User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2018

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

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Been away on vacation, so just seeing this. Belated Happy New Year to you too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Jeffro77. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of your edits

I raised an issue on Neutrality notice board on your edit habits --Roller958 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did. If you want to embarrass yourself, I won't protect you. You've tried this too many times.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeffro, you might want to consider WP:ANI, since this definitely appears to be more of a user conduct problem than a normal content dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Though he seems to have settled down in the last few days, but if the behaviour continues, it may come to that. Hopefully he will grasp the point that it is not appropriate to cite an organisation's use of testimonials to endorse itself, and that my objection is not merely an arbitrary 'attack' on his preferred religion. This is actually pretty tame compared to some of the issues I've had to deal with on the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes Jeffro is not neutral at all in fact he name calls. Tagged me as superstitious and rudely implied he could predict that i will be superstitious about anything he says. This is mental paranoia on his part. And sadly what is a TALK page if it gets edited because you cannot say it in the actual article. In fact months after i already got my own answer from other sources on WT name in 1939, he still sent me false information in removing my comment. The false claim is that WT was formed in 1909 when in fact it had no WT name at that time, it was called Peoples Pulpit because i have books by Peoples Pulpit. The name is important because in Revelation uon 1914 the watchtower gets attacked as mother of a child, and the baby temple does not get attacked because as people or temple it was swept away without killing it. Peoples Pulpit was killed with Pennsylvania Watchtower in the prison arrest, but it left the British Bible Student license clean in record. The child of Britain was saved in 1918-1919 by its New York mother corp having the People name instead of the watchtower name. You say nothing that 1909-1939 is called Peoples Pulpit. Because youre the fuktwat not me. This is why i posted a complaint, i dont throw good info to swine shetheads anymore. And Wikipedia goes down in a single day. 75.86.75.191 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have relocated your 'comments'. If you must rant, at least put it in the correct place in the thread. But there doesn't seem to be anything of value in your comments anyway. It's also odd that you've come to my User Talk page with this drivel, but seem to be addressing some third party. It would help if you would provide diffs of my supposed 'name calling'. It is amusing that you object to be referred to as superstitious, and then make claims about a 20th century religious corporation being "important" because of some interpretation of the book of Revelation.

Superstitious interpretations aside, the article you've alluded to (Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses) already correctly indicates that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York was originally known as Peoples [sic] Pulpit Association from its inception in 1909 until 1939.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Taze listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Taze. Since you had some involvement with the Taze redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder to not edit war on Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The other editor has introduced erroneous (and redundant) information that is not consistent with the source material. However, I am leaving it in place for now pending input from other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to compromise account

I have been notified that there have been several (unsuccessful) attempts to log on to my Wikipedia account. You (the culprit, who I assume monitors my User Talk page) may as well quit trying. The chance of correctly guessing my password is about 0%. At best, you're wasting your time. At worst, you'll be found out and end up permanently blocked. Enjoy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this post; there seems to have been a bot or other effort to attempt to hack passwords, I have seen many complaints about it. (at least 3 on WP:TEAHOUSE). Yesterday was some sort of "Password day" so somebody in the world probably thought it was funny to do. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the info. My password is very strong, so no one will ever be able to guess it, so they're wasting their time whoever it is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I had an email today as well advising that there had been an attempt to log into my account. It may be just a random thing. BlackCab (TALK) 12:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Languages used on the Internet". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 July 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Languages used on the Internet, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks

My first "unrelated" result in relation to Allen (diff) (archive). I may be getting jumpy... —PaleoNeonate – 09:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)