User talk:Kelandon

Welcome from intrigueBlue
Hello,, 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
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian - I know I do. Remember that the encyclopedia is only as good as its members make it, and that your opinion and contributions are fully as important as anyone else's. Be bold!

If you need help, feel free to check out Questions, ask on my talk page, or place  on this page (your talk page) and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. To make discussion easier, it is important that you remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking the signature button on the toolbar. This will automatically fill in your username and the date.

Welcome once again, and good luck with your future edits. -- INTRIGUE B LUE (talk|contribs) 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Brevis in Longo
Many thanks for this helpful article. I've taken the liberty of correcting a minor point of grammar, with which I hope you agree. John Wheater 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
Hi, Please clarify these 2 points for me:

1. Do you have a good reference that says that the image on the shroud can actually be seen with the naked eye? If so please provide a link for it.

2. Do you have a reference that says that "anyone" had seen the image and written about it prior to Secondo Pia? Again a link wil be appreciated.

Else we should change the wording to reflect the fact that people were "unaware" that an image existed prior to Pia.

Please respond here, if you like so we can have a clear text flow. Thanks History2007 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little new to discussion on talk pages, so I'm not sure that my formatting here is quite right, but I am pretty sure that my facts are. The image on the Shroud was repeatedly imitated in paint prior to Pia. Ian Wilson's The Blood and the Shroud mentions "lithograph artists and paint engravers" (p. 114 ff.) who sketched the image and then sold it to local buyers before the camera was invented. He also cites Pierre d'Arcis, who is the source of the usual date of the 1350's as the beginning of the reliable history of the Shroud, since he says that the image on the Shroud was painted around then, thirty-some years before his time. So the answer to #2 is yes, and therefore the answer to #1 must be yes, too. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that you're interested in the Shroud but didn't know this. Kelandon (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries about formatting my friend. Let us think of the facts. I am aware of the replica paintings, in fact two of them were ordered by King Umberto I just as Pia was starting to take his photo, but were never used - as I mentioned on Pia's page. But I am not sure if the paintings were of the shroud as a whole or the face image, or if the face image could really be seen as such and that it looked like a man. As in http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/mccrone.html "To the unaided eye, the Shroud image is yellow to orange in most body-image areas, but red in blood-image areas. Microscopically, the image consists of yellow fibers and red particles; the red particles are more abundant in the red blood images, and the yellow fibers are the major colored substance in the body image." I am not sure if the relica paintings were of the more visible color areas, or the face. Is there any photo of the sketches that were made? The fact that he says it was painted can not be used as an inference that it was a similar face image. In fact, I have not even seen photos of the two replicas that Umberto I and Baron Manno authorized. Do you have any references not based on footnotes and inference that say "the face" was also visible as well as the other markings please? They will be appreciated. I also wonder how the other sketch artists got permission to get near the shroud, for the Savoys had it locked up in the casket and Baron Manno had to pull many strings for his permission. Thanks History2007 (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inset pictures in Wilson's book show paintings labeled, "The Shroud frontal image (a) alongside typical artists' copies from the 16th and 17th centuries (b-d)". All three copies are plainly of the whole front of the body, and each clearly portrays the image of a man, including the face. These dates (1516, c. 1550, and the 17th century) are in the naked-eye era. Also, Pierre d'Arcis is quoted in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988184-2,00.html) as saying that the Shroud shows the "twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front... thus impressed together with the wounds which he bore." He, even back in the fourteenth century, clearly was aware of the whole doubled image. In other words, Pia gasped not because there was an image of a man — he knew that — but because the image was so much more vivid in the black-and-white negative than he was expecting.

By the way, Wilson's book briefly discusses the problems that the replica painters had getting good looks at the real Shroud. You're quite right that they weren't given free and easy access. They often produced their replicas during official showings and borrowed liberally in advance from previous replicas (p. 114-115), which suggests that they may not always have been looking straight at the image when they drew, but somebody at some point must have been able to make out the face in them in order to produce an original replica with an image that others later copied. Kelandon (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are probably right, in that face is just barely visible as such and then shows up so clearly in the negative. I have to buy that book and look at those other photos as well. Have you seen those online? If so, it would be nice to add a link to them on the Shroud page. Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bridge (prosody)


The article Bridge (prosody) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Copied to Wiktionary, not sourced for years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LauraHale (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)