User talk:JBGeorge77
I have a talk page. JBGeorge77 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
An invitation to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! JBGeorge77,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Teahouse question
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Bilby (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
A brownie for you!
[edit]
|
Hi JBGeorge! I just wanted to drop by from the Teahouse and bring you a fresh wiki-brownie and say hi! How is your Wikipedia experience going? See you around! Sarah (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
References
[edit]Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks from the last 3 to 5 years. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- The recent study you used was not a review article or secondary source it is a primary source. Please read review article with respect to what these are.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see: Wikipedia:No original research)."
- This is not one of those cases when "primary sources may occasionally be used". Excellent secondary sources exist. I have added one.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see: Wikipedia:No original research)."
Only warning
[edit]This sort of edit is not appropriate [1]. This account will be blocked if you continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
JBGeorge77, I have just reverted your edit to the article Glossolalia because it is obvious that your hadn't even looked at the article, let alone read it, before you made your addition.
Basically, if you had begun at the beginning, then you would have read that Christian "tongues" is only one form of "Glossolalia". So this means that you needed to find the right section for your addition.
You see, Christianity is already mentioned.... read, read, read, ....and all the relevant chapters are already mentioned with a brief description of the subject matter. So individual verses that use the word "tongues" is clearly not necessary, because the info has already been stated in a slightly different way.
Also: to your average reader, a heading that says Verses where tongues are mentioned is totally meaningless! Only a Penecostal Christian will know what you are talking about. Or maybe someone with the gift of prophecy. No-one else will know. Because you didn't use the word Bible in the heading. And, to most people "verse" means "poetry"; it doesn't mean "Bible" so you have to be specific. Also, the word "tongues" means "things in people's mouths"; it doesn't mean "foreign languages". So when you write for an encyclopedia, you have to think about the context and the fact that millions of people, both Christian and non-Christian will consult this information. You are writing here for the people who don't know; not for the people who know this stuff already.
That is why there are clear headings in the article. You need to find the right heading and read to see if you information is there already.
I've pasted my advice for smart editting below.
Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
AJM's advice to new editors
[edit]- Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
- Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
- Search for the right place to put it.
- Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
- Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
- Be aware
- that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
- that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.
When adding images
- Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
- Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
- Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
- Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
- Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
- Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
- Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
- Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.
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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)