User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2006
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jeffro77. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have filed a Request for Comments regarding my (in)famous New Year's block at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull. You may wish to provide your two cents there.Tommstein 07:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Call for a vote
Please register your vote on the topic at Mediator is damaged? Thanks, SteveMc 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 15 minutes for disruption at Cyclone Larry
- (In contravention of Wikipedia policy, NSLE blocked me for 15 minutes because I reverted an inappropriate change he made. He claimed this under the guise of 'disruption', though my 2 edits properly indicated the reasons for removing the incorrect information. Wikipedia blocking policy explicitly states that "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute".--Jeffro77 12:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC))
- In September of 2006, NSLE became Chacor and was no longer a Wikipedia administrator.--Jeffro77 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- In July 2008, Chacor retired from Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have viewed your edits at Cyclone Larry to be minor disruption, and have blocked you 15 minutes. Please do not make such controversial edits and use such controversial summaries. Please also read WP:V. There is nothing about a source needing to be "official"; if that was the case many Wikipedia articles would bein desperate need of sources. NSLE (T+C) at 08:40 UTC (2006-03-22)
- It is disruption because the current consensus at the talk page is that there is no consensus. Currently it already notes that the Saffir category is disputed. Furthermore, WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has often used Wunderground blogs as references in many articles (look through the articles for most of last year's Atlantic hurricanes). This is an area where that policy would not apply, per se. NSLE (T+C) at 09:02 UTC (2006-03-22)
dispute at Cyclone Larry
Hi Jeffro. While I agree with you that there are problems with the Cyclone Larry article and I have some concerns with admin privileges that have been used at that article (and have expressed those to the admin involved), I think we should be careful to keep focused on the issues and not the people involved. Criticising people because of thier age isn't helpful. People can't help their age, only their actions. Criticising people's age suggests that simply by virtue of their age, their contribution is less worthy - which is not the case. People can make good or bad contributions irrespective of thier age. Please try to keep that in mind. (I'll understand if you choose to delete this message). -- Adz|talk 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I take your point, and appreciate your tempered judgment :) Though I think its still best to steer away from references to age. ... As an aside, I hadn't actually realised that NSLE was one of the 17 year olds. Given his comments on my talk page it looks like he may have taken offence, but he's also taking a wikibreak so things might cool down.
- Given that it is a grey area and that data by its nature doesn't lend itself to the SS scale, I can't understand why people are so intent to ensure that the cyclone appears as a Cat3 rather than a Cat4. It's not even like its a nationalist dispute like some of those that happen at articles like Kosovo and Bosnia. -- Adz|talk 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Jehovah's Witnesses
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
- Your comments in the edit summary were abrasive. A more properly meted response would have used the {{subst:NPOV0-n|ARTICLE NAME}} tag on the user's talk page, or a similar method. Anger begets anger. Please don't antagonize. It only makes things more tense.- CobaltBlueTony 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration, and you're welcome. It is my firm stand that sermons do not belong on this resource, and I have reverted them myself in the past.
- It's important to keep an eye, not just on violations that differ from our own views, but also on those that may coincide with them. For instance, TruthWanted keeps trying to assert that Witnesses were trying to pander to the Nazi government, over at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be helpful if more non-Witness editors would contribute to helping him understand how his efforts are POV, original research, and unsupported by his methods thusfar. It detracts from the encyclopedic efforts here, as this just isn't the place to foment debates. - CobaltBlueTony 14:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
JWs
I have posted a RfC on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page. It would be appreciated if you could comment. BenC7 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to the JW page
You seem to be deleting validly cited and referenced work on this page. I would suggest that when you make an edit, to not blindly deleted information that has been researched and reference, but to edit or update the information and place other's work where it may be more of a proper fit in relation to the article. Your example of just deleting information demonstrates a lack of respect for others' work and does not lend credibility to your own. - Protector of the Truth 14:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Your edits
If you have to ask what work that you have deleted, shows that you are not reading what you are editing, reverting or deleting. I just want to be fair about this and I don't want to spend all day going back and forth about this. - Protector of the Truth 20:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- 'Truth.ceeker' has thus far not presented any information that I have deleted that validates the above claim, and is likely in response to an AfD request I made for an unencylopedic article he created of copyright material.
Jeffro77
The second paragraph starts off with saying that the JW's have been focused on the second coming of Christ. They render the greek word 'parousai' as presence. So by using the word 'coming' would be in error with what they believe as Christ's presence and not coming. More to follow... - Protector of the Truth 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- My comment should have been directed to Joshbuddy since he kept reverting back to 'Coming'. Since you have updated the second paragraph with the correct wording, it's a moot pint now, thanks. - Protector of the Truth 08:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Other User Talk contributions
See also: