User talk:Brotherlawrence

I've started a discussion on the JW Writing Project policy about not using Scripture references to document Jehovah's Witenss belief on the talk page of the main Jehovah's Witness page here: [1] Your input would be welcome. Dtbrown 02:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have added several references to a few of the JW articles. While it is appropriate to add references to provide verification, longwinded passages from JW publications verges on POV. Please be careful not to use references as a preaching platform.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's like asserting that saying "loving parents buy their children a car" leads to the conclusion that parent's who don't buy their children cars are unloving.'" Indeed, in that statement it is strongly implied that it is because they are "loving" that they buy the car, otherwise there is no value in including the word 'loving' in the statement. 'Being loving' and 'having a bible study' are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. As for examples of excessive referencing... quoting entire (or several) paragraphs from source material is not necessary; a reference to the source article, with maybe a sentence or two from the source is sufficient. Wikipedia is to reference verifiable material, not duplicate it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your longwinded and unnecessary comment. Commenting on the use of 'i.e.' was particularly irrelevant (and 'i.e.' is not interchangable with 'e.g.', though is a common error by careless writers. Use of 'ex.' for example is non-standard and not appropriate in an encyclopedia, where 'e.g.' is standard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Regarding the links you included as 'justification'... On the first page referenced from the hardly high-quality source, 'yahoo answers', the responses made no comment regarding the use of 'ex' at all. The second link also made no reference at all to the use of 'ex', and there was no issue of confusion between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.' (unless on your part). And in the third reference, did you notice the confusion regarding the proposed use of 'ex' for 'example', which served to restate my own comment that use of 'ex' usually refers to excluding or exempting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you are aware that since this discussion is in a Talk page and not an article, I am under no obligation to provide verifiable sources for points on grammar and word usage. However, I will provide this reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA520&dq=i.e.+merriam-webster&sig=Oyx35rFRHBu8ZssDEik1_WXbOTs

(Note that the very fact that 'ex.' is not given as an alternative should be evidence enough that it is not interchangable in formal usage.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By way of example, e.g. is appropriate when giving a non-exhaustive list of examples "animals, e.g. cats". i.e is used when giving an exhaustive list of examples "primary colours, i.e. red, yellow and blue" or when providing clarification "the day after Christmas, i.e. 26 December".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My minor edit at 13:26 immediately followed my more significant edit at 13:25. If you carefully examine the edit in the "change from yellow to green", you will note the removal of three single quotes I had inadvertently not removed in my edit at 13:25. As a hint, you will find these near the word 'hades'. (Though not the case this time, edits can also appear to make no changes when fixing issues with whitespace.) It's unclear why you would bother questioning an edit that you didn't realise altered the article. I trust I will not have to explain minutia such as this again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are active on the Jehovah's Witnesses discussion page,
and so I thought I would invite you to contribute to the improvemet, addition of references,
and general clean up of the Nontrinitarianism Article so that it does not get neglected!
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Explodicle (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JWs do not believe there is life anywhere else, other than on Earth, and in the 'spirit world'. Within those constraints, miracles are only miracles on Earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]