User talk:Ridiculus mus

Re: your comment at my talk page

You got the wrong guy, all I did was link to C-SPAN in the first paragraph, as I didn't know what it was and there was only one link to it but at the bottom of the page. Here's a link to the diff. Cheers.81.136.205.6 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for excellent work on Codex Escalada, Juan Diego and Our Lady of Guadalupe

		The Original Barnstar
		For diligent and excellent work on Codex Escalada and related articles. Mamalujo (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mamalujo, but I don't know how (i.e. technically, not socially) to respond to your kind vote of confidence in me. Thanks anyway. The responses in Talk for my Codex Escalada re-write could hardly have been fewer than they were, but, for all that, they were quite representative of a broad spectrum of views, and I hope I have satisfied everyone who was interested enough to look at/ contribute in Talk. I shall start posting sections of my re-write of Juan Diego tomorrow (in Talk), using the same method I adopted on Codex Escalada: one brick at a time. I hope you will comment on my re-write as it progresses. I am also trying to establish a more balanced view of the debate on the authorship of the Nican Mopohua (as you may have noticed). Once all these peripheral topics are more balanced, that will be the time to take a serious look at Our Lady of Guadalupe. Thanks (again) for taking the trouble to give me encouragement. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent creation of Tab 1

Thanks for editing Wikipedia. After I saw the page above, I realized that it was likely intended for userspace given the links on your userpage. I have moved it into your userspace where you can find it at User:Ridiculus mus/Tab 1. In the future, when you create new drafts, if you append "User:Ridiculus mus/" to the beginning of the title, it will create it safely inside your userspace. You can also use Help:Userspace draft, which will handily make it for you without any of the fuss. Thanks again! elektrik SHOOS^{(editing from a public terminal)} —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Adding comments to Talk pages

Re the Virgin of Guadalupe, and I guess everywhere - please add new material (new threads) to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. It's just a convention, but it does make things easier to follow if we all have the same ones. (Incidentally, I think you've done a good job on the tech. investigations section). PiCo (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly reminder PiCo, but as I recall the only time I breached the convention was as long ago as Christmas Day last year. I soon realised my mistake and, indeed, apologised for my faux pas on 10 January when responding to a query in OLG "Why were the following sections removed?". If I have recommitted, I apologise, but off-hand I can't recall another instance. I am putting this on your talk page too. Thanks for your commendation, by the way. I have also picked up another faux pas of mine (which nobody pulled me up on) which consists in posting very extensive proposed re-writes in the relative talk page. See, for a brutal example, what I have been posting in Juan Diego talk. I now plan to put them in tabs on my user page (tab 1 is a recent proposal for Francis of Assisi).Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have paid more attention to date-stamps. I'm happy with your reversion of my small edit to the UV thing, since you've evidently done the homework on it - I simply remembered reading that the person who made the UV examination had to do so through a screen. I don't plan to get involved with Juan Diego, Francis of Assissi and the rest - too time-consuming. Happy editing :). PiCo (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hyphens in adjectival centuries

Re: [1], the MOS is clear that compound nouns used as adjectives get hyphenated. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_140#WP:ORDINAL, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_135#Centuries_and_hyphens, and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#Hyphens_in_adjectives_of_dates, for example. But I don't intend to edit war over it or anything; if you feel this article presents a special case, you can use {{notatypo}} tags to avoid future editors correcting this. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the irenic response, Khazar2. Without wishing to be polemical, I have to say that a couple of exchanges on the talk page among a handful of editors doesn't amount to a decision on style. Personally I find it jarring to see "origin in the 16th century" and "16th-century origin" in the same paragraph; and the syntax variation doesn't justify the change, so far as I can see, absent any possibility of confusion as to the meaning. It seems to be an entirely open issue, not only as regards WP:MOS but in the wider English-speaking world. Finally, on your argument, we should write "mid-19th-century" if used as a modifier, but it doesn't appear to be in general use. Best regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul and Hebrews

I note that the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews article several times refers to possible Pauline supporters without naming them. Anyway, David Alan Black wrote two articles on the evidence of Pauline authorship in 1999, but I haven't read them (here and here, behind a paywall), so I'm not certain if he commits himself. Another proponent is Christos Voulgaris, "Hebrews: Paul's fifth epistle from prison" Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44 (1999), pp. 199-206. St Anselm (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black's piece is now a book all of 44pp long [2]. David L. Allen (on p.35 of his 2010 book [3] proposing Luke as the author) suggests that Voulgaris' argument is a mere speculation based on linking Phil.2:19-24, Phlm 22, and Heb.13:23. Although a long way away from being a fringe theory, the argument for Pauline authorship is certainly on the fringes of current NT scholarship. Thanks anyway. Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barrow upon Humber may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

upon-humber.org.uk/sports-leisure-activities/ Sports & Leisure] page of Barton's official website]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Derivation of name "Guadalupe"

In reply to your comments on my talk page:

I did read your first comment and addressed it in the talk page of the article in question.

I then saw that you edited my addition by calling for a greater citation, which seemed reasonable and an example of which I have found and placed in the article.

Concerning your second comment on my talk page - It appears you have strong opinions on the subject and that is cool, perhaps you can add sources and information to the wiki-article on scholars endeavoring to explain away the difficulty.

Have a good one. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Catholic

I saw your post at [4]. At first I was worried but now I see a fellow traveller. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. I am indeed Catholic - "fellow traveller" has an unfortunate connotation, however (someone along just for the ride who does not share the values or principles of the others and is looking for an opportunity to deflect the others from their destination). Say rather that we are journeying together.

Please be assured that I hold the Legionaries and the members of its affiliates in my prayers during this special time, imploring the Holy Spirit to lead all those participating in the General Chapter on the path of purification and renewal. God bless. (I have copied this to your own talk page) Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculus mus/sandbox/Leo X draft

Hi Ridiculus mus-- the article you created at the above article title seemed to be more appropriate for your subpage here based on the title you chose, so I've moved the content there for now. Did you mean to create another userspace page with that name? Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for editing the article on Fray Juan de Torquemada! He deserves full treatment. Amuseclio Amuseclio (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism of Mother Teresa"

Hi. When you have a few moments could you please read the latest section on the talk page for the "Criticism of Mother Teresa" article? I made a note regarding my proposal to delete an entire section of the article, and from reading your past comments on the page I rather suspect you would support me. If I'm right in that assessment, then it would help to have such support expressed. If I'm wrong and you would oppose the proposed change, then I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

Thanks much and best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most valued input. It is most appreciated. I have responded on the talk page.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello! Thanks for the contributions on Mother Teresa! Can I have further contact with you? RoboRakesh (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]