User talk:CCeducator

This and that

Yes! There is an easy way to track what is going on with a page. Add it to your "watchlist" by licking at the top of the page, and then click on "My watchlist" to check whether the page has been changed. Oh, and I got the AFA logo from one of the pdf files on the website. St Anselm (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I put in for a user name change last nite. How long does this take. How do they notify me - just change the name? CCeducator 02:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with page/column formatting

I have been trying to sort out how to move info boxes around on the page and seem unable to find any discussion of how ro do this. Is there some way to position info boxes (right to left) on the page? For example put 3 info boxes in a row.

Similarly for images I know how to do left, center and right, but can you tell the software you want it spaced (+6) blank spaces from the left edge or (-6) blank space from the right edge?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks CCeducator 00:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In a word - no, you can't do it.

We keep all formatting as simple as possible - so that pages look OK on a very wide range of devices - from mobiile phones, through to 40" monitors. So, we don't try to force the formatting - as much as possible, we let the user (and their browser) sort out where to position things.

Putting a picture in a very specific place can cause a lot of problems when viewed on a different screen size. For that reason, we avoid 'sandwiching' text between images, and try to make sure there's just one image on any horizontal portion of the page, most of the time, in articles.

Infoboxes count as 'images' in this respect (because text 'wraps around' them) - so, there shouldn't be an image alongside an infobox either.

It's also for this reason that we should use the default 'thumb' size, for almost all pictures - because, the user can change the default for their own skin (in their user preferences).

Now...there are some tricky ways to 'hack' it. One is, to put images in a table;

{| | [[File:Tst.png|40px]] || [[File:Tst.png|40px]] |}

Another way is to use a 'gallery' - but, those are best avoided too. A third way is, by using HTML DIV tags.

All those are fine for playing around in user space, but not useful for articles. Best advice is, "keep it simple". Chzz ► 02:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CCeducator 16:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags

That's a great question. I think you can remove an old tag whenever you think the issue has been addressed. If it's a newer tag (less than a month) it might be good to wait a week, unless you have clearly addressed any concerns that have been raised. As far has the Christian worldview article goes, the tag was added in 2005, when it was a totally different article. You will have seen that someone has already queried the tag, and that query had not been challenged, which is a sure sign it can be removed. To take an other example, however, I am lot to remove the neutrality tag from the Federal Vision, since the concerns raised were never addressed, and it would be very hard to get a version that everyone is happy with. Anyway, thanks for your editing. St Anselm (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did give a reason is his edit summary - "Commentary, misspellings, poor spacing, etc." Now, that might not be a good reason, but you did replace "set of worldviews voiced" with "Worldviewcexpressed". The "commentary" bit would be something like a truly Biblical Worldview should be invariant and capable of being separated from other presuppositions (e.g., British 19th Century Imperialist doctrine). That sounds like your own opinion. Anyway, it is better to discuss it on the talk page of the article. I'm going to add back the bit that was well sourced. St Anselm (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hill Christian School

Don't be afraid for what I have done...

I have moved your explanation about the classical method to a seperate article. You made it clear to me that is was not a classical approach to teaching but that it was a teaching method named Classical teaching method. UIn the text itself I have only made minor changes (removed some unnecessary html-code, put link into reference).

I hope you can live with this. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the link to Classical education movement. Copying text from that to other articles is now unnecessary. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem. Creating a new article (I am flattered) is going too far. The definition I gave is specific to only SOME classical schools. Further, to make it a separate article (and any good) would require very extensive work. (I had enough trouble crafting what I wrote). Please recognize that the classical teaching method is interpreted differently by different people. There already exist articles trying to work thru these issues - I have spent some time bouncing around them. All I am trying to do is provide simple articles on schools and have them well referenced. Hopefully you can live with this. As I stated if we head down your path there are implications for a number of school articles and for a number of articles on classical things. I appreciate your help, but I think deleting the section and making a new article is a serious mistake.

While I wrote this I see you have done more. When I get a chance I will look at it. Please realize that the reason I did not use the Classical education movement article is that it has issues. Some of which you or I may have changed, but still issues. I prefer defining terms concisely where they are used and possibly establishing links to the more general discussion. I am a firm believer in "words have meaning." --CCeducator (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words Do have Meaning

If you believe that words have meaning, then this is the definition of "Classical" according to the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature:

classic (classics, classical). The English terms are derived from the Latin adjective classicus meaning ‘of the highest class’ (of the five classes of Roman citizens divided by Servius Tullius on a property basis). Aulus Gellius in the second century AD seems to have been the first to use the adjective figuratively to describe a writer, but Cicero had already taken the noun classis (‘class’) from its political and military sphere and used it to describe a ‘class’ of philosophers (see also CANONS). Renaissance scholars writing in Latin adopted the adjective to describe Greek and Latin authors in general, and from this the modern usage is derived. The terms are sometimes used with a narrower, temporal meaning to describe what is thought to be the best period, in a cultural sense, of the Greek and Roman civilizations. Thus, the classical period of ancient Greece was most of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, roughly from the defeat of the Persians in 480 to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, and that of Rome the first century BC and the following century up to the death of Augustus in AD 14, sometimes referred to as the Golden Age.

Also, from the wikipedia entry on Humanitas, a quote from P. O. Kristeller, eminent historian and expert on the Renaissance:

Early Italian humanism, which in many respects continued the grammatical and rhetorical traditions of the Middle Ages, not merely provided the old Trivium with a new and more ambitious name (Studia humanitatis), but also increased its actual scope, content, and significance in the curriculum of the schools and universities and in its own extensive literary production. The studia humanitatis excluded logic, but they added to the traditional grammar and rhetoric not only history, Greek, and moral philosophy, but also made poetry, once a sequel of grammar and rhetoric, the most important member of the whole group. —Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought II: Papers on Humanism and the Arts (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), p. 178.

The Medieval trivium and quadrivium were a preparation for philosophy (theology) and did not include history or literature (much less so-called "Great Books"). 173.77.111.82 (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Your addition to Logos School has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dominion Christian School

The article Dominion Christian School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources, no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jacona (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AdFontesAcademy Falcon logo r.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AdFontesAcademy Falcon logo r.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]