User talk:132.212.244.67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See: User:132.212.244.67

Please do not change Pennsylvania German to Pennsylvania Dutch in the article; even if we keep it under that title, after the explanation that "German" is correct, we should use that form throughout the article; cf. Occam's Razor, also see my comment on Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch. --Eloquence 22:19 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the article and put it originally under Pennsylvania German and tried to fight to keep it there. I didn't personally write the paragraph with the word Pennsylvania Dutch however I was under the impression that because it was in italics, it was ok, also because it was talking about popular culture and popular culture uses only "Pennsylvania Dutch" so I figured that paragraph was partially an explanation of the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" specifically. But I didn't write that particular paragraph so I will let your change stay.

P.Stoltzfus

Your recent addition allegedly in the Summary section of the wiki article on the Book of Mormom is problematic. Why so random? Why not add allegedly or some such to other paragraphs in the Summary of the book? How do you propose to apply allegedly to the wiki article on summary contents of the Bible or other sacred texts? B

You are right in the sense that it could be a never ending editing process to write "allegedly" or something similar everywhere where it ought to be. However, I am not opposed to questioning those other books either. If someone wrote that the Book of Daniel for example was written when the book itself claims to have been written I would write "allegedly" there too since there is ample reason to believe it was written long after the events described in it occured as well. You are right in the sense that it could be a never ending editing process.

Wikipedia is not about "ample reason". Wiki is not supposed to take a position or presume one "reason" is more or less ample than another. Obviously, what you think is an ample reason may be considerably less so than what some one else thinks. For that matter to some there are "ample reasons" against the entire Bible and all its books, not just Daniel: i.e. Moses and Jesus allegedly existed; the bible is allegedly historical; etc. or conversely the bible is allegedly a compilation of myths; etc. The reader is to decide for him/herself whether the reasons are good or bad, etc. I never said anything about a never ending editing process. My point is why pick on one small part of the BoM? why not other parts of the BoM? why not the Bible? why not the Koran? B

[edit] Invitation

I fraternally invite you to add your name, to join the new section Wikipedians/Quebec. Thanks!
Je vous invite fraternellement à ajouter votre nom, à vous joindre à la nouvelle section Wikipedians/Quebec. Merci!
--Liberlogos 04:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada#Québec page as living in or being associated with Québec. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Quebec for instructions.--Rmky87 03:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/3/2/User_talk%7E132.212.244.67.html"