User talk:Michael2

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

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!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * 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)

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

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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see 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)
 * [[Image:JW organisation structure 2.png|thumb|262px]]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)

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)

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)

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, 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)

Possibly unfree Image:Themessage.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Themessage.JPG, has been listed at 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 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)

Possibly unfree Image:Themessage.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Themessage.JPG, has been listed at 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 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reasoningbook.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Reasoningbook.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gideons Bible.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gideons Bible.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Newenglishbible.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Newenglishbible.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  21:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Abilene Christian University page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=671537881 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F671537881%7CAbilene Christian University%5D%5D Ask for help])

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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:King Oscar Sardines.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:King Oscar Sardines.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)