User talk:Michael2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 03:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image Perspectives

See my talk page for my reply about the images of the Bible. —Black and WhiteUSERTALKCONTRIBSBlack and White 19:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:JW organsiation structure.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JW organsiation structure.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This new constructed image is remarkably similar to the one from the publication, down to almost exact arrangement and colouration, and is probably a bit too closely 'adapted'. Given that it very nearly duplicates the way an idea is presented, and is not a parody thereof, it is possibly still a copyright vio. The diagram does not need to be so visually similar to that from the original publication to convey the same structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

HI jefro77, can you advise what degree of change should be made so as to avoid the possibility of a copyright violation? I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I wouldn't know where to draw the line. What if I changed the colours, or removed a few boxes? Unless someone else wanted to do it, I could make the changes (in a few weeks), but I'd prefer to do it all in one go, rather than piece-by-piece.Michael2 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You've done a good job at recreating the original, but I would suggest something much less elaborate. I may just be erring on the side of caution. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JW_theological_org_structure.png .--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your diagram is more concise than the new one I've done; as a thumbnailed image I think yours fits the article better, but I think mine demonstrates the hierarchy more obviously, while yours might be interpreted more as a flowchart. Also, I think most non-Witnesses would be unfamiliar with terms like faithful and discreet slave, and possibly Jehovah (without the additional explanatory words in the original diagram). Having said that, I guess I'm losing interest in this issue, so if you wanted to remove the existing picture and replace it with either one, that's fine with me.Michael2 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] old file

I think I have the original Image:Sequencing.jpg file. It might take a while to hunt it down if it is not on hard drive and I have to search through old backup CDs. It might be easier to just drop the current Wikipedia version into Photoshop and clean it up. --JWSchmidt 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original image file with no labels. --JWSchmidt 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felix article

Hey, just a heads up, I was planning a Felix article, so seeing as you started one, I'm going to expand it so it can be ready for outside links. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of the Jerusalem Bible, etc.

Michael2, I'm with you on this one, and I'd like to point out to you that this labeling is part of a systematic campaign to include the results of supposed "paraphrase rate" analyses, etc., into infoboxes for all Bible versions. It came to my attention when, at New Jerusalem Bible which I watch, this diff showed that some editors believe they can measure such things to four significant figures. Moreover, New Jerusalem Bible is very faithful to the original texts and the judgments looked prima facie wrong to me. The obvious questions of verifiable reliable sources came to mind, but my discussions with Teclontz at User talk:Teclontz and my own talk page User talk:Wareh, while eliciting some compromises, have not really resolved these issues. I don't know if you want to take this on, but examining these discussions will show you a lot more of the story if you are interested. You will see that torrents of incomprehensible "data" will be produced in response to any question, and that it is probably a matter for a Wikipedian of greater intestinal fortitude than me, since my very conciliatory approach has left some glaring questions about whether there is a campaign to fill the encyclopedia with ill-sourced "Christian data." Please respond here if you like. Wareh 15:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh. Thanks for letting my know about that systematic campaign. I must admit that I like to know what the paraphrase rate is for each Bible (so I sanction its inclusion into the infobox), but I agree with you that sources for that figure are likely the most subjective part of the Bible infobox. I haven't been in a position to read those links you posted, but one thing I can think of is deriving the paraphrase rate from the introduction/preface of the particular version itself (seeing as most versions say something to this effect), and using that as a source. I appreciate your conciliatory approach, but I'm not inclined at this point to do anything further.Michael2 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. There are some questionable things around the edges, but I'm pretty sure nothing too crazy is currently being presented in those infoboxes. I just wanted you to know that, if you get the impression that some users would arbitrarily label translations like the Jerusalem Bible "paraphrases" (when they are obviously at least dynamically equivalent translations), you're probably right, and I'd be glad to help respond. Wareh 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Themessage.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Themessage.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Samuell Lift me up or put me down 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Themessage.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Themessage.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Samuell Lift me up or put me down 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)