User talk:JeffreyW75

Hi Jeff, I noticed your comment on the Sandbox about the instructions there not being clear. You're right. of course, but then the Sandbox is basically just a page that anyone can play with to try out techniques rather than being a full-blown "how-to" guide - half the time the "instructions" on there are missing anyway (because someone has ignored the request to leave the header alone and not delete it). The links below might be more helpful, particularly "How to edit a page":

There are much more detailed help pages on things like creating Wikitext or formatting tables, mostly these are in the "Help" namespace, for instance Help:Wikitext or Help:Table.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Russia August 2008 217.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Russia August 2008 217.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks, I created this (and other photos) myself with a camera. I indicated this in the file information I uploaded, but don't quite understand how to indicate the license status otherwise.

Christian

Hi, sorry we're butting heads on Christian - I'll try to explain what's going on as far as my reversion. My main concern is that the article is full of what is called original research, that is, people just type whatever sounds about right to them. Any sources are added after the fact, in an attempt to provide legitimacy. Sometimes this is done because the person wants to make the article accurate, which is a wonderful motive to have, however, what seems accurate to one person may not seem that way to another. This is why Wikipedia has a saying that may sound somewhat jarring: "Verifiability, not truth". It means that our goal isn't to be "right", since it will be impossible for everyone to reach consensus on what is "right". Rather, we focus on accurately reporting what reliable sources are saying.

In other words, if you have a reliable source that actually uses your definition of Christian, great, then submit it. The BBC source isn't great, but it's what we have. But don't write a definition and then add a source to it if the source doesn't use that definition. When I asked for a source, I was hoping you'd rise to the challenge and find a better source than the BBC, because this article really needs one. Otherwise it's just different people writing what "sounds about right" to them, and they will inevitably end up in conflict. I'll readily admit the article, along with many others in the Christianity project, has lots of original research and I try to whittle it down when I can... but let's not add more original research to it, ok?

Also, about the examples thing. The description of Trinitarianism is not meant as examples, it uses as broad terms as possible in an attempt to describe the entire movement, since the vast majority of Trinitarians belong to Catholiorthodotestantism. Putting JW as an example of non-Trinitarianism places undue emphasis on them as being representatives of all non-Trinitarians, over others such as Oneness Pentecostal, Christadelphians, Unitarians, Latter-day Saints, etc... to list Jehovah's Witnesses all by themselves would be equivalent to listing Methodists all by themselves instead of using the blanket term "Protestants". I hope statistically and theologically you can see that JW does not represent the breadth of non-Trinitarianism. If there was 1-3 "isms" that covered most of non-Trinitarianism I'd be fine with using it, but thus far I can't think of one... at least the phrase "nontrinitarians" IS linked, so the user can click it to see a comprehensive list (same as with Protestantism).

-- Joren (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, JeffreyW75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help at Christianity

Hi Jeffrey,

I noticed your involvement at Christian and you appear to be a welcome fair-minded contributor. Recently I presented a case for adding a qualifier (the word generally) in the opening sentence to identify that not all Christians are strictly monotheistic and so the present exclusive wording would be both insensitive, inaccurate, and likely founded in POV. I seem to have a counter-contributor who at past articles has made it almost impossible for me to find consensus with the other contributors. The discussions always turn out TLDNR. I have offered to remove myself from the discussion so as not to drag the discussion down, but I would be appreciative if you would look at the discussion and I will leave it to you to do the right thing by the principle raised. If nothing, I would appreciate your honest feedback as to whether I am in fact pushing an agenda as I am accused of doing. I am not stupid enough to believe what my opponents say about me, but neither am I naive enough to figure I am always in the right.--Canadiandy talk 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candiandy, I agree. I think too many people have come to wikipedia with their limited understanding of christianity and the diversity of views, and have instead made the article into something palatable with their limited views, either intentionally or just out of years of learning and not asking. If they want a religious article that agrees with their views, they should create it on a religious website, not wikipedia. I'm all for making this article in wikipedia as inclusive as possible. Enough of the narrow viewpoints.

Non-free rationale for File:Russia August 2008 217.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Russia August 2008 217.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't understand what you are saying. I took the photograph myself at a public museum, and I'm not asserting any copyright over the photograph. I don't know how to put that any more clearly in my description, as it already says that. JeffreyW75 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russia August 2008 disk 2 335.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Russia August 2008 disk 2 335.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]