User talk:Wazronk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Wazronk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] It seems strange....

I hope you check your talk page something close to as often as you smooth out the UB article. I felt like posting this the the article's talk page, but I don't feel right posting it publicly. Basically, I found the List of religions and found the UB under alien-based religions. Why isn't it a monotheistic new religious movement (another section therein)? Or should the Urantia Brotherhood be placed under Christianity as an offshoot of SDA? The actual entry reads: "Urantia, Book of". I'm not quite sure what the entry should say, but I don't think that's the best title. Anyway, that's all I've got. You've struck me as a sharp minded editor, so I was hoping you'd share a few of your thoughts.

On another topic, I've been thinking about the article series suggestion and have been looking at templates for ideas. I thought Dianetics sounded like a good contrast, they're both a 1950's book-founded alien religion, except Scientology is the one that everyone's heard about. Xaxafrad 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xaxafrad,
I've taken a look at the List of religions page, I'd disagree with it being categorized as an alien-based religion. Actually a difficulty is what to classify as the "religion." The Urantia Book has no structured following around it or official "religion" associated with it. It's just a book. If you read it and like it, there's no church you join or anything, no leader, no guru to follow. A Course in Miracles is maybe most similar, at least from what I've come across.
About the "alien" bit... Angels would be more accurate. But even then, the book develops a really extensive and panoramic view of things with many types of spiritual beings, so even that's not so correct, angels are only one kind of being that "contributed". The 192 papers of the book (each about 15-30 pgs long) are described as being written by a broad multitude of different beings, ranging the spectrum from way way high types, to angels, to a low type of being called a "midwayer" (because it's "midway" between angels and the absolute bottom rung of creature existence -- human beings). None of them little gray men but spirits.
I'm not an expert on comparative religion, but after scanning the list I would agree with TUB being under monotheistic new religious movements. I'll make the edit. Martin Gardner argued that it's an offshoot from SDA, but it was more a theory of his based on how William S. Sadler had SDA in his background.
I've had ideas for how the article could be expanded. Dianetics would be one pattern to use, good suggestion. You're interested in participating in expansion of the topic into a series of articles? There's a lot that can be done. You'd have some work cut out for you in familiarizing yourself with the book though, it's a pretty extensive read. Skip around through the table of contents online and read any of the papers that catch your eye, an incredible amount of detail involved, and it's maintained throughout the whole book. -- Wazronk 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings: I have a number of questions about this article, but over time I will have opportunity to bring them up. I'm trying to learn how to use this wikipedia device. I am reviewing the history of UB discussion to familiarize myself with the background of the article. The question of format that you raise in your 28 April notation is the same question I am having. I have been looking at the scientology pages, dianetics, qu'ran, bible, and hinduism pages. Also, the recent article on little green frogs was quite good, as it was simple and maybe elegant, without getting bogged down in biological mumbojumbo, yet made reasonable links to the mumbojumbo to clarify the article without turning one into a triple PhD in biology. (Thats what I think at the moment-this could all change tomorrow :) Richiar 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia Book

Hi, thanks for all the work you have done the the UB article. I have read a lot of the book and heard audio tape for all of it a few times. If there is a specific way I can help on the article please let me know and I will do my best. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wazronk: Thanks for the reference on age of the universe. I had overlooked that. What do you think of adding links to astronomy articles that correspond here? Richiar 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. You have a good grasp of the book! (That may not be NPOV, but its my opinion).

Question regarding signatures: Hi. I'm reviewing Archive 1, and around the headings of Tenents and Neutral point of view in Oct-Nov 2005. There are some postings that are unsigned, and as a result, its hard to track who's expressing which point of view, and whether they are conflicting points of view or multiple points of view. I was trying to locate the IP address to identify the source, but can't seem to do it for the Archived discussion. I can do it for the actual article, however. Is there a way to locate the IP address for the Archived discussion postings? Richiar 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. I notice that people need to sign comments on the discussion page, inorder to be identified, no? But they can be identified automatically on the article due to the Internet address? Or am I missing something?Richiar 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Richiar. Archives are created by cutting whatever comments are on the current discussion page and simply pasting onto a new sub-page that is named to be an Archive. So when you read an Archive, and click to look at the history, you'll tend to only see one entry - the time when that archive was created with all the old discussions pasted in. An advantage of this though is that by going to the main talk page for the article -- Talk:The Urantia Book in this case -- and clicking on "history", it actually is an entire history for all discussions including archives. Try that, and where it says (Latest | Earliest), click on "Earliest". This will show you the very first comments. Like with the articles, all changes are logged by a username, or if the person isn't logged in, by their IP address. It doesn't actually matter whether or not they sign their posts.
Not everyone was signing posts early in the discussions (including myself). But people got better about it as the discussions grew. I understand it can be confusing to understand who posted what.
Another thing that can get confusing, and I think this happened more in discussions now in Archive 2, is that sometime a person would post a long comment, and then another person would respond by inserting their own comments in the middle of the first post. You can't always easily tell who is saying what, but one thing to look for is where text is indented, that often means a different person has jumped in. All the best. Wazronk 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] UB workshop

Hi Wazronk ! I opened an "experimental version" of the UB as a UB workshop to try out versions to look at without disturbing the article. Then people can work on it and move preferred edits to the main article. I put in your suggestion to look at. Modify as you like. Richiar 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/z/User_talk%7EWazronk_7012.html"