User talk:Chris.ridgeway

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Chris.ridgeway! Thank you for your contributions. I am Binksternet and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to some non-article questions

You've asked some good questions about editing WP at Talk:Great Commission church movement and I wanted to stay focused on the content there, but they are nonetheless good questions. WP:INDENT covers proper indentation on talk pages and is part of a larger guidelines on conduct and the use of talk pages. Personally, I don't get too worked up about how indentation is done, especially when it's just a couple of editors. Really active articles need much stronger adherence to the community norms so we can use talk more clearly and effectively. I think there's some development in the works to make talk pages threaded, which would render the guideline obsolete in the future. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep, that articles seems to cover some of the basics, although I think I was wondering if it was okay to comment under bullets and some other weird things. But I guess that you just pick that up as you go. GCM aside, I'm really quite interested in being more involved in editing Wikipedia--I have a masters in theology and have a great deal of academic interest in digital collaboration in communications, so I hope I can make it more of a regular habit to start jumping in and learning this on a variety of topics.

I had to dig for it, but I found a category which covers the different templates you can use to create in-line citations. I have plenty of patience for putting together coded citations and recognize many people don't. Sometimes I've requested that folks just go ahead and drop some links to their sources, and I work it out (like at 2012 Benghazi attack, where new editors wanted to edit right away), other times people will go ahead and <ref>some URL</ref> and that works well on small pages, but has a couple of problems: URL links can go dead (but can often be found later), and more extensive ref naming is necessary if you want to recite a source elsewhere in the article. As a practical matter, there are three GCM-related deadlink which come to mindd and have reduced sourcing on the new article: two about Jim Pace, and one Relevant Magazine article. After much time, I discovered most of the Relevant Magazine deadlinks at another URL. I'll probably have to do the same for Jim Pace media stuff if we are to include him. It isn't a problem, but proper sourcing the first time means that though the link is lost, we can still keep the source and verify it in other ways. You're welcome to keep the questions coming and to use my talk page liberally :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that Relevant has changed its website several times. I had written for them a long time ago when they first started, and thought my old articles had disappeared, but recently saw one or two of them back, so who knows. Anyway, good point on trying to do the more extensive reference ("coded reference"? is not a term I've heard before) so its easier to find dead links.

He's back!

I was starting to get worried. I'm in the middle of a bio expansion, an article request for comment, a few user requests for comment, and a research project for a local non-profit. Boldly rattle my cage if anything is pressing. Good to see you again. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. yeah, sorry I kept getting busy and haven't been able to get back. I still have not read all your last round of comments I don't think, although I replied to those couple so far. (Also, do you get notified that I post this reply? Or do I have to jump over to your talk page?) Chris.ridgeway (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Great Commission church movement (proposed split)

I know that we'd talked about going live, and that we wanted to keep the discussion with GCC a separate consideration from the split. Realizing there might be complications on that discussion with regard to the split, which I still support, I have decided to involve the community and try to make everything transparent. I have mentioned you specifically as having proposed and helped with the content split proposal on the Request for Comment listing. Hopefully I have not caused you any grief with my delay and request. I do absolutely want to make sure that our assumptions are explicit and have community approval. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page. The Jerusalem RfC is going well and I am much more inclined to be active in this now. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]