User talk:Leszek Jańczuk/Archive 2

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At last!
I have been meaning to put this award together for some time. I make such a mess of my priorities! But, "better late than never", here, at last, is a very small gesture in appreciation of very great work. You deserve far more, but I am confident your real satisfaction lies in knowing that others download the fruits of your labour to their benefit. Warmest regards and thanks, Alastair Haines (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Numerical sorting
Leszek, you seem to have misunderstood the point of using zeros to get the numerical sorting right in categories. Not all of them are going to need zeros in the front, and those that do need a varying number of zeros.

What we need to do is to consider the highest number we are likely to have. Then all of the articles using that numbering scheme should have the same number of digits (including zeros). As far as I can tell, that will be 4 digits for the "Minuscule x" articles. So for Minuscule 2174 it should not be because that gets missorted again, having 6 digits instead of 4 digits.

You could add and similar ones for all the minuscules with four-digit numbers, but if those are the highest numbers we'll have it isn't really necessary to do so, because without a sort key it defaults to the article name, which in this case is already "Minuscule 2174". Hope this is clearer to you now. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus
Congratulations on your hard work - it's now a GA-class article.Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

North Dakota High School Activities Association
Reverting my edit without any explanation is not only frowned upon on WP but also juvenile behavior. The article needs an infobox, of which I supplied, and all of the state champions are non-notable and should be found on the NDHSAA website itself (not to mention nobody maintains updates for the page on the state champions). In the future please be more cautious about end-all reverts. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Duman (band) edits
If you don't agree with my edits on this page, let's talk about it on the discussion page. Deleting edits I worked hard on is extremely rude. I am confused because you seem to be a hard-working, reasonable user.--88.227.200.19 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A something was wrong in the article and and that was the reason for my misleading. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, . This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. ''You have reverted good faith edits by a new editor as "vandalism", which is very WP:BITEy. Please work with new editors to help them, and explain why their edits are problematic/'' ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Siberian Infobox
Why you restored that infobox? Most information it provides is false, not to mention that you removed the map which provided useful information Hellerick (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of them only outdated. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is quite useless here. Hellerick (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is correct in the infobox: English name, the second demonym
 * Some information is correctly borrowed from Russia entity (of course if you exclude Kazakhi lands from Siberia), but hardly has to be mentioned outside of Russia article: calling code, Internet TLD, currency
 * Disputable information: Area and Population (its impossible to provide correct figures here, because nobody knows what are the boundaries of Siberia)
 * All the other informtion is wrong.

The point is most slots can't be filled with correct information. It's like Silesia: who is president of Silesia? What is its currency? Where we are supposed to find its GDP and Human Development Index? What is its flag (note that Polish Silesia and Czech Silesia have dfferent flags)? What is its capital (I hope you won't claim it's Warszawa)?

If you like you can design a special infobox for historic/geographic regions for cases like that, but obviously does not suit them. I'm removing the inappropriate infobox. Hellerick (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Leszek, sorry it took a few days to reply to your message on my talk. I recommend against using obviously wrong information in any infobox (picture some 8 year old kid getting an F on an essay!).  Perhaps a custom infobox that says "Siberia (approximation)"??  All the best!  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I have not assurance (Siberia). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation
Hi Leszek. Please forgive my shameless spamming here, and if ignore me if you wish, but I see from your userpage that you have an amazing grasp of languages. Have you ever considered helping out at Pages needing translation into English? At the moment we are very under-staffed, we are particularly short of users with a decent grasp of non-latin based languages, a lot of what we do is not translating, much of it is trying to determine if a foreign language article is worth keeping, which can be difficult if no-one knows the language. If you ever have a free moment while online, please consider popping in and having a look. Thanks--Jac 16888 Talk 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Codex Boernerianus & other MSS
Dear Leszek,

I'm glad you liked my contribution to the article "Codex Boernerianus". I've been studying ancient MSS for quite a long time, so now it's time to contribute to Wikipedia! I use Wikipedia quite a lot in my research (in different areas), so I feel I should also contribute where I can.

Right now I'm editing "Secret Gospel of Mark" page (still quite a lot of work to do there), as well as "Morton Smith" page (almost done). This "Secret Gospel" story is quite fascinating! :)

Of course I always try to keep my contributions objective, although, personally, I'm sure Morton was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Yes, there's still a lot of work to do in the area of ancient biblical MSS... So I'll try to do my best in the future to contribute.

There are so few of us who care about such things... So the best of luck to you, too, in this fascinating area.

Cordially,

Yuri.

PS. I suppose I should sign my contribution? I'm still not sure how to do this, but I'll try... --Dyuku (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Siberia
''In that case I am not sure. In publications of PWN I found: "SIberia is asiatic part of Russia". The same yoy can find here Britannica''

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you were trying to tell me. If you meant different definitions of Siberia, then you can look at the map in the article, it shows the difference between "Geographic Russian Siberia" and "Historical Siberia (and Siberia according to many non-Russian sources)". Encyclopedia Encarta mentions Magnitogorsk as the most polluted city of Siberia, and Klyuchevskaya Sopka as the highest volcano of Siberia, but for a Russian both statements sound nonsense. Hellerick (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In re: Biblioteca Angelica
Sorry about that. I must have added the attribution tag by mistake. Remove it if you feel it is necessary. -- Eastlaw talk · contribs 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you and God Bless you. I added the Professor to the New Martyr article. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Plwiki
Witam. Zostawiłem Ci na plwiki pytanioprośbę. Zajrzyj proszę. --Piotr967 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vladimir N. Beneshevich

 * Congradz Mr Jańczuk.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter
The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Lesz
Enjoy your time off. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Re: Codex Regius
''There are more manuscript with that name. In the 19th century Minuscule 28 was known as Regius 379 (now it is usually known as Minuscule 28 in the Gregory-Aland numbering). It is also known as'' Colbertinus 4705. Minuscule 29 used names like Regius 89, Colbertinus 6066 and several others.

Codex Vaticanus 2066 has several names (Uncial 046), sometimes it is known - rarely - as Codex Basilianus'' (Basilianus means Regius). A lot of manuscripts have several names, different in books written by scholars, different in popular books. The article Pericopes of Henry II uses only popular names, name used by scholars is even does not mentioned in the article. I have problem with identification this manuscript. There are more articles like this. Manuscripts have several names. Why you did not ask me? Do you want professional wikipedia, or wikipedia based on popular sources? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)''


 * Dear Mr. Jańczuk: I don't know whether the term Codex Regius is used more often to refer to the Icelandic manuscript or the New Testament one. However, having a disambiguation page called Codex Regius (disambig) will not solve any problem. Disambiguation pages are usually created when there are three or more possible uses for a term. In our case, there are exactly two, and each of them references the other in the top line of the page, making it obvious for the reader to skip to the other page if needed. No one is likely to search the term "Codex Regius (disambig)", and changing all the links from "Codex Regius" to "Codex Regius (disambig)" will not make things any clearer or easier for anyone, as it would require all readers to select a link, rather than just some of them.


 * If you have convincing evidence that the New Testament use is far more common than the other, please present your case in the two articles' Talk pages, and we'll rename the latter to Codex Regius (Icelandic manuscript), and leave the former as simply Codex Regius. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. It is always a pleasure dealing with educated, civilized scholars such as yourself. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are kind. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Codex Alexandrinus
Hello, I will add this to my watchlist and work on it when I can/when I am in the mood. Loves Macs  (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the Ernst article
What can I say, never heard of him. This is good though he appears to have been a good man and most definitely worthy of an entry in the encyclopedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

John 7:53-8:11
Well, the source was clear enough, it's just it's not an academic source and so would seem to count as original research. Evercat (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Codex Beratinus (transl.)
For user Aurelius Marcus seems to be offline, my proposition: "Der Codex Beratinus wird von der UNESCO als de:Weltdokumentenerbe (Albanien) geführt." Best regards -- Nepomucena (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Lectionary 38 et alia
Hi Leszek, I'm not an expert here and so I don't know who Gray Birch is: the article needs a reference for that, and you need to be explained what it means that something is examined by Gray Birch. Also, you seem to producing these very useful articles in great numbers--please consider using reference templates, such as I did for this one and one or two others. It greatly helps organization, and aids in standardizing style (italics, bold, etc.). Also, if you have the ISBN handy, that would be great. Keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Leszek, I know, there's no entry for translator, a big drawback. I've listed the translator under 'coauthor', like this: Erroll F. Rhodes (trans.) That's the best the template allows. And there are more problems: I have a hard time referencing a work in an anthology (or an edited collection)--I'm sure you have to cite those often enough also. And I really want a way to include, in the journal template, not just the page numbers of the article, but also of the page cited. Still, with templates is better than without: at some point these templates, no doubt, will become searchable. BTW, that's an enormous amount of work you've done on the uncials etc.--thanks for taking that up. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Adam Tomei
An article that you have been involved in editing, Adam Tomei, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Adam Tomei. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Esasus (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ernst Lohmeyer
Shubinator (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ann Beach
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ann Beach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ann Beach. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Esasus (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Minuscule 225
Hi - you appear to say that Minuscule 225 contains only Matthew, but then you say it contains John. Evercat (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Codex Gigas
Witam. Zastanowiło mnie, co w haśle Codex Gigas oznacza dodane przez ciebie po tytule "51 (gig)". Niefachowcom przydałoby się jakieś wyjaśnienie, np. w przypisie. Ja np. nie wiem, a ktoś kiedyś może to uznać za wandalizm. Pozdrawiam i gratuluję dorobku. Cień (Pisz ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.144.109 (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter
The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar. I always appreciate them very much. What did you mean that you are my "doubter"? Thanks again. LilHelpa (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry "debtor". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh... better! Good for you for speaking so many languages. I wish I had that talent. LilHelpa (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally Incredible

 * Thanks for the invitation. You know which articles are out there better than I do, so if I put something into the wrong article, please feel free to move it!  I'll try to stalk your articles for a while to see if there's any yeoman's work I can do :-). SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello~
I am a student in Seoul National University doing a research project on Wikipedia. I am very impressed about your insight regarding Wikipedia. Reading your page, I see you are truly concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles, and I appreciate your efforts to find reasonable alternatives. I thought your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas could add quite a lot to my project. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor, and this will be of a great meaning. It will not take that long; in fact everything will depend completely upon your will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramram91 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello~
I am a student in Seoul National University doing a research project on Wikipedia. I am very impressed about your insight regarding Wikipedia. Reading your page, I see you are truly concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles, and I appreciate your efforts to find reasonable alternatives. I thought your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas could add quite a lot to my project. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor, and this will be of a great meaning. It will not take that long; in fact everything will depend completely upon your will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramram91 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vindobonensis
Hi,

I've no problem with the re-organization of the disambiguation page; I promoted the section titles to second level and spelled out "NT" as New Testament as NT isn't self-explanatory. Could you define what Codex Vindobonensis ‎actually means in a brief lead? I think it's related to Vienna, but that's as far as I know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Okay, that makes it clear! Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.61.104 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dąb Car
Did I make a mistake? It is also popular name for every higher oak, used also in belarussian literature. The same name has the highest oak of Belarus. Of course the article is not finished and should be expanded. I will think about it. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't have anything to do with the redirect of your article, but it appears that the reason it was redirected to Białowieża Forest is because it was decided that the Tsar Oak which is the main tree described (to which you have added a bit about a different "Tsar Oak") isn't notable enough for an article. That decision was made here almost two years ago.  Further, the comment by someone about the name was that an article on the tree you added shouldn't be named "Dąb Car" because since it's in Belarus (and presumably not in the forest that straddles the border with Poland), it's not called "Dąb Car", only "Царь-дуб" (and should be in English on the English Wikipedia, anyway). Lexicon (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Novum Instrumentum omne
Hi, Leszek! Thanks for correcting the Greek typo on the Spanish translation of the article that I'm working on. On the other hand, when translating I've realised there's a number of typos in the original article, so I was thinking of rereading the English version once I have finished the translation. Thanks a lot, saludos :) --Fernando H (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As promised, I've just made the revision of typos (not many) and also improved a couple of links. There's a sentence in the article that I'm not sure I fully understand, it says: «Particularly objectionable were the annotations (universities of Cambridge and Oxford)». Does that mean that some objections came from those universities? Thanks in advance, and btw thanks for the welcome in my talk page! Greetings, --Fernando H (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lectionary articles
Hello! I have seen a lot of your wonderful Lectionary articles while I am doing New Page Patrol, and I just wanted to commend you for the distinctive contributions you are making to Wikipedia. Cheers! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Herod and Herodias
Lech, thanks for your note.

I really don't have the Greek to comment on whether Sinaiticus should be considered at "mixed" Alexandrian/Caesarean text in the Gospels; and, in any case, I have no clear idea which are the Caesarean readings. Outside the Gospels, I tend to regard Sinaiticus as the mainstream Alexandrian text.

On the much debated issue of Mark 6:22, the Alexandrian reading is clearly της θυγατρος αυτου Ηρωδιαδος, but I am not convinced that this is properly rendered "the (step)daughter of him by Herodias" as Hort proposed; and I note that no current English translation adopts that rendering.

My own conjecture is that A preserves the original reading - της θυγατρος αυτης της Ηρωδιαδος; The Alexandrian archetype in Mark then lost three words by haplography - της ... Ηρωδιαδος; but as this was clearly an error of omission, a conjectural emendation produced the recognised Alexandrian reading - της θυγατρος αυτου Ηρωδιαδος "the daughter of him by Herodias"; i.e. an Alexandrian corrector assumed that the unnamed girl was the daughter of Herod and Herodias, which if you only have the text of Mark to go on, is an entirely feasible conjecture. An alternative correction subsequently assimilated the text in Mark towards that in Matthew, by just reading της θυγατρος της Ηρωδιαδος (and this seems to be the most common rendering adopted by the versions, including most present-day translations).

This reconstruction would not have been acceptable to Hort, as he held that the agreement of א and B (unless clearly a miscopying) must be a "Neutral" text, and hence could not be allowed to incorporate a redactional conjecture (especially one that created a clear error of historical fact).

What do you think? TomHennell (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * this is Metzger on the UBS text:


 * It is very difficult to decide which reading is the least unsatisfactory. According to the reading with αυτου the girl is named Herodias and is described as Herod’s daughter. But in ver. 24 she is Herodias’s daughter, who, according to other sources, was named Salome, a grand-niece of Herod. The reading with αυτης της must mean something like "the daughter of Herodias herself," unless αυτης be taken as the redundant pronoun anticipating a noun (an Aramaism). The reading with της, read by f1 and (presumably) Greek witnesses lying behind several early versions, is the easiest and seems to have arisen from an accidental omission of αυτης.


 * A majority of the Committee decided, somewhat reluctantly, that the reading with αυτου, despite the historical and contextual difficulties, must be adopted on the strength of its external attestation.


 * So the UBS editors suggest that the dancing girl is denoted by Mark (accordng to the Alexandrain text) as being alled "Herodias" (entirely possible if she is Herod's own daughter), and hence distinct from the historical Salome. The version in Alexandrinus is dismissed as clumsy Greek (which it is); but to my mind that would argue in favour of its being the original - on standard text critical principles. If the text της θυγατρος αυτου Ηρωδιαδος were the original, then a (supposed 4th century) Byzantine redactor would surely have tended to assimilate the text to that in Matthew; not create a semi-Aramiac phrase. And then where do the pre-4th century versions get their source text from, since they are not a likely rendering of the Alexandrian?


 * I suspect that if the Textus Receptus defenders had not made so much of a noise about this reading, the UBS committte would have ditched Westcott/Hort on this verse, and quietly re-asserted the text as in Alexandrinus. TomHennell (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Textual criticism
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus
Bonjour,

Please, read this.

Budelberger (   ) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Codex Romanus
Hi. I can see that you have changed the redirection in "Codex Romanus" from "Codex Vaticanus" into "Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209". Could you please consider reverting this change? "Codex Romanus" is a generic term, in the real world it cannot refer to just one codex. It is used by editors alternatively to "Codex Vaticanus" (this is why the redir was to this one), f.e. the Catullus codex I added to the list, Codex Vaticanus Ottobonianus Latinus 1829 is among Catullus' editors commonly known as "Codex Romanus", or "R".

It is understandable that people who are editing a particular book, refer in such terms to their manuscripts, but from the point of view of the public, one cannot claim such generic terms as "Vaticanus" or "Romanus" (or "Parisinus" or "Oxoniensis" or "Laurentianus" or "Ambrosianus" etc. for that matter) as being specific enough to mean a particular MS. Mamurra (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Leszek; I have reverted this particular redirection to its original form. It will be for editors concerned with Catullus and Vergil (and Tertullian, Herodotus, etc) to sort out the disambiguation of "Codex Romanus",  But the term is no longer - to my knowledge - used of B(03). TomHennell (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus GA1
Do you have any estimate of when I should continue reviewing the article for GA status? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Leszek Jańczuk, I'm trying to understand:
 * "It lacks the Apocalypse. In the 19th century some scholars suggested that possibly Vaticanus 2066 (contains only text of Apocalypse), can have text close to the Vaticanus 1209. It was written in the 5th century, itas text representative of the Alexandrian text-type, both codeces are written in three columns.[30]"
 * The first bit is- Codex Vaticanus does not contain the Apocalypse.
 * The next bit is- In the 19th century some scholars suggested that possibly Vaticanus 2066 (it contains only the text of the Apocalypse) ..... Not sure about this .....
 * The last bit is presumably saying - Vaticanus 2066 was written in the 5th century, and it's text is representative of the Alexandrian text-type. Both codeces are written in three columns.[30]. Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WH theory
This diagrammen was constracted on the basis of the Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. IV (1903). It looks like Westcott-Hort theory but perhaps not in every detail. The interrelationship between Peshitta and Coptic versions... Origen and Western text... A something strange. I think it is not stricte WH point of view. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this Leszek; and I agree with your reservations against using this diagram as a representation of the W-H theory - more perhaps an attempt to modify W-H to take into account criticisms (by Scrivener for example), and to accommodate earlier theories which tended to regqard the Syriac as a source for other versions. Oddest is the characterisation of C as Antiochene, where Hort (I think) regarded C as primarily 'Alexandrian', since Hort's 'Alexandrian' is clearly distinguished from 'Neutral' B.  Moreover C (which is 5th century) cannot be a source for the Peshitta (late 4th century).  In general, I cannot see that the diagram has a current value. TomHennell (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

German Wikipedia Codex Sangallensis REDIRECT
Hi Leszek, as I am planning to write an article about the Evangelium Longum (i.e. Cod. Sang. 53) I noticed the REDIRECT from Codex Sangallensis to Codex Sangallensis 48. I edited the linking articles to let them point directly to the intended article because there is more than one Codex in the San Gallian collection of Codices. I am working on a substitution for the REDIRECT with a list of all the german Codex Sangallensis articles. I hope this is OK with you. Since I am not visiting the english Wikipedia on a regular basis I would ask you to answer on my german discussion page w:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:DiethartK instead.

--DiethartK (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch windmills
Hello Leszek, I noticed that you have created some articles on the windmills in the Zaanse Schans. You may be interested to know that there is a WikiProject covering windmills - WP:MILLS. If you wish to join simply add your name to the list of members. There is a List of windmills in Poland which needs some attention to the location of various mills. Can you help pin down the exact locations of thos marked with "disambiguation needed"? Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Polish windmills
Many thanks for your work on the list. I've removed the entries from the Windmill World site which were not traceable. Hopefully the list is a lot more accurate now, although it probably could be further expanded. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, just checked the link you posted. Just to make sure I get it correct, "Miejscowość" is the location, "holender murowany" is a tower mill, "koźlak" is a post mill, "holender drewniany" is a smock mill. I've no idea what "nieznany" means though. "Stan" is condition? Ruina I understand but not the others. It looks like the list can be split by Vovoidship, with the eight that have more than 20 mills being split off into separate lists over time. Great detective work in finding that list! Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've copied the list to my sandbox and re-arranged the current entries by Voivodeship. There are three that need sorting still. I think Czermin is probably Czerwin but will await confirmation on that. I'm not sure if Trzęsówka-Kłodzin is the same as Trzęsówka, or is there a village called Kłodzin near Trzęsówka? No entry for Sub-Carpathian Voivodeship though. If they can't be pinned down they should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of New Testament Latin manuscripts
Hello, Leszek,

I see that you've been doing great work in NT Latin manuscripts. Very impressive!

I've re-edited the intro to List of New Testament Latin manuscripts because some things there seemed unclear. I hope the changes are fine with you. All the best, --Dyuku (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Manuscritos do Novo Testamento e a pt.wikipedia
Como já viste, estou a criar os artigos dos papiros do NT (como esboços de 1 ou 2 linhas, mas criando). E depois desses, sobram ainda os uncias, os lecionários e os minúsculos. Ou seja, eu ainda tenho muito trabalho pela frente. E estava a pensar: Já que os criaste aqui, não queres me ajudar a criar por lá? Boas contribuições, Béria Lima Msg 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

PS.: Escrevi em Português assumindo que, por contribuir na pt.wikipedia, você consegue ler neste idioma.

Book of Revelations
I see you are a respectable poster on this site. I respect that you love this site so much but why should your liberal theology be able to delete my conservative theology in which I have sources to? You aren't supposed to be bias and I don't go around deleting your liberal stuff. So let both sides be heard. Thank you my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 10:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Caesarean text-type
Thanks for your note. I just looked over the article and like what you've been doing with it. I agree that there is something at least hypothetically there, but not enough to do much with. I had to ignore it as a text-form when I did my New Testament, although I did have a number of the individual readings included -- but my New Testament was more for advanced laymen and pastors than Greek scholars.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

 * Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.


 * WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.


 * Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."


 * However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film) and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film). Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Re: DYK hook
Hi there, I noted some problems with your dyk hook at DYK for Peter P. Dubrovsky. The article needs copy editing (for English usage). Also, I am not clear about the relationship of the manuscripts to the French Revolution. Can you clarify? Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)