User talk:Unschool/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Unschool, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

If you click on User:Unschool, you can type in info to create your user page. Cheers. Moriori 21:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Taney age

We all make frequent errors here and there is always someone around to fix them. We both used good edit summaries in those edits, which is good for helping let everyone know what we are doing and why. Keep up the good work. :-) NoSeptember 23:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-2 Bomber Reloaded

Hi, would you be so kind as to re-examine your vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-2 Bomber Reloaded? Thanks. Enochlau 06:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Excerpts from the B-2 picture discussion page:

• Oppose. This is the first time that I've ever looked at the picture voting process in Wik. Seems to me that the one universal requirement is that a picture (which after all does not require one to undergo lengthy analysis in order to have strong feelings) must acheive a consensus, almost upon first glance. There truly are a lot of neat, even unique qualities to this picture. But it obviously doesn't "do it" for most people here. Am I wrong in how I'm seeing this situation? Unschool 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The main rule is that you vote based on the above stated criteria, namely does the picture add signifigantly to the article, or articles, in which it resides. Some vote on what they feel, not what the community feels. Other people with a more photographic background vote on even higher criteria, as evidenced by Ericd when he oberved that a fisheye lense was used in this case. Normally one would only oppose if there was something wrong with the picture or the lisence; however, since featured pictures should make one think "wow!" when first seen there are some other considerations as well. The community consesus is required to promote a picture to featured status, but please don't vote on what the community thinks. You're an individual, I trust you can think for youself. Come up with your own critera and use it to measure the worth of a photograph. TomStar81 20:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, please vote on individual grounds, not on how others have voted. Otherwise, why don't we just take the first 5 votes and go home? Enochlau 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • On a related note: Unschool, could I ask you either to change your vote or to give a specific reason for opposing? In the case of the former, you need not nessicarily vote support, but the way your text is phrased at the moment sounds more a like a "comment" or a "neutral". In the case of the latter, a solid reason for opposing (ie: to dark, the person, the odd lines, etc) would help firm up the oppose vote some. TomStar81 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The matter of opinions reflected on this page is a matter if they look at the picture and say: "WOW! What a great picture!" This picture is interesting, but it does not particularly excite me in any way. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking over the comments on my "vote", I can see that I did not make myself clear. It's not that I was voting "no" because the group was voting no. Like others have stated, to be a featured picture one would think that the picture causes a "Wow" reaction, drawing one to the article. I was merely making the observation that almost no one making comments seems to be super-excited about the picture, and that perhaps it was a lost cause. Now, as to my own feelings about it? In its small representation on this page, frankly, I find it unimpressive. However, when linking up to the high resolution full-size picture, I do find it quite interesting.

I suspect that most of us who choose to spend time not only writing and editing articles on the Wik, but even commenting on these articles (and pictures), are, by and large, a group of rather large-egoed individuals. At least, I am. While I will always be humble in the face of factual information that contradicts a previously-held position of mine, when it comes to matters of opinion, I do not need nor desire to follow others. Still, having the ability to have an independent opinion does not always mean that one will have an opinion. On this particular picture, I am ambivalent, except to say that I prefer the non-fisheyed version. Unschool 06:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FreudCouch

Your vote here is rather confusing I'm afraid. You voted "support, then oppose." As it stands I can't tell whether you want the picture to be promoted or not. Would you mind going back and choosing either support or oppose. Thanks. Raven4x4x 05:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rousseau

Your edit of my commentary on Rousseau (which I did as an anon, before I became a user), placing it as a footnote, was clearly a better way to handle the material than the way I had done it. As you said, it was too long for an intro. But my concern in dropping it to a mere footnote is that the ramifications of the various interpretations of the statement will be lost to most readers. I guess I would like them reading the rest of the article with that perspective in mind.

Might there be a middle ground? Do you think the point could be made elsewhere in the body of the article? I ask you as one who has clearly been doing this much longer than I. Unschool 20:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sorry not to get back to you about this for awhile. I would see a few solutions to your assessment:

• you could work the material into the discussion of Rousseau's theory in the article;
• you could work the material into our article on the book, which as you can see is lacking; or,
• an interesting third option would be to create a separate article about the quote at a title like Man is born free and create a link to this in the Rousseau article; to do this you would probably need a bit more to write about than just the translation issue, though.

I would probably advise taking a middle course; creating a shorter summary of the note and the different readings and place it in a relevant section of the Rousseau article, and letting the more detailed aspects of the note (for instance, the discussion of the original French) go in the article on The Social Contract. I definitely don't think it needs to go in the lead. That just makes it more likely that it will be forgotten by the time the reader is through the biography; best to place it with the theory where it's most relevant. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush Comments

Thanks for the reply on the Bush page. I have been living outside the U.S. for years and I know you are absolutely on the money. I knew that there was no way to get rid of that section and believe it or not I am actually not political and could give a s$%t. Because of my work I have that luxury. The reason I brought it up is because the section is blatantly anti-Bush and I was hoping in some small way to reign it in a bit.

I'll get of my soapbox but thanks for the no BS reply.--Looper5920 08:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavenly Mother

I responded on my page, but I am never certain people come back to the same page for answers. Thus, my respnse,

Unschool, thank you for contacting me. I always enjoy talking with other editors on WIKI. As I was reading your entry, the word apostate struck me "oddly". I realized that I had not considered the term in quite some time. For me, apostate is such a strong term. I may incorrectly put too much emphasis on my interpretation; an apostate not only falls away, but vigourously preaches against the Gospel. Someone who just falls away is perceived to have found a degree of truth that is "alive" for them. It is like a member becoming a believing Catholic. They have found a wonderful doctrine that fulfills their needs and is alive with the Spirit. I just don't consider them apostate, but I suppose the technical defnition applies. I digress; whatever happened may you be at peace.

The African thing was way off base. I have been a member for over 40 years. Some would consider me well read, but I am not a doctor of church history or doctrine. In brief, I may be wrong about some things, but I strive to state the truth about Mormonsim and the LDS church. However, I have never heard that particular belief that you cited. It is not official church doctrine and thus, should not be included in an encyclopedic article on the Mormonism. Just because someone states something in Elders Quorum does not mean it should be stated as doctrine. It is hoped that all members are students of the truth, but in learning the truth we must all abandon misunderstandings and false doctrine. What you remember was simply false doctrine. Mother in Heaven: now that is a wonderful subject about which very little has been written; almost nothing in fact. It is logical for LDS to believe in a mother in heaven. We believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, that families are forever, and that the union of a man and woman is ordained of God. I could go on, but I am trying to be brief. However, we do not preach about our Heavenly Mother, but we also do not deny her existence. In summary, we believe she exists, but we know nothing about her and are not taught anything. It is a belief, but it is not doctrine. I think the article should be limited to doctrine. I agree with you totally. How does one have correct and incorrect disagreements about doctrine? Doctrine is either congruent or it is not. I hope I explained my reasoning sufficiently. I look forward to further edits and assistance on making the article better. Storm Rider 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Storm_Rider"