lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Polonia

message: In terra Polonica locuti sunt Polonica atque linguis minoribus -- Casubica, Ruthenica, Germanica.  Casubica est lingua Lechitica quam Polonicam.  Necessarius est incipere sectionem "Lingua Officia" in tabula.

message: Dicam  potius "Polonia natio" quam " civitas"

message: I agree that wikipedia is NOT the right place for advertising. --UV 23:28, 24 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial weblinks 

message: Quid significat "GUS" in adnotationibus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GUS

message: Abbreviationem illam lege pro Centrale Officio Statisticarum, quod dicitur polonice "Główny Urząd Statystyczny".
thread_title:  De abbreviatione GUS 

message: Abbreviationem illam lege pro Centrale Officio Statisticarum, quod dicitur polonice "Główny Urząd Statystyczny". Dietrich
thread_title:  De abbreviatione GUS
Disputatio:Robertus Marley

message: In my opinion it would be better to move this to Robertus Marley. Anyone disagree? --Iustinus 23:17 mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

message: The original author wrote Reggae Iamaicani. A recent editor has changed this to Reggae Iamaicanae. Now, I have to say I have no idea how to best Latinize the word "Reggae", but two possibilities immediately suggest themselves:
#reggae indecl. n. > reggae Iamaicani
#reggae -arum f.pl. > reggarum Iamaicanarum
Now, reggae Iamaicanae implies regga -ae f., which is also a possibility, but probably not the best one. There are also some silly options like reggaë -es f. or -is n. I have a feeling that at the Lexington Conventiculum someone would suggest musica reggistica. --Iustinus 05:22 mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Elsewhere, Myces has suggested treating Reggae as an adjective, reggaeus -a -um, which is an excellent suggestion. That's probably how we should do it.
Anyway, Myces, you also decided the adjective refers back to Marley himself. In the context this makes sense, since we usually give someone's nationality in the opening sentence. I guess I just made the mistake of assuming the original author had deliberately put it in the genitive. --Iustinus 18:55 mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to know of a form called reggae -ae f. Why not this form? Aren't there some latin words which have the termination "-ae" in the nominative as well as in the genitive? Otherwise, I would take the form reggae indecl. n., which I already took when I wrote the article. -- CdaMVvWgS 13:23 mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :I can't think of any nouns in -ae -ae... there are of course -a -ae and -ae -arum. --Iustinus 09:24 mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iamaicani vs. Iamaicanae
Disputatio:Basilea

message: Basilea est pagina de urbe eadem.
Basilea pluribus in fontibus invenitur quam Basilia (vide in Google), et dioecesis quoque Basileensis (nec Basiliensis) vocatur.

message: Again, urbs should have preference?--Ioshus (disp) 01:02, 13 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  urbs 

message: I agree with both anonymous and Ioshus above, and propose a move to "Basilea" (then Basilia could move to Basilea (discretiva), etc.). "Basilea" is the first spelling given by Lewis & Short as well as Hofmann, who was from Basel. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:06, 17 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I never saw this discussion before, but I see "Basilea" more often than "Basilia". I'm glad that others feel the same (including Hofmann!) I agree with the proposed moves. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 17 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Great! It looks like it will take an admin to get past all the existing redirects. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:13, 21 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Factum est! I just hope I've found and moved all pages that needed to be moved! --Aylin (disputatio) 22:17, 21 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Gratias tibi ago! It looks good to me; the only thing that remains is for us to develop the articles. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:16, 21 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda ad "Basilea"?
Disputatio:Theoria chordarum

message: * +4 (melior) (from history) 18:34, 2 Martii 2007 Alex1011 (--Rolandus 12:07, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC))
thread_title: LATINITAS

message: Fortasse quia sum gallicus, puto meliorem esse verbum "chorda" quam "filus" pro "string" in "string theory".
Incepi Lexicon Theoriae Chordarum, sed non certus sum de omnibus verbis ; si quis aliae proponat...
--S. Ray
replies: text: Mihi placet lexicum tuum (sed nonne melius est suffixum -ize vel "-izo" vel "-isso" sed non "-iso" redere?)

text: Quod attinet ad nomen illius theoriae, non solum proposita sunt verba "fila" et "chordae" sed etiam (a Beluoso  ) "resticulae" et (a Stephano Berard) vox Graecanica "nemata."

text: Nescio quis optime proposuerit, sed nota bene verbum Anglicum quod est string non crassum funum sed tenuissimum filum indicare: vix est verbum Universi secretorum dignum, ita enim est mos hodiernus Physicistarum omnium fundimenta nominare. --Iustinus 17:48 mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ego sum brasilianus et "string theory" lusitane dicitur "teoria de cordas", ergo censeo meliorem esse 
"theoria chordarum" vocare. Violinus habet chordam, neque filum. Filus est id quod mulieres ad suendum utuntur.
Saepe legimus in theoria chordarum litteratura quod sicut una violini chorda diversos sonos emittere potest ita una sola chorda multis modis vibrare potest, tunc multas particulas minimas imitare potest. Nomen "theoria filorum" mutandum est. Quid de hac sentis, benevole lector?
--Carolus Mafrius, 27 Aprilis 2005
Solum ad notam: Etiam "theoria aciarum" inveniri potest, sed nescio quid "acia" dicere vult. --Alex1011 19:00, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: string

message: Estne hypothetica necesse tenere in sententia prima?  Post theoriam, redundantia est meo animo.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:15, 21 Martii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hypothetica 

message: Sunt 34 mistakes on this aticle. Usor:81.202.207.56 hoc scripsit. --UV 23:23, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quaesumus, eos corrige, vel monstra.--Ioshus (disp) 21:05, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  imagomundi
Disputatio:Computator

message: Certo scitisne computator esse correctum? Ego etiam lexi in glossario Latino nominum electronicorum hanc rem nominatam esse computatrum. Si inveniam hoc glossarium, nexum faciam. Fortasse vobis/nobis conveniet!--Caesarion 20:17 mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heus, excuses. Male hanc rem lexi. Nunc video stare nomina computatrum ac computatorium.--Caesarion 20:19 mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

text: Notatum est in articuli primae sententias: Computator (-oris, m.) ab homine fit. Machina autem computans dicitur computatrum vel computatorium. id est computatorem esse hominem et alia vocabula machinam.

text: Sed recte mones hanc esse pessima contitutio, et rem mutari debere. --Iustinus 20:21 mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Mea culpa, sum 68.98.170.212. Placentne mutationes meae? --Adamas 04:45 sep 2, 2005 (UTC)

message: :en:Calculator and :de:Taschenrechner seem to be the wrong interwiki links. Maybe it should be :de:Programmierer or even something like :de:Rechenmeister? --Roland (disp.) 10:58, 29 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: : Recte censes; nam computator Theodisce "Berechner" vel "Rechenmeister" significat. "Taschenrechner" Latine potius "ratiocinatrum" vocatur. usor:Bohmhammel, 18.29, 3 Kal. Nov. 2006
thread_title:  en:Calculator
Disputatio:Ioanna Arcensis

message: I moved this page from Ioanna a Arc: Google seems to suggest the standard Latin form is Joanna de Arc. In any case, a is usually avoided before vowels in favor of ab (likewise for e and ex).  --Iustinus 15:27 mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

message: Nisi fallor, auctores classicae Latinitatis voce necnon  pro simplici coniunctione et numquam utuntur, neque ad enumerationem finiendam. Cicero non rem singulam, sed sententiam novum verbum temporale praebentem hoc vocabulo solet adiungere, quae sententia aliquid ponderis attribuat (necnon enim litotes est). Exemplo sit: "sequitur ergo, ut ipsa (sc. sidera) sua sponte [...] moveantur. Nec vero Aristoteles non laudandus [...] censuit [...]." (Cic. De nat. deor. 2.43s.) (De more suo tmesin nec [...] non facit, ut loco citato videtur.)--Bavarese (disputatio) 15:24, 12 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  de "et" et de "nec non"
Disputatio:Rhenania Septentrionalis et Vestfalia

message: Quia usus nominis "Laender" stupidus est, verbum "provincia" reparavi.
* credo superlativum adiectivum  "veterrima" vice "vetissima" esse.

message: Contrary to what the text says, the map shows that this state is NOT the largest state of Germany. IacobusAmor 15:44, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NRW is the largest state in Germany - not from the area, but from the population! Martinvoll 01:39, 23 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Maxima res publica Germaniae" 

message: I don't buy this name that is attested nowhere else. It is also illogical: The old German name was simply "Gladbach" (attested as Gladbacum in Latin, see here).  In 1888, in order to distinguish it from Bergisch-Gladbach, "München" was added, but not in reference to the city of Munich (München, Monacum) but simply because there were monks living in the area (The later shift to "Mönchengladbach" thus is a spelling correction because "monk" is "Mönch"). Thus the noun needs to be "Gladbacum" and "Mönchen-" is a qualifier, for which an adjective or a genitive can be considered in Latin.  Having "Monacum" as a noun that is qualified by the adjective "Gladbacense" makes no sense. So, it could e.g. be Gladbacum Monachorum or something like this, but not the way it is now. Sigur (disputatio) 16:34, 28 Decembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to Gladbacum Monachorum for the time being. Any further insights remain welcome. Sigur (disputatio) 20:54, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monacum-Gladbacense"
Disputatio:Caius Valerius Catullus

message: Nomen, quod sit "Caius", non exstat. Hoc nomen est "Gaius"; quod breuiter "C." scribitur, quod sic ueteres, qui G litteram nondum nouerant, scribere soliti sunt. Ineptum tamen est ex hac re colligere nomen "Cai" exstitisse, atque sic scribere et ut "Kaius" pronuntiare. Hoc est falsissimum.
replies: text: Equidem tempore Romano hoc nomen sine dubio "Gaius" audiebat, sed habesne pro certo totum nomen numquam littera c exscriptum esse? --Iustinus 01:28 mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :The spelling I've always seen is Gaius. Allen & Greenough expand the abbreviation C. as Gaius, not Caius.

message: What's a bearded middle-aged man doing as an illustration of a beardless poet who died at the age of thirty? Illustrations that add nothing but misinformation detract, rather than add. IacobusAmor 14:40, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just trusted Commons and the other Wikipedias, but then I found this, so maybe we should add an information that there exists no picture of Catullus. If that's true. --Roland (disp.) 14:55, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think we do have some authentic busts from antiquity, but a caption for the this kind of illustration might want to take this form: "X, as imagined by the Lithuanian painter Y, circa 1843-48. Several details, including the beard, the haircut, and the headband, were not in fashion during X's lifetime. No authentic image of X is known to have survived, or even to have been created." That would be a agreeably academic way of saying THIS PICTURE IS A LIE. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 15:45, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bearded illustration
Disputatio:Via Egnatia

message: Mihi videtur Illyricum scribere oportere.

message: In contextu sic scriptum est: Hoc iter, traiectum a Brundisio recapitulans. Recapitulans? Quid hoc significat?
replies: text: Bene quaeris. Egomet ipse ita scripsi (anno 2010) ... nescio cur. Nuper rescripsi: an melius? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 5 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Pro captu meo etiam plus correxi, verbum illud recapitulandi, quod in vocabulariis non invenio, plane exturbavi. Spero equidem idem nunc ferme legi, quod legendum tibi fuerit in animo.
replies: text: ::Iterum gratias ago. "Recapitulo" apud Lewis & Short repperi, sed hoc parvo momento est!

text: ::In citatione orthographiam fontis restitui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 5 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Scripturam "fontium" ego non puto esse sine mente amplectendam. Exempli gratia, nonne "m.p." significat "milia passuum" aut "num." "numero"? Nonne illorum scriptor notis sua scripsit ideo tantum, ut parceret sive membranae pretiosae sive lapidi laborioso? Nonne nobis, ex contrario, qui computatris cotidie utamur ad scribendum reque electronica per hercle facili, nonne, inquam, datum est nobis illa plene scribi sine eo quidem negotio, quo olim gravatus erat et librarius et lapidarius? Cur ergo, oro te, "m. p." debet tua sententia scribi potius quam "milia passuum", cum utrumque sit idem, hoc tamen illo multo hercle planius?
replies: text: ::::Citationes signis "" rubricatas melius est ad pedem litterarum reddere. Verba seu litterae ad lectoris intellectum suppletae intra [] addi possunt.

text: ::::Erravi (confiteor) quia hanc citationem intra circumiacentem textum involvi. Auctor mihi carissimus, Athenaeus Naucratita, eandem rem facere solet, editoribus et lectoribus aegre ferentibus. Corrigo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 6 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Sed non respondisti, cur tibi tantopere liberet scribere "m. p." pro eo quod est "milia passuum" et "num." pro eo quod est "numero". Nec dedisti rationem, cur usurparetur compendium, cum plenis verbis uti esset multo expeditius. Num non est tibi certum, quid compendia haec significent? Praeterea, in fontis contextu iter non "incipit", sed describi mihi potius videtur.
replies: text: ::::::Verbis citationes ... melius est ad pedem litterarum reddere respondi. Utilius nobis ambobus erit, hac disputatione relicta, rursus opus encyclopaedicum suscipere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:16, 11 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recapitulans
Disputatio:Analysis mathematica

message: I removed "and their properties" from the definition since that seemed superfluous.  I also emphasised the role of abstract function spaces.
thread_title: Definition

message: "In analysi quantitas vel functio vocatur limes, si ea evenit cum una ex functionis variabilibus fini cuidam sensim appropinquat." The idea I was looking to say is : "In analysis a quantity or function is called a limit, if it comes about when one of of the function's variables slowly approaches a certain end or final point."--Rafaelgarcia 02:22, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. --Neander 02:35, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Limes
Disputatio:Rodericus Didaci

message: "milles"? - "miles"?
replies: text:  ;) --Iustinus 02:31 apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

message: * Historia de validissimo equite Roderico Campidoctore
* Pagina ubi legere potes a Pere Abate manuscriptum quo carmen de Roderico Didaci filio servatur 
* Scripta varia, (Cantar de mio Cid, Mocedades de Rodrigo, Crónica del famoso cavallero Cid Ruy Díez Campeador)--Chris1981 14:54, 2 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nexus rupti
Disputatio:Alea (res lusoria)

message: Fortasse Cavernae Draconesque est meliora. --Cimmerianus 06:46 apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

message: In pagina tua, quae 'Alea' inscripta est, nonnulla vitia inesse videntur:
I) In talis puncta vel numeri inscripta non erant, si bene scio. Romani forma lateris cognoscebant, utrum canis an senio ... iactus esset; nam latera talorum plana, ut scripsisti, non erant.
II) Romani non talos, sed tesseras e metallo aut ebore ... fabricabant; tali autem ossa quaedam ovium vel caprarum sunt.
III) Aleisne viginti laterum Romani re vera utebantur? Nonne illae hodierni temporis aleae sunt? Unde scis de Romanorum aleis viginti laterum?
IV) Nonne melius est photographias talorum et tessarum in pagina monstrare? Mihi et tessera Romana (ut spero!) et exempla talorum sunt, quos photographare possum.
Mihi in animo non est te vituperare, sed fortasse paginam de alea emendare. 
Quid de hac re sentis?
--84.179.249.136 00:06 oct 8, 2005 (UTC)
vidi photographas talorum romanorum cum numeris. vidi photographas aleas vigitilateras romanas. cum deinde ad bibliotecam eam citationes quaesam. volo ut possim addere photographas alearum romanarum sed de illis rebus non didici. --Cimmerianus 01:25, 28 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certe, tali mei non inscripti sunt. Sinister Petrus 04:57, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alea 

message: Modo legi Romanos non solum talis osseis usos esse, ut ego antea scripsi, sed etiam talos aliis materiis imitando formavisse, ut tu recte scripsisti. Confiteor me erravisse. Etiam latera talorum numeros habuisse cogitari potest.
--84.179.207.166 08:18 oct 8, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  alea 

message: Secundum http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=alea alea est lusus cum tesseris vel talis factus, cum talus tessera vel cubus sint res ipsae. "Alea iacta est" sit exceptio vel tropus. --Alex1011 23:18, 9 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita quidem. Itaque paginam discretivam feci. Alea enim praecipue ludendi modum periculosum significat, quamquam aetate imperatoria interdum etiam corpus lusorium significabat. Neander 23:33, 9 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  alea contra tesseram et talum
Disputatio:Publius Vergilius Maro

message: Quid, auctor articuli huius, hac cum sententia dicere (aut melius: scribere) voluisti: "Noves res publicae curvabant operes eius, praecipue Aeneis, dicta magnum opus esse"?

message: Andrew, the entire passage seems to have been pasted in from a website; is it right to alter quotations as you did? IacobusAmor 21:30, 26 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Altering quotations

message: 26. Septembris 2007 priores navationes ad Vitam Vergilii pertinentes obstructae sunt ab usore ignoto 82.55.127.195, qui e Vicifonte vitam a Suetonio exaratam huc inepte attulit. Meá quidem sententiá hoc additamentum abrogari oportet, ut restituatur status proximus, in quo iam antea multi oleum et operam perdiderunt. --Neander 14:46, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte mones. Iacobus noster eandem rem observavit (vide supra) ... sed, quia recensionem suam ut "minorem" rubricavit, nec ego nec alii eo tempore viderunt. Textum Suetonianum nunc removebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusus Vicifontis 

message: ** http://www.koxkollum.nl/vergilius/vergilius.htm Aeneis I-V
** http://www.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/serv1.htm Servii Grammatici in Vergilii Aeneidos librorum I - XII commentarii
thread_title:  nexus mortui 

message: About:
"Vergilius in Asiam Minorem Graeciamque profectus est. Postquam Aeneïda composuit, ut regiones viseret, quas depinxerat."
Why is that divided into two sentences?
With a little reordering as well, wouldn't the following be better?
Postquam Aeneïda composuit, Vergilius in Asiam Minorem Graeciamque profectus est, ut regiones viseret, quas depinxerat. 
Toddcs (disputatio) 13:50, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was , so we cannot ask. However  to give some fluidity to the text. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:16, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :@Grufo  Thank you! Toddcs (disputatio) 14:45, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two sentences?
Disputatio:Wipperfurta

message: Wipperfurta est civitas in Germania in occidente parte Germaniae sita. Anno 2004 Bonna habebat  23.315 cives.

message: Wipperfurta primum memorabat anno 1131. Ea servabat fas urbis in 13. saeculi.
thread_title:  Historia 

message: === aedificii  ===
* coenobium franziskanum
* ecclesia St. Nikolaus
* ecclesia Antonius in coenobiae
thread_title:  Cultura et visendusa 

message: * coenobium franziskanum
* ecclesia St. Nikolaus
* ecclesia Antonius in coenobiae
thread_title:  aedificii
Disputatio Formulae:Vicicitatio

message: UV, si hanc delebo, Formula:Wikiquote velim movere ad nomen Formula:Vicitatio. Obiectiones?--Ioshus Rocchio 02:38, 11 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nulla objectio, immo concurro opinione tua. --UV 16:24, 11 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

message: I don't know why, but I can't get this to work...the second call should not be a page name parameter, but an accusative option...--Ioshus (disp) 22:59, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an accusative option. Ex.:  Only if the second parameter is not specified, it defaults to the pagename.  --UV 00:01, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I tried it over at somewhere, and it didn't work...maybe I'm crazy. I need to take a break from wiki maybe...--Ioshus (disp) 05:47, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: :ahhh...two pipes...--Ioshus (disp) 05:49, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  parameters, accusative, not PAGENAME
Disputatio:Ioannes Hildebrandus Withofius

message: This is a nice, long page which presumably would be a good candidate for the Pagina Mensis. Unfortunately it's going to need a lot of editing. We'll just have to consider it a future project. --Iustinus 16:20 iun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I guess this text was copied from somewhere. Look at the end of the article, it is "signed" by Joannes Leidenfrost (year 1769). I looked in Google and I found this page []
which contains this line: 
1755 — Autobiographisches Gedicht auf seinem Stich von Mettelinus, Köln. Wiederabdruck in: Leidenfrost, Oratio funebris ... J.H.Withof, Duisburg, 1769; deutsche Übertragung in Withof, Laurenz, Academische Gedichte, II, 144).
Looks like it is a "oratio funebris" written by Leidenfrost in the year 1769. Well, I dont know why it is under
the year 1755, though. 
What do you think about this?
--Usor:Mafrius iun 4, 2005
replies: text: That explains a lot. We'll have to go through it and encyclopedify it. But the original text is well into public domain, so so long as we credit it as a source we should be fine on that score. --Iustinus
Well, I tried to correctly wikify this beatiful article. But I dont think that we can add sections to it. I created
just one section to explicitly say that this text was written by Leidenfrost in 1769 and then I does not seem right
to me "edit" (adding sections) Leidenfrost's "oratio funebris". You can revert it if you didnt like my job...
--Mafrius 23:33 iun 5, 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that will do for now, but here's what I think: the original text should be moved to Wikisource, but this article should be cannibalized into a more wikipedia-ish format. That way we get a real article, and this text isn't destroyed wholesale. That will be a bit of work, and I'm not up to it at the moment. But you know, there are some other good candidates for pagina mensis, so there's no rush. --Iustinus 00:55 iun 6, 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I've now put up the text of the Oratio Funebris at Wikisource:Oratio funebris Johannis Hildebrandi Withofii. We can, in theory at least, now rewrite this page into a good wikipedia article, without feeling that we are ruining literature ;) --Iustinus 16:12 iul 11, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to add sections to the oratio funebris appropriately, but I dont know if that's what you have in mind.
My latin is not good enough (is not good at all!) to heavily edit this article and add content to it. The section named "De vita et opera" needs much more work, I just tried to get the ball rolling right now to see what the commentaries will be. The german wikipedia has a list of his works, I guess that will not be too difficult to list Withof's work in this latin article, but that's a job to be done later. So, what did you think about it? --Mafrius 21:30 iul 11, 2005 (UTC)

message: This is on the queue Mycēs set up for the Pagina Mensis. 
Suggestions: I think we all know what needs to be done with this article ;)
thread_title: Pagina Mensis