User talk:Leszek Jańczuk/Archive 1

Speedy deletion

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bfigura (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Leszek Jańczuk, 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:

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! Bfigura (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, a few pointers

First of all, I want to commend you on your work related to the New Testament Uncials. I've gone through your new articles and did some general clean up. I'll describe some of what I've done so in the future you may be able to write even better articles from the get go! First of all, the first line of an article should be a complete sentence (source). Next, the end section have a general order, normally "See also" then "Notes" then "References" then "Further reading" then "External links" (source). I have changed your "Further reading" section to "References" because these books contain all the information in the article, and can be used for verification purposes. Finally, short and one sentence paragraphs should be avoided, so I combined some of your single sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs (source). Other than these style issues, I have no more constructive criticism. I'm glad you've taken the time to put together these articles, and I hope your hard work continues! If you need any help, or have questions, I'd be glad to do whatever I can. Good luck!-Andrew c [talk] 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to lectionaries list: because it is inappropriate to have multiple articles on the same topic, I have boldly redirected List of Lectionary Manuscripts to List of New Testament lectionaries, and attempted to merge any content. As for the Munster link, I have changed it so it links directly to the page on lectionaries. Reworking the intro may be a good idea, and I may do it myself if I get a little more free time. -Andrew c [talk] 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks

Thank you Dr Janczuk for helping English Wikipedia.

I hope Andrew's advice is helpful, we have our own ways of doing things. :)

Sharing your knowledge with information and references is the most important thing, though.

People like Andrew and me can "smooth" your work to English Wiki style.

Best regards to you, and for your work serving Polish students of the Bible. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes! I understand you exactly. I also am writing a book at the moment. I also am writing slowly. And I also find writing at Wikipedia helps me feel I am actually "doing something useful", when other writing is slow.
I understand the vital importance of your work on the history of the New Testament. When my own writing is slow, I will think to pray for you and your work, which is so much more important than my own.
Christos anesti Alastair Haines (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Willis Clark Collection

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kenneth Willis Clark Collection, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/codex/clark_history.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncials

Your proposals sounds reasonable. Splitting the table between named/lettered manuscripts and the ones that just have numbers is a good idea because of the empty column problem.-Andrew c [talk] 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinaiticus

Thank you for your kind words, despite what you say, you are much more liguistically accomplished than me.
And you like Bach and Handel. So do I. Of course! :D
Aber du sprichst nicht Deutsch? :(
I think the article means this.
  • Page 1.1 to 1 = 110 to 100 = width is 110%
  • Text 0.91 to 1 = 91 to 100 = width is 91%
  • Reciprocal is swapping height and width = 90° rotation
  • 1.1↑ to 1→ becomes 1↑ to 1.1→
  • Reciprocal of page 1 to 1.1 = 100 to 110 = 100/110 = 91%
  • Reciprocal of text 1 to 0.91 = 100 to 91 = 100/91 = 110%
It is easier to imagine with different numbers.
  • Page 3 to 2 = 150 to 100 = width is 150%
  • Text 2 to 3 = 67 to 100 = width is 67%
  • Reciprocal is swapping height and width = 90° rotation
  • 3↑ to 2→ becomes 2↑ to 3→
  • Reciprocal of page 2 to 3 = 100 to 150 = 100/150 = 67%
  • Reciprocal of text 3 to 2 = 100 to 67 = 100/67 = 150%
So, I think the text is correct, but it is very hard to understand.
A small diagram using the proportions 1.25 to 1 (5:4 = 125:100) might help.
Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to Trinity College, Cambridge

I'd be grateful if references in your article contributions to the manuscripts and other items in the college library collections could include a direct link to the Trinity College, Cambridge article and not to the Trinity College disambiguation page.

--Lang rabbie 10:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Porphiryj Uspienski

A tag has been placed on Porphiryj Uspienski, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ~ akendall 23:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Chris Britt

It is still an orphan. It has only one main space link and that is from a disambiguation page. Dab pages don't count as links for oprhan purposes. You may which to read the criteria at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Orphanage. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Some New Testament uncials were written in Late Antiquity.
You need to be more clear if you want me to "not change any more" and if you want other to understand you in general expand your vocabulary from pronouns to nouns. --Carlaude (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not bother to write messages for me to read if you cannot take the trouble to write in complete or clear sentences.--Carlaude (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

The Geography Barnstar
Thank you so much for taking care of all of the orphaned articles and listing them on List of lakes in Norway. I know it took you a long time and I appreciate it. Kingturtle (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eu:Txantiloi:Geografia izarra

Münster Institute

Machts nichts, mein Freund.

What you have done is good. English translations of names is good. Long names are better translated.

The way to fix things is WP:Speedy deletion (G6 Technical deletions). Explain your article has more information. Nothing will be lost if the other article is deleted. It is WP:Merge (M1 Duplicate). It is better for readers.

It is better doing this in English. People get confused with capital letters when they try to use German. (As you can see for yourself.) It is silly to use German words with English captial letter style.

Your article is the right one for the future. Good work! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans

Hello -- I think you are misunderstanding the criteria for orphans, as you have recently removed orphan tags from dozens of orphans that are still orphans. Please review the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Orphanage#Criteria before removing any more such tags. Thanks you. -- Avocado (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek, let me know which articles are tagged as orphans and I will help you cite them in other articles that can use the information you provide. This is an easy issue to fix. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I've opened a discussion about this at the Administrators Noticeboard. --Avocado (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Codex 2427 is most definitely an orphan. It looks like there are a whole bunch of other orphans on those lists, too. I have to turn my attention to my day job right now, but I hope to look through and tag a whole bunch of those articles later in the day. I'd also like to discuss what we can do about all of the still-orphaned articles you've removed the tags from recently. Shall we split the list and each replace tags on half? Thanks -- Avocado (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, each wiki has its own ways of doing things. I imagine it can be confusing for those people who contribute to multiple languages. I appreciate your willingness to learn our way here. Now let's just get this mess cleaned up.  ;-) -- Avocado (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "duplicate" question

Hi, I moved your question to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), because that's a good place to go to ask questions. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Koridethi

Hello, Leszek. Thanks for your message. I looked into some other sources concerning the codex. The manuscript appears to have traveled all across Georgia, but it has never come anywhere near the Caspian. There is an obvious mistake in that book. The codex was preserved at the Korideti church of the Theotokos (that’s definitely near Batumi) from the 9th century until the 14th when it was taken to the mountains of Svaneti which was a cultural safehouse at that time as most of the Georgian lowlands were subjected to the Mongol and Turkish invasions. It was kept there at the Kala church of St. Cyricus where it was seen by Bartholomeé in the 1850s. Several decades later, the codex was rediscovered by the Georgian bishop Kyrion and brought to Tiflis where it was presented to the German pastor Gustav Beermann. The latter then send it to Caspar René Gregory who translated the text into German and published in Leipzig in 1913. Later, it was brought back to Tbilisi. Hope this helps. Best regards, KoberTalk 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I will try to add some more info to the article when I get a chance. Best regrads, --KoberTalk 18:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Clarify

Please help clarify the article Herzog August Bibliotech for me. I assume it is a library but the wording is not clear. You say "its" and then "his", as tho he is living (which may be the case) but it is quite ambiguous as it stands right now...Thanks--Buster7 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More great work! :)

Thank you for the new articles. I have copyedited both.

I agree, there are many libraries that need articles. Also, New Testament versions need more work.

The good news is we don't need to do all this work before Christmas! Also, as we work, other people may join us, which would be very nice indeed. :)

Thanks again for your outstanding work, brother. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help. Where's the mop bucket?--Buster7 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Testament Church Fathers

I've started a brief outline of a new list of sources at List of New Testament Church Fathers. Cheers friends. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your outstanding work at List of New Testament uncials. It is such an outstandingly helpful internal reference here at Wiki ... and now it is comprehensive! Wow!
It is in my mind to create an "Order of Origen" barnstar to award to you, for outstanding contribution to articles related to the textual history of the Bible. Jerome "stood on the shoulders" of Origen. May many articles stand on your shoulders, and the diligent work you have provided already. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are right, an article on Uncials would be very good. There are many ways to do that.
A very direct way is to start a new article, say New Testament uncials, for example. However, someone may complain that this topic is not "notable" enough. It might make things easier for people if most of an article grew at the List page first. You and I know how important Uncials are, especially in text criticism; but it helps others to see this if there is a lot of reliably sourced information provided when the article is created.
I would recommend you start sections on Classification, History and Text criticism at the List page first. Later we could move most text to a new main article on Uncials. The List could remain as a simple list, saving space at the main article.
The main thing is providing more reliably sourced information for readers. There are many good ways of doing this. Please, just keep writing! :)
P.S. Will you be travelling for work, study or pleasure? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ah yes! I see, very beautiful. It reminds me of the one place in Australia with mountains high enough to provide snow and ski-ing in Winter. That place is beautiful in all seasons of the year.
You are teaching me many things about Uncials that I didn't know, but are very helpful. Enjoy your holiday and I look forward to learning, reading and helping however I can with your work here on Uncials. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirects are very useful when two sigla refer to portions of the same codex. :) It is still useful to have some clear indication visible on the page, though. I'm really loving your work.
By the way, in the mountains, did you sleep in a tent at night, or are there permanent shelters or professional accomodation available? Alastair Haines (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Georgia

Thanks for your attention, Leszek. I'm okay, but I'm afraid this war is not going to end soon. I hope we won't have to resort to guerrilla resistance although many people, including myself, are quite ready for that. Best wishes, --KoberTalk 05:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minuscule 2427

Yes, Minuscule 2427 is 19th century forgery, but it represents the Alexandrian text-type in the best quality (without Byzantine readings). Every manuscript with the Alexandrian text which was written after 4th century has allien readings (usually Byzantine). Minuscule 2427 is classified in official catalogues, official institutions (Institute for New Testament Textual Research). It has I Category of Aland. It is not very important in which century was written manuscript. More important is from which manuscripts was rewritten. Many manuscripts with Alexandrian text-type were corrected by peoples who preffered Byzantince text-type (f.e. P66 Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Regius). Many mansucripts were destroyed (f.e. Codex Coislinianus). Why so many Alexandrian manuscripts are in a fragmentary and very poor condition? (f.e. Minuscule 33, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Freerianus). Only Codex Vaticanus is in good condition, because it was not used very often.

Wikipedia, it is not place for a private opinions. The articles must represent official point of vieuw of experts in every field.

By the way, you distroyed an article by deleting end marks of the table |}.

The Alexandrian text uses grammar from Greek-koine (f.e. οι δε ειπαν), Byzantine text uses grammar from Byzantine-Greek (f.e. οι δε ειπον). This text has not much additions, manuscripts represented this tradition are in great agreement. Unfortunately we cannot say that about manuscript of the Byzantine text-type (a lot of individual readings, a lot of additions). Dean Burgon and Edward Miller were last scholars which supported Byzantine text-type, but they lived in 19th century, and they did not have our knowledge. According to Burgon Textus Receptus must be corrected. Two of his books about reconstruction of Byzantine text-type were published posthoumosly.

One year ago Deutsche Bibelgesselschaft edited The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. They used only one uncial codex in main text, Codex Koridethi, other uncials are cited only in crittical apparatus. Yes, only one uncial, but in Introduction you can read: "Manuscript 038 (Θ) represents a text on the boundary of what might reasonably be considered a manuscript of the Byzantine tradition in John" (Introduction, p. V). This edition based on minuscule 35 from 11th century. Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Basilensis, and other uncials which represent early Byzantine text are cited only in crittical apparatus. Supportes of Byzantine text-type and supportes of Textus Receptus in one point are agreed, they do not like ancient readings. They always think, every early manuscript is corrupted, only late manuscript is good.

Of course Byzantine text-type it is not Textus Receptus. Ortodox Church never used and never will use Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus has about 40 readings (or more) from Codex Bezae (Robert Estienne used Codex Bazae). It has some Ceasarean readings in Gospels (from Minuscule 1). It was influenced by Vulgate. Why do you prefer text in which so much corruptions? So much additions.

I red book of D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible. I know your point of vieuw. 99% of manuscript represent "traditional text". 85% of papyri represent traditional text. Old-Latin manuscripts represented "traditional text". Ireneus, Origen and other church fathers used traditional text. In Codex Sinaiticus 14 000 corrections. Why so much lieses? The Western text-type has nothing common with Textus Receptus (only Byzantine grammar, and some readings, not numerous which were used by Robert Estienne). The Alexandrian text in 85% agrees with Textus Receptus, and always you can find some "traditional" readings in every ancient manuscript. Peoples who read this type of books will never know true. They think, Textus Receptus was always in using, they think Orthodox church uses this text. Who corrected Codex Sinaiticus?

I prefer Alexandrian text-type, because this text use original grammar, and not much corruptions in this text (f.e. itacismus), but I see some errors, and some lacks in this text.

I know you love Holy Scripture. You prefer Textus Receptus because it was used by protestant in 16th century. It belongs to protestant tradition. But I think a protestant must stay with distance to every tradition, even protestant tradition. Be sure I am protestant. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

Apologies Leszek, I should have made it clearer. The reason that 2427 should not be included is not only that it is a 19th century forgery, but also that it is a copy at one remove of Vaticanus (via Cardinal Mai's edition). It has many minor variants from Vaticanus, or course, but these are simply transcription errors in the editing, or printers typos. Hence it is not an independent witness, but simply a repetition of a text that is already noted in the article. Oh, and for information, I have no love at all for the Textus Receptus; and altogether prefer the standard critical text. But I try to keep my personal preferences out of my Wikpeida edits so far as possible. I do much appreciate your very assiduous edits on the various text types - keep up the good work!! TomHennell (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the spear in Matthew 27:49

One of the most interesting additions of the Alexandrian text-type we can find in Gospel of Matthew 27:49: "The other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately water and blood came out" (see: John 19:34). We can find this textual variant in codices: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Regius, and several other witnesses of Alexandrian text-type. Of course it is not authentical. Probably it was added in a result of figthing with Docetism. Every from four textes of the NT is corrupt, but in different way. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is a most interesting variant - as it raises the question of whether a reading that is supported by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and other ancient witnesses ought therefore to be considered as the Alexandrian text. My impression is that many textual critics are nevertheless inclined to deny this - but I suspect this is from a predisposition to favour the Alexandrian text, and hence an unwillingness to admit into it an obviously inauthentic reading. One point I have only recently come across is that this particular reading was the subject of early controversy - such that Severus of Antioch consulted the copy of Matthew's Gospel that had been discovered in the supposed tomb of Barnabas on Cyprus in 478 to find whether it had this reading (it did not). See the point in the article on the Gospel of Barnabas. TomHennell (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Cat Rock Hollow

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cat Rock Hollow, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Rock Hollow. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Thanks

Wikipedia is good with experts like you. Translation is quick but researching to write good articles is beyond my time now. What a great collection of articles on your page; they will keep me busy for a while. Keep on the great work. --Lavivier (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English

I saw your note to Garzo. I can't speak to his time frame, but I'll be tied up for a few days. I'll be happy to help clean up the articles, but it will be Wednesday night at the earliest before I'll be able to help. Best. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- I just looked at your interests and articles. Looks like we have some parallel interests, so I'll be glad to help in other articles. You might want to contact Alastair Haines as well. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uk circumsision law

i have followed you advice and posted on the talk page before making my proposed changes you can find these here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision_and_law

i have also told jakew (the guy who was constantly changing my posts) about my proposal on his talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.100 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if i get no feedback from other editors may i change the article. the specific points of my proposed changes are backed up with sources and the general points which cant be given a specific source and need a good understanding instead (such as the Human rights acts status as UK constitution) are back up by a my recent study of a law degree.

Western non-interpolations

Looks right to me. Western in caps since it desinates an area. Non-interpolations is only a political stance...it doesn't "name" anything. My pleasure is to assist. Any friend of Alastairs is a friend of mine.--Buster7 (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd!

I take an RSS feed of new pages using Opera 8 beta. It has been crashing quite a lot recently and I have traced the cause to your Papyrus articles! This edit seems to have fixed it. Don't feel obliged to do anything just for me! But if others complain ... — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a couple of occasions, I have found that big (more than 1 megabyte) articles have been crashing my RSS feed. Since they were just nonsense text dumps, I deleted them. But I found it an amusing thought that I was having to change Wikipedia for the convenience of my computer! But your case is different! Unless you get complaints from others, please feel free to use whatever characters you want. If they crash my browser, I will live with it. The main thing is that I have identified the source of the crash and can work round it if necessary.
Edit counts. Bigger than 40! In my case the difference is bigger than 5000! It does not correspond even remotely to the count of my deleted edits. It may be due to "database lag". Just don't worry about it. Stick to this one (as above) or this one which can be quickly accessed via the "Interiot" link at the bottom of your contributions page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In praise of a job well done

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
In appreciation of your extraordinary editorial contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do New Page Patrol and I keep coming across the Papyrus articles you are creating. Your work is remarkable and deserves praise. Thank you for your input! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen

Yes, Ecoleetage is obviously correct, you are really an exceptional contributor at Wiki Leszek! Thank you! :)

I will certainly spend the time, which will not be so very much, smoothing the style of your new contribution.

You are not the only one to think about providing a List of New Testament textual variants. Several people have requested this at various pages.

Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament seems to me to be the most sensible starting point for such work.

However, Timothy Erik Clontz has also produced a fine apparatus in English in the Comprehensive New Testament.

You may also be interested in what I did for Wikisource in 1 Corinthians, 2 John and 3 John.

Alastair Haines (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a rather useful web-page, though I expect you know about it already—Laparola.net. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that P110 also omits υμων after τους λογους. Perhaps this is because that would give υμων εξερχομενων υμων, which is a little awkward. Perhaps also there was an error in transmission like this:
  1. τους λογους υμων εξερχομενοι εξω της οικιας [original--per NA27]
  2. τους λογους εξερχομενοι υμων εξω της οικιας [scribal error, υμων and εξερχομενοι swap places--unattested]
  3. τους λογους εξερχομενων υμων εξω της οικιας [scribal correction, εξερχομενοι made to agree with υμων--P110]
Perhaps the second variant (2) above never occurred, the scribe of P110 or its exemplar made a stylistic adjustment from υμων εξερχομενοι εξω to εξερχομενων υμων in a single editorial decision. That seems less likely to me, since υμων is very natural following τους λογους (consider των ποδων υμων at the end of the verse). I think it most likely the first error was "mindless", then the second perfectly natural.
In any case, surely someone has noted that P110 omits υμων after τους λογους (whether or not it has simply moved it and changed its case).
Am I hopelessly unclear? :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind comment. You are very welcome. It is the least I can do to encourage your generous gifts to readers. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is another useful website you might find helpful. More than 1,000 hits per month is a busy page (imo). List of New Testament papyri gets that many hits. We are serving 1,000 interested readers a month--that is more people than most church pastors serve. ;) Wikipedia allows us to give people, not just Christians, access to documents that belong to everyone. I'm sure you feel the significance of this. God bless, Alastair Haines (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Actually, I'm not sure I'm qualified to give out the other award. So this one will have to do instead. I'm not going to let the fact that somebody else just gave it to you put me off, no sir... :-) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it here. We try to keep it nice and homey. :-)

I know you weren't doing work expressly for a barnstar - nobody does. But you do very good work, and I believe in recognizing you for it. Especially because you're an academic, and I've seen a number of academics turn away from the project because of one dispute or another. I believe in supporting and encouraging good work when I see it. Also because the work you do on manuscripts is so valuable; there aren't enough editors working on medieval and ancient history, in my opinion.

In sum, merci and dziękuję. The barnstar only says it in another way. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK NOM

Hi. I've nominated Papyrus 110, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 17, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Uncial 0212, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 19, where you can improve it if you see fit. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZNW — ausgezeichnet! :)

This article was long overdue! Vielen, vielen herzlichen Dank!

The DYK was your work, not mine. You sourced excellent information, and presented it clearly. My work was small.

Your work is inspiring me. Soon I will return to List of theology journals, and will write some manuscript articles too. It will be very enjoyable to do this together. A nice thing is that the articles do not have to be big! :)

I will have a look at your current work too.

Christos anesti ek nekrwn, thanatw thanatos, zoe charisamenos!

Good work, brother! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Papyrus 110

Updated DYK query On 21 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papyrus 110, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, Leszek! Congratulations! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Christianity Barnstar
For the creation of numerous articles related to the Bible, which are backed by reliable references. Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscript template

I'm glad you are using the template and like it! I'm not sure about the "hand" parameter. I think another user added it, but it looks like at least this book uses the term. I'll research this further and see if there is definition. My best guess as of right now is that "hand" refers to the script or handwriting, like Uncial, Half-Uncial, Insular... but maybe not. Also, the color idea is good. I'll play around and see if I can come up with a system. If not, perhaps I can pass it off to the graphics lab. Anyway, thanks for your comment, and keep up the good work. -Andrew c [talk] 01:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources will tell you, but whoever added it, "hand" has standard categories and is paleographically significant. The concept is "do this in your best handwriting" = "book hand" at one end, "documentary hands" in between and personal correspondance at the lowest end. They are classified on a scale and scholars debate shades of grey between them. They influence paleographic dating according to various theories of script development. "Hand" provides an additional "dimension" by which to describe features of writing, so adding precision to dating. There is some overlap with the selection of characters and theories about that too. Hand is actually a less subjective descriptor than assessments of "free" or "strict" transcription of the text-type of the exemplar. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Friend in Need

See: Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration----(3.2...Request to Amend)--Buster7 (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Uncial 0212

Updated DYK query On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uncial 0212, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome back!

Ah yes, Scotland! Many men in Scotland are called Alastair, I found it very confusing when I was there. I found Scottish English hard to understand sometimes too! Very occasionally they might have been speaking Scottish Gaelic.

Thank you for the reference regarding book hands. One type of "hand" is "book hand", which the scholars mentioned believe to have four sub-types, and these themselves to be divided.

Some "hand" options are:

  • book hand or documentary hand,
  • formal hand or informal hand, and
  • glossing hand.

Alphabets are more abstract than people think, scripts are different forms of alphabets, hands are different forms of scripts. Hands are actually what we see, scripts are generalisations of hands and alphabets generalisations of scripts.

I think the easiest way to describe hands is to think of fonts we use on computers, but the analogy is far from perfect. Hands tell us something about the context in which a manuscript was produced, and the purpose for which it was intended.

Interpreting hands is very much at the heart of paleography.

I think you and Andrew might be able to produce a quality short article on the topic without needing much time. I will be somewhat busy for the next six weeks myself, though. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinaiticus

Many thanks for your welcome message. I don't think he stole it. But the story of its burning is difficult to believe; it's more complete than Vaticanus. Do experts agree which is oldest? --Witr (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ehrman, maybe it's just for argument sake. Comma J. being in the margin of some older mss someone may argue that it dates further back? --Witr (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Because Vaticanus text is generally better I assumed Sinaiticus older. Thanks. --Witr (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncials

Hi Leszek, the article on the Schoyen collection is very helpful, thank you. It is extra good because it has led us to discover James. You said just the right thing to him. I hope he joins us more often.

Thanks also for expanding Kurt Aland. But please, the remaining uncials would ideally be your work. You have given Wiki that series. It is kind of you to give me the chance to be your partner in this contribution, but I'm a little (or a lot) busy right now. Also, I do not work as efficiently as you do.

For our next project, I think we should consider expanding treatment of versions and editions of versions. James might be just the man to help us. Also, there has been talk about an article devoted to textual criticism in the area of the New Testament specifically. We should cover the history of this: Jerome did some textual criticism, I believe a particular manuscript was delivered to Martin Luther's trial, then there are the more recent big names.

I don't like politics, but it is inevitable in the areas that people know are most directly relevant to important decisions. With textual criticism of the NT, Bart Ehrman has won an audience among thoughtful people interested, but not believers, in Christianity. You and I (and James) know that some of what he says is quite misleading. We cannot say that at Wiki, and we cannot simply cite sources against Ehrman without letting him speak too. However, I think it is important for Wiki that some documentation of Ehrman's views is provided in a context where editors who understand and can source objections are available. I think James, you and I might be able to do that. We must, of course, be fair to Ehrman. I don't think we'll find that hard. His critics are persuasive enough without us needing to bias things. The only problem, atm, is that there don't appear to be any Wiki editors providing sourced criticisms.

Anyway, the NT text criticism article has many, many other things it needs to say before we even get to Ehrman.

Expanding work on versions and textual criticism seem like good projects to work on next. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, my friend. :) Actually, I would appreciate it if you would keep on asking me to do this. Your work is very good and easy to copyedit. Copyediting for you is a natural way for me to say "thank you" for all your work that benefits readers ... and to stay in touch with a friend. :) I left a thank you and the {{Welcome}} tag at User:Textcrit's page. Now is not the best time for me to start work on New Testament textual criticism, but that should not stop you! ;) It might be best that we wait until say February next year. Then we could work closely together day by day. You can read some sources, I can read others, maybe some others will offer to read and write or just to write. I think we should aim to get NT textual criticism to be a Featured Article, that will take time. I also think we should work on the Lists so that they can be featured also. Generally, I think information is more important than recognition, so I help others to be featured, but don't seek for my work to be featured. But, in the case of NT Textual Criticism, it is such an interesting topic even for non-Christians, that it might be fun to go through all the Wikipedia processes that end up with a Featured Article.
Will you be very busy in the cold of February, or would that be a good time to do most of our work? You could watch the article "flower" as the flowers come out in the European Springtime. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Codex Mosquensis.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Codex Mosquensis.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Calvin Levels

You have new messages Hey, Leszek Jańczuk. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello, and thank you for your feedback on my edit to Biblical manuscripts. I thought it was wrong to assert that anything copied by hand must contain errors, which is what the earlier wording suggested. Thanks again. LovesMacs (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.