User:Rodejong/Archive/2011

Awake!
I read the article at the New York Review of Magazines for which you provided a link at the Watchtower article. Despite the rather lazy heading on the article, the writer in fact nowhere describes it as the world's most widely read magazine. It's quite possible that, thanks to its vast unpaid workforce, the Watch Tower Society can lay claim to printing the most widely distributed magazine in the world. Just how many people read it is another matter. When I was a Jehovah's Witness, I rarely read it. Few of the Witnesses I knew ever bothered to as well, which leaves just the "householders" who happen to accept a copy. Since leaving the religion (after realizing its claim to be "God's organization" was manifestly false and tiring of its insistence on incessant control of the lives of its members) I have spoken to many non-Witnesses who sometimes take the magazine when bothered on a Saturday morning by a knock on the door. Very few admit to ever having read it. They seemed to have taken the magazine as an act of pity, rather like buying a copy of The Big Issue, hoping that its purchase might make some difference to the life of the poor sod selling it. Awake! is a mediocre magazine filled with mediocre articles (one of which was once written by me). Those distributing it seem, rather justifiably, embarrassed about doing so. No claim about its global print run does anything to elevate it above the level of low-quality religious propaganda. BlackCab (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the September 30, 2010 edition of Business Insider. Unlike propagandist rantings, it is a reliable publication; it says, "The most widely-read magazine in the world is the hand-distributed, Brooklyn-based monthly publication of Jehovah's Witness, The Watchtower."--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ex-JW love to poke with bad articles, and when we argue against that, then we are talking POV and not neutral and all that rubbish. But when something possitive is written, we should take it with a grain of salt. Thanks for your comment AT. --Rodejong (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom Hall
Thanks for your recent edit at the article Kingdom Hall. While your edit was soon reverted, understanding the reasons why will help you to become a better editor. Your edit added information which may be both true and encyclopedically relevant, but was not sourced properly. Wikipedia doesn't allow "original research" to be used directly. Perhaps you can reinstate the information along with the source where you learned it. I hope you will not be discouraged from contributing to the success of Wikipedia in the future. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:ScrRefs


A tag has been placed on Template:ScrRefs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Though your actions here are clearly well-intentioned, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that scrollable sections should not be used to reduce the display of article content, including References sections. See MOS:SCROLL.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that User:Nyttend has removed the Speedy deletion request, advising that "Policy doesn't prohibit the use of such pages in places such as userspace". Therefore, feel free to use this template in places other than in articles, such as on your user page. However, it should not be used in articles. If you don't plan to use it anywhere else, you can simply endorse its deletion yourself, or if you're not sure how, I can do it for you.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thumbnails
Thank you for your contributions. Recently, you changed the default size of one or more thumbnail pictures. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. With common sense exceptions, specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences.

The recommended image markup for landscape-format and square images is:

and for portrait-format images:

Thank you. -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ScrRefs
Template:ScrRefs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (As I reviewing my Talk page, I noticed the scrollable references template is still there, so per previous discussion, I've raised a deletion nomination for it. If you want to use the template in areas other than articles, just say so at the Nomination page and I'll withdraw the request. If you want it kept, the template should have a note added to indicate that other editors shouldn't use it in articles per WP:SCROLL. Thanks.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just delete it then. I have no objection to that. --Rodejong (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Coodinates in Teletubbies article
Hi-

What's with the coordinates you added to the Teletubbies article?

Teletubbies article

\== References ==
 * Coordinates: 52° 7′ 31.77″ N, 1° 42′ 12.41″ W.

Baziliscus (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The series were recorded on this site.-- Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)