User talk:Robert H. Stockman

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. --Larry Sanger 18:58, 7 March 2007 (CST)

The Bab

Hi Robert, Nice to see you at work! I added the article checklist to your new article on The Bab. If you could fill it out, that would be great. There are instructions here. If you need any help, just leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:06, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Good job! You are now an expert on the article checklist:-) The importance of the The Bab vs Bab, The comes into play here. I think it depend on whether 'The' is used as part of his name or if it is only used as an article. The way you have it puts it in the "B" column and I think that works, because the other way would put it in the "T" column. You are the expert here, though, where should it be? --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:03, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

You were right ;-) Adding categories is part of the basic cleanup on the checklist (I should have checked that earlier). But now you know to do it! --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:17, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Matt, the article is still alphabetized under "T" rather than "B". How do we fix that? Robert Stockman 17:33, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Islam

Awesome work on Islam, Robert! I was ignorant of this subject, but your organization, prose and presentation kept me focused till the end. I learned a lot. There were a couple of spots I got a little lost, but I didn't want to stop to make a note, so I'll go through it again later and leave some questions on the talk page that you can address if you want. You need to get two more religion editors to help you fine tune and then get it approved. It will be a great addition to our list! --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Made some more edits and Talk comments. Good trading thoughts with you. And I want to encourage you to look at some of the Judaism pieces, turn-around is fair play and would be appreciated! David Hoffman 10:44, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Quakers

I have been focusing on biographies of people during the American Revolution era and am interested in seeing an article created on the Quakers. I am far from an expert on the subject, but am hoping you might be able to point me in the direction of some quality books on the subject so I can begin researching. Also, if you would be interested in working on the article I would appreciate any expertise that you could provide. Thanks. --Todd Coles 21:38, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I am afraid I am no expert on Quakerism, Todd. I'd be glad to look over anything you have written, though. You might want to start by looking over Sydney Ahlstrom's massive A Religious History of the American People. It is considered highly reliable and definitive. It has a good bibliography, too, though I suspect it is rather out of date (the book appeard 30 years ago). Use the index to find the sections on the Quakers. You could also search for the latest biographies of Penn and Fox and see what they refer to. Robert Stockman 18:00, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I'll try my hand on Quakers -- I've been interested in them for some decades now. Help and advice will be appreciated Richard Jensen 23:18, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks to both of you! --Todd Coles 08:17, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Old Earth Creationism/Framework interpretation

When you get a second, can you look at Old earth creationism and Framework interpretation (Genesis)? They are duplicates, and I noticed a call for an editor to approve deleting one of them while I was adding checklists. --Todd Coles 09:03, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd keep "Old Earth Creationism" since that seems to be a correct title based on the content. But go see my comments on the article's "talk" page. I would drop the last section, which speculates (rather wildly) about the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet. What do you think? My impression is that encyclopedias are supposed to represent what is reliably known, and not possibilities, unless the latter are solidly argued and backed up. Robert Stockman 13:46, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd agree on keeping the OEC article, and dropping Framework. Framework is linked to within the OEC article, but looks to be a verbatim copy of the same article. Since I'm just a regular old joe, I can't do anything about deleting it - you are going to have to get the attention of a constable to do it (you being an editor and me being an author).

Also, I replied to your comments on the talk page. I largely agree with you, that it is not well thought out or presented in a proper manner, but I think that if that theory is critical to understanding creationism, then it should be included in some form. It just needs to be labeled for what it is. --Todd Coles 14:06, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#Editor assistance requested

Peter Jackson 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Peter, the Orthodox churches are not my field and I am no expert on them. I've read the discussion and don't feel I can offer truly informed comments.

Robert Stockman 15:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

possible article for approval

I'm not sure whether it fits into your field of expertise, but I was wondering how you feel about starting the approval process for Folk saint. There aren't any approved articles in the Religion Workgroup and I'd like to fix that situation. I think that one might be a good place to start. I did some more organizational work on that article today, and I think it might be ready. Thanks, -Joe Quick 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how we go about approving articles; I'll have to inquire about that. Robert Stockman 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The approval process is explained in some length here. The most important points are to make sure the article meets the approval standards and then add your name to fill out the appropriate sections of the metadata template as explained in this section of the page I linked above. --Joe Quick 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Robert Stockman 02:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Joe Quick 02:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, did you get a chance to look over the article? --Joe Quick 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I could not find the email anywhere saying the name of the article or the place to look at approval criteria. I tore my email system apart and looked everywhere and forgot it was a talk message here! But I see the information above. I can't now, but I will try tomorrow. Robert Stockman 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger Lohmann actually just nominate the article for approval as a sociology editor. It would be really helpful to have a religion person involved too, though. If you have time, all you have to do to join in as a nominating editor is to add your name just below his at the bottom of the metadata template. Thanks much. --Joe Quick 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)