User talk:David aukerman
As you have begun to work on those sections I just introduced to that page a month or so ago (it was sadly lacking), do you think that philosophy and theology ought to be maintained as separate sections? It kind of makes the philosophy section seem scant, but it also seems to distinguish between things as Aquinas himself never did or could have, considering his fundamental beliefs. What do you think? Srnec 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the two sections (philosophy and theology) are good as separate sections. There is quite a bit of overlap between the two, but I think that's unavoidable. I introduced the theology section to try to flush out the article a bit, and I tried to keep it about the same length as the existing philosophy section. In any case, it looks like both sections contain equal amounts of important information... Perhaps we could say more about epistemology? David aukerman 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that Christians and theologians will read all of Aquinas writings as theological in nature, while students of philosophy and secular philosophers will read them as philosophical works contributing to and influencing greatly the subsequent philosophical tradition of the West. I think perhaps the theology section (and its subsections) should be made a subsection itself of the philosophy section. I think the epistemology section could be perhaps expanded and rounded off. Aquinas, as a philosopher, is noted for his empiricism and Aristotelianism and these are hardly even touched upon. His theology is so expansive a whole article could be written on that alone. Srnec 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're right - both his theology and his philosophy could take up entire articles of their own. But I disagree with your suggestion that we make the theology section a subsection of philosophy. Like you said, theologians will read Aquinas through a theological lens, and philosophers will read him through a philosophical lens. Why not keep the two pieces separate? After all, the article's opening sentence calls Aquinas a "philosopher and theologian"... David aukerman 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- He is without a doubt a philosopher and a theologian. However, I don't want to have two sections in the article with a lot of overlap between them and I don't want to have to decide where some information belongs since it could belong in either section, but I'll leave it as is, it works for now. Srnec 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me...I see your point. Maybe as more material gets added, we'll see better how to structure the article. David aukerman 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- He is without a doubt a philosopher and a theologian. However, I don't want to have two sections in the article with a lot of overlap between them and I don't want to have to decide where some information belongs since it could belong in either section, but I'll leave it as is, it works for now. Srnec 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're right - both his theology and his philosophy could take up entire articles of their own. But I disagree with your suggestion that we make the theology section a subsection of philosophy. Like you said, theologians will read Aquinas through a theological lens, and philosophers will read him through a philosophical lens. Why not keep the two pieces separate? After all, the article's opening sentence calls Aquinas a "philosopher and theologian"... David aukerman 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that Christians and theologians will read all of Aquinas writings as theological in nature, while students of philosophy and secular philosophers will read them as philosophical works contributing to and influencing greatly the subsequent philosophical tradition of the West. I think perhaps the theology section (and its subsections) should be made a subsection itself of the philosophy section. I think the epistemology section could be perhaps expanded and rounded off. Aquinas, as a philosopher, is noted for his empiricism and Aristotelianism and these are hardly even touched upon. His theology is so expansive a whole article could be written on that alone. Srnec 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
...nevermind, in case you saw the last message. I'm a newbie and didn't understand the title. Thanks for fixing the vandalism. Kalossoter 21:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- David, I'm looking for at least a few inline citations. The purpose of these is so that a reader can pursue a subject in the sources for the article. The rule of thumb is at least one cite per section. If the material is all from Schaff, then put an reference in every time the source materials for text is on a different page in Schaff or you switch paragraphs. Ideally, multiple sources should be checked, but no one really expects that here. Thanks for the work on this! Bob --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I knew the quotation I provided from the Summa was from an objection. I had seen it quoted and attributed to Aquinas before as his opinion, so I did likewise. My reading of that passage, however, affirms that Aquinas does not disagree that "without grace, man cannot know truth", he only specifies what this means, because to him it is different from what it means to most. Anyways, it's no big deal, but perhaps the relation between revelation (grace) and the senses can be further elucidated, Aquinas' epistemology is very important in Western philosophy. Srnec 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point... you're right - his specification is that grace enables humans to know "certain truths . . . especially in regard to such as pertain to faith." I'll update the Epistemology section to balance this out ... but yes, there's still room for expansion in this material. - David aukerman talk 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Categorisation Thomas Aquinas
[edit]Hey, i agree with what you've said and it seems stupid of me to put it in there in the first place, apologies. But im not sure that leaving the educational institutions named after TA out of there was so smart? although it could be right? but i dont think so, in my view it should be re-instated - but im not ovrly strong on the idea. Smbarnzy 13:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Settlers of canaan box.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Settlers of canaan box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks! David aukerman talk 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Cite Help
[edit]Can you help find a citation for the view below linked to Aquinas in the Jesus article (under Majority view)?
The satisfaction view of atonement for sin, first articulated by Anselm of Canterbury, is that humanity owes God a debt of honor. This debt creates essentially an imbalance in the moral universe; it could not be satisfied by God's simply ignoring it. In this view, the only possible way of repaying the debt was for a being of infinite greatness, acting as a man on behalf of men, to repay the debt of honor owed to God. Therefore, when Jesus died, he paid a debt to God, his father. Thomas Aquinas consided atonement and articulated that rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moral injustice to be righted. Aquinas concludes that punishment is a morally good response to sin, "Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins," and substitution for another's sin is entirely possible.[citation needed] --Carlaude (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Thomas Aquinas
[edit]I am contacting you because you have contributed extensively to the article Thomas Aquinas. The article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed on the article's talk page. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Lampman (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, David aukerman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, David aukerman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, David aukerman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)