User talk:BibleBill

Welcome!

Hello, BibleBill, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your new article

Please see Talk:The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe testamente. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Bill, look at Template talk:Did you know, and click on October 16. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and 'A playne and godly Exposytion'

Hi, I've replied about the {{fact}} tags on the article talk page but I wanted to discuss with you what constitute original research in wikipedia terms. Please don't get me wrong I think that you want to get information over to a wider audience is great. We all have our specialisms and an enthusiasm to widen the availability of this knowledge (we wouldn't be here otherwise) but (and I've learned this the hard way) there are assumptions we have to drop and methods we need to use and standards to meet to get that information over.

The bulk of the text I deleted from the article was this

From the copy available that has been personally inspected, it is consistent with a dating of perhaps at least 20 or more years later and perhaps as late as the early 1700s. The style of the boards on the copy examined favor the later date, however rebinding of older works with newer boards was not unknown at the time and is very frequent in the the restoration of early works at the present time. The use of the letter "u" as "u" instead of "v" probably dates this second printing toward the latter end of the time period. Pagination and sidenotes approximate the first edition with a difference of several words being on page previous in one printing and on the page following in the second printing. Access to a scan of this version from the British Library may be obtained at [http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3248394] All comments made and quotations cited are based on an examination of a physical copy of this second printing.

This is original research because you're stating that it's your observations of the raw material, using your fairly specialist knowledge of 18th century (and earlier) printing and typography and drawing from that some conclusions, which most importantly, lack independant verification. Establishing the differences between the two editions might be trivial to you but not anyone without those skills or opportunities. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. I can appreciate if you think some of this is galling as for example the differences between the two might be obvious to you and anyone with a bit of common sense could work it out for themselves but that's not how wikipedia wants us to work. And to be fair it's with good reason to avoid hoaxes and/or bullsh*t.

As an aside the second edition of A Playne and godly Exposytion isn't available for inspection via the source given as NLA is subscription use only so most of us can't make the comparisons, so while the catalogue page can be used as a citation for the existence of a second edition and it's misnumbering, it is not a source to see the second edition. See WP:ELNO

Best wishes. NtheP (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Edition

Sigh, perhaps I may have to make a scan of my copy then. As I note the scan of the title page is up there. I replaced the Wikimedia with the full 600 DPI scan, but the page still links to the older page. Give me some time. While retired I "work" full time minding Mr. Market during market hours. Since the scan is only about 90 scans long at 2 pages per scan, I just need some time. I suppose I need to hunt up a reasonable place to store it. Suggestions? BibleBill (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I take no offense at any comments. Being a bit of a newbie to wiki I sometimes transgress on things that I am unaware of. I appreciate you taking the time to make sure I understand the ground rules.

If you scan it all place it on wikisource. From there you can link to it in any articles on wikipedia. NtheP (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shipley

BB, you have me intrigued now. I know Shipley and it's environs pretty well having worked in that area for 13 years and I still go through it at least once a week. Which bits are you named after? NtheP (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ledsham next to Ledston

I couldn't think where they were at first then remembered. They're near Castleford about 25 miles from Shipley with a major city (Leeds) in between. In UK terms quite a way away :-) NtheP (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Not much of a town. It actually has a pub, a school and a church. More than I can say for the one in Cheshire which had a half dozen people and a pile of cows in it when I visited it in the 70s. It was named after a chap called Led who was a Saxon who came over around 300 AD. I will bore you with random woolly history. Stateside now since my grandparents came over in the late 1800s.

DYK for The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe testamente

On October 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe testamente, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! What do you think? Here's fifteen minutes of fame--enjoy them! Drmies (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I give a crap. I just thought it would be interesting to expand on this part of Erasmus for the general use of the community. I am also going to fix the Geneva Bible Entry on the last version of the KJV that had the Geneva sidenotes. It was done in the early 1800s. I suppose I will do folks a service to have a second edition of the Exposition on line for viewing, but it will take a while. Fame is not something I strive for. Knowledge on the other hand is. Again thank you for your invaluable contributions to making this page acceptable to Wiki. BibleBill (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh come one, you were at MIT, of course you like fame! This knowledge will last until the next vandal comes along--and after they left, we restore it again. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that the manuscript cannot be burned; it remains in the article history. That Geneva bible thing sounds interesting (I'm reading Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries, on my breaks), good luck with it. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Edition

I got my copy of the second edition today. Surprisingly it has a table in the rear of the contents. I may scan it and put it up if I have the time. The title is in replica, but it may be worth a scan for the wording. I doubt it is a replica in the meaning of a photograph or scan of an original.

The Concordance in the second edition is quite long. I will also have to see how much damage the scanning does to the book before I promise to put the full concordance up. BibleBill (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]