User talk:Tediouspedant

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Tediouspedant, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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! Richard New Forest (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags and comments

Hi! I noticed in your edit to Plough that you'd put a query in the text in the form of a superscript comment; you seem to have done this in other articles too. While it's obvious what you intended, the Wikipedia convention is not to put comments in the visible text. What's normally done instead is to place a template tag after a contentious point, and, if a comment is also needed, to do this in hidden text after the tag.

The most common tag used is "citation needed", which may be done in several ways: as {{Citation needed}}, {{CN}} or (usually) {{Fact}}, all appearing as ^{[citation needed]}. Other common tags include {{Full}} (where a citation is incomplete) and {{Clarify me}}, appearing as ^{[full citation needed]} and ^{[clarification needed]}. Like references they all go after punctuation such as the full stop at the end of a sentence. Each of these query tags should be dated with the month and year, like this: {{Fact|November 2009}}. Queried statements standing for a while unreffed can then be deleted or corrected. If you don't date them, a bot will come along later and do it for you ("Smackbot"...). There are loads of other templates for use in various places: in-line, at the head of paras, and at the head of articles – for all sorts of purposes, such as for converting units automatically, proposing mergers and so on, and indeed for the standard welcome I've done above.

If hidden text is needed, it's done using the button with the red cross in it (above the edit box), which produces  around the comment in the wiki markup text, but of course nothing in the article itself. Usually however an edit summary will do, or if the comment is too complex for that, it's often better to start a discussion on the associated talk page. Hidden text can also be used to guard against miscorrections: for example, many people are tempted to change the single link on the legal term "England and Wales" to separate links to the countries: "England and Wales" – a hidden comment explaining the difference can forestall such a mistake.

Good moniker by the way! Richard New Forest (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I wanted to do but did not know how. The Plough entry says the Celts introduced the mouldboard plough into Britain around 4000BC, however Celtic culture only spread to Britain from 600BC onwards. No approximate date or location is given for the original invention of the mouldboard plough. --Tediouspedant (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

...that I have nominated an article you substantially expanded to appear on the Main Page?

Hi there Tediouspedant. I saw your post on User talk:Awadewit and decided to read American Enlightenment. I liked it very much, so I nominated it to appear in the Did you know section on the main page. You can check out the nomination at Template talk:Did you know#American Enlightenment. Please do ask me if you have any questions. Regards, NW (Talk) 03:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support, NW. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't help you, I really only added the banner. I'm sorry. Hekerui (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message - I saw I had a message and thought, uh-oh, I'm in trouble for something, but it was a good message. I don't know what to do about the bias, I was only arguing about one sentence which seemed POV to me, and the lead a bit. Sayerslle (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the Church in Central and South America, except again the arrival of Christendom there spelt disaster for the inhabitants..maybe I'm too biased , I tend to think The Church's history is pretty lousy evrywhere, Africa, Europe, the Americas, Australia..but there is Jesus. As he is in the Gospel of Thomas, not Paul's Jesus. That is something. I think I've got my work cut out on just the Spanish sentence for now. The Conquistador page seemd strange, like it had been translated with difficulty from the spanish or something, but I don't know much about the conquistadors.Sayerslle (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've mimicked the style well because it actually doesn't stand out too much from what goes before. I'd never read that section. Those poor Cathars. This is funny from Clive James - " Montaillou - In the old days the town's population was thinned by the Inquisition. They had called the Church the instrument of the Devil. The Church disabused them of this notion by toasting them over a low flame...".Sayerslle (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ex nihilo

Thanks for the effort! We'll see what happens.EGMichaels (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious -- I'm trying to keep this as balanced between the two as possible. We should be pretty balanced with my previous edit.EGMichaels (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- I think we're both trying to present a NPOV list of options. We need to be careful not to put "may" on the one hand and definite statements on the other. You corrected one mistake I made and I corrected a similar mistake you made on the other side. Between the two of us we've neutered God pretty well.EGMichaels (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious, although your supposition is possible with the consonantal Hebrew, the Masoretic pointing (10th century CE, Hebrew) and the Septuagint (3rd century BCE, Greek) both support creation ex nihilo and not pre-existent matter. Wenham also covers this in his commentary. Whatever the original writer may have had in mind, by at least the 3rd century BCE forwards, ex nihilo ruled the day. Young's translation is definitely in the minority here, near to being fringe. The best we can do is to leave the two possibilities open. There are actually 4 possibilities covered by Wenham, but 3 are just variations of pre-existent matter.EGMichaels (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tedious, I like your suggestion concerning creating two sections for the various info. Hopefully, Pico will agree also. Thanks for trying, Deadtotruth (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely growing on me, man. I really appreciate working with you.EGMichaels (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're hoping I'll agree to something? Nobody has made any proposal to me. Anyway, what I wanted to mention here was the ambiguity of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1...it's not, as you suggested on EGMichaels' talk page, that the Hebrew doesn't make itself clear, but rather that it simply can't - this is something in the nature of Hebrew, this fuzziness about actions complete or continuing. The best discussion I've seen of this is Professor Harry Orlinsky's Note to his translation of the Torah for the New JPS, dating (I think offhand) from 1968. It's both brief and thorough. Anyway, the point is that it's impossible to get a clear translation of this passage which contains both meanings - Hebrew can do it, so can Arabic, but English can't. PiCo (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Track

Thanks for your note. I'm starting to lose track and interest in this article. Pico's wholesale reverts keep wiping out material that I didn't add and he needs to discuss it with the relevant editors (some of which may have already given up). There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with collaborative editing going on. Heck, I could have created about three or four full articles with the time I've wasted trying to get folks to work together. i do appreciate working with you, though. In the midst of warring and lawyering, you've been a good person to collaborate with. I may or may not comment on the talk page for a day or two, but not much longer if nothing changes.EGMichaels (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping out of Wikipedia editing for a bit. It is clearly more of a childish martial art than a genuine form of academic cooperation. --Tediouspedant (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious -- you're probably right, and I'm not far behind you. Have a good rest, and please know that you were a pleasure to edit with.EGMichaels (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I enjoyed working with you too. You even encouraged me to have a go learning Hebrew! --Tediouspedant (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Enlightenment

I have finally gotten around to commenting on the article - I apologize that it took me so long. You can find my comments at Talk:American Enlightenment. Reading the article made me long to read scholarship on 18th-century America again. I must resist that temptation! Awadewit (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

WikiProject Jupiter proposal

Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 04:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]