User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2017

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

Jan-Jun Jul-Dec

Re: Talk:List of places of worship in Horsham District and others

Hi Jeffro. It looks like the jw.org site must have been overhauled since I added all those links (it was a few years ago that I last checked them). They were the best references available at the time, although I agree they weren't very good. I will see if I can find anything more suitable. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. There might be council or other government type websites that provide details of various facilities including churches in their relevant localities. They might be a suitable source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Marking

Hey Jeffro. I see you're doing a great job, thank you.

In this edit you removed "dating when not legally or scripturally free" with the comment "'dating illegally' not in cited source". But it is! See Shepherd the Flock of God (2010 edition), page 124, last part of §1: "It may involve one who schemes to take material advantage of others, indulges in entertainment that is clearly improper, or dates when not legally or Scripturally free." 1009 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologise. I was reading the section about dating on page 125.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It can happen the best ;-) 1009 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The Watchtower

Hi Jeffro. I note your removal of the link from the introductory parags of the Contents section of The Watchtower. I see your point that the link already exists elsewhere in the article, but that introductory sentence which outlines the availability of the Study edition omits mention of its online availability to the general public. Do you think the present sentence is accurate and comprehensive enough? Only asking! Regards. --JW-somewhere (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Providing online links in the Content section doesn't seem necessary to me. In addition to the External links section, the availability of online digital formats of both the Public and Study editions is already indicated in the Accessibility section, and this seems to be a more relevant place than under Content. Links to both the main JW webpage as well as the magazine page are already present in the article, so providing additional links is not necessary.

Additionally, because the Watch Tower Society specifically instructs JW members to promote the JW website, it is generally best that Wikipedia editors err on the side of caution when recommending links to the site where there might be a perception of a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffro. I agree that the link I added was not really necessary, and I have no objection to its removal. When I added the link, it was to substantiate my text edit which added details about the Study edition also being readily available to the general public. This 'also available online to the general public' information was omitted from the original sentence re the Study edition.

It said (says) "The latter is generally distributed only to members but is made available to members of the public attending the study of The Watchtower at congregation meetings." ... a statement which, in my view, is incomplete and inaccurate.

So I changed that sentence to "The latter is generally distributed only to members but is also available to the general public online and to members of the public attending the study of The Watchtower at congregation meetings."

I appreciate your comment about erring in the side of caution when editing where perception of conflict of interest may arise, and appreciate that adding/duplicating a link might be perceived that way, but I wonder if my addition of clarifying text also falls into that category?

However, if you feel that the matter of 'omission of mention of public availability' is satisfactorily rectified/resolved later in the article, so be it!

Alternatively, if the introductory paragraphs of the Content section should just discuss 'content', maybe the last sentence of the second paragraph, which discusses availability/accessibility, should be deleted in its entirety because this subject is covered later in the article. What do you think? Regards. --JW-somewhere (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the sentence about distribution. I have moved it to the proper section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Great. Thanks. --JW-somewhere (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Allopathic medicine

I have added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism/To_do. You're always invited to join the WikiProject too, if it interests you. — PaleoNeonate — 05:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ten Year Society

Congratulations, you are entitled to display/join Wikipedia:Ten_Year_Society. — PaleoNeonate — 06:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! The Transhumanist 16:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you are a beginner-level JavaScript programmer...

I found you listed at Category:User js-1 (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), and thought you might be interested in improving your skills by getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.

We do all of that and more at the JavaScript WikiProject.

Scripts undergoing development, and the state of JavaScript on Wikipedia, are discussed on the talk page.

For an overview of JavaScript coverage on Wikipedia, see Draft:Outline of JavaScript and Index of JavaScript-related articles. For everything on user scripts, see User:The Transhumanist/Outline of scripts.

The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.

If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.

Hope to see you there! The Transhumanist 16:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure my limited foray into JavaScript specifically would be of much benefit to the project, but I could certainly learn a few things. I'll take a look around as time permits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism

Hello, Jeffro77 – I'm glad to see you're working on Nontrinitarianism. Your edits look good. Maybe you'll be able to find some better sources. May I ask you, though, why you are changing spaced en-dashes to unspaced em-dashes? I think the spaced en-dash looks much better and makes reading easier. According to MOS:DASH, they are equally acceptable, so there is no reason to change them. I particularly think the em-dash does not look right in the list in Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs. The first item in the row is the name of the movement. It's kind of like a mini-heading. The second item, after the dash, is the first word in a sentence. Joining the two terms with an em-dash makes it look like they are a dual item, particularly since many of them are in the blue font of links. It's distracting. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The dashes aren't too much of a big deal. I'm just used to consistently using em dashes for that purpose, so I tend to do it automatically if it's part of a broader copyedit. The list of beliefs was one place where I did hesitate about using them, and I have no objection to changing them back there. Changing the em dashes in the prose would cause me some quite minor irritation, but nothing I can't handle .--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess with punctuation it often comes down to what you're used to. Since you don't mind, I'll change the em-dashes in the list to spaced en-dashes, but I'll leave the others alone. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you picked up some other errors I missed too. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

I saw your discussion at Talk:Allopathic medicine. Indeed the modern use of the term is pejorative in nature and the term is used by practitioners of homeopathy and alternative medicine. I am writing an article Modern medicine as an evolutionarily distinct entity from Allopathy. Although it is in very initial stage, I have laid down the points and you may have a look. Diptanshu 💬 00:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The suggested draft, though clearly in an early stage, still really seems like undue weight to the term coined by Hahnemann. None of the sources for the draft (so far) refer to allopathic medicine in a context that does not relate to homoeopathy, and I don't see any indication that the term "allopathic" is used in a context of some separate set of practices that have 'evolved toward medicine'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about Thorne

I've just deleted two categories he recreated recently that had been deleted after discussion.[1] I've found a number of issues with his edits when tracing poor editing in articles using Wikiblame. And see this. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks like there could be a fair bit of cleaning up to do with the various See also additions across various articles in addition to the categories. That's assuming the editor isn't willing to follow the suggestions made to clean up the edits on their own. I remain hopeful at this point. Or at least tired. Time for sleep.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid I don't have the time. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)