13,094
edits
Changes
Talk:Adolf Harnack and the Search for Missing Christianity (view source)
Revision as of 23:56, 12 December 2020
, 23:56, 12 December 2020Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
== compare & contrast ==
== compare & contrast ==
David-I just uploaded an article on [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Adolf_von_Harnack. Harnack] derived from Wikipedia. Might you consider improving it by integrating your thought into it or conversely, integrating elements of it into yours? The objective would be to have a superior biographic article--rdavis 16:12, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
David-I just uploaded an article on [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Adolf_von_Harnack. Harnack] derived from Wikipedia. Might you consider improving it by integrating your thought into it or conversely, integrating elements of it into yours? The objective would be to have a superior biographic article--rdavis 16:12, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
== Calling for an editorial meeting... : ) ==
== Calling for an editorial meeting... : ) ==
Do I sense you may have been searching for some aesthetic/editorial parameters by your choice of images? Nevertheless, I appreciate your thought and would only encourage you to continue as you see fit. As such, it may be that the article on Harnack should be retitled as you have proposed to signify an original work that is a reflection of your own appreciation for Harnack's contribution(s). It could be linked, as we did in previous pieces, to a more 'generic' main article. What would you really like to do because I sense that will be the greatest contribution you or anyone else can make. Looking forward--rdavis 23:08, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Do I sense you may have been searching for some aesthetic/editorial parameters by your choice of images? Nevertheless, I appreciate your thought and would only encourage you to continue as you see fit. As such, it may be that the article on Harnack should be retitled as you have proposed to signify an original work that is a reflection of your own appreciation for Harnack's contribution(s). It could be linked, as we did in previous pieces, to a more 'generic' main article. What would you really like to do because I sense that will be the greatest contribution you or anyone else can make. Looking forward--rdavis 23:08, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
p.s. your love of the essence reminds me of a post on the Daynal Institute blog (Cosmographia) entitled [http://trinitize.blogspot.com/2007/03/phenome.html Phenome]
p.s. your love of the essence reminds me of a post on the Daynal Institute blog (Cosmographia) entitled [https://trinitize.blogspot.com/2007/03/phenome.html Phenome]
== Liberal Theology ==
== Liberal Theology ==
David,
David,
By the way, I put up an article on "[http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Liberal_Christianity Liberal Christianity]", and when I was looking for an image, I was tempted to use this I would have titled "Tree of Knowledge"
By the way, I put up an article on "[https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Liberal_Christianity Liberal Christianity]", and when I was looking for an image, I was tempted to use this I would have titled "Tree of Knowledge"
[[Image:Girl-tree.jpg|center|frame]]
[[Image:Girl-tree.jpg|center|frame]]
that came from a website entitled [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4900368 Democratic Underground] where I found a survey to identify one's 'religious profile'. You might find my results a source of humor. They are posted just below.
that came from a website entitled [https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4900368 Democratic Underground] where I found a survey to identify one's 'religious profile'. You might find my results a source of humor. They are posted just below.
[[Image:Religious_profile.jpg|center|frame]]
[[Image:Religious_profile.jpg|center|frame]]
What I propose is use one image as I tend to prefer one 'iconic' piece for articles, and while a part of me prefers the Kiefer image, its meaning for this article is obscure. Otherwise, I think the first image using a question mark is effective. What do you think?--rdavis 20:20, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
What I propose is use one image as I tend to prefer one 'iconic' piece for articles, and while a part of me prefers the Kiefer image, its meaning for this article is obscure. Otherwise, I think the first image using a question mark is effective. What do you think?--rdavis 20:20, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
----
Ah, still allergic to primaries! Here you go: dimension, ambiguous color, and loads of British reservedness--the best of all worlds!
I definitely don't like the purple evangelical bumper sticker. Or the scene from X-files. : )
[[Image:What_3.jpg|center|]]
----
That's great! Let's use it. What about the links and bibliographic additions? Do you have suggestions, comments, etc.?--rdavis 00:27, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
[[Image:What_3.jpg|center|]]
----
I glad you liked it or I would have wept like a 7th grader--I created it from scratch with Photoshop. [The original version was half imported, half Photoshop]. At first I thought I would do all gray just to bore you to death by going from one extreme to the other. But then it backfired on me because I really liked what was emerging. [Sigh] I hate it when you are right!
I saw that you added some very nice links!
----
I am glad you like the links, but if not, I promise not to cry ;-) Let me know what you think about the color adjustment. Afterwards, I thought a bit of color could make it more consonant with the overall design context. Are you wanting to retain additional images? If so, might you consider just one? Multiple images can distract from reading the written dimension of an article--rdavis 00:44, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
----
I noticed the coloration and thought it nicely repeated the Daynal color scheme. Regarding the proliferation of images, I thought maybe we could go into the comic book business! You have a good point but there is also the opposite argument that most humans will see a mile of text down there and give up whereas an image may draw them on down so they can see what it's context is. Of course your readers aren't "most people." That being said, let's delete the Brandenburg gate for sure, which I partially did put out there as a form of rebellion and expected you to snuff it already. Get back to "merciless editing"--you're being too nice (although I appreciate it). As for the Bible image, I kind of like it and it repeats the color theme. Maybe it's far enough down to give the eye a break. But I won't cry if it disappears one day. A big reason I do images is because I just like playing with the software. Maybe I'll compensate by adding 50 more photos to my user page!
== Comic Books! ==
Now you're talking! Can you smell the market for "religious" humor?
Not since I hosted Will Campbell and Doug Marlette at Duke Divinity
School, have witnessed humor of your calibre!
----
I know how we can resolve the image controversy. I will select a single image that will be my "editorial signature" and I will place it at the beginning of every article. Here's my choice:
[[Image:Ratfink_1.jpg|center|frame]]
----
Actually, there is a way for you to assign an image to your account name, but I believe it would appear on the Scirptorium only. Nevertheless, you are really going to have to start cranking out more designs in your own image as it seems you are liable to heal with hilarity what billions of worthless US dollars could not do with technology.--rdavis 20:31, 12 April 2009 (EDT)