A fact from Mammotrectus super Bibliam appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 April 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The list of ways in which the title was misspelled seems to lead off with the correct spelling. PurpleChez ( talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mammotrectus super Bibliam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The article goes out of its way to state several times that the book was criticised, but never makes clear what the core points of criticism of the various critics actually were. At present the article reads as if we should be impressed by the names mentioned and just take on faith that this book is no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.20.136 ( talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
A fact from Mammotrectus super Bibliam appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 April 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The list of ways in which the title was misspelled seems to lead off with the correct spelling. PurpleChez ( talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mammotrectus super Bibliam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The article goes out of its way to state several times that the book was criticised, but never makes clear what the core points of criticism of the various critics actually were. At present the article reads as if we should be impressed by the names mentioned and just take on faith that this book is no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.20.136 ( talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)