User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2013b

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

Jan-Jun Jul-Dec

Ani notice

Please see [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Per a suggestion at ANi I opened this:

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Georgia

Hallo Jeffro,
I read casually your intervention at the incidents board about Georgia and I wanted only to say that I agree 100% with you and that appreciate it a lot. Some years ago I had a similar problem about Armenia,and apparently here we have a general problem which still wait to be solved... Anyway, it is nice to see that on Wikipedia there is still people who can use their brain (although in such cases it should not that difficult :-)). Best, Alex2006 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Your explanation have a global sense. Thanks Vanquisher (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I was confused about which Pittsburgh was the redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning agains obstuctive behaviour

I have to warn you against removing any more tags without providing the requested information. Your obstructing of removal of OR material, lack of will for cooperation regarding removal OR, and rejection of complying to the RS noticeboards regarding use of Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock and other unpublished material, is not at all accepted behaviour.

I will also warn you against any further assuming of bad faith regarding editing wikipedia, as have been done at several occations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You asked that the material be verified. I verified the quotes.

You asked for indications that the material is published. I indicated that it is a bona fide publication.

You asked where it can be accessed (which is not actually a requirement), and I provided links to the publication.

Your 'warnings' are therefore irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting your own view as that of the RS noticeboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hi, please not add stuff into your own edits after I've replied to it, like you have done here [2]. It is may not explicit forbidden, but still violating of WP:REDACT: "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement." Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My clarification alters nothing about what you quoted or otherwise stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

But let's make it simple:

Did you use IRC to discuss the sources?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maxximiliann

Issue raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Editor changes biblical dates, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Language

I've been offline most of the last few hours but had noticed M's comments and will warn him if he isn't warned already. However, some of your language isn't a whole lot different - you might want to go through some of your talk page comments and strike some stuff of if you want traction on your ANI complaint. Remember WP:Boomerang - you might end up blocked yourself if someone decides to block M for language. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For example?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Striking that - I see you've struck one word that was contentious and a more careful check doesn't show much if any language problem - these walls of text have made it a bit confusing to see who has written what, and M's bolding didn't help. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Careful

You accidentally deleted some comments there in an editor conflict and misspelt another editors word: [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems more like a result of database corruption than my actions. I didn't go anywhere near the section in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You might not have noticed the other edits because they were at the end of the diff. It's happened to others before, and will happen again, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked the diff both times when the edit conflicts occurred. the first time, there was no other text apart from my edit showing (as if the other was a null edit). The second time, I copied and pasted only my text (from the left side of the diff, not from the 'Your text' box) back in to the 'original' text without altering anything else. So I don't see how I could possibly have edited another person's text from a different section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the misspelling of "Germany" was actually in Tarc's original edit[4], and later fixed by him in a separate edit[5], and had nothing to do with anything I did.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My best guess is that when I edited the page the second time, the database retrieved a copy of the page from 9:31 (UTC+10). I am not privy to how or why this may have occurred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Overdue comment

		The Christianity Barnstar
		I sincerely wish that there were something more significant I could give you for your tireless and generally thankless efforts in a lot of content related to the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular and Christianity in general, but I don't know of any. This token of esteem, however small, is more than earned. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Though cash is nice too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit

I am writing you to tell you that I deleted the "cited" work because the citations were not reliable on the UN Jehovah's Witness page. The cites include a letter that is just a pdf not from the UN or NGO official website. I have scavenged both the UN and NGO website for a few hours and have not found the letter, and have found NO association of the Watchtower and UN. If you keep the article up, post a citation of a link TO THE ACTUAL UN or NGO website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnderJ21 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the letter itself on UN DPI letterhead, but the URL for the PDF letter (http://search.un.org/smb/secf10.un.org/DigiLib/$/DigitalLibrary/Dig/www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/pdfs/watchtower.pdf) explicitly indicates that it is hosted on the UN website. Also, there is no basis for your claim that The Guardian newspaper is not a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You claimed to have "scavenged the UN and NGO website for a few hours", yet I found it in minutes by searching for "watchtower", filtered for PDF files.[6] You are either dishonest or not very thorough.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Franz

You are permitting Mr. Raymond Franz, who is ready dead, to keep criticizing The Watch Tower Organization without any clue. The fact is that Wikipedia always promotes harmony and not allowing people to run false statements to destroy The Watch Tower organization. I will report you for not stating what is truth, as you guide your words by Gossiping and not by true evidences.(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.116.48.122 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism from notable sources is entirely appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Franz was a high ranking member of the organisation, and therefore entirely likely to be well aware of the organisation's functions. Additionally, his views are clearly stated in the article as his own opinion. You have no justification at all for deleting large sections of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

You are at 4RR now, Kitaro at 5RR. You need to stop editing this article for a while also. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Though I actually reverted only 3 times, and one of those was for a much larger chunk of the article that had been deleted rather than just the smaller sections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And I wasn't really aware that reverting obvious vandalism was included in the 3RR. Even more strangely, apparently I'm supposed to pretend that the IP user might not actually be the other named user. That's just policy gone crazy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Bud-nipping

Hi there. I don't know where your animus towards me is coming from, but I'd like to nip it in the bud. Your final remark on the Darius thread: "That's a rhetorical question, but I'm sure you'll want the last word anyway" seems to be particularly aggressive and gratuitous, and is certainly unrelated to my modus operandi at the ref desks or anywhere else.

I invite you to take issue with anything I write, that is, to criticise the substance of my posts, as strongly as you may feel is warranted. I'm a big boy and I can take care of myself, and if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to say so. But please leave the personal reflections out of the equation. All they end up doing is reflecting badly on the writer. Thank you.

I should tell you I have coined the word "ultimoverbalist" to mean one who likes having the last word in any discussion. It's sometimes hard to apply this to others, without in the process becoming, at least temporarily, that very thing oneself. And that would never do, would it.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

'Animus'? (hardly)... anyway... the substance of your post was that you didn't like it when I gave (purportedly) my view of the pronunciation of a word (that had already been provided by other editors) on the basis that it doesn't accord with your view of the word, and then when I provided other sources that accord with 'my view' of the word, you complained about that as well. Your initial response was snarky and entirely unnecessary, so don't start making claims about me. Also, your sarcastic suggestion that you will alter your pronunciation of Daria on the basis of the pronunciation of Darius will be particularly amusing if Daria has a sister named Roberta.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, you did not present it as "your view". You presented it as "the correct pronunciation". At that point, you had no sources to support this. This was therefore an assertion, pure and simple, and assertions are not worth much at a Reference Desk. It had nothing to do with "my view", because I have not expressed any view as to the correctness or otherwise of any pronunciation of Darius, other than to question those who blandly assert without any references that it is this way or that way. What I didn't like is someone purporting to answer the OP's question on the basis of what looks for all the world like "It is X, because I say it is X". That is what lead to my "Thus spake Jeffro77". You reacted to it, ... and here we are. So maybe you can "grow up" and take responsibility for your action, viz. using a reference desk to make assertions. I hope we can have solely positive interactions in the future. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not particularly important that you didn't like the way I happened to phrase my summary of what other editors had already indicated as supported by major dictionaries (and not merely 'my view', so there was no need to specially present it as such). What we have here is an argument you started, and with you trying to have the last word. Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Addition to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses section

I have never edited on Wikipedia before. Based on the 50 years I spent with the JW group, I find your editing to be of excellent quality. It is factual and informative. I believe the page could be enhanced by adding a section in the criticisms subheading, entitled, "Promotion of Scientific Falsehoods". I would be more than happy to write the text and provide the reference materials. Not having experience editing Wikipedia, I would rather help supply content rather than become skilled at editing, citing, linking etc. Is this a project upon which we could collaborate?

Stardustsense (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It would depend greatly on the specific information you're proposing. I know that a lot of old stuff from The Golden Age in particular was very unscientific. But criticism of that material would almost certainly fail Wikipedia's standards regarding reliable sources unless it is actually discussed in reliable third-party sources (and would constitute undue weight within the broader context of the main article). It would help if you could provide more details at the article's Talk Page about what you want to include. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)