User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015a

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

Job 8:12-14

I want to share with you this verse: Job 8:13,14. --92.57.230.242 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Job 8:13,14 is two verses. Secondly, you cited three verses in the heading. Thirdly, your religious superstitions are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sing to Jehovah

Hi, one bethelite confirmed that there will be 15 new songs added to the revised Songbook.

Greetings, Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianihly (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Something you heard someone say doesn't qualify as a suitable source. Is there a source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

scholars and edits

It's NOT just "Christian theologians" that use the form "Jehovah", but even Atheist scholars and non-religious historians use that form sometimes. Like Daniel Dennett in his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006). He uses the form "Jehovah" there. So you're wrong on that one, and YOU arguably are "injecting POV" by your biased removal of this widely-used and established Anglicized form, that is even used by NON-religious scholars. The names I put forth (as I said) are just a sample of more religious types, true, but obviously not exhaustive in general. It would be different, Jeffro, if I was trying to incorporate one of those "sacred name" renderings like "Yahawah" or "Yahowah" or "Yehuwah"...(if you've seen that), as THAT is really "obscure" and NOT "established"...and would be "POV injection". But you can't get around the fact (that you seem to not be aware of or care about) that the Latin/English form "Jehovah" is not just used by professed "Christian theologians or ministers", for centuries, past and present. I've read liberal agnostic historians and scholars, in books and magazines, etc, use that form too. And as I said already, and I'm tired of repeating myself with you, that I'm NOT trying to change every WP article that has the less-accurate two-syllable Hebraic form "Yahweh", out of "POV", as I know that that's the (in some circles) more used form...and hence WP (whether I agree or not) should reflect that. But you act like "Jehovah" is used by a very very very "tiny" minority of "scholars" in general, past or present, and that's not really true. "Minority" yes, probably, sure, but not as minor as you're making it out. It's too established AND used by quite a number of scholars (religious and non-religious and in-between) to ignore or for you to make such a big fuss about and disrespect with your OWN (well-known) in a sense "POV". I told you if you keep reverting this, you'll keep being reverted. And it'll only stop when real true "consensus" goes your view on this. Because I always acquiesce to real consensus on WP, whether they're wrong or not, or I agree or not. Take care.... 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this new section showing up on my watchlist, and I have to say that I am really, really curious what is being discussed here. I would have to say that, not at all knowing exactly what is being discussed, there may be a valid point in the above, but that it seems to me likely that there is a also at least theoretically a very good reason for also excluding the name, unless somehow the name itself is specifically directly significantly relevant to the content in question. If either Gabby Merger or Jeffro were to want to indicate what the specific dispute is, I might be interested in weighing in on one side or another. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. For a full view of all the comments and points on this, from both me and Jeffro, go to MY Talk page, as all the back-and-forth comments and more points and specifics are there. Click: here. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that doesn't help that much. It would be most useful to know which specific article or articles the discussion relates to. I am going to assume the discussion is about the use of the word "Jehovah" in certain specific articles, correct? John Carter (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you read all that has been written on my page? Also, if I may suggest, if you wish, write on MY talk page on this, as Jeffro has always deleted (thus far) everything that's been written by me on this Talk page regarding this, the last few days. But did you read all that was written by both me and him on this, on my Talk page? There's more stuff and details on my Talk page about this. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi...to answer your question that you also asked on my Talk page (and I answered it there afterwards a few minutes ago)...::Sennacherib. Again, though, the point is that the Anglicized form IS used in many scholarly circles, some religious and some not so religious, for decades, and centuries, up to the present. It's not so remote or "minor", even if the two-syllable less-accurate Hebrew "Y" form has been used (wrongly, since these same scholars say "Jeremiah" and "Jacob" no problem with the "J" sound, etc), by most scholars. "Jehovah" is STILL widely used and established, big time, and WP should at least in some articles or some paragraphs here and there rightly reflect that fact. That fact that Jeffro is trying to suppress from his own bias and own wrong notions. He's not infallible. Though he likes to think he is. He's good in some ways, many times, sure, but not infallible. Not even close. But yeah, the article in question in this case is Sennacherib. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter:, Gabby Merger wants to use the name Jehovah at the article about Sennacherib, even though Yahweh is the preferred form among scholars, and none of the sources at the Sennacherib article suggest any preference for Jehovah at that article. The form Jehovah is preferred by a minority of Christian theologians, and there is no good reason to use the less common form in articles about the Ancient Near East that only have tenuous connections to Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Gabby Merger has been dishonest or misleading in a few instances above. Firstly, I never suggested that the form Jehovah is a "very very very “tiny” minority". Secondly, while some non-Christian authors occasionally use the form Jehovah in scholarly contexts (usually when talking about Christianity), the preferred form is Yahweh. Thirdly, the reason I have "always deleted ... everything ... on this Talk page" is because it was the same text as her responses at her own Talk page,and I have no interest in replying to exactly the same comments in two separate places. (Gabby Merger also added the text of her new thread here to her Talk page and might claim that it was done because I previously deleted content from this page; if that happens, I'll simply dredge up the diffs for the order of events for the previous duplications.) Gabby Merger's personal attack about my alleged motivations and her supposed special knowledge about what I think is also inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Merged to User talk:Gabby Merger#Jehovah (old revision)

Daniel (biblical figure)

I've finished with Daniel (biblical figure) and won't be back to it. If you wish, you might like to keep an eye on it, just a watching brief, as the idea that Daniel is fictional annoys many conservative readers, and the presence of a reliable source doesn't stop anon isp-warriors deleting this (happened twice already). Cheers, PiCo (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

B.H.M.S. & D.H.M.S.

Hello Jeffro77, you once again amended these two articles just based on what you feel. Should you have any issues with the article, first discuss it in the talkpage OR nominate it for deletion (if need be). Kindly do not indulge in edit warring (as I had pointed out two months back) and first discuss the matter in relevant section. I have revert your changes to the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors told you last time that your two articles are promotional, there is insufficient notability for the courses, and there is no consensus for your edits. Nothing has changed since then. But apparently you want to go around in circles again. When I have more time, I'll advise the editors involved in the previous discussion that you're at it again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, Multiple users????? for your kind information, only three users (including me and you) were engaged in this discussion. Moreover, the discussion ended with quote "Like I said before, if you think you can make the articles better, by all means, remove the redirects..." unquote; which is exactly what I did. Between then and now, you have failed to cite one single documented reason why this topic should not have page of its own. Whatever action is needed, please discuss on article talkpage and lets not engage in edit war. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The article content is the same promotional non-notable information that was there before. It is no better than before, and there is no consensus to restore it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More than 10 additional editors have now also indicated that the articles are unnecessary, for the same reasons I previously outlined. Also, thank you for removing your lies about me from your User Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hayden C. Covington

Can you do me a favor and check out my recent edits at Hayden C. Covington for formatting or other errors? I have some doubts as to word usage, but I couldn't think of any other way to phrase what I added. Also, the quote from Cantwell V Connecticut that is on the page, while I think it is quite useful for helping to show Covington's convictions, I am unsure if whoever added that formatted it properly, so I didn't want to change it, but it sits oddly on the page imo. I also added some citation needed templates, but I think more may be needed, maybe even a "this page needs references" tag would be useful. Thanks. Vyselink (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment, and it might be the weekend before I get a chance to review it properly. But I will get to it. For now, it's sleep time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration

Re your comments at the JW talk page: Very well put and rather more succinct than my response at his talk page. BlackCab (TALK) 13:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Question

Since you're a member of Wikiproject Jehovahs Witness can you please get them to stop knocking on my door? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.141 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a member of the WikiProject. I am not a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. I would therefore be unable to make any such request on your behalf even if you weren't some random anonymous person on the Internet.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquotes

Hi Jeffro, I notice that both the Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Franklin Rutherford articles have had "Wikiquote" links added to them. To be honest, I wasn't even aware of the Wikiquote mechanism. In both cases the links have been added by Mariomassone, in both cases those Wikiquotes have also been created by the same user. In both cases the quotes are also predominantly sourced to a book that I'm guessing would fail WP:RS, as—without having the time right now to delve into it—it looks very much like a self-published book. Are you familiar with the Wikiquotes setup, and do you have the energy at the moment to address this? I'm a bit tied up for the next day or two but figure this should probably be nipped in the bud. Thanks. BlackCab (TALK) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been out of town for work, and don't have time at the moment to address this matter in detail. I don't have a lot of experience with the WikiQuote site, though I have noticed extensive additions by Pediainsight at WikiQuote under the name Wiki Wisdom that give undue weight to literature published by the Watch Tower Society. Although WikiQuote is just another Wiki, it doesn't seem to have the same elaborate framework for reporting problems that Wikipedia has. It may be necessary to inquire about these issues at the Wikipedia helpdesk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)