User talk:Murphy

I have moved your article "Early Christianity Overview" to "Overview of early Christianity" to more closely match our page title conventions. Thanks for contributing! - dcljr 17:30, 1 November 2009 (CST)


 * No probs. I use the site allot and thought its about time to contribute. I think its all fairly accurate and i'm sure the well read people here will fix up the parts that aren't. There are still quite a few missing sources in the text and when i get around to it i also wanna add sections on the early church and Christians like Marcion and also a section on the canonization of the bible. Also, my spelling and grammar isn't he best it could be. If you see any fuckups don't hesitate to fix them. --Murphy 18:27, 1 November 2009 (CST)

Layout standardisation
Probably the reason you got no responses to your suggested layout for our argument pages is that no one knew you had done it. Since you put it in your user space (the appropriate place for it), the only way someone would have seen it is if they checked Special:Recentchanges lately. We just don't have enough people looking at enough places to expect a quick reply to anything except comments left at a particular user's talk page (and even then....). I have made changes as you invited. (Note that version "diffs" [comparisons], such as the link in the previous sentence, can be accomplished on the page history via the "(last)" and "(cur)" links. I'm not sure how familiar you are with wiki editing, so forgive me if I'm telling you things you already know.) Many of my changes are simple copyediting, but note the remarks in HTML comments and my change of upper- to lower-case on section headers. Page titles and section headers should be capitalized (and, for the most part, phrased) as you would in regular running text. (See Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines for more information, if you haven't already.) To answer your question more directly, the format you've chosen looks pretty good to me. Most of the "argument" pages were just quickly typed up by the founders of this wiki to get it started, and some of them haven't seen much improvement since then. You're welcome (by me, anyway) to have at it; any changes you make can be undone later, anyway, if necessary. Oh, and please use only single-blank-line paragraph breaks in articles (not two blank lines, which introduces unnecessary "&lt;p>&lt;br />&lt;/p>" line breaks). And "Iron Chariots" is 2 separate words, not one (IronChariots). Oh, and you might want to put something on your main user page (a reference/link to your talk page, for example), because people following the "redlink" on your signature on talk pages will find themselves editing your empty user page (if it's not an empty page, they'll see the page contents, of course). OK, I think that's it. [g] - dcljr 03:18, 12 December 2009 (CST)

Wikipedia:Template:Navbar
Our copyright policy is, for the most part, compatible with that of Wikipedia. We do, unfortunately, use an earlier version of the CC-BY-SA license, so copying and modifying their content here would technically violate the terms of their license (since it wouldn't be licensed here under CC-BY-SA "3.0 or later"). I seriously doubt this will cause any problems for us, however, since — as I understand things — version 3.0 of CC-BY-SA was mainly created to allow GFDL-licensed sites like Wikipedia to "upgrade" to a compatible Creative Commons license. So using the previous version of CC-BY-SA is probably "good enough", as far as adhering to "the spirit of" the license, if not "the letter" of it (but IANAL). In any case, stuff is copied from Wikipedia to this wiki all the time. Wholesale copy-and-paste jobs are frowned upon in the case of articles, but templates are a different matter. In my opinion, verbatim copying of a template is OK, as long as everything in it will work properly on our wiki (note that we use a very much older version of MediaWiki than Wikipedia does, and have none of their "extensions") — and, of course, as long as it's really needed here. If you want to try it, just say in the edit summary when you create the page that it was copied from Wikipedia. - dcljr 17:55, 14 December 2009 (CST)

Older documentation
Since the documentation is on a wiki, you might be able to find a sufficiently old copy in the page history. According to the Release notes, version 1.6.6 (ours) was released on March 23, 2006, so I assume a version of the docs from around that time would be relevant. As to your specific issue, I don't have an answer, but see (older versions of?) WikimediaMeta:Help:Navigational image. - dcljr 01:56, 20 December 2009 (CST)

Implication, biconditional
Wait a minute, we can't redirect Implication to Biconditional (if and only if): the article covers much more than that. And I already redirected If and only if to Implication, thinking that the former article would never grow beyond a stub. What don't you like about "Implication"? - dcljr 13:20, 23 December 2009 (CST)
 * OK, but please use the simplest relevant titles (e.g., Material implication, not Material implication (if then) — but actually, why do we even need the word "material" in the title? Will we ever have a separate page about logical implication? Couldn't we just cover both types of implication on the same page and therefore have it as an article about implication in general?) Anyway, in general, we should use parentheses in titles only to disambiguate them from similar pages, not merely to "explain" the title itself (IOW, no Argumentum ad baculum (argument from force), just Argumentum ad baculum with Argument from force as a redirect). - dcljr 12:21, 24 December 2009 (CST)
 * I've redirected "everything" back to Implication. Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with using that simple title for all the various related ideas (we can split off some of them to separate articles if necessary in the future). I've also changed your parenthetical titles to redirects (to Implication) and added only Negation (not), Conjunction (and), and Disjunction (or) to Category:Logic on the reasoning that we'll never have pages called Not, And, and Or. But the others, like Biconditional (if and only if), are uncategorized redirects; I've separately categorized the redirects Biconditional and If and only if into Category:Logic. I hope you'll find this satisfactory. - dcljr 17:21, 15 January 2011 (CST)

ICLSP
Please see these changes I made to User:Murphy/ICLSP. - dcljr 17:22, 15 January 2011 (CST)