User talk:Iwalters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Iwalters, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Re: Inconsistencies in the Bible

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article. Thanks...KHM03 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible Pink Unicorn

Welcome to Wikipedia. I removed your long comment from the Invisible Pink Unicorn talk page, and I wanted to let you know why. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article generally. There are many other places on the Internet where you could post your views on theism and its alternatives. If you have thoughts on how to improve that article, that would be something that could go on that talk page. Regards, Jonathunder 04:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on what talk pages may be used for. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-12t15:44z

[edit] Judas

Hi, could you please cite the sources for your edits to this article. They seem highly biased, and don't appear to be based on academic considerations.

For example you removed the text "The text is probably a translation from Greek" with the edit summary "how do you know its translated from greek? where is the greek version? When it turns up then add this to the article".

This appears to demonstrate absolutely no awareness of how textual criticism works. It is possible to tell the original language of large works due to ideosyncracies of the language. For example, poetry that rhymes tends not to rhyme once it has been translated. If we suspect it was written in one language originally, and it rhymes in that language, but not in the languages it currently exists in, then this increases the plausibility that it was originally in that language.

We have no copies of the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic, except those written many centuries later in modern times, so we could say "Jesus spoke Greek and didn't know a word of Aramaic", and that Aramaic Primacy was a completely ridiculous argument that would get yo thrown out of your degree for trying to advance. If we followed your argument. But we don't.

Please take care to provide citations for your edits to this and related articles in future. You appear to be completely ignoring both academic articles on the subject matter, and instead presenting original research (which is not permitted in wikipedia). Clinkophonist 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes question

Hi there. The question you asked on footnotes has been answered on the help page: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#footnotes. - Akamad 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error message

Regarding your message at the newcomers page, just click refresh and it should work —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Premyslid

Thank you for your contributions to that and other articles. Please don't forget to put new articles into relevant categories and tag as stubs in relevant cases.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Constance Holland

An editor has nominated the article Constance Holland for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constance Holland. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Constance Holland during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about your sources for Royal family etc.

I see you are planning to do a number of these. The online peerage you used is not totally reliable, as it has been abridged. Watch out for "+" signs--they indicate additional children. The articles are likely to be deleted unless you add historical context, making clear why the person is important. Shouldn't be hard. I wouldn't be surprised if someone looked at related articles. I helped out a bit here, but I can't keep up with all this is addition to my regular stuff (I mainly watch out for academics). Hint: many of the people you are listed will be mentioned in one of Shakespeare's historical plays. Certainly the male characters will. Find and add the citations, it will really help. The women in particular will be a problem, "wife of" does not count for much in WP. DGG 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)