User talk:Hbprof

Aaron

Thanks for the copy edit and general improvement of the article on Aaron; however when you did this, I noticed that you unintentionally broke a reference by deleting the section with the original creation of the "phod" reference which subsequently caused all further instances of this named reference to err out. I have fixed it, and if you take a look at my most recent changes to the article you will notice what I accomplished. I also made some minor adjustments to continue with the style of the article, such as placing the {{cite book}} template in the references section at the end and at the location were the inline was needed utilize either of the styles that work, such as {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}} or others. Finally, rather than placing a note about a reference in the reference section, I moved it to the "note" section. Take a look and I don't mean to talk down to you. I only do this as I notice you have not got a lot of edits under your belt and you "may" need pointers ... or not. Thanks again as I have expanded all I can in this article and my strength is clearly not in Biblical Studies. Thanks again and if you have questions do not hesitate to ask. speednat (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You're right--I'm new at this and appreciate the tips. I actually wondered about whether there are too many different documentation sections on this article: notes, references and a further reading list. Is that usual to have all three? Thanks again. --Hbprof (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For an article such as this, I would believe that it is normal. Footnotes/References tend to go together, which then leaves Notes and Further Reading sections. The notes is a preference thing... and also tailored to whether the article is written is a style like that. Some articles will throw a lot of parenthetical "notes" others will do it this way. It is a personal preference thing and how those that write and contribute the most to that specific article, in particular, the early editors and creators. Then, the Further Reading is definitely appropriate for an article of this magnitude. The References in the Qur'an is different but a nice addition. What it all comes down to is does the article look and feel professionally written, does it give the information in a manner that is organized and streamlined? If it was a 1 paragraph article, some would argue that this much would be too much. speednat (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Also take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Citationsspeednat (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwwatts (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

You made a comment two years ago at Biblical criticism --I know--nothing ever really disappears on Wikipedia.  :-) I thought your comment was intelligent and right on point, and since I have just finished redoing the article, I thought you might be interested in seeing it now. Hope you're still around! We need people like you here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Washington Watts (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Washington Watts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:James Washington Watts, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hbprof! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Missvain (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Washington Watts has been accepted

James Washington Watts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)