Welcome!
Hello, BibleBill, 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:
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!
Please see Talk:The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe testamente. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Bill, look at Template talk:Did you know, and click on October 16. Drmies ( talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've replied about the {{fact}} tags on the article talk page but I wanted to discuss with you what constitute original research in wikipedia terms. Please don't get me wrong I think that you want to get information over to a wider audience is great. We all have our specialisms and an enthusiasm to widen the availability of this knowledge (we wouldn't be here otherwise) but (and I've learned this the hard way) there are assumptions we have to drop and methods we need to use and standards to meet to get that information over.
The bulk of the text I deleted from the article was this
From the copy available that has been personally inspected, it is consistent with a dating of perhaps at least 20 or more years later and perhaps as late as the early 1700s. The style of the boards on the copy examined favor the later date, however rebinding of older works with newer boards was not unknown at the time and is very frequent in the the restoration of early works at the present time. The use of the letter "u" as "u" instead of "v" probably dates this second printing toward the latter end of the time period. Pagination and sidenotes approximate the first edition with a difference of several words being on page previous in one printing and on the page following in the second printing. Access to a scan of this version from the British Library may be obtained at [http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3248394] All comments made and quotations cited are based on an examination of a physical copy of this second printing.
This is original research because you're stating that it's your observations of the raw material, using your fairly specialist knowledge of 18th century (and earlier) printing and typography and drawing from that some conclusions, which most importantly, lack independant verification. Establishing the differences between the two editions might be trivial to you but not anyone without those skills or opportunities. Please see
Wikipedia:No original research. I can appreciate if you think some of this is galling as for example the differences between the two might be obvious to you and anyone with a bit of common sense could work it out for themselves but that's not how wikipedia wants us to work. And to be fair it's with good reason to avoid hoaxes and/or bullsh*t.
As an aside the second edition of A Playne and godly Exposytion isn't available for inspection via the source given as NLA is subscription use only so most of us can't make the comparisons, so while the catalogue page can be used as a citation for the existence of a second edition and it's misnumbering, it is not a source to see the second edition. See WP:ELNO
Best wishes. NtheP ( talk) 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, perhaps I may have to make a scan of my copy then. As I note the scan of the title page is up there. I replaced the Wikimedia with the full 600 DPI scan, but the page still links to the older page. Give me some time. While retired I "work" full time minding Mr. Market during market hours. Since the scan is only about 90 scans long at 2 pages per scan, I just need some time. I suppose I need to hunt up a reasonable place to store it. Suggestions? BibleBill ( talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
BB, you have me intrigued now. I know Shipley and it's environs pretty well having worked in that area for 13 years and I still go through it at least once a week. Which bits are you named after? NtheP ( talk) 09:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I got my copy of the second edition today. Surprisingly it has a table in the rear of the contents. I may scan it and put it up if I have the time. The title is in replica, but it may be worth a scan for the wording. I doubt it is a replica in the meaning of a photograph or scan of an original.
Welcome!
Hello, BibleBill, 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:
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!
Please see Talk:The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe testamente. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Bill, look at Template talk:Did you know, and click on October 16. Drmies ( talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've replied about the {{fact}} tags on the article talk page but I wanted to discuss with you what constitute original research in wikipedia terms. Please don't get me wrong I think that you want to get information over to a wider audience is great. We all have our specialisms and an enthusiasm to widen the availability of this knowledge (we wouldn't be here otherwise) but (and I've learned this the hard way) there are assumptions we have to drop and methods we need to use and standards to meet to get that information over.
The bulk of the text I deleted from the article was this
From the copy available that has been personally inspected, it is consistent with a dating of perhaps at least 20 or more years later and perhaps as late as the early 1700s. The style of the boards on the copy examined favor the later date, however rebinding of older works with newer boards was not unknown at the time and is very frequent in the the restoration of early works at the present time. The use of the letter "u" as "u" instead of "v" probably dates this second printing toward the latter end of the time period. Pagination and sidenotes approximate the first edition with a difference of several words being on page previous in one printing and on the page following in the second printing. Access to a scan of this version from the British Library may be obtained at [http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3248394] All comments made and quotations cited are based on an examination of a physical copy of this second printing.
This is original research because you're stating that it's your observations of the raw material, using your fairly specialist knowledge of 18th century (and earlier) printing and typography and drawing from that some conclusions, which most importantly, lack independant verification. Establishing the differences between the two editions might be trivial to you but not anyone without those skills or opportunities. Please see
Wikipedia:No original research. I can appreciate if you think some of this is galling as for example the differences between the two might be obvious to you and anyone with a bit of common sense could work it out for themselves but that's not how wikipedia wants us to work. And to be fair it's with good reason to avoid hoaxes and/or bullsh*t.
As an aside the second edition of A Playne and godly Exposytion isn't available for inspection via the source given as NLA is subscription use only so most of us can't make the comparisons, so while the catalogue page can be used as a citation for the existence of a second edition and it's misnumbering, it is not a source to see the second edition. See WP:ELNO
Best wishes. NtheP ( talk) 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, perhaps I may have to make a scan of my copy then. As I note the scan of the title page is up there. I replaced the Wikimedia with the full 600 DPI scan, but the page still links to the older page. Give me some time. While retired I "work" full time minding Mr. Market during market hours. Since the scan is only about 90 scans long at 2 pages per scan, I just need some time. I suppose I need to hunt up a reasonable place to store it. Suggestions? BibleBill ( talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
BB, you have me intrigued now. I know Shipley and it's environs pretty well having worked in that area for 13 years and I still go through it at least once a week. Which bits are you named after? NtheP ( talk) 09:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I got my copy of the second edition today. Surprisingly it has a table in the rear of the contents. I may scan it and put it up if I have the time. The title is in replica, but it may be worth a scan for the wording. I doubt it is a replica in the meaning of a photograph or scan of an original.