User talk:Dampinograaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



An article may have the best intent in the world and be valuable BUT if it is sited on a .com web page it is presumed to be spam. As I was waiting for the Origen article to come up, the site displayed an ad for orange juice and Best Buy. This is not acceptable to Wikipedia. We are not a .com/spam site, nor do we wish to direct our readers to one. This should be covered in WP:EL. What you could do is identify unique content in the .com article and try to locate references for it and put it into the article, maybe. Student7 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ludlul bēl nēmeqi[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi--Nowa (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Keep up the good work. Dampinograaf (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nova Vulgata[edit]

You wrote on my talk page:

Unfortunately, the new Latin translation from the original bible texts has been called Nova Vulgata. The name seems to imply a link with the previous editions of the Vulgate, as you erroneously assume. In fact, Nova Vulgata simply means a new common translation; it serves as reference text for Roman Catholics in worship and teaching.
Dampinograaf (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is a link between the Nova Vulgata and the earlier editions of the Vulgate. This link is adequately described in the praenotanda of the work itself, here. Were there not such a close link between them, a work such as Novum Testamentum Latine would hardly be possible; it consists of the text of the Nova Vulgata with a comprehensive list of variations from eleven previous editions shown in the small critical apparatus at the bottom of each page. The apparatus could hardly be so small if the Nova Vulgata were an entirely new translation. It is, in fact, an emendation throughout most of the work. Those parts that constitute a replacement are mentioned explicitly in the article. Rwflammang (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I' was not happy with that edit either, and will rethink it, and re-edit. Just need to work out what's where in the article, and put it all together--Meieimatai 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Forgive me, but that was not a good pagemove. I've brought it to AfD because I don't know how to fix it without deleting the current Origen. That's not even a proper disambiguation per our Manual of Style, but a simpler, better solution, would have been to insert the {{otheruses}} template, which would have created a redlink to Origen (disambiguation). Origin, the church father, is by leaps and bounds the person people are going to be looking for when they type "Origen" into our search field.

However, that's almost exclusively a collection of commercial external links, it's not really a disambiguation page at all. Ford MF (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry I didn't catch that it had been a proposal on the talkpage for a while. I didn't even know those proposal templates existed. I looked on the body of the talkpage and didn't see any discussion, and assumed it had been undiscussed. Nevertheless, it's still a bad move. And honestly that "modern uses" section should have been deleted, not moved to its own page. Ford MF (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of continuing to change links from Origen to Origen of Alexandria, why don't you wait until the AfD plays out, so your edits won't have to be reverted in the event the article gets moved back to Origen? Ford MF (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Origen is clearly a case for Wikipedia:Primary topic disambiguation, i.e. Origen points to Origen of Alexandria, with any disambiguation (if necessary) at Origen (disambiguation). This is because there's only one Origen of any note. In the case of Augustine there are two notable men with that name: Augustine of Hippo and Augustine of Canterbury, although the former is sufficiently more notable that there is an arguable case for primary topic disambiguation there too. Gdr 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the kind words over at the Paul article. No clue what I did to earn it, but it quite made my day. --01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the encouragement! I definitely intend to continue editing it, or actually rewriting it a little at a time. And yes, the bibliography definitely needs updating! Lamorak (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token d8ea3745998bf7ec5e47d6fe400bc8ff[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Historicity of the Acts of the Apostles[edit]

While I applaud the idea of having a page on the subject of the value of Acts as historical source, or as a historical book, I am troubled by the title given. It looks ultimately misleading to me.

Indeed, historicity has a clear meaning; see historicity or the entry in the Wiktionary.

Might something like Historical Information in the Book of Acts not be more adequate?

Keep up the good work!

--Dampinograaf (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it misleading ; the historicity of Acts is part of the broader issue of the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of Jesus. To the extent that the book is part of the Bible, it fits in nicely with related questions of biblical historicity. ADM (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that the articles you refer to are different, as reflected in their title. While one is about the historicity of Jesus (a person), the other one —which you refer to as historicity of the Bible— is in fact correctly named the Bible and history. It doesn't make sense to talk about the historicity of the Bible, any more than about the historicity of Acts: their existence has never been in doubt.

--Dampinograaf (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicity is not about existence per se, but about historical accuracy, especially when discussing the essence of history. The notion comes from Hegel in his writings about the ability to define truth as it is. Likewise, just because something already exists doesn't mean that it has a pre-determined historical value. On the contrary, historicity is usually assessed by critical philology, as in the ability to survive a critical analysis on the part of scholars. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brussels naming conventions[edit]

I try to put template:Brusselsname on the talk page of pages where I use that as the rationale in an edit. It links to the actual conventions. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 11:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Song of Songs[edit]

Thank you so much for your encouragement. I'll return to that article from time to time in future.

I note you've worked a little on Origen. He's an amazing thinker. We might not agree with all he says, but boy he had passion! Alastair Haines (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]