User talk:Cryptojudeo

Welcome!

Hello, Cryptojudeo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acroterion can you provide any documentation that shows that a group formed in Germany or not? This paragraph on postwar Germany of the article needs desperately a citation or must be deleted. As I explained already the article appears to be an attempt for advertisement of JW suffering on Nazi camps. As a Jew, I sympathize with Jehovah's Witnesses but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise our favorite religion. Cryptojudeo (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Cryptojudeo[reply]

You removed two sources with your edit. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the irrelevant material as any non-Jehovah's Witness would do. Only Jehovah's Witnesses are interesting to use wikipedia for advertising and gather funds for their church. Cryptojudeo (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Cryptojudeo[reply]

NPOV

Hello, in regards to your edits on the Jehovah's Witnesses various pages it appears that you are inserting your personal opinion more then facts. Never mind that I agree that dis-fellowshipping is harsh, you and I saying it's harsh makes it Original Research, opinion based and not neutral. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket I made only two edits and nobody reacted, suddenly all Jehovahs witnesses alerted each other and are coming to my page to write against me creating a negative image about me so I can not longer SPEAK ABOUT THE TRUTH. You say that by writing dis-fellowshipping is harsh or cruel is my personal opinion. Can I ask you something: are you familiar with the Australian Royal Commission and the case study No.29? have you read the report and its findings? if you do you will see that everything I wrote I BACK IT UP WITH DOCUMENTED MATERIAL. And if someone is boring reading he can even listen to it from the mouth of JUSTICE McCLELLAN himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElM5y8t3Pjs Please note that the lawyer of the Jehovah's witnesses tries to lie on behalf of the children by saying that the children who are molested are shunning the organization and so the shunning is their doing when in reality the molested children they just cannot attend their meetings and confront this monsters who for so long are being protected by this religion with Omerta. Hell in a Bucket honestly tell to me please: exist any other religion who shun molested children and if not why you don't want to place this unique characteristic together with the other characteristics who make this religion famous? Cryptojudeo (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Cryptojudeo[reply]

Who do you think is a Witness here? You appear to be operating with an overt agenda against the church, and appear to be trying to abuse the encyclopedia as a soapbox for your views on Witnesses. Please reconsider your approach to editing on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a little bit of good faith, no one brought, asked or alerted me to the debate at all. The ironic part about this is that I actually agree with your pov but disagree it should be here. I will tell you I used to be a member of the organization but we are literally talking more then 23 years ago at this point. I've lived through the politics of the religion more then you can know, I had church elders tell me to honor my parents when I was being physically abused and deprived of food. If I edit though I don't edit from that viewpoint, I edit it like I have no personal feelings at all. This often means I do very little editing on the subject except in certain circumstances. If you feel strongly, go the talk pages and discuss it with the more active editors. We work on consensus here and if they disagree with me or Acro here we can be overridden. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, why you avoid the conversation about the topic whitch, is the harsh and cruel practice of shunning as uniquely imposed by the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses even to molested little children? ...(your effort to turn this conversation into a personal one will not work with me). Hell in a Bucket, if you know all this why you attack me in the first place? Cryptojudeo (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Cryptojudeo[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your attacks on other editors are unreasonable and unacceptable, and your article editing is completely disruptive. You don't seem to understand that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, as opposed to a venue for opinion. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Criticisms of witnesses

In your effort to make sure information is available adverse to the organization you might wish to see [[1]], and Raymond Franz It may not be noticeable at once but the article aims to educate in a non passionate and weighted style. Because of that we do present criticism found in notable and WP:RS. I'll give you a piece of advice, my own entry to Wikipedia was far from good, I too was indef blocked. I had to calm down and then understand the overall purpose of this place. If you take a little and see how to educate people within our guidelines which every religion article here follows you might still be able to educate. User:BlackCab may be able to help explain, they are a former witness member and might be able to give words of advice from their very extensive experience navigating those articles. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Injust treatment from JW members

I came here to help Wikipedia. It turns out that Wikipedia is controlled by a totalitarian JW "mafia". Why is that? I edited only two posts. Both of them were deleted by Jehovahs Witnesses like Acroterion. Since then I never attempted to edit again, I just try to converse with all those who attacked me in the first place and who tried to defame me here on my personal page. For example, they claimed I had no proof of what I was writing. When I presented proof they avoid to talk about the subject (shunning) and they try to turn the argument into a personal one. Someone by the name Bishonen claims that my "attacks on other editors are unreasonable and unacceptable" and terminates my account. Here I must ask: what attacks? You destroy the English language by calling disagreement an attack! Or maybe Bishonen I have no right to disagree? Who brought you here Bishonen to terminate me with no excuse? Is Hell in a Bucket who plays the good policeman or Acroterion the person who never admits that Jehovahs Witnesses are wrong? Can you have an unbiased opinion using only Jehovah's Witnesses here in Wikipedia? Cryptojudeo (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crypto, maybe part of the problem is the language barrier. I'm not police or administrator here, just another editor like yourself. User:Bishonen is an administrator as is Acroterion. I think you may have drastically misunderstood the actions taken that anyone is taking sides for or against the JW organization. Please see Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, very specifically it talks about some of what you were writing but it is done in a way that is balanced.

"The practice of disfellowshipping has been criticized by many non-members and ex-members. "
Legality Challenges seen here [[2]]
Criticisms are found here [[3]]

These are just the disciplinary practices and as you can see the information is presented in a factual manner. Consider that your own additions, well meaning that they were were based off your own feelings whereas what is mentioned in these articles is scholarly with the references by Andrew Holden and Raymond Franz. He even has his own article. His claim to notability was he was in the governing body and expelled and he wrote about the organization. I assure you if there was an attempt to whitewash their practices these would not already be cited here. If you try to WP:AGF and work within the sourcing and nuetrality guidelines you'd be unblocked rather easily. If you try and start a discussion on the talk pages and show how your additions fall within the guidelines here many editors can help make those changes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket I lost the end of my article because you cannot wait. You have the right to policing me but please wait to do my edits and do not answer me until I finish and I put my signature. The way Jehovah's Witnesses write and edit in Wikipedia makes people laugh. Let's take for example the person you brought up: Raymond Franz. Please note how well written is his biography and compare it with his uncle's Frederick William Franz. Frederick William Franz is presented as a superhero by Jehovah's Witnesses who wrote the article here in Wikipedia: "He knew German and could read Latin, Greek and in later years self-taught Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Hebrew." I ask you: how someone who doesn't know the Greek alphabet can read Greek? Later in his biography, we read "Franz was the Society's leading theologian[8] and has been named as a leading figure in the preparation of the Witnesses' New World Translation of the Bible." Why people laugh with Jehovah's Witnesses? Because they cannot edit here in an unbiased way. Here is The Proof that Frederick William Franz was not familiar with the Greek Alphabet but unfortunately I cannot contribute to Wikipedia because I am "terminated indefinitely" by someone called Bishonen: "He claimed to have mastered Latin, Greek, and Hebrew in order to study the Scriptures, but under oath in court in Hamilton, Ontario, in 1913 he admitted that he had no familiarity with any of these languages, and did not even knew the Greek alphabet". -The Many Faces of Faith: A Guide to World Religions and Christian Traditions, Richard R. Losch, 2002, page 48. (https://books.google.gr/books?id=OdKCVjCschMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Frederick+William+Franz+greek+alphabet&source=bl&ots=kNKw5HoiCX&sig=Kp6TRB89vltcCaQ3H14VWyDJJDs&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi88eutl8TfAhUHjiwKHYjSDbQQ6AEwD3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Frederick%20William%20Franz%20greek%20alphabet&f=false)

DEAR WIKIPEDIA HOW PEOPLE WILL LEARN THE TRUTH IF YOU MUTE THE MOUTH OF ITS EDITORS ? Cryptojudeo (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crypto, unfortunately I do not know when an editor is finished with commenting or making additional commenting. The best way to avoid losing an edit is to write your complete comment and then sign and save it. When an edit is submitted it is assumed it is completed with or without a signature and it's common enough to forget that we have automated processes to sign it for an editor if they do. That being said you can request an unblock and explain how you'd avoid being blocked again by staying withing the conduct guidelines. I'd say that those are fair points to raise on the talk pages of those article and have an extended discussion with the editors there. I hope you don't think that you are the only one that has opinions on any religion and many editors may agree with you. I know it may seem like a small world but out of my nearly 27000 edits I have made a total of 37 I think on that page in 10 years. I do want to say though it is not easy to work with a brand new editor who simply comes in and assumes everyone has an agenda and that's part of the reason you are blocked. If you are to edit and achieve your goal of educating and writing an encyclopedia article it might be helpful to use the help of more experienced editors. The way I understand the block it's because of your accusations that we are all working on an agenda thus violating our WP:AGF guideline and lastly the editing style is one insistent on one way, yours rather then working the community at large. The nice part about this place is that it runs on consensus and you can even start things like WP:RFC if you feel like a formal review process needs to be done. I would strongly suggest not asking for unblock and arguing your point of view again though, focus on how you can work with the people here and come to agreement. I guess those are really my last pieces of advice, I'm not sure how much you are willing to work within those guidelines but I hope that you will. Happy New Years :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad sign that you think that anyone who finds problems with your editing is a Jehovah's Witness. I'm not. I'm a Wikipedia administrator who sees that you're abusing Wikipedia to promote an apparent grievance against Jehovah's Witnesses. That's not acceptable, and I agree with Bishonen's block. Hell in a Bucket, who was a Witness, has tried to help you. To be unblocked, I expect you to explain your understanding of why you were blocked and to undertake to avoid the topic area concerning Jehovah's Witnesses, since it is clear that you can't or won't edit neutrally. Acroterion (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]