Jump to content

User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec


Re: Intellectual Honesty

I would advise that you take this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as that would be the more appropriate venue to deal with this guy's constant reverting of your redirect. I will certainly offer an opinion in that discussion if you open it. -- RoninBK T C 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if it comes up. The editor appears not to have been active since August, but has had lengthy periods of inactivity before.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservopedia

Please god tell me you've read some of the stuff on Conservopedia.....I was crying I was laughing so hard at the idiocy of the whole site. I even created (using a simple user-box creator) a special userbox for my user page. Wow.

Conservopedia is InsaneThis user believes that Conservopedia is Insane, with a capital "I".

Vyselink (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Just looking at the home page—their 'article of the month' claims links between atheism and obesity—the degree of bias and ad hominem would drive me crazy if I looked much further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Founding date of Bible Student Movement

Hello! Hoping you are well. AuthorityTam has initiated a discussion on the date for the founding of the Bible Student movement. It is located on the Talk page of said article. It came about as a result of my changing the date on the JW infobox from 1876 to 1879. AuthorityTam disputes the change. I would greatly appreciate your take on this matter. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wondering

I was just wondering if you'd take a look at this discussion and give your opinion on it. It is my belief that this information is important to the history of the sketch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Celebrity_Jeopardy!_(Saturday_Night_Live)#Recent_Edits Vyselink (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hey, i have just cleaned up the David Wood (Christian apologist) article which you voted for deletion. Do you still maintain your original position? Someone65 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My position has not changed. Most of the refs are still personal websites, along with some news articles about Wood's arrest along with other anti-Islamic protesters. I therefore do not believe that the person is sufficiently notable to warrant an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Working With Each Other

I would really like to work with you rather than against you. We seem to have had a few tussles here and there and frankly they aren't necessary. It would be great if we could try to respect each other as knowledgeable and respect the others edits. It really frustrates me when you completely refactor my edits, and you seem to do it so frequently that it makes me feel my edits have no value "because Jeffro is just going to delete it or change it." I'll make an edit, add a reference and can often predict how it will be changed even though I've tried to be careful and precise in the wording. It puts you in a position over me (authority) rather than beside me (equal). I know JW and Bible Student history like the back of my hand, and perhaps you do too. But we've both been on Wikipedia for many years (2004 for me) and should by now know how to work together. It's possible that the conflict comes from similar personalities. But I'm trying to be a peace-maker here and hopefully it will be taken in that spirit. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There have always been specific reasons for my edits, and you are always welcome to discuss any particular edit. Concern about your inherent conflict of interest has been raised in the past, and your recognition of "how [your edits] will be changed" suggests you know at some level where your edits contain or imply an element of bias. However, when I check my Watchlist, I edit what I consider to be specific problems with regard to either style, presentation or content. I don't make changes simply on the basis that they were made by any particular editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Cairns, Queensland. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cairns, Queensland. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cease the retributive editing. I reverted twice, and then posted the warning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I've just noticed that you tried to get Bidgee to remove the attacks on you on his page. His/her last edit summary was... Yeah. So that's not going to achieve anything. I'm not all that bothered by his/her linking to the rank stupidity that s/he showed, just by the language.

That being said, I suggest that the issue be taken to WP:ANI. -danjel (talk to me) 12:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. So now I'm taking the issue to WP:ANI. -danjel (talk to me) 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I have named you as an involved party in regards to (a) Bidgee's shrine to you and I; (b) Bidgee removing edits to his/her talkpage that s/he didn't like; (c) uncivil conduct by Bidgee. The thread is User:Bidgee.The discussion is about the topic WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:USETEMP. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 13:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ArchiveNotDelete

You didn't answer the question — Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't list redirects in page histories. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking for their opinions

Jeffro77, sorry to bother you, but am I allowed to get a few users to take a look at the [2] page? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

where they can voice there opinions...you know where they can endorse it??? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments on the Talk page don't require endorsement by other editors, though they can comment there. There is a section on the main User RFC page for endorsing the original statements. It's entirely up to you whether you invite other editors to comment at either page, though it may be seen as canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Collusion?

Hi Jeffro. I'm going to ask you to think very seriously about allegations of collusion. I watch both Pdfpdf's and danjel's pages based on difficulties they had with each other last month. Those very difficulties are likely to be brought up in an RfC which involves danjel, assuming it goes ahead. Bilby and myself both recommended he step back for the time being, which he agreed to. Mattinbgn, who mentioned the difficulties in his statement at the RfC, was keeping him informed and offering alternative advice. Either way, Pdfpdf is likely to have an opinion in the matter. Collusion is a very serious allegation and I hope you consider retracting it. Please also be aware that I have not yet offered my opinion on the dispute, just how it is being handled. WormTT 12:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, "collusion" was perhaps too strong a word, and I've stricken it. However, it's still relevant discussion of the RFC discussed privately by related parties on one side of the dispute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I don't disagree, it's relevent to the RfC and have no doubt it will be brought up there should the RfC go forward. WormTT 13:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think you could have your conversation with Mattinbgn somewhere other than my talk page please? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As I was the last to comment, it would be more relevant for you to address this request to Mattinbgn. Unless he or another editor comments further there in reference to me, I won't respond there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't need the advice.

I would also caution User:MelbourneStar1, as a relatively new editor, about getting involved in 'alliances' Don't need the advice or caution. I work alone, and not with any others. Danjel was simply helping me out (which I appreciate) as I have been here for only a few months. Though I am absolutely fine by myself. I may lack on some areas of knowledge, but I am fammiliar with many policis. Don't assume just present what you have got. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a generic caution given without assuming anything at all about you, other than that you have stated you have not been editing long. I wasn't suggesting that you were forming alliances, merely that the behaviour of other editors may make it seem that such alliances are acceptable. Sorry if you misunderstood.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I'll echo that also mate. Alliances are not good for wikipedia. -danjel (talk to me) 11:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No to the both of you actually. The whole point of this is RfC is to see if we can fix this issue. It is not about me and who I am friends with or I "work" with. It is about Bidgee. I am actually really sick of this. What Worm had proposed got my vote, hands down. Why not yours?. Atleast Worm is going somewhere instead of the bickering. I may be the youngest, though I am sure I can understand the difference between a good argument, and a bad one. In my point of view, I think we are going knowhere. Hate to burst anyones buble there, but this has been going on for a while. Bidgee has not returned. And to be very honest I don't want to lose Bidgee as an editor, I know how ironic that may sound, but Bidgee should be told and to follow what Worm had proposed. That is fair. This is a complete mess, and I hate to say but this whole RfC may just lose my vote as it is spiralling out of control. Sorry if I may sound harsh, but it is true.
I have been here for nearly 3 months, and already I have established some editors that just don't seem to like me and what I have to say. I and many others came to Wikipedia to EDIT not to have arguments. I have other things to worry about at my age than these arguments. Sorry. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It was friendly advice. Take it or don't. It's fine by me either way.
I have already indicated that I agree with User:Worm That Turned's suggestions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Take it easy. You've had your say and the process seems to be working... Heh. Look at it this way; your disagreement with us here could probably point to our not being in an alliance with each other. Get your homework done! :P -danjel (talk to me) 11:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe adding your name to the part that asks for it, will show that you accept the proposal. And you "friendly advice" obviously wasnt taken as 'friendly' since it got me to finally tell you that I don't like how things are still being handled. In my opinion I am very confused what your intentions are, on this issue.
And Danjel, I don't know whether to take that as constructive advice or not. If I were doing homework, going on facebook, chilling with friends, hagging out with a girlfriend etc. I wouldnt be using up my time discussing issues.
To the both of you; step back from the computer, take a deep breath. Think about what we are all trying to achieve here. Then actually apply it to your edits. <-- That's constructive advice.
If you think I am to harsh with what I have said, that is your discretion, I have tried to calm all your falms down but obviosly that isnt working. An RfC is not about making enemies, having arguments etc. Its about noticing the issue, hopefully solving it too. Don't know what else to say. Sorry -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That's mostly fine. But it just doesn't make sense to say it's about noticing the issues, but to tell me not to point out the issues I've noticed.
It's quite clear at the Talk page that I have agreed with Worm That Turned's suggestion, because it incorporates the conditions I initially suggested, and a minor adjustment to the wording that I provided. Actually filling in a line in the section above my comments, which I will do shortly, is simply semantics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
How you choose to take advice, particularly after I have clarified what I meant, is entirely up to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats the thing Jeffro77, If I needed the advice, I sure would have asked for it. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not a crime to provide advice, even if it has not specifically been sought. Relax.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Have relaxed, and I am Sorry for everything that I said that may have offended the both of you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Counting the presidents of the Watch Tower Society

Hello Jeffro77, you undid my edit at Joseph Franklin Rutherford‎ with the comment: "Undo good faith edit. Per the sentence in this article, Conley wasn't president of the *incorporated* Society." I wonder what difference it makes whether the Watch Tower Society was incorporated or not. Conley was the first president but resigned before the application for incorporation was completed. So Russell was indeed president when the society was incorporated. What is the significance of this judicial detail when it comes to counting the presidents? This link shows the opinion of Russell himself: "Anyway, the Watch Tower [magazine] was started in 1879, and the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" was started in 1880, and the mere matter of getting a charter for it does not signify that it was not existent before that time. The getting of a charter does not make a society." (What Pastor Russell Said (The Question Book) by C. T. Russell, 1916) So I wonder why my edit was undone and why you do not consider Conley the "legitimate" first president. I also ask this because at the Dutch Wikipedia this was also an issue, but now we just count from Conley as first, Russell as second, etc. I am aware that Watchtower literature often calls Russell first president, but assume that is what Singelenberg calls "partizan distortion". Bertrand77 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You've over-thought this. The sentence in question says: "Joseph Franklin Rutherford ... was the second president of the incorporated Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
More generally, JWs ignore Conley in their enumeration of Watch Tower Society presidents and their publications consistently refer to Russell as the first president of the Society. It is therefore much more harmonious when discussing the Society's presidents to either be explicitly clear about the base of the enumeration or to not enumerate them at all. Your assumption that I do not consider Conley a "legitimate" president is both incorrect and irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
See also Talk:Corporations_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Conley.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, I've decided to take out 'incorporated' and put it back to 'third'. It is almost certain that JW editors will complain about it, but it's just more of the same.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent solution. Bertrand77 (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
We'll see. Call me cynical, but there seems to be no way to keep everyone happy with these things.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a proponent of giving everyone a voice to add their perspective. Of course, I'm merely referring to those things which are documented and would merely fall to differences of perspective or way of "putting things" not random opinions. In this particular case I think both points should be made because both are accurate while to give undue weight to one over the other is misleading. JFR was the second incorporated President, but also the third chartered President. Are most JWs even aware of this fact? It seems to me that it is still rather obscure. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It all depends on context. Unless it is especially relevant to the context of an article that a particular individual was the nth president of the incorporated Society, I personally see little reason not to simply state the ordinal position starting from Conley. Ergo, in the Watchtower Society article itself, incorporation of the Society is directly relevant, so it should be (and is) mentioned that Russell was the first president from the point of incorporation and that Conley was president before that. Similarly, Russell was directly involved in both the inception and incorporation of the Society so it is suitable to mention his positions both before and after incorporation. But, in an article about Rutherford or subsequent presidents, whether the Society was incorporated at a particular time becomes less important and so it is unnecessary to verbosely re-state both their pre- and post-incorporation ordinal positions. Whether JWs know (or want to acknowledge) that Russell wasn't unambiguously the first president is beyond our control.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out. I would feel better if you did, as I might make things worse:)--Rodejong (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I can raise a deletion request for the ScrRef template for you if you like, unless you want to use it in pages other than articles.
I wasn't as concerned about the thumbnail sizes, so I didn't revert them, but you may prefer to set your own default thumbnail size in your preferences instead.
It's a good idea to check the Manual of Style before making edits that affect presentation across a large number of articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award

You just gained new service award
Senior Editor III (or Labutnum of the Encyclopedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeffro77
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards
--89.176.227.251 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it back because the 'Senior Editor III' requires that an editor has made at least 33,000 edits, whereas I have not. But I appreciate the gesture. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That means "33,000" or "5 years". Or it is both needed (not logically)? Is there any prove in that article? (Service_awards). --89.176.227.251 (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The right-hand column of the table at the Service Awards page explicitly states that the requirements are the amount of time and the number of edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
"And" "Or" etc. If is right (both is needed), it shoud be wroted there much more clearly than now. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It very clearly says "and". The past participle of "write" is "written".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I understand what you thought. English is not my born language, but ("wroted" is normal english form) = :)) http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/wrote.html Never mind. This is not important). I´d like to say: Some clear sentence such as "edits and years (both is needed) " could avoid next misunderstanding. Racionally, I can´t believe no one before me was confused from this. I am afraid of that mislead. Bye --89.176.227.251 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't rely on the website you linked for correct English words or their proper usage. It is very very wrong. wrotes, wroting and wroted are not English words.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe only You think so. Standard global english use it daily. Even after some extra differencies in Australian english http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australians . I´m Czech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechs , but dont recongize myself as unerring or super wise as probably like You mean about yourself. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Main reason for our communication si not english language. :))))))) Reason is service awards (are) :xD not fully clear at Wikipedia --89.176.227.251 (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah... dobrý den. I visited Prague in 2007 but that's the only Czech phrase I remember.
wrotes, wroting and wroted are not English words, and any source that says they are, is wrong. It is not only my opinion. You can verify this with any native English speaker.
I know you didn't mean any harm at all with the Service Award. Thanks again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so You (or me) could change article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards
with this easy form like "edits and years (both is needed) "
--89.176.227.251 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary. "And" already indicates that both are needed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
In czech language is not so easy in all senses of senteces! For example, equivalent of "and" (a), "or" (nebo) is connectives with connotation - together (more variants are possible together) =(exmaple: one and two) both of them can be correct / both together are correct. ..... But in connotation - only one of them - and + or - (a) (i) (nebo) means "only one" or "only two" is correct. Most people said that Czech language is one of the most difficult and one of the most complex languages in the world. / English is (relativelly) very easy. / --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
So. For sure. "edits and years (both is needed) " --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to discuss the wording at the Service Awards' Talk page. I personally don't think it's necessary, but it doesn't hurt to get a second opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffro77/Archive2011&oldid=1143082583"