User talk:Delta x

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

WikiWelcome Lei

Hello Delta x, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~. Aloha, please accept the WikiWelcome Lei as a welcoming gift for your arrival to Wikipedia.

Once again, welcome!

¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the reply. Have a nice day!. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther and Philip of Hesse's Bigamy

In the absolute sense, maybe, maybe not. Academic American Encyclopedia, Collier's Encyclopedia, Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana and Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia do not mention it at all. The Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia gives it a paragraph. Then again, we have a lot of detail in our article that is no other encyclopedia. So, if you wish, go ahead and add something. It also would be great if you could stick around and help us improve the entire article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle

Delta x, I do not know if you got a chance to watch the entire documentary. You are can find it on YouTube here: The Great Global Warming Swindle [1] Best wishes.RonCram 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ron. As it happened, I didn't get a chance (ironically) to see it when it first aired. However, I did discovered it on YouTube shortly thereafter (what a surprise huh?). But many thanks anyway for the heads-up. Might even watch it again just as a review. Delta x 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowball Earth - Potential Good Article?

Hi,

I'm currently working, with others, on the article Snowball Earth, with the aim of restoring it to Good Article status.
I noticed that you made a few contributions to the article, and there's quite a bit that could be done to make a large improvement, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in helping out? I've knocked together a 'wish-list' of what the article could to with which you can view on the article talk page; if you're keen to address any of those points, or make any other improvements, it would be much appreciated! I'll be working through them myself as much as my busy schedule allows. Hope to see you there!

Thanks,

Verisimilus T 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luther handwriting?

Hi, you apparently uploaded this image:

claiming it contained a facsimile of handwriting by Martin Luther. Are you certain? Reasons why I doubt it:

  1. It's obviously a 19th-century book; early 19th century didn't have the technology to create photographic facsimiles, so how did they make this?
  2. the page before the title page of a book would not be a typical place for a facsimile plate to be placed, especially not without a caption etc.
  3. the handwriting looks much more modern (compare Luther's authentic signature at autograph
  4. my Latin is rusty, but the text really looks more like a modern catholic anti-Luther polemic if I'm not quite mistaken
  5. the text looks as if it was handwritten directly on that page, to fit the page

So, isn't this just a contemporary 19th century handwritten essay written into the 19th-century book? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Future Perfect,
Thanks for letting me know of your concern regarding the authenticity of this document. I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner, but I’ve been very busy.
Now too the question at hand, namely, is this in fact an image of Luther’s handwriting?
I have very carefully considering the various points you mentioned, and I must say that, as it now stands, I am nowhere near as certain as I once was regarding the authenticity of this handwriting.
Indeed, it may not to be Luther's handwriting after all. And if that is the case, the image should or course, be deleted. But first, let me try to respond, as well as I can, to the specific concerns you raised.
1. “It's obviously a 19th-century book; early 19th century didn't have the technology to create photographic facsimiles, so how did they make this?”
I wasn’t using the word facsimile in the sense of a “photographic facsimile.” I was merely using it in the in the sense of a “copy.” Many books, and especially 19th-century books, generally refer to engravings and various types of reproductions as “facsimiles” or, “fac-similes.”
Here are some examples:
a) The “facsimile” image of Luther in his Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, volume 1, p. xxix, edited by De Wette, 1825.
b) This quote from a book published in 1841:
“This fac-simile has been most carefully and accurately copied, under the direction of the Rev. Dr. Bandinel, the keeper of that noble repository of literature, to whom the author now offers his acknowledgments for his king assistance on this occasion. The passage represented in our engraving contains the first three verses of the first chapter of the prophet Ezekiel, of which the following is a literal English version.” P. 225 http://books.google.com/books?id=bv14XGpat24C&pg=PA14&dq=%22fac+simile%22&as_brr=1#PPA225,M1
c) The use of the term “fac-simile” from an early 19th century book, “The Monthly Review,” published in 1831 http://books.google.com/books?id=qG0zqsW3EYwC&pg=PA255&dq=%22fac+simile%22
d) And from an even earlier work of 1818: http://books.google.com/books?id=ThECAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1127&dq=%22fac+simile%22+handwriting&as_brr=1
And here are some examples of 19-century handwriting “fac-similes.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=b5YLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA339&dq=%22fac+simile%22+handwriting&as_brr=1 p. 339
http://books.google.com/books?id=POsAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA576&dq=%22fac+simile%22+handwriting&as_brr=1#PPA174,M1 p. 174
http://books.google.com/books?id=BdkRAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA44&dq=%22fac+simile%22+handwriting&as_brr=1#PRA1-PA44-IA1,M1 between pp. 44 and 45.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfgvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA851&dq=%22fac+simile%22+handwriting&as_brr=1 p. 851
2. “The page before the title page of a book would not be a typical place for a facsimile plate to be placed, especially not without a caption etc.
Volume one or Luther's letters has the handwriting on the inside book cover (front and back), and also on the adjacent title page. I’ve seen other books with similar arrangements, but, as luck would have it, the one book that I happened to own in which there was a perfect example of this (on American history, I believe), I just recently donated to a charitable organization. However, I’ll look around to see if I can fine some other examples.
3. “The handwriting looks much more modern (compare Luther's authentic signature at autograph.”
Hard to say about this; you may very well be right though.
4. “My Latin is rusty, but the text really looks more like a modern catholic anti-Luther polemic if I'm not quite mistaken.”
Know anyone who can translate? My Latin is very, very limited. But it might be very interesting to know just what whoever did write this (if not Luther) was saying!
5. “The text looks as if it was handwritten directly on that page, to fit the page.”
Indeed it does! I hadn’t noticed this before. However, I had an opportunity to inspect the actual book itself, and the handwriting very much appears to be printed rather than simply written “directly on” the pages. Also, there is also some curvature of the page itself into the binding, which may account for the distortion.
For reference, here are some pictures I took of the six volume set of Luther's letters edited by De Wette.
Since the image page is now protected, you or some other administrator will have to decide, based on the information above, whether or not to delete the image. As for me, since I unfortunately cannot now say with absolute certainty whether this is in fact Luther’s handwriting, I would simply suggest that the image be deleted. Delta x 07:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: I've nominated the image for deletion. Delta x 05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corpus Catholicorum (Series)

Hi, thanks for your message. In order to fix links, it's easiest to go to the redirect page and click on "What links here" in the toolbox, which will show you all the pages that link to that page, including via redirects. I would add that firstly, Corpus Catholicorum (Series) should be moved to Corpus Catholicorum (series), as in Star Wars (video game). Secondly, Corpus Catholicorum should be the page with the most commonly used defenition of the title - something of which I'm entirely unsure. For more information you should see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

Finally, when Edwin Hubble refers to a "favoured location" in a negative sense, he means that if there is one specific point in the Universe from which all matter is receding, then the Universe is not homogeneous ie. the same everywhere. This would be at odds with special relativity, which says that all inertial frames are equivalent.

Hope that helps, Jeodesic (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, there seems to be a little confusion here. When you move a page, the page you moved it from will automatically be a redirect, as it is obviously close enough to the correct title that some people might link to it by mistake, such as Star wars, which is incorrectly capitalised, but redirects to Star Wars - it's not very user-friendly to have common misspellings or miscapitalisations link the reader to a non-existent page. When I talk about fixing links, I mean changing links on article pages so that they don't point to a redirect. This is because, due to limitations in the MediaWiki software, redirects only work at a single depth, as it were - if you link to a redirect that points to another redirect, you'll end up on the second redirect page rather than the page you should be on. For that reason, it's generally a good idea to change links to point at an article rather than a redirect.
To answer your final question, redirects are generally only deleted if they're redirecting to non-existent pages, or are for bizarre or unlikely spelling mistakes so Richard Feynmann exists, but Richard Feinnmann doesn't.
Hope that answers everything, Jeodesic (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)