TOC numbering problem for me.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim S
  • Start date Start date
J

Jim S

My problem with TOC on my word 2003 doc does not have contigous numbering
throught the index. Here's an example. It goes to page 27 in the TOC and than
starts at page 2 again in the TOC.

How do i resolve this problem. I want it to go from page 6 to page 42
without repeating the numbers.

6.1 APPLICATION ACCOUNTS NOT ALLOWED ON ANY SYSTEM - ALL 23
6.2 BLOCK DIRECT ACCESS TO SYSTEM ACCOUNTS - ALL 23
6.3 PURGE OR LOCK SYSTEM ACCOUNTS - ALL 23
6.4 ALL ACCOUNTS BY DEFAULT - ALL 23
6.5 PEOPLE THAT HAVE ROOT ACCESS - ALL 25
6.6 SET USER ACCOUNT RESTRICTIONS – ALL 27
6.7 CONTRACTOR AND VENDOR ACCOUNTS - ALL 2
6.8 VERIFY THAT THERE ARE NO ACCOUNTS WITH EMPTY PASSWORD FIELDS - ALL 2
6.9 VERIFY NO DUPLICATE USERIDS EXIST - ALL 2
6.10 VERIFY NO LEGACY '+' ENTRIES EXIST IN PASSWD, SHADOW AND GROUP FILES -
ALL 2
6.11 NO '.' OR GROUP/WORLD-WRITABLE DIRECTORY IN ROOT'S $PATH - ALL 2
6.12 USER HOME DIRECTORIES SHOULD BE MODE - ALL 3
 
Please see replies to your duplicates posts elsewhere and stop multi-posting
this question.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
 
My problem with TOC on my word 2003 doc does not have contigous numbering
throught the index. Here's an example. It goes to page 27 in the TOC and than
starts at page 2 again in the TOC.
Click to expand...

See answer to your previous question.
 
Suzanne,

Your suggestion - short and brief is a far cry of support. I have seen many
of your other references and I would strongly suggest that you consider
getting a new job. Your type of support not only suffers from a lack of
integrity but you also suggest with your brief explainations that everyone is
at your level of understanding.

Thanks for your feeble attempt at support the people requesting good
suggested help. You may want to look for training from your other colleges on
good customer service or get out of the business all together.

By the way, your suggestion wasn't the problem at all. Please refer to the
comments that Steve Hayes suggested. You might learn something.

One other thing, if you don't want postings in several locations, try
speeding up your process of responding. You act like people have nothing
better to do than to wait around for your reply for a whole day only to get
the wrong reply from you. Your type of respone really sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Please understand that this is a peer support forum. No one who replies here
works for Microsoft, and many of us (including me) are not in the business
of providing support. We are all volunteers here. I submit that my reply to
your question elsewhere *was* correct; in case you have forgotten, here is
what I said:

From your example and your other question, it's clear that it's a TOC and
not an index that's involved here, but the solution is the same; find the
section break where you have restarted numbering, open the Page Number
Format dialog (by clicking Format Page Number on the Header and Footer
toolbar), and choose "Continue from previous section."

I said that you had a section break after which numbering was restarted, and
that proved to be the case: when you removed the section break, you didn't
need to deal with the restarts, but that was still the issue.

As for the slowness of replies, again, I will point out that we're all
volunteers here. But the main problem was that over the past few days,
replies posted via NNTP (which most of us who answer questions use to post)
were not being propagated to the Web interface and so were not being seen by
Web users. Even if everything had been working as usual, however, it is
unreasonable to expect an instant answer. Often it will take 24 hours or
more to get a reply.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
 
Suzanne,

Thank you for your response. Some times when we are looking for help and
trying to get things done in a timely manner, we are expecting a little more
attention to the matter. I can appreciate the fact that a nttp system was
down causing delays, etc. Again, something that I and the community was not
aware of however, as you stated about multiple postings, I agree and will not
post in several locations as everyone attempts to get things answered
quickly. Putting multiple postings does not help the problem.

Again, thank you for your help.

Jim
 
Back
Top