Hi Ronin VII. The quote you highlight as not cited is from a historical account posted online at: www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2002preus.pdf Thanks for noting this. Please feel free to add the external citation (maybe as a footnote linked to the external article?). User:Ropcat 17 Feb 2005 23:23 UTC
Hi Again. Thanks for adding the citation we've been discussing. I changed the format a little bit, just because it seemed to be redundant to say in the article text that it was an LCMS 1973 convention resolution, then to put "LCMS 1973" as a parenthetical reference. I moved the page number into the parenthetical reference and pulled out the organization and year (which are more than obvious from the context). Also, parenthetical references always go outside the quotation marks, not inside (using MLA, APA, or other citation methods). Thanks for your interest in the article! If you don't like my condensed version, I'd be happy to discuss further. User:Ropcat 18 Feb 2005 04:35 UTC
Gah! Thanks for cleaning up my mess. My bad on the MLA format- looks like my high school teachers were deficient. Also, I noticed that the references section was removed from the end. Are those sections not status quo? If not, my bad again, and thanks for your help. --User:RoninVII 16:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ronin. Well, the thing is, all the pieces under "Further Reading" are also references for the article. (I didn't do specific page citations for all the facts in the text, since it didn't seem like the format used in wikipedia and print encyclopedias, but those are all sources for the article.) So it seems like it might be best either to change the name of the entire "Further Reading" section to "References" (since they're all references for the article), or to put the Convention Proceedings under "Further Reading." (i.e. the split between the stuff under "References" and "Further Reading" seems artificial). What do you think? I'd really value your opinion on this. (Also, I wonder if we could find the full publication details for the Convention Proceedings, so that people could go find them if they want. Did the version you found have a publisher and publication location listed?) Let me know what you think... and thanks for your help on this! I'm glad others are interested in this article; how did you find it? This seems like the most thorough and accessible account of Seminex on the web, so I'm glad we're getting it punched into shape. User:Ropcat 20:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ronin, thanks for your recent comments on my Talk Page. You've got documents from Chicago on Seminex? That's terrific. If there are any details that might be useful, please go ahead and add them. I'm still actively working on this article (addition yesterday about AELC), so anything you can throw into the mix would be great. Since I wasn't born until years after the Seminex controversy, I also think it would be useful to get someone who was there at the time to read the article and check its accuracy. Did you happen to do any interviews for your paper? Thanks again for the help and interest! User:Ropcat 20:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Start a discussion with RoninVII
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with RoninVII. What you say here will be public for others to see.
