User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2012a

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

Jan-Mar Apr-Dec

Re:Australians

I mentioned you and user:BlackCab as Australians in incidents talk page. I did not use it to suggest any nationalistic prejudice. But I used it to support my doubt that you may know user:BlackCab personally. And I understand that it have to do little with the discussion. I hope you won't take it in bad faith --Fazilfazil (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yes, all Australians know each other. There are only five people in Australia, in a space of 3 square feet.</sarcasm>

As I have stated several times, I do not know BlackCab personally.

I wonder if I could reasonably conclude that all editors in the US know each other?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I live in US but I don't know any other editors personally. <sarcasm>I know Australia is small.<sarcasm> My relatives live there. Thanks for clarifying--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jeffro77. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation of a graph

Hi, I would like to use the "File:JWStats1931-2010.png" at a couple of articles in Norwegian, and would ask if you could be so kind to make a Norwegian edition (if it isn't awful much of extra work)? The translation goes like this:

• Jehovah's Witnesses by year (1931-2010) = Jehovas vitner per år (1931-2010)
• People (millions) = Antall (i millioner)
• Memorial attendance = Deltakelse, minnehøytiden
• Peak publisher = Høydepunkt, antall forkynnere
• Average publisher = Gjennomsnitt, antall forkynnere

Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

See File:JvStat1931-2010.No.png :)

Please note that this, and the original file, are in PNG format, which is not a scalable vector format. Ideally, these would be in SVG format, but I don't have suitable software to create them. The last time I tried to use free software to create an SVG file, it did not go well. No spell checking has been done on the new chart.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Will probably be used in the main article as well. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding CAPS

• User talk:Hashem sfarim#Caps

Need your opinion and input on some POV changes

I'm not up to the big hassle right now, at least not to deal with the nonsense alone. I was wondering if you could add your edits and comments and input to this matter, of what went on in the "God the Father" article. An editor named PiCo made a radical POV change to the lede (and other spots) of this article. A blatantly pro-Trinitarian, way less neutral or balanced, lede (the lede PARAGRAPHS, not just the first line or two, or first paragraph, but everything). He did this recently, and another editor "John Carter" seems to be in agreement with the POV push (though he'll deny it's that of course), whereas "History2007" not very sure about. But no editor seriously challenged or undid this stuff. It seems PiCo (and John Carter) fail to understand that this article is not just about the title "God the Father", but the overall CONCEPT. This article should not give right off the bat the appearance that this God the Father is only about the Roman Catholic trinity view of "God the Father". I'd like your view here. But really, this can't be allowed, IMO. I will not violate 3RR, but already there are 2 reverts. Check out what I'm talking about right here. I wrote on the Talk page last night, explaining a bit why I reverted, and how I felt the change was way too POV, and way too unnecessary. The talk page stuff can be seen here. Anyway, I'm curious what your take on this is, and if you can help out, because I really don't need the stress this weekend. Maybe you'll agree somewhat with PiCo, and maybe you'll totally disagree with what he did. Not sure. But I would like someone like you (who tries to be balanced and straight, and WP valid, with various things) to give your input and work on this. Check all this out right now if you can. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Those edits are perfectly in accordance with all relevant guidelines (especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE), and I support them as well. Talk about improving that article has been underway on the Christianity noticeboard for quite some time, as it is one of many articles within the purview of the WikiProject that are in terrible shape. PiCo and History2007 I have found, in all of my dealings with them, to be two of the most reasonable editors working in religion: if you have objections to their edits, bring it up with them, and they will (from my experience) be more than willing to discuss it, as they did with me - over the course of a month and half a dozen RfCs - on another, much more contentious page (on the Genesis creation narrative) where the application of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV were much more fraught with personal interpretation. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Morality

I had a question regarding the use us the word "since" with reference to fornication and divorce. Does that preclude the case where the fornication was predivorce, maybe months or years before, but the couple never slept together subsequently? I will defer whatever your answer, but thought was an important consideration.Brotherlawrence (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question starts with, "If a divorce is obtained for any other reason". The context of the sentence immediately before that therefore excludes adultery prior to the divorce from the criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Brotherlawrence (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee Bullying

Hi. Bidgee has been bullying me for several years on the Gundagai pages. I have tried to get help for it to no avail as he reverts stuff, tells lies etc. I have placed most of the content on the Gundagai page and on the new page created by someone else named Gundagai Aboriginal lore page. but am locked out of both. There is no need for the buyllying. Its pretty sad for wiki.

best wishes ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.240.58 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, and I am not involved in your dispute. You should be aware that canvassing is not appropriate. Beyond advising Bidgee that you are canvassing, I will not become involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

NWT

The original statement was unreferenced. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia - statements must be referenced. The amended statement has plenty of references. I have reverted the page back to include the referenced statement.

Essentially all Bible translations are based on one of the following manuscripts/group of manuscripts: (1) The Textus Receptus (or Received Text) (2) The Critical Text (drawing cheifly on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus) (3) The Majority Text (from the majority consensus of Greek manuscripts)

The New World Translation does fall into any of these categories. In Christian Orthodoxy, it therefore cannot be called a Bible translation. This is why it is not accepted as a Bible translation in Christian Orthodoxy. To simply call it a Bible translation is POV, unless it is expressly recognised as a statement from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnessess. I accept that the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnessess look upon the NWT as a Bible translation, but essentially nobody else agrees that this is so. Any statement that the NWT is a Bible translation must include the qualification, or else it is plainly POV. Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is immediately self-evident upon examination that the NWT is a Bible translation. And it is based on the same texts as other Bible translation. The NWT is certainly a Bible translation, irrespective of whether it is good or correct translation. Though various commentators have stated that the NWT contains doctrinal bias, none have claimed that the NWT is not a Bible translation. Your introduction of POV sources commenting on the quality of the NWT says nothing at all about its status as a Bible translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I left you a message at: Talk:Watchtower Bible School of Gilead#Deacons.

I left you message there at that section. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen it. If you have seen it, then I would appreciate it if you could respond. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:AGF, time zone and employment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way thanks for your subtle hint at time zone and employment. It makes me feel really good. Lighthead ^þ 03:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And an aside; how was I supposed to know exactly what time it was where you are? You don't make it handy to know (ex., page notice). I wasn't about to open another tab to find out. I'm not that desperate to know why you're not responding. I'm also not a mental calculator. I don't keep track of what time it is everywhere. So if I didn't know what time it was where you are, it doesn't exactly require an arrogant chuckle from you and your IP user lackey. Lighthead ^þ 05:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you don't know what time it is where I live (though my time zone is actually indicated on my User page, but that's largely irrelevant). It doesn't actually matter what time it is, because I don't have to immediately respond to you or anyone else at any time. Of course, it's reasonable that a person might consider that possibility. But most editors realise that there are many reasons why another editor might be unavailable to respond, and do not expect an editor to jump when you say jump. I have no affiliation with the IP editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to jump. I just get really impatient when people respond slowly. It's something I have to work on. I also should have realized that you were indisposed. I just said that about that IP user because he p***ed me off; frankly, he was annoying me. I know that you don't know him/her. I was going to ask you another question. That reference that mentions disfellowshipped as being mentally diseased and apostates. I saw that that reference on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, is not on the main JW article in regards to the same statement in the criticism section. Is this a mistake? At the NPOV noticeboard I assumed that that reference was also applied to the statement on the main article page, and so that's why I mentioned what I mentioned. But I'm so sick of editing that page, that I left it as it is. Let me know. Lighthead ^þ 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your question would be better asked on the JW article talkpage, but I hope Jeffro doesn't mind me answering it on his talkpage. Both the JW article and the JW Criticisms articles refer to criticism of the Watch Tower Society's practice in The Watchtower of branding defectors as mentally diseased, but each article draws on different sources: the Criticisms article relies on two newspapers that raised the issue; the JW article, which contains only a selective summary of material from the Criticisms article, contains the observations of former prominent JW Ray Franz and sociologist Andrew Holden. Both sets of sources could be loaded on to both articles, but that's not necessary to meet Wikipedia policies on verifiability and notability. It's possible to overcite; I don't see the variety of sources in this case as a mistake, and the use of a sociologist and a former JW leader as sources on the main JW article seems appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I assumed it was a mistake. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 23:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian views on sin

A month or so ago, you posted to the talk page stating your concerns about the article. Another editor has now answered, and has brought the matter to WP:NORN. If you'd like, you are welcome to expand on your concerns there. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It was actually over a year ago. I don't really recall the specifics, but the article has changed substantially since anyway. I have commented at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Didn't notice the year. For a seemingly controversial article, the talk page gets very little traffic. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No apology necessary. Thanks for the heads-up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Nelson H. Barbour

Jeff, I just closed a report at WP:ANEW brought by another editor against the IP. I am also aware of the SPI report you filed. A word of caution. I know you didn't file the EW report, but once it is brought, I must look at everyone's behavior. I understand your frustration with the content, sourcing, and conflict issues, but don't let that put you in a position where you could be sanctioned for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and noted. It is indeed quite frustrating. It has become evident that much of the article is the editor's own original research, citing their own book, which appears to be self-published. I would like to restore the more neutral statements about the variously reported middle name of the article's subject,[1] but I will leave it alone for the time being. If you believe the change I've suggested is inaccurate, please let me know.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you left the article alone for a few days, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. I see you and the IP (the uncle) are still arguing about Barbour's middle name on the talk page. It would be helpful if you could respond to User:RMdeVienne's post in the section just below that. For more information on that issue, you can see the discussion on my talk page. I'd like to get this sorted out if possible, but bear in mind I can't take positions on the content disputes. If I do, I can't act administratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to both at article Talk. The matter of sourcing seems pretty straightforward: The blog can't be used. The book can.

It's disappointing that the IP editor did not disclose conflict of interest from the outset, as is the IP editor's false claim that it was me who first changed the middle name to Homer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. As I reported at the article talk page and at the sock puppet investigation, deVienne has been indeffed, and I don't know if the IP will last, if for no other reason, deVienne appears to have access to his computer, again assuming they are two separate people.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed reference to the blog from the article. This should be uncontroversial, as it fails the criteria for external links and the author doesn't want it there anyway. I will still allow some time for things to settle down, and to allow input from other editors, before restoring the more neutral information about the article subject's middle name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)