|
|
| (145 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Leave comments for Matthew Faulconer here. | + | ==Questions or Comments for Matthew== |
| | + | Leave comments for Matthew here. |
| | | | |
| − | == Questions about editing ==
| + | Hi Matthew. Thanks for the encouraging words. I have two questions for you. The first, is whether you are related to Jim Faulconer, the BYU philosophy professor from whom I took 9 hours of classes in the 1970s. The second has to do with editing. When I create an edit and save it, it often doesn't show up if I close and open the Wiki. It has been saved because if I open the edit box again, it is still there. But if I set things to scroll through the entire chapter, it doesn't show. Is that because the wiki is moderated and the edit must be approved before it shows. If I knew that to be the case, I would not be concerned. But as things stand, I am always worried that my comments may not have been saved since they are not showing up. Larsenwv (Val Larsen) |
| | | | |
| − | Is the verse grouping by multiples of five going to be permanent? It would be nice if users could regroup them into logical paragraphs. [[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 21:35, 27 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | : Hi Val. Yes I am his son. As for the question about saving--this sounds like a caching problem. There isn't any moderation so that isn't the issue. I'll investigate the problem and report back. In the meantime, sorry for the inconvenience. At some point (maybe within 24 hours) the cache of the page should expire and your edits will show. You can force this to happen by adding ?action=purge to the end of the URL of the page. Let me know if that instruction isn't helpful and I can be more explicit. thanks --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:41, 17 February 2012 (CET) |
| | | | |
| − | :Hi Braden,
| + | Matthew, |
| − | :There is a way to make this change and I believe the rights are setup so that any user (not just me) can do this. I'm not totally sure though, I'd need to test it.
| + | |
| − | :So, I think all I have to do is write-up the instructions. Is there some set of verses that you particularly want to group differently? Let me know what it is and that will provide me both:
| + | |
| − | :* motivation to write up the somewhat tedious instructions for making such a change
| + | |
| − | :* a test-case for me to try out the instructions to make sure they really work.
| + | |
| − | :--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:31, 28 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | :: Thanks, Brother Faulconer. I didn't actually have a specific passage in mind, but a logical project would be Alma 13. In [[http://www.irr.org/mit/BOM/1830bom-p258.html the 1830 edition]], paragraphing is as follows:
| + | I ask if you were Jim's son before seeing the picture you posted. After seeing the picture (but before seeing your reply) I had no doubt about the answer. There is a clear family resemblance. |
| | | | |
| − | ::* Alma 12:37--Alma 13:9
| + | Val |
| − | ::* Alma 13:10--Alma 13:16
| + | |
| − | ::* Alma 13:17--Alma 13:20
| + | |
| − | ::* Alma 13:21--Alma 13:26
| + | |
| − | ::* Alma 13:27--Alma 13:31
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | :: How's that sound? [[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 08:37, 29 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :: P.S. Thanks for the formatting help!
| + | Matthew, |
| | | | |
| − | :::Braden, feel free to call me Matthew--unless you prefer Brother Faulconer. But if you prefer Brother Faulconer, be sure to let me know if you also prefer being called Brother Anderson as I'm happy to do that.
| + | I think I figured out what the problem was. I wasn't entering anything into the comment field at the bottom of the edit. I think the message posts to the main scroll when there is a comment but stays just in the subsection when no comment is entered. I'm not sure why that should be, but it seems to be true. |
| | | | |
| − | ::::By no means; I use it only out of respect. Thank you, though. --[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 03:27, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | Val |
| | | | |
| − | :::In thinking about this more I think we should require a strong case for making a change to the way we divide up verses before making any change. This is a much more stringent requirement than what should be expected of changes to the commentary page. For the commentary page I think the bar should be much lower--if the the edits leave the commentary better than what it was before editing than by all means make them. But the reason we can have a low bar for changes to the commentary page is that it is easy to make changes, easy to reverse them and easy for everyone to see the history of what has happened. None of these hold true for changes to verse grouping.
| + | Hi Matthew, this is natefifield. It's been pretty lonely here at Feast Upon the Word, seems most of the contributions have come from me the last few weeks. I was concerned about recent anonymous posting on [[James 5:1-5]] |
| | | | |
| − | :::With that, does anyone have any suggestions where a different division of verses is much better than the arbitrary version we have? I'm sure there are some cases.
| + | I didn't click on any links for fear they contain viruses or something like that. I tried deleting it, but was unable to do so. Just wanted to let you know. |
| | | | |
| − | :::On the particular issue of using the paragraphing from the 1st edition to dictate divisions, I don't believe we should consider 1st edition paragraphing to be authoritative. According to Royal Skousen's article "Book Of Mormon Editions (1830-1981)" in the <i>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</i>, the publisher of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, E. B. Grandin, "added punctuation and determined the paragraphing." | + | : Hi Natefifield. Just fixed James 5:1-5. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Yes it was a good idea not to click on the links. Even if they aren't viruses they won't lead to anything of value. |
| | + | :Thanks so much for your continued contributions to the site. This site has throughout its history often only had one or two contributors over any given time. Who is doing the contributing changes over time but it seems like there is always someone. And I'm grateful for you taking up the torch. Others who are reading, I encourage you also to contribute. Though it may feel lonely there is a real audience. We've had 2600 visits in the last month, with 2100 of these being unique visitors. So keep posting. We love it. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:23, 25 September 2009 (CEST) |
| | | | |
| − | :::Of course, since my formula for breaking things up was very arbitrary (break after every 5th verse and at the end of each chapter), my guess is that Grandin's is at least no worse. Still following the theory that we don't make a change to the verse groupings unless there is a strong case to be made that the changed version is better than the old, I say we don't break it up acording to E. B. Grandin's paragraphing unless someone can explain why doing so is much better than leaving it arbitrarily divided. | + | Hi Matthew. I have something to contribute to the questions posed at [[Gen 3:21-24]]. Since my discussion involves the whole of Genesis 2:4-3:24, it would be more appropriate to place it in the discussion page. My thesis revolves around distinguishing between Genesis and later interpreters like Paul or Joseph Smith. I've done this sort of thing here before, and explain my methodology on my user page. However, in this case, what I have to say about Genesis 2-3 is potentially controversial, even if I affirm what Paul and Joseph said about this passage settles the matter. My question is what I should do about it? Should I go ahead and post to the discussion page? Should I post my thesis on my own site and simply leave a link with the appropriate warning? Or simply don't say anything on this site at all? [[User:Tgriffy|Timothy A. Griffy]] 04:44, 2 May 2013 (CEST) |
| | | | |
| − | :::What do you think? Does this make sense? | + | ==Archives of this page== |
| | + | I clear this page out occasionally and add links to the version right before I clear it out here. |
| | + | * [http://feastupontheword.org/User_talk:Matthewfaulconer?oldid=6576 May 6, 2006]. |
| | + | * [http://feastupontheword.org/User_talk:Matthewfaulconer?oldid=67503 Feb 15, 2007]. |
| | + | * [http://feastupontheword.org/User_talk:Matthewfaulconer?oldid=72137 Jan 3, 2009]. |
| | | | |
| − | :::--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 00:03, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | == Alma 12, trying to understand == |
| | | | |
| − | ::::Entirely reasonable. I was aware of the Grandin bit, actually, but both of the recent commercial editions use very short paragraphs, so I figured it was the most authoritative useful guide. [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038551316X/]
| + | I just wanted to thank you very much for the commentary related to Alma 12. It was hugely helpful in bringing attention to some of the details, that are crucial but are often overlooked in lesson manuals. In my self study, I felt this chapter was very important to understand and I really appreciated the drilling down into the details of the likely meanings of the first and second commandment, how the first was given to Adam and Eve without their full awareness, and so that there would necessarily be a difference between the judgement towards breaking the first and second commandments (which have specific meanings according to this chapter.) |
| − | [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0252027973/]
| + | |
| − | :::::Braden, I just want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying. re: The first one by Doubleday--I don't think this one uses anything other than the chapter and verse divisions. On the second one, edited by Grant Hardy, are these paragraphs the same as what was used in the first version of the Book of Mormon? --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:36, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ::::::Sorry for the ambiguity. Yes, Doubleday just uses chapter and verse. I believe that Grant Hardy came up with his own paragraphing, but Alma 13 in particular had groups of only two or three verses, so I preferred Grandin. --[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 13:37, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | :::::::ahh. I understand what you are saying. My preference would be to leave Alma 13 (and other sections) as they are until we have stronger justification for making a change. Does that make sense? --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:23, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ::::Hmmm, depending upon the regrouping process, I might be able to throw together something in Perl that would automatically regroup them according to the Grandin paragraphing (with added breaks at chapter divisions as they now stand).
| + | |
| − | :::::Whether or not we end up regrouping all of the verses according to the first edition's paragraphs, there may come a place where we could use your help. On that topic, do you know any good design people that might help out? I'd like to redesign the look and feel a bit. To implement the design I would need someone very good at css.--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:36, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ::::::I'm fairly confident in my CSS skills; however, I've admittedly awful aesthetic taste. I should be able to implement any changes you like, but if you want a sounding board for look and feel, I could do no more than refer you to the graphic designers in the firm I work for. --[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 13:37, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | :::::::These deeply nesting comments are getting confusing. I'll start a new thread to respond.--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:23, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ::::After that, perhaps we could limit the change to registered users who want to make a comment spanning a division break and require a vote on the discussion page? --[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 03:27, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | :::::I like this idea. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:36, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST) PS Braden, thanks for your interest in this site. I hope you feel comfortable posting some commentary as well.
| + | |
| − | ::::::Thank you. I'm still a little leery, having little deep doctrinal experience and no training at all in relevant languages, but hopefully I've interested a few friends mentioning it in my blog, at least.--[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 13:37, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | :::::::These deeply nesting comments are getting confusing. I'll start a new thread to respond.--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:23, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | I noticed that the edits I made do not show up immediately on the Alma 13 page. Is there a review period before they will appear? How does this work? Oh and bye the way, we have met. It was over ten years ago. I attended BYU and graduated in Philosophy. I have been to your father's house.
| + | |
| − | :Cool. I wish I could remember. Maybe if I saw a picture I would remember. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:37, 1 May 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | On second thought...I click on the link on the main page to Alma 13. My edits do not appear. However, if I click through the navigation menu on the left, following the links to the page, they do appear. This is a problem. If you have people come edit the same page and do not realize that other editing has taken place as well, you may run into some strange results.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Mark Mason
| + | |
| − | :This sounds to me like a caching problem. I have tried to reproduce the problem you encountered but wasn't able to. Can you come up with a specific scenario that always seems to cause this problem? --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:37, 1 May 2005 (CEST) PS Mark, if you don't mind I think it works better if you sign in so that people can see your posts when they are yours.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Reply:
| + | |
| − | ::Didn't realize that I was not signed in. I will make sure I am in the future. There is a picture, not from college, on my blog. [http://www.virtualtheology.org virtual theology].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::No problem. Thanks for the picture. I recognize you. Do let me know if you are able to replicate the problem so I can research further. Thanks, Matthew --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:36, 1 May 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Questions about MediaWiki ==
| + | |
| − | I have some questions about mediawiki you might be able to answer. I have just started a wiki that is a nice compliment to this one. [http://www.virtualtheology.org/doctrines LDS Doctrinal Wiki]. I am having some technical problems. The external link png image does not show up. Neither do the images at the top of the edit page in the edit bar. I am assuming that there is a ref URL I have to change in a CSS page. Do you know which one or what I am supposed to update so these images will show on the pages? | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Also, if you are interested in joining me in that project, I can use all the help I can get. It is very much in its infancy.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Mark
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Slowed down?==
| + | |
| − | Has the site slowed down as much as it looks like it has? Unfortunate if so. I'll try to pick back up soon. -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 03:09, 13 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :Yes, it has slowed down a bit in the recent past few weeks. Looking forward to your posts. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:39, 13 Jul 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Projects that could use programming help. ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Hey Braden, Both of the following projects are no small task.
| + | |
| − | * enhancement 1 on [[site:Feedback]] (on this one, I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. If I were doing it myself I would write directly to the DB versus using a Perl script. I could give you access to the db if you want to go the sql script route. Given the sensitivity of executing code in the DB, I would give you read-only access to the DB, then I would review the code before running it. If you prefer using a PERL script, that's fine too (my guess is a PERL script would be harder in this cases but maybe I am just saying that because it would be harder for me to write). In this case too, I would ask that you not execute a PERL script against this site without giving me first the ability to review and approve. Does that make sense to you?)
| + | |
| − | :Hmmm, I'm not sure what the best way to do this would be, not knowing the backend of MediaWiki. Would you mind giving me read-only access so I can have a gander? --[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 20:12, 3 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ::Let me get you read-only access. It'll take a couple of days. I'll send you the info by e-mail.
| + | |
| − | * implementing css changes once we come up with a new visual layout for this site. (Clearly I need to first find someone who can do some visual layout. I have two different people in mind. If this one interests you I'll hit them up and see what they think. Before you sign up for this one though you may want to take a look at the css used on this site just to make sure you are up for this project. I know I wouldn't be. The CSS is a bit complicated. Here it is:
| + | |
| − | [All of a sudden I can't find it. I'll keep looking and get back to you later today. I've got to run.]
| + | |
| − | --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:35, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | :[http://feastupontheword.org/skins/monobook/main.css This CSS sheet] is, I believe, what you're looking for. It's certainly detailed, but it's clean code, and I don't see any complicated hacks. I think I could be of use.--[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 20:12, 3 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ::Yes, that is it. OK. So I'm going to find someone to do the ui. Essentially what I'd like them to do is: a) move the search box to the top and center (ala Yahoo). I want Search most prominent. b) move the navigation to the top. This should be more prominent than the my stuff links that are currently top right. c) leave the mystuff links somewhere in the top nav d) move the toolbox to the bottom. e)change background graphics and colors (I don't care what to, but I think they should just be different.
| + | |
| − | ::Knowing sort of what they are going to do, if you want to start fooling around to see how to do that, that's fine. There should be a way (though I don't know how but I think you can figure it out by reading through wikimedia's pages or wikipedia's) of changing the stylesheet so that it only affects you. Anyway, if in just trying things out you run into anything that would require changing the html, let me know. If you run into anything like that then we need to decide whether to change the html output or understand the constraint and ask the ui person to work around it. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 15:57, 4 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | ==Criteria for posting on the commentary pages ==
| + | |
| − | Braden, you said:
| + | |
| − | :Thank you. I'm still a little leery, having little deep doctrinal experience and no training at all in relevant languages, but hopefully I've interested a few friends mentioning it in my blog, at least.--[[User:Braden Anderson|Braden Anderson]] 13:37, 2 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
| − | What is required to post commentary on this site is not deep doctrinal experience or training in the relevant languages (though language experience is a nice to have; one which I don't have). Here are a few characteristics that people who post need:
| + | |
| − | * concern for what the scriptures are saying (reading about them, wondering about them, trying to make sense of them when they don't seem to make sense)
| + | |
| − | * the ability to write about the scriptures from a neutral point of view. This is in contrast to essentially writing out a talk like one would give in sacrament meeting. (This can be a challenge simple because most of us are much more familiar with a talk in sacrament meeting. But don't worry someone else will edit what you write if you don't get this one right.)
| + | |
| − | * openness to having other people edit your writing.
| + | |
| − | Here are things that are not required for posting:
| + | |
| − | * thinking of something to say that no-one has thought of before. (This can be good but may also turn out to be totally off the wall and silly. By all means, if you think of something that is interesting that no one has thought of before, post it. But your comment doesn't have to be ground breaking to fit on this site. It is fine to simple explain a part of the scriptures that seems pretty straightforward as to what it means.)
| + | |
| − | * having complete confidence that what you are posting is right and/or better than what anyone else will say on the subject. (Obviously you should give your best thoughts on whatever the subject you write about on the commentary pages. But if those turn out to be preliminary--if you or others on the site end up revising those and making them better later, that isn't a problem. That's the whole point. So don't hold back until there is no room for anyone else to improve upon your comments. We are all learning together.)
| + | |
| − | So, in sum, I don't want this to be a site for "experts only." If everyone simply aims to leave the commentary pages better after their edits than before, the site will continue to get better and better over time. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:22, 4 Aug 2005 (CEST)
| + | |
Hi Matthew. Thanks for the encouraging words. I have two questions for you. The first, is whether you are related to Jim Faulconer, the BYU philosophy professor from whom I took 9 hours of classes in the 1970s. The second has to do with editing. When I create an edit and save it, it often doesn't show up if I close and open the Wiki. It has been saved because if I open the edit box again, it is still there. But if I set things to scroll through the entire chapter, it doesn't show. Is that because the wiki is moderated and the edit must be approved before it shows. If I knew that to be the case, I would not be concerned. But as things stand, I am always worried that my comments may not have been saved since they are not showing up. Larsenwv (Val Larsen)
I ask if you were Jim's son before seeing the picture you posted. After seeing the picture (but before seeing your reply) I had no doubt about the answer. There is a clear family resemblance.
I think I figured out what the problem was. I wasn't entering anything into the comment field at the bottom of the edit. I think the message posts to the main scroll when there is a comment but stays just in the subsection when no comment is entered. I'm not sure why that should be, but it seems to be true.
Hi Matthew, this is natefifield. It's been pretty lonely here at Feast Upon the Word, seems most of the contributions have come from me the last few weeks. I was concerned about recent anonymous posting on James 5:1-5
I didn't click on any links for fear they contain viruses or something like that. I tried deleting it, but was unable to do so. Just wanted to let you know.
I clear this page out occasionally and add links to the version right before I clear it out here.
I just wanted to thank you very much for the commentary related to Alma 12. It was hugely helpful in bringing attention to some of the details, that are crucial but are often overlooked in lesson manuals. In my self study, I felt this chapter was very important to understand and I really appreciated the drilling down into the details of the likely meanings of the first and second commandment, how the first was given to Adam and Eve without their full awareness, and so that there would necessarily be a difference between the judgement towards breaking the first and second commandments (which have specific meanings according to this chapter.)
