User talk:SamuelTheGhost: Difference between revisions

On Ten Commandments you have been making edits to the effect that Sinai and Horeb are different mountains. This is in complete contrast with generally accepted interpretations, according to which these are two names for the same mountain. I think it would be better if you'd discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments first. There may be a problem with emphasis that we need to address. For one thing: which sources can you provide that Horeb and Sinai are different mountains? JFW | T@lk 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links - re Thomas Paine

Please note I did not revert your links, in the first place, but you ask which policy controls links? It took me a long time to find this out when I needed to know.

To lift from "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)"

"Do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"

"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article... ... Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

"However, duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate ... ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection."

The link is, and should be, in the introductory para, and when the main text gets round to it in line 65 - the others are optional. I note you have reinstated 3 links, all at least 10 lines apart, whereas you originally added 6 - IMHO the balance is now about right

Arjayay (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, very useful. Let's just hope that Van helsing agrees with you.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomson (poet)

I've replied on my talk page. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Anderson (poet)

Your bot 12:41, 17 May 2008 CmdrObot (Talk | contribs) m (3,819 bytes) (sp: mens→men's) (undo) changed "mens divinor" in the Alexander Anderson (poet) article to "men's divinor". But the original was correct. It's Latin. I think it means "a mind more divine", or something like that, although the phrase doesn't appear to be in common use now. Perhaps it should have been italicised. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for that. I try to watch out for Latin phrases like that (most recently I saw one in Catullus 68 for example), but I guess sometimes one must slip through the net. I've now added the Anderson one to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Anderson (poet)

Your bot 12:41, 17 May 2008 CmdrObot (Talk | contribs) m (3,819 bytes) (sp: mens→men's) (undo) changed "mens divinor" in the Alexander Anderson (poet) article to "men's divinor". But the original was correct. It's Latin. I think it means "a mind more divine", or something like that, although the phrase doesn't appear to be in common use now. Perhaps it should have been italicised. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for that. I try to watch out for Latin phrases like that (most recently I saw one in Catullus 68 for example), but I guess sometimes one must slip through the net. I've now added the Anderson one to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Seeing

Thanks for the rewrite, it needed it badly. --Karuna8 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis

It should be established in the introduction which god the article is talking about, without having to click on wikilinks. Ben (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on article talk page SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with Shituf

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [1].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [2].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tompkins (plc)

Just to let you know having seen you moved Tomkins to Tompkins Plc, this is against Wiki naming policy [[3]], edit history for article shows it was moved from Tompkins plc to Tompkins previously, and FTSE 250 Index list also every other firm has no plc in title. So Ive reverted it ( I had thought that companies would be designated by Plc , Ltd etc till I found otherwise looking at edit histories / discussions) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after editing it and leaving message for you, I realised its not as simple, as you say could get a tangle (solved one and then get 2 problems) [[Tompkins plc|Tompkins would fix the list but not the article, so apologies for barging in, I'll let you resolve it then as Wikiepedia has this great habit of dragging you off at a tangent when you see something and try to fix it quickly. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bates method‎

I hope you will find such situations less surprising in the future. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf

Samuel, I've seen sources for both Lisa's and Jerry's passages. Can't we just tag everything so we can fix the page? This tit for tat isn't going to work very well. Because, it's hard to cite something that's invisible.

Also, should we put this into a NPOV category?Tim (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mishpatim, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Meld shal 42? 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I was just notifying you. I didn't write the message, it is written in {{uw-vandalism1}}. Cheers, --Meld shal 42? 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the edit was vandalism, I said it was unconstructive. Please calm down. I apologize for making a rude comment. But what was the intention of the edit? --Meld shal 42? 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry! i had a bug with my computer that messed this up. i apologize, and thanks for my tolerating that. Man, that was a huge mistake! Thanks, --Meld shal 42? 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peake's commentary on the Bible

Still missing essentials to move out of "stub" category are:

infobox
picture/cover (original or 1st edition is preferable) for either or both versions presented
external sources or references to the book
lists of contributors might not be helpful, unless they're wikilinked, but it's still ok to put them in.

Just a few thoughts...SkierRMH (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot

Hi. SmackBot just added a reference section and reflist to Bianco (surname). It's harmless, but in this case also pointless. Is there a reason? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the inofbox was broken Rich Farmbrough, 22:21 30 August 2008 (GMT).

Bates method

It wasn't I who introduced that sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"mainstream" is a word to avoid because it indicates that the Bates method might somehow be scientific, which all but the most tried-and-true believers acknowledge it is not. The scientific evidence comes from various Opthamology Texts. For example. "Scientific evidence" is a catch-all term for the facts elucidated by a huge discipline. It's not simply a viewpoint that this is what causes vision loss: evidence-based medicine requires a connection to data and scientific evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The evidence is reported in standard opthamology texts. The persistence of the various forms of ametropia is attributed in all the texts referenced to anatomical, not physiological, conditions. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand what evidence means perfectly well. As far as Wikipedia goes, we need reliable, verifiable sources that are not unduly synthesized by fringe proponents with obvious agendas. Unfortunately, this is not yet to be had at this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry I was tired and distracted by non-Wikipedia things so I got confused about the edit history. I still don't understand why maize has been unilaterally declared to be the primary meaning of corn. It depends entirely on who you are, where you are and what you are hearing or reading. As someone pointed out, a lot of people in this world read the bible, for example, and none of the many occurrences of the word corn in the bible refer to maize. Anyway, I give up. Wikipedia is clearly going to be a US-centric encyclopaedia. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't last long, did it? I suppose I'm addicted. At least to trivial copy editing. I have never been good at adding content anyway, so maybe I should just stay away from that. Thanks for the encouragement anyway! Rachel Pearce (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 :::I'm not sure what you're getting at. The evidence is reported in standard opthamology texts. The persistence of the various forms of ametropia is attributed in all the texts referenced to anatomical, not physiological, conditions. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
+:::::No, I understand what evidence means perfectly well. As far as Wikipedia goes, we need [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources that are not [[WP:UNDUE|unduly]] [[WP:SYNTH|synthesized]] by [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] [[WP:COI|proponents]] with [[WP:ADVERT|obvious]] [[WP:SOAP|agendas]]. Unfortunately, this is not yet to be had at this page. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 == Corn ==