User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2013

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Jan-Jun Jul-Dec

Jehovah's Witnesses and governments

Thanks for edit re Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. I had inadvertently omitted the word 'of' in the phrase 'on the basis of just satisfaction'. And my total contribition was the result of many drafts! Aarrgh! However, your edit was much needed, succinct and good. Thanks.--Observer6 (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the thanks. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses

Jeffro77, you are insisting the Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses is, or should be, an appendix. That is true but it can still be a standalone article. Also, I have no intention of "hacking" the JW articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you did when you created the article was to remove the Further reading section from another article, and you also suggested that Further reading sections be split from JW-related articles (to your bibliography page) instead of each article having its own Further reading section[1] (though each should list should really be in the scope of the particular article). And you copied the list from a list that was previously commented out because of concerns of bias in that list. WP:APPENDIX states that the Further reading section is a standard appendix; it's not simply that I think it 'should be'.

If it is no longer your intention to remove the Further reading appendices from other articles, well, good.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Gary Botting

Hi - sorry, wasn't able to figure this out until now. Talk about "newbie"!

Thank you for your insight and experience! It shows!

Thought I'd finish drafting the article, then cut down on the citations as necessary leaving the most obvious or relevant ones. Can also combine footnotes if necessary. (Usually the complaint is in the other direction - i.e. not enough citations!) Sorry it's taking so long.

If you want to draft a new article (or a major revision) over time without being interuupted by other editors, you can also create a draft article as a subpage of your own user space (see Help:Userspace draft), however that's probably not necessary at this stage of the Botting article's development. Note that such subpages should only be for the purpose of the draft, and not stored permanently as a preferred version of an article (see SUB#Disallowed uses), and should only be in the user WP:NAMESPACE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice that some of the changes adopt U.K. rather than North American spelling (e.g. "organisation" instead of "organization" or "specialises" instead of "specializes".) Seems to me the North American spelling is preferred, right? What happens if someone keeps switching them back?

Thanks.

GR

Gerald Ryder (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem is usually that people don't add citations at all. But if a statement is not particularly controversial, and not likely to be challenged, it is only necessary to provide one or two sources. Citations/footnotes can be combined in a single ref, but this is only necessary if there are several important and distinct sources for a point, especially if it is a controversial issue. Where several sources say ostensibly the same thing, it is not necessary to present all of them, either separately or combined.

Changing the 'z' to 's' was my fault. I (in Australia) thought Canadian English was slightly more similar to British than it actually is. (Having just reviewed Canadian English, I see that several of my ideas about the similarity were correct, but indeed not regarding the 'z'/'s' spellings.)Sorry about that. The most important thing is that an article should be consistent throughout; the exception is when quoting a source, which should always use the original spelling. (There are other conventions also where one of two styles may be adopted, so long as the article consistently employs one style or the other and not a mix of both where there are alternative punctuation styles (e.g. US/U.S.) or different terms with the same meaning (e.g. BC/BCE); the exception again is when providing a quotation.) The answer to your second question is to raise your concern/query at the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Gary Botting), which is specifically for discussing changes to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77. I notice that my last message got garbled in with another one of yours re Brisbane. Sorry about that. (Hope the same thing doesn't happen this time).

To start a new section on a Talk page, use the same method as in an article, i.e. place the new section heading on its own line between two pairs of equals signs:

== Heading ==

Alternatively, if you use a 'New Section' link to add a section, you can enter the new heading in the separate Subject/headline field above the main entry area instead. Either method produces the same result.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the Headings dropped in "Gary Botting" - "Law career" - the copy starts half way through "English professor". I have tried to reenter the heading, but with no success. Can you figure out what has happened? I have followed the directions, typing ==Law career== - to no visible effect. The heading has simply disappeared. Thanks, GR -- Gerald Ryder (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the Law Career heading. Either you have already fixed it yourself, or it may be a rendering issue specific to your browser.--Jeffro77 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I figured it out. A rogue < - ! Thanks.--Gerald Ryder (talk) 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a good idea to indent replies on Talk pages. You might like to review Help:Using talk pages#Talk page use.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jehovah's Witnesses".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Dead link No, the wayback-link was not dead. And yes, the second wayback-link showed that it was dead in december 2008, whereas someone indicated that the link was "retrieved" in 2011. —Mendelo (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I've already fixed the botched link per the proper citation style for dead links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) 1000 v 1,000 You are of course completely right. Thank you for correcting my correction.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC) You're welcome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC) GB members OK Thank You for giving me an update on the information. User:Alexandrhnh2 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2013 (WST) Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses Jeffro. Edit appreciated. Re deleted ref ""Watchtower Online Library". Retrieved 2013-06-06."... I feel that this ref has a place in this article about corporations of Jehovah's witnesses. Maybe the place I inserted it was not the best. Any thoughts on where it could best be placed? --JW-somewhere (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC) If it were to be cited, it would be proper to cite the book (the JW publications index) actually being referenced, and include the URL as a parameter, rather than the 'cite web' template, which is properly used when something is only on a website. However, a partial arbitrary list based on offices that JW literature has happened to mention at various times doesn't really add anything in particular to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks Jeffro. This particular information i.e. list of Associations (organizations), is in the Watch Tower Publications Index 1986-2012. But I cited the 'online' page of this index because the internet is more readily consulted. However, I take your point that I should, perhaps, have primarily cited the book itself. I can amend the ref to accommodate this. Apart from this information summarised in the indices, I know of no other sources that are more comprehensive. In my view an 'index list' is as valid as any, and, as a back-up reference, it certainly demonstrates the international presence of JW corporations. Therefore, if you agree that there is a case for providing a reference to such a list. . . . --JW-somewhere (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The list in the Index is not 'comprehensive'. It does not purport to be an exhaustive list of 'JW corporations or associations' (and nor would it be practical to provide an exhaustive list). It is only provided in the Publications Index as a list of associations that have been referenced in JW publications. The point that JWs have an international presence has not been contested, and is aptly demonstrated by the examples of the corporations I left intact. I have already also provided a citation, with a quote, from a JW publication indicating that IBSA is in the UK and that other corporations are used in other countries throughout the world.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks Jeffro. Apart from the difference between my 'more comprehensive' and your 'comprehensive', I take all your points and can see the sense of leaving things as they are. Thanks too for taking the time and trouble to add that apt WTBTS ref, and in sorting me out! Regards. --JW-somewhere (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Um... you're welcome. Glad I could... sort. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)