User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2010a

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Doctor Who chronology

Copied by User talk:SilkTork from User_talk:SilkTork#Doctor Who chronology

Your edits to the article are a bit overzealous. Some of the deletions you have made have clearly indicated dates, such as for Unquiet Dead. The episodes themselves are primary sources, and no deduction is required to establish the dates for some of the entries you have removed. If the article has any usefulness at all, it is being undermined by your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment my intention is not to remove episodes which are dated in the scripts, so if I have done that then that is a mistake, and you are welcome to restore the episode you mention, along with the reference link that states the date was in the script, plus any others you notice. I'll stop editing for a few hours so you can make the corrections. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *^YES! 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. However, there is some ambiguity here. Date references may be present (visually) in the episode but may not be stated in the written script (i.e. the dialog) (I don't have the scripts to confirm); such instances are still suitable for establishing the date of an episode.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"regional" in Australian English

Thanks, that definition answered my question. I thought it might be of benefit to other people too, so I linked to it at Cairns, Queensland. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines RfAr 2

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alastair Haines 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LTSally name change

FYI, I have changed my user name from LTSally to BlackCab to avoid the tiresome, but entirely reasonable, false assumptions about my gender. BlackCab (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, the name change did cause a brief spike on my suspicion radar. Reason accepted, ~~maam~~, um, sir. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs as denomination vs rel org

Regarding what you said about 'religious organization' being more agreeable: point taken. It probably is more agreeable. But one of these days I'm going to stop trying to be agreeable and just bash some heads (figuratively) when editors come with their own opinion of what something means that differs from what it means according to Wikipedia. Someday...until that day, which may probably never come, I can live with 'religious organization'.

Originally this comment was going to be on that talk page, but I thought better of it. Still wanted to mention it to someone, though. Something's fishy when we're trying to protect the close-minded reader from being offended due to our wording that conflicts with their personal definitions. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "Religious organization" is certainly a compromise, but it is one that doesn't harm the article. In contrast, removing Christian from the definition (rather than properly qualifying the term) is simply POV pushing that hides information that is significant and addresses a common misconception (about whether JWs even identify as Christian).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that we should not hide information from the reader. The problem is communicating to that reader. There is transmission AND reception, and sometimes seemingly "close minded" editors can clue us in on a reception problem we weren't aware of. I know you don't like the example, but it took me (from a Christian perspective) years to see the problem with contrasting "Messianic" with "Rabbinic". Made perfect sense to me for clarity. But mainstream Jews had a problem with it, for perfectly legitimate reasons. But surely we could all agree that contrasting "Jews with Jews" or "Christians with Christians" or ANY two groups sharing the same term, at a minimum needs a preceding qualification to the lesser known application, or at most a qualification to both expected and lesser known applications. If you don't, "my car is different from your car" is meaningless.EGMichaels (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the current lead achieves its aims quite well. It properly indicates a contrast between the article's subject and the mainstream. I'm glad the example of 'Messianic Jews' helps clarify the matter for you, but because the comparison is not quite the same (a religion with Christian leanings with a name employing Jewish semantics as opposed to an unorthodox Christian religion that is disputed for reasons other than titular semantics), I think it tends to confuse the issue when raised as a parallel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Sorry for the edit conflicts. What I normally do is highlight and copy my edit so I can just paste it into the edit conflict window when I get it.EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I can normally handle a few edit conflicts, but it was after 1am and I was nearing the end of my tether after so many attempts to make a final post.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note on Alastair Haines 2 case:

If any parties have any relevant information to add, now is the time. Several arbitrators have spoken up in ArbCom's discussions that the facts of this case are clear, and that providing this additional time would be not useful. I strongly urge all parties to provide any further evidence and workshop proposals they have, and quickly. I will post this to all parties talk page and will update when any proposed final decision is available. (this is a note I've provided to all parties to attempt to give as much notices as possible of a proposed decision being moved up). SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice..

Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia page- Silent Lambs initiative - What was the outcome?

Was wondering what was the outcome of the initiative to remove the Silent Lambs page? Thanks. Natural (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

The decision was Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silentlambs. A close eye should be kept on the article to prevent it becoming a platform for some of the article subject's more sensationalist claims, however it was demonstrated at the Deletion discussion that the website in question has sufficient notability to retain the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Our new "friend"

It looks to me like more than one person has tried to speak to Mr. redlinkname regarding Conley and gotten at best circuitous answers. WP:DE may apply here. In cases like these, if two people can verify speaking to the individual about his/her problematic conduct, Wikiquette alerts as per WP:WQA or User conduct RfCs are generally the next step. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It might still be possible to work with him. If you do raise an alert, I'll add my two cents.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

John, I think this edit demonstrates there's little value in trying to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, the back room of Wikipedia. Jeff, You clearly misunderstood what I said and the kinds of things that I would say. Instead of reverting try to listen to what I am saying. I am listening to you and being careful to keep the spirit of what you want. You need to meet me half way. Read my comments in the discussion area and adapt and compromise. A better article will be created because of it. BradSp (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You make claims that aren't supported by available sources, and you are either unable or unwilling to provide sources that support your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What unsourced claims do I make in articles? I have done two things.

1. I built the Conley article which is very well sourced.

2. I have disputed with you the usage of Russell centric edits during 1881 - 1884 in the organizations page.

It is not that I do not disagree with you as much as I disagree with how you apply either a Movement or Russells personal legacy or quoted viewpoint to an article about another presidents reign, specifically during 1881 - 1884.

I dont think this is an unreasonable viewpoint or a viewpoint that claims a point of view without sources. BradSp (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The available sources indicate that 1) the Bible Student movement developed from a Bible study group that formed in Allegheny in the early 1870s, 2) Russell, a member of that study group, began publishing a journal, Zion's Watch Tower in 1879 (and collaborated with Nelson Barbour on earlier books) as well as other religious materials from the 1870s onwards, 3) a corporation, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, was formed to facilitate publication of the religious beliefs of Russell and others in their Bible study group, 4) Conley was president and co-financier for that corporation from 1881 until official incorporation in 1885, 4) the Bible study group didn't formally call themselves by a specific name at first but gradually came to be known as Bible Students.

You claim an alternative history, in which 1) the Bible Student movement appears out of nowhere at a much later time with no gradual foundation, 2) that prior to that, there was a separate unclassifiable group with which Russell and Conley were associated, 3) it is incidental to the cohesion and development of the group that Russell had been publishing a journal of his beliefs since 1879 as well as other earlier works, 4) that there was an ambiguous 'Conley era' religious group while Conley was president of the Society, despite the fact that he apparently published no religious teachings of his own, and Russell had been publishing his own teachings before, during, and after that period. You have speculated about the relationship of Russell and Conley during the 1881-1884 period, wherein you made claims about financial reports that actually did not at all support your view; you have also speculated about Conley handing the Society over to Russell "out of fear of malicious attacks from CTR".

The simple fact is that the available sources indicate the foundation of the Bible Student movement in the 1870s, and they place Russell as central to the movement (regardless of irrelevant claims as to whether he was yet called 'Pastor' during the group's formation).

Either provide sources that support your views, or stop disrupting the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW John - Penton did say in the first paragraph that the first president was Russell. In light of your comments about your expertise and efforts in researching the matter, so that you could provide I neutral POV, I did not correct you. I do appreciate understanding and subsequent fairness towads our convesations if you want to help. Concensus needs to be built and it is well worth doing so with me when writing about early JW history. BradSp (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is really hard to develop the article or thought on the matter when you constantly make accusation regarding disruption. We are attempting, at least I am, to develope the history of early ZWTS. The information provided in the discussion area is just that discussion material. There is no need to provide soruces for any of speculation in the discussion area. We all know we can not place this in the aricle.

Accordng to your logic Barbour should be part of the Bible Student movement. Also, no one is saying Watch Tower was incidental to the Society as you state and no one is saying their was a Conley ers "religious group." These discussion really need to be made in the open but I think it is appropriate.

Statements like these show grave misunderstanding. There are too many holes in your views and the article Jeff to start shouting disruption. Either be a part of finding concensus and increasing the thought or stop participating because these discussion are not finished. You cant have your way by using admins, threats and bad behavior. BradSp (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are 'holes in my views', it is because the available sources are not as complete as desired, and I don't fill the gaps with speculation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is what policy and guidelines request. Please see WP:WQA#User:Bradsp and provide the links. This machine makes doing so difficult. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much confidence. So why is it that Barbour or other who may have been in contact with young Russell are not Bible students. The movement as written and the glue you suggest holding things together is not sticking. I am moving this discussion BradSp (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to expect that everyone who ever associated with Russell would necessarily be a Bible Student, and Barbour's association with Russell apparently didn't last long due to doctrinal differences. Barbour was an outsider with whom Russell came in contact, not one of the original Allegheny Bible study group that formed the foundation of the movement. However, the fact that Russell started his own journal after a brief collaboration with Barbour doesn't support your view that Russell was not at the centre of the development of the Bible Student movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If only you could prove what you say instead of asking others to prove you are wrong.

BTW - when did this so called Bible Student Movement start? Was it after Barbour in 1879? Who actually got caught in the gravitational pull of Russell? Why does the Bible Student Movement article speak about the history of Russell pre Barbour? Holes holes and more holes. Citations from a man who had an axe to grind is being passed as historic fact. You refuse to say that Russell “claimed” these things but instead you build fact from what he said. You are providing very poor quality material.

It appears your entire understanding is based on self glorified writings from Russell, clueless Britannica citations and vendetta speech from Russell’s special edition tracts. I think you realize this. Your confusion of the history of Russell and the history of Zion’s Watchtower and the Bible Student Movement is screwing up all of the articles.

The articles are unable to progress because of you.

BradSp (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the available information, the foundation for the Bible Student movement did start prior to Russell's contact with Barbour, and as you have been told previously this necessitates neither that Russell was yet called a 'leader' or 'Pastor', nor that the group was formally called by any specific name at the time.

Your belligerence is entirely unnecessary, and considerably misdirected. I did not supply the references about Russell, I'm just working with the references that are available. You have been invited many, many times to supply additional sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WQA#User:Bradsp. This machine does not make it easy to provide links, so I request that you add comments and provide them. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive87#User:Bradsp

you have to read the sources.

Not even sarcastically. You have to read the sources, there are plenty examples of times when medical personnel forced a transfusion on a minor. I was linking to a courtcase where a minor was ordered to undergo forced transfusions. How is that not forced. Also consider [[1]] Seriously take a few and read it.

If that's too much consider "Professor Bolooki18 took note of a disturbing report that one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Dade County, Florida, had a "blanket policy of refusing to treat" Witnesses." "Dr. A. D. Kelly, former Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote15 that "parents of minors and the next of kin of unconscious patients possess the right to interpret the will of the patient. . . . I do not admire the proceedings of a moot court assembled at 2:00 AM to remove a child from his parent's custody."--Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the wording being discussed. The sentence in the article in question says nothing at all about people being forced to take blood. No one said JWs never have blood transfusions forced on them. The JW source states that they are to refuse even if death will result (specifically "even those who die"). Your alternative wording simply waters down the the 'scary' word "death" with a wordy workaround.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the page of the (1st) link you provided, and saw that it was entirely irrelevant to the point being discussed, so there was no reason to read all of it.

Either you're confused about which edit you're discussing, or you're incorrectly making a connection between someone refusing something and someone having something forced on them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First it was tldr, now it's I've read it. Which is which? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to change the subject by implying that I've contradicted myself. I looked at the page, and read the beginning, realised the article was not relevant, and therefore didn't read all of it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Blood

I understand what you are saying, it just seems that the wording needs tweaked. Not sure the best way to do it though. The way it is worded could sound like it's saying that a refusal of a blood transfusion can/may cause death, which is not accurate. Death comes from Anemia. I will think about it more.

That's like saying people don't die from car crashes or gunshot wounds, but that they only die from specific technical medical conditions. We could go a step further and say they only die from hypoxia, or only from necrosis of the brain stem. While it may be true at some level, it isn't natural speech. It isn't saying 'refusal of a blood transfusion can/may cause death', it's saying 'even if the inaction may result in death'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely, people do die from complications Caused by crashes and gunshot wounds, no one has ever die from not receiving a blood transfusion. The way the article is written implies that the impossibility is a possibility. It is an inaccurate statement. Johanneum (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but I don't want to carry on a philosophical debate right at the moment. So I'll try to work in line with what you want. However "faced with death" is a euphemism, which shouldn't be used here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion might best be transferred to the JW talk page, but I'll make this point. Johanneum's argument is one of semantics. The article doesn't say that Witnesses would die from not receiving a transfusion. But death may evidently result from refusing a transfusion, and that death may be avoided by accepting one. Neurosurgeon Osamu Muramoto, in a medical journal article already cited in the Wikipedia article, notes that "there are no alternatives (to transfusions) in some situations". Dr John Doyle, of the University of Toronto, wrote: "... blood transfusions remain essential to life in a large number of clinical situations. Patients who refuse a blood transfusion deemed absolutely medically necessary by a physician put themselves at risk of dying from severe anemia." [2] Johanneum might like to skirt around the issue with wordy euphemisms, but the bottom line for any reader of an encyclopedia reader is this: that even if death would result, Jehovah's Witnesses would refuse a blood transfusion. This is not a criticism, it simply indicates the depth of conviction of Witnesses on the issue. I'm puzzled at why an editor would try to obscure this fact. BlackCab (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... I know. And I've already pointed out that it simply said that death may result, not that it would result, or that 'not having a blood transfusion' would cause death. But Johanneum wants to turn it into a philosphical debate, and I have no interest. Instead, I've quoted the source directly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to understand. It is a marked improvement whether all the issues are fully appreciated by us or not. Johanneum (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Ps The statement, "even if death would result, JW would still refuse a BT" leaves the reader to ask even if death were to result from what? That was the real issue. Johanneum (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that people with basic reading comprehension skills would understand the context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

JW Blood Doctrine

Speedy deletion nomination of UserJeffro77/statusChanger2.js

This page appears to have been created in error, so I nominated it. — Timneu22 · talk 13:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please delete ASAP. Typo (missing a colon).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the colon. It will be deleted soon. I also put in a request on WP:TW to have a different wording for test page errors. Currently it sounds more like a vandalism warning than a "I noticed you forgot the colon and/or put the page in the wrong spot" notice. Cheers. — Timneu22 · talk 13:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi. I put something on the talk page of this article. We should find out exactly what the Witnesses officially ban and what is at the discretion of the individual. My understanding is that whole blood is banned, but they can consent to fractions such as packed red cells. However, I am a doctor and not a Witness. Not all Witnesses think exactly the same way in my experience - some are more strict than others - so we need something 'official'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)