1932: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1899: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1883:Yay, we have 1874: 1871: 1867: 1862: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1843: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1798: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778:John Opsopaus 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1736: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1709: 1695: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1597: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1583: 1582:edible pantys 1576: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1483: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1437: 1433: 1430: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1407: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1350: 1349: 1344: 1339: 1321: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1223: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1178: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1099: 1098: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1060: 1058: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1001: 996: 995: 994: 993: 990: 978: 975: 971: 970: 969: 968: 965: 956: 953: 949: 948: 947: 944: 940: 935: 931: 927: 926: 925: 924: 921: 913: 906: 903: 898: 897: 896: 895: 889: 885: 880: 874: 870: 863: 855: 852: 847: 846: 845: 844: 841: 837: 833: 821: 818: 814: 810: 806: 805: 804: 802: 799: 795: 791: 787: 773: 770: 766: 765: 764: 763: 760: 757: 752: 751: 750: 738: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722: 721: 720: 717: 714: 710: 709: 708: 707: 704: 696:Gears history 691: 688: 684: 683: 682: 681: 678: 670: 666: 661: 650: 647: 643: 642: 641: 640: 637: 633: 621: 617: 615: 610: 603: 599: 598: 597: 596: 593: 589: 586: 582: 575: 572:Vandalism of 569: 568: 565: 561: 556: 554: 550: 546: 541: 531: 528: 526: 523: 521: 518: 515: 513: 510: 508: 505: 503: 500: 497: 495: 492: 490: 487: 486: 481: 480:Virtue ethics 478: 475: 473: 470: 468: 465: 463: 460: 457: 455: 452: 450: 447: 445: 442: 439: 438: 433: 430: 428: 425: 423: 420: 418: 415: 413: 410: 408: 405: 403: 400: 398: 395: 393: 390: 388: 385: 384: 379: 376: 374: 371: 369: 366: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 344: 341: 339: 336: 334: 331: 330: 328: 325: 323: 312: 307: 306: 305: 304: 301: 297: 280: 277: 273: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 259: 256: 252: 248: 247: 246: 245: 242: 239: 234: 233: 232: 231: 228: 216: 213: 209: 205: 204: 203: 202: 199: 191: 184: 181: 177: 176: 175: 174: 171: 166: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 84: 75: 71: 66: 59: 58: 55: 50: 39: 35: 30: 23: 3935: 3900: 3862: 3852: 3846: 3822: 3767: 3751: 3749: 3733: 3711: 3697: 3685: 3660: 3656: 3654: 3624: 3608: 3563: 3556: 3534: 3531:"Minor" edit 3482: 3467: 3437: 3406: 3370: 3358: 3346: 3336: 3334: 3324: 3321: 3309: 3304: 3287: 3259: 3256: 3241: 3220: 3217: 3214: 3180: 3158: 3145: 3142: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3123: 3120:Some Updates 3110: 3107: 3103: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3085: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 2939:Abbey Series 2900:Abbey Series 2899: 2889: 2885: 2882: 2865: 2858: 2855: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2727:205.155.48.5 2724: 2700:? Regards.-- 2695: 2666: 2660: 2649: 2644: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2596: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2557: 2509:Maurice boaz 2504: 2470: 2429: 2414: 2382: 2352: 2292:formal cause 2288:hylomorphism 2282: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2226: 2217:Ashmedai 119 2214: 2163: 2135: 2134: 2115: 2080: 2063:now defunct 2034: 2019: 2006: 1957: 1953: 1945: 1941: 1928: 1913: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1882: 1866:the category 1856: 1839: 1801: 1744: 1703: 1661: 1600: 1579: 1566: 1562: 1546: 1526: 1481: 1474:RandomCritic 1469: 1459: 1450:RandomCritic 1435: 1423: 1411:RandomCritic 1403: 1356: 1335: 1290: 1240: 1224: 1220: 1191: 1181: 1154:212.1.148.83 1148:— Preceding 1134: 1129: 1103: 1096: 1064:— Preceding 1061: 1054: 1034:On Breathing 1021:On Breathing 986: 961: 938: 933: 917: 873:Good Article 871:article for 866: 829: 783: 748: 699: 685:Thank you. 674: 629: 613: 608: 578: 557: 544: 543:If you have 542: 538: 489:Gregory Dark 467:Grain coffee 320: 296:Slrubenstein 292: 271: 250: 224: 194: 118: 22:old revision 19: 18: 3853:An edit to 3833:--Akhilleus 3810:--Akhilleus 3774:--Akhilleus 3772:once more. 3752:Metaphysics 3505:. Cheers, 2879:Abbey Girls 2628:maintenance 2568:More tools? 2420:attribution 2348:Talk:Ogonek 2318:—Preceding 2296:final cause 2167:The Odyssey 2084:--Akhilleus 2049:--Akhilleus 2023:--Akhilleus 2008:--Akhilleus 1898:Physiologus 1827:Pastordavid 1808:--Akhilleus 1755:--Akhilleus 1741:Opsopausism 1706:Please see 1704:Hi, Wareh, 1666:--Akhilleus 1507:--Akhilleus 1317:Buddhipriya 1273:Buddhipriya 1251:--Akhilleus 1194:--Akhilleus 939:Carthaginem 914:v Carthago 792:The Sunday 502:On the Soul 476:Add Sources 20:This is an 3938:Athang1504 3715:LShecut2nd 3664:Athang1504 3661:Aegyptiaca 3520:applies. 3492:PD-release 3366:verifiable 2883:Hi Wareh, 2856:Hi Wareh, 2324:Botteville 1846:LoveMonkey 1842:Pythagorus 1840:So why is 1836:Pythagorus 1627:User:Wareh 1596:User:Wareh 1594:Images at 1586:LoveMonkey 1553:LoveMonkey 1373:Antandrus 1360:Antandrus 1023:around. -- 588:Protagoras 574:Protagoras 564:SuggestBot 422:Coffee bag 387:Coffee pot 322:SuggestBot 161:{{helpme}} 149:Wikipedian 133:Help pages 64:Athang1504 28:Athang1504 3855:Aphrodite 3681:this edit 3551:Aristotle 3184:synthesis 3014:Abbeybufo 2979:Abbeybufo 2953:Abbeybufo 2905:Abbeybufo 2702:K.C. Tang 2604:hours on 2136:Excellent 2119:Ebionites 2045:Boccaccio 1551:article- 1104:Clitophon 1000:Aristotle 745:Autoblock 726:Kola Boof 677:Ginkgo100 632:geminated 553:ForteTuba 289:AD vs. CE 151:! Please 3362:reliable 3027:contribs 2992:contribs 2966:contribs 2918:contribs 2841:Deus Ex. 2632:building 2332:contribs 2320:unsigned 2173:unsigned 2123:WBardwin 2041:Petrarch 1683:, where 1645:fair use 1623:fair use 1549:demiurge 1523:Ref desk 1162:contribs 1150:unsigned 1128:Look, I 1078:contribs 1066:unsigned 1057:see here 1025:Tikiwont 989:Tikiwont 888:contribs 860:More on 655:Barnstar 636:Macrakis 545:feedback 338:Jagoldai 272:Harper's 251:Harper's 137:Tutorial 74:contribs 38:contribs 3638:SECisek 3626:footer 3621:Nav Box 3553:article 3499:Commons 3394:neutral 3389:WP:NPOV 3371:nothing 3192:C.Logan 3169:Chaipau 3124:Wareh, 3086:Wareh, 2560:Dweller 2505:olisbos 2370:FilipeS 1879:Glossy! 1714:Shirt58 1658:Iesous! 1338:Jastrow 1241:As for 1135:Halcyon 1097:Halcyon 964:Dweller 952:Dweller 934:Cartago 920:Dweller 879:SatyrTN 798:CptKirk 614:gitica) 609:(aeropa 462:Epigram 449:Hippias 440:Cleanup 392:Hexapla 198:Skittle 121:welcome 3905:Haukur 3868:Haukur 3382:, and 3376:WP:SYN 3310:per se 3165:Kirata 3155:Kirata 3108:Best, 3070:Best, 2737:WP:AIV 2593:WP:AIV 2558:Ta! -- 2402:WP:OWN 2356:ogonek 2141:Ugajin 2112:CE/BCE 1904:Geogre 1893:assume 1861:occult 1797:WP:ANI 1563:asking 1531:Dismas 1376:(talk) 1363:(talk) 1343:Λέγετε 1332:Helots 869:Sappho 862:Sappho 794:Missal 713:Seejyb 703:Seejyb 626:Sappho 602:WP:AIV 516:Expand 498:Wikify 3919:Wareh 3891:Wareh 3730:Wareh 3694:Wareh 3605:Wareh 3522:Wareh 3460:Wareh 3456:WP:AN 3452:WP:RS 3430:Wareh 3399:Wareh 3384:WP:RS 3314:Wareh 3280:Wareh 3249:Wareh 3236:οὕτως 3202:Wareh 3188:WP:AN 3004:Wareh 2943:Wareh 2871:kwami 2852:schwi 2844:kwami 2815:Phgao 2794:Wareh 2777:Phgao 2764:Wareh 2745:Wareh 2712:Wareh 2679:Wareh 2618:Wareh 2535:Wareh 2483:Wareh 2475:Wareh 2457:rc/mb 2438:Wareh 2360:Wareh 2300:Wareh 2232:Wareh 2202:Wareh 2151:Wareh 2103:Wareh 2073:Wareh 1970:Wareh 1870:Wareh 1786:Wareh 1732:Wareh 1691:Wareh 1649:Wareh 1634:-talk 1572:Wareh 1486:Wareh 1441:Wareh 1400:Hullo 1389:Wareh 1295:Wareh 1213:Wareh 1139:Wareh 1113:Wareh 1038:Wareh 1004:Wareh 974:Wareh 943:Wareh 902:Wareh 851:Wareh 817:Wareh 769:Wareh 734:Wareh 687:Wareh 665:Wareh 646:Wareh 592:Wareh 520:Spiel 458:Merge 454:Sanka 332:Stubs 311:Wareh 276:Wareh 238:Wareh 212:Wareh 180:Wareh 3942:talk 3909:talk 3872:talk 3837:talk 3827:and 3814:talk 3778:talk 3734:talk 3719:talk 3698:talk 3668:talk 3642:talk 3609:talk 3591:talk 3582:here 3571:talk 3541:talk 3537:Lima 3458:). 3425:WP:V 3380:WP:V 3364:and 3305:none 3221:much 3177:Iaso 3021:talk 2986:talk 2960:talk 2912:talk 2692:Loeb 2612:and 2471:have 2328:talk 2283:some 2278:lead 2265:Dave 2254:Dave 2227:very 2196:link 2181:talk 2088:talk 2071:.) 2053:talk 2043:and 2027:talk 2012:talk 1979:Sigh 1889:name 1812:talk 1759:talk 1670:talk 1543:nous 1511:talk 1482:like 1462:Talk 1436:that 1255:talk 1230:and 1198:talk 1158:talk 1130:like 1074:talk 884:talk 840:Hu12 811:and 634:. -- 300:Talk 103:diff 97:) | 95:diff 83:diff 70:talk 34:talk 3857:by 3471:Tim 3441:Tim 3410:Tim 3349:Tim 3340:Tim 3328:Tim 3312:. 3291:Tim 3265:Tim 3225:Tim 3147:Tim 3136:Tim 3112:Tim 3074:Tim 2933:or 2673:or 2415:not 2101:. 1857:ist 1601:Re 1567:are 1501:or 1424:any 941:. 579:At 298:| 221:OBL 165:Ton 43:at 3944:) 3911:) 3901:is 3874:) 3839:) 3816:) 3780:) 3736:) 3721:) 3700:) 3670:) 3644:) 3634:}} 3628:{{ 3611:) 3593:) 3573:) 3543:) 3495:}} 3489:{{ 3378:, 3359:no 3301:OR 3218:so 3024:• 2989:• 2963:• 2915:• 2667:my 2650:gr 2645:An 2636:do 2581:gr 2576:An 2334:) 2330:• 2090:) 2055:) 2029:) 2014:) 1814:) 1761:) 1753:. 1712:-- 1672:) 1617:, 1613:, 1609:, 1605:, 1513:) 1470:do 1271:. 1257:) 1200:) 1164:) 1160:• 1080:) 1076:• 886:| 803:) 255:DS 227:DS 143:, 139:, 135:, 131:, 127:, 89:| 85:) 72:| 36:| 3940:( 3907:( 3870:( 3835:( 3812:( 3776:( 3732:( 3717:( 3696:( 3666:( 3640:( 3607:( 3589:( 3569:( 3539:( 3030:) 3018:( 2995:) 2983:( 2969:) 2957:( 2921:) 2909:( 2866:ɪ 2861:ᵻ 2614:y 2610:x 2606:p 2602:n 2597:n 2573:— 2326:( 2179:( 2086:( 2051:( 2025:( 2010:( 2003:. 1993:. 1987:. 1900:, 1810:( 1757:( 1668:( 1534:| 1509:( 1345:) 1341:( 1253:( 1196:( 1156:( 1072:( 890:) 882:( 169:e 105:) 101:( 93:( 81:( 76:) 68:( 57:. 40:) 32:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index