User talk:Seanmcox
Over 1000 posts!!! What a legend, keep up the good work. I aspire to your prolific-iness (is tha word?).
Thanks Aprilstar. :-) --Seanmcox 09:18, 16 November 2007 (MST)
Sean, thanks for your edits. Because of your experience with Wikipedia, FeastUponTheWord, and your edits here, I'm giving you Sysop access. Thanks for your help. Rmiller 15:39, 27 July 2007 (MDT)
I'm honored. :-) --Seanmcox 12:02, 28 July 2007 (MDT)
Oh my gosh, its Seanmcox! Will you autograph my user page! PixieShtick 23:09, 26 August 2007 (MDT)
- Done. Figured out how to create those floating menu boxes in the process. --Seanmcox 09:56, 27 August 2007 (MDT)
How do I add a new article? -Thanks
Creating a New Page
The easiest way to do this is to first create a link to the page you would want to create. Links are created using double square brackets as follows: [[Article linked]] or alternatively like [[Article linked|linked text]].
Here they are as actual links. (You can edit this page to see how the code for this looks.)
Links to pages that don't exist yet are red, and when you click on those links you are brought to a page where you can create that new content. (an edit screen for the new page)
If you don't have a place you want to link to the new article yet, then another easy fix is to simply search for the article you want to create using the search form in the menu on the left. When you do this, then if the article doesn't exist already you will see the following at the top of this page: "There is no page titled 'Your article title'. You can create this page."
At this point you can click on the handy create this page link to create and begin editing the page. --Seanmcox 21:10, 28 August 2007 (MDT)
Signing Your Posts
Holding discussions on wikis is a bit different from other online discussions. First, you aren't just posting a simple comment when you post, but are editing a comment into a usually preexisting document (documents can have a preexistence too). Many people edit the same document. You can even edit other people's comments. (But don't! Unless of course they're conduct is downright evil or they're posting link spam.)
The somewhat jumbled way of adding comments perhaps somewhat resembles the kinds of conversations one might have if one were passing a note back and forth in class. One notable difference is that on a wiki, you can't distinguish handwriting, color of pen, or anything like that. If you want people to know who wrote a comment, you have to say who you are.
To this end, it is a matter of courtesy to sign one's comments and conversely, it is somewhat rude to neglect to sign one's comments. When you sign your comments it becomes easier to track who said what and when, which similarly makes it easier to follow what's going on in the conversation. Signing your comments then makes your comments more understandable.
Fortunately, this wiki and others like it, have prepared an easy way to sign your comments and there are two alternative. The most common way to leave a signature, is with the following wiki markup ~~~~ which as I'm editing now appears as Seanmcox 21:10, 28 August 2007 (MDT). Just add these four tildes at the end of your comment and then, when you submit the comment, the wiki will automatically replace them with a marker identifying who you are. Optionally, you can also use three tildes ~~~, which provides a somewhat shorter signature like this Seanmcox. (Notice, no date or time.) --Seanmcox 21:10, 28 August 2007 (MDT)
Meat
Hey, I'm kinda new, and couldn't seem to find a place to report this but I thought that someone should know that a user created an article called Meat which I think seems a little off topic as I'm sure the issue of eating meat in our religon is discussed in other articles. It also seems to be very poorly written and I thought that I should let someone know. Thanks ~ Bella Swan 14:44, 20 November 2007 (MST)
- You are right that the article is poorly written. (Sigh... so much cleanup when people could just learn to write.) It seems to be a decent on-topic article though. It should be categorized under "controversial topics". (I often go around categorizing pages.) Since it is a controversial topic, it's the sort of topic people will be likely to look for and it's precisely the sort of question that would be good to address here so long as we are able to address the topic fairly accurately (as opposed to speculatively). The treatment of the topic seems accurate, though, near the end, the tone might use some minor adjustment. (I wonder if we already have something written on vegetarianism.) I'll see what I can do with the page. Thanks for the heads up. :-) --Seanmcox 15:22, 20 November 2007 (MST)
Looks great now Sean! Thanks! Heather 23:27, 23 November 2007 (MST)
Scriptural Topics Category
Gale wanted this to be restored because she felt some topics are in all the scriptures. I've restored it for her, but maybe there is a better solution for this category that will address the redundancy. Let me know what you think. Heather 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the whole categories page needs reworking. I've brought this up with Rickety, too, and he might have some ideas. Gboyd 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the topics currently listed under "Scriptural Topics" are not really appropriate to a category of that title. If we look at "Book of Mormon Topics" we find things like Book of Alma, Gazelem, Iron Rod, etc., topics that exude "Book of Mormon". If I was to want to find out more about the Book of Mormon, I would be interested in those topics.
- What we find in "Scriptural Topics" is Born Again, Enoch, and Translated Beings. These are topics that are in the scriptures, but they are not really the sorts of things I would be interested in if I was interested in finding out about the scriptures in general. What I would be interested in is topics like Quad, Book of Jasher (perhaps best under an Apocryphal Works subcategory), Standard Works, LDS Scriptures, etc., items found in the Scriptures and Scriptural Topics category. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was the existence of the Scriptures and Scriptural Topics category that led me to determine that the simple Scriptural Topics category was redundant. Of the two categories that existed, I liked the title Scriptures and Scriptural Topics better when I was choosing between the two, though it certainly makes sense the other way as well.
- Actually, I would say the Scriptures and Scriptural Topics category needs some cleaning. Many topics listed there are really not about the scriptures in general but rather, about Book of Mormon topics, or Bible topics specifically, and would probably do better to be in those categories exclusively. For example, Iron Rod probably oughtn't be in that category, though Gold Plates might be instructive enough in the general topic of Scriptures to merit inclusion (though might do well to also be relegated to Book of Mormon Topics). Book of Mormon Topics as a category certainly makes sense as a subcategory of Scriptures and Scriptural Topics. Anyhow, I certainly agree that the categories need more organization.
- --Seanmcox 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
