User talk:WillqTaylor

Welcome
 Hello, WillqTaylor, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

WillqTaylor, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

lugii
Thanks for the message. No doubt the article can be improved but there were large deletions, and some additions which seem to be OR. In any case I think it should now be discussed on the article talk page? I think I have a copy of the relevant Wolfram book somewhere, which may be helpful, but for example deleting all reference to Schütte seems impractical unless anyone knows of a specific criticism of that source and/or a better secondary source concerning the difficult subject of how to interpret Ptolemy. It is not that unusual for those types of subjects to have an unfortunate lack of easily accessible good sources. Problem: not sure how much time I will have personally, but if anyone is spending time on it I will try to pitch in. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)