User talk:Jim Henry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Wood Beyond the World by William Morris
What is your source for dating this 1892? ISFDB dates 1894, and the London edition is dated 1895.
Regards. Septentrionalis 01:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you look at the history [1], you'll see it was already dated 1892 before I edited the article. Don't assume that the last person who edited an article takes responsibility for the accuracy of everything in it. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough; I just saw you were inserting systematically, and concluded that you had a source that wasn't obvious to me. For all I know, 1892 is provably when Morris actually wrote it, for example. I wanted to make sure before I made a fool of myself; that's all. Septentrionalis 19:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- No unobvious source; I just happen to notice that two books of his that I own weren't mentioned in the article, so I added them without taking time to look up their dates. --Jim Henry | Talk 22:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Voting on wikipedia:conlangs has started
Since you've been part of the discussion I thought I'd let you know. Do spread the word to others who would like to vote on it too. --Kaleissin 14:11:12, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
[edit] Re: natlangs failing corpus size
Many languages still have no written corpus whatsoever (not even a grammatical description in some other language) and in many areas missionaries have become unwanted (I don't know why but I can guess) so no gospel of Mark, furthermore, the missionaries' grasp of the language and general linguistics varies to the point that the gospel of Mark is really for an unintentional conlang... see the history of Tolomako as compared to Sakao. --Kaleissin 16:07:47, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
- Of course, you're right. I wasn't thinking clearly. But I'm still not sure how the lack of written corpus on the part of some natlangs is relevant to this criteria re: conlang verifiability and notability. --Jim Henry | Talk 16:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia
Thank you for your contributions to the Catholic Encyclopedia project. While I'm not Catholic, or not even religious I think incorporation of the information of this public domain source is important and appreciate your efforts. Reflex Reaction 05:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- You'll also be happy to know that I've done a lot of revision on the Bible translations page, as well as adding your Catholic Encyclopedia link to it. --J. J. 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Conlang WikiProject
Hello!
It has recently been brought to my attention that you might be interested in participating in the new WikiProject concerning constructed languages. The project has been created to observe, maintain, organize and improve all articles on Wikipedia relating to constructed languages. If you are interested, please add your name to the "Participants" section, and also feel free to add anything to the project page, the to-do list, or leave a comment on the talk page. Also, please check out the constructed languages portal.
Thank you!
JonMoore 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic Bias in Wikipedia
Hello!. You post derogatory terms toward evangelicals in Bible Society article,but delete PROVED references to persecution against evangelicals. Why?. Wikipedia is a catholic ministry?. Evangelicals hadn`t any human rights?. Do you endorse persecution from evangelicals?.
(above unsigned comment by User talk:Guillen)
- I don't understand what part of my recent edit to Bible society you consider "derogatory terms toward evangelicals". Can you quote the specific phrases or sentences you object to? And I did not delete the references to persecution of evangelicals, but commented them out because (1) they were phrased in inflammatory, non-NPOV terms, and (2) I didn't have time to read the sources and rewrite the text in a more neutral mode. "endured violent persecution by Catholics hordes instigated by Hierarchy" is both inflammatory ("hordes") and a bit vague.
The older text I restored, -- "Also, until the development of ecumenical Bible translations (by joint committees of Catholic and Protestant translators) in recent decades, Catholics were suspicious of Protestant Bible translations, which they saw as biased and inaccurate compared with Church-approved translations by Catholic scholars." -- is not derogatory toward evangelicals, but is (as best as I can phrase it) a NPOV statement about what Catholics have said about some Protestant Bible translations. Jim Henry 15:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You are using wikipedia as an proselytist media for catholicism. I will report you to Jimbo Wales. Your comments are NO neutral,and are very defamotories against evangelicals.
According to you, PROVEN persecution by catholics must to be written only in politically correct -and previously aproved by Catholic League- terms?. And you think to delete the article on Holocaust,because it is no neutral toward nazis?.
You don`t have time for reading sources and documents,but edit and delete articles linked to these same documents?. Tries to be serious,some people writing here are serious and mature people,no lazy teenagers as you.
(above unsigned comment by Guillen)
- I will admit to being lazy, but I haven't any connection with the Catholic League and I unfortunately haven't been a teenager for a while now. I will be happy to consider revising or removing any comments of mine that you consider "defamotories against evangelicals" if you will quote specific comments you consider defamatory, instead of just repeating the charge in the same vague terms.
- I just reverted part of your changes to Bible society -- you seem to keep making the same ungrammatical and (in my opinion) inflammatory edits after User:BigDT reverts them -- but I tried to keep the most useful parts you added. Let me know if the compromise merge is acceptable to you. I kept most or all of your links and references, but moved them to the references and external links section out of the body of the article.
- Probably Talk:Bible society would be a more suitable place to continue this conversation. --Jim Henry 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Andrew Drummond (artist)
Hi nice painter but look at the bottom of the Andrew Drummond (artist) page for how to categorize this is very important. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can you point me to a page that has a concise list of all the stub template names? I can't usually remember the ones for areas I don't often work in. --Jim Henry 12:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plutarch's Influence on Shakespeare
Hello Jim. I read your comments in the Talk page of the Plutarch article where you talked about Plutarch's influence on Shakespeare and give a reference. Would you mind writing a paragraph specifically on how Shakespeare used Plutarch, since that is one of the most famous of of Plutarch's influencees? I'm currently trying to upgrade the Plutarch article. Your help would be much appreciated. BiancaOfHell 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I'm at work and don't have the Michael Grant book handy. But I recently ran across another reference, in the introduction or foreword to an online etext of Plutarch -- one of the Plutarch editions at Project Gutenberg. --Jim Henry 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
