User talk:Marvin Shilmer

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Marvin Shilmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

— Moe ε 01:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood

Though your lead-in is interesting, it doesn't confirm remotely to WP:LEAD. Take a look at that guideline, and I suspect you'll want to do some shuffling around with the article. Be bold. :) joshbuddy, talk 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your statement. But we should explore it. Can you be more specific?Marvin Shilmer 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I know i made some offensive comments, sorry. George 02:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, George. Is it big of you to apologize. But we should all be big enough to overlook one another's passions, understanding that our passion sometimes manifests itself with rough edges. Apology accepted. I have an extensive library of vetted journals and other academic publications, not to mention access to one of the world's deepest databases of research material. If I can ever help you retrieve something useful let me know. If I have time I am glad to help.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments

Marvin, I wanted to drop you a personal note to assure you that I'm not trying to marginalize or ignore your statements on objectivity and academic rigor. I just have gotten to the point where I'd like to work through the core issues with as little rhetoric as possible. After a couple of years on Wikipedia I know that these discussions can (and frequently do) expand out of control if every tangent is entertained, and I think we can be a lot more productive if we avoid lengthy debates (I've been involved in some that have raged on for months without getting anywhere). We obviously have some differences of opinion on how information should be presented, but I'd rather identify these and move on as best we can rather than spend a lot of effort trying to explain why the other's opinion is flawed. Best regards. -- mattb 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Jehovah's Witnesses. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.DGG 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrators with power have the option of banning whomever they wish. But I have not deleted/removed anything whatsoever outside Wiki policy. I have deleted/removed unverified attributions. Wiki expressly permits every editor this freedom, including this lowly non-administrator editor. Additionally, I have not added any material that I failed to discuss on the talk page first. Furthermore everything I have added was verified by vetted secondary sources, yet this was deleted by another editor (Fcsuper). Since your warning to me is wholly erroneous in terms of acts attributed to me, my question is who are you acting at the behest of? Clearly someone shared this error and asked you to act. Please explain. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see your note till now. Nope. I came here just as I said, from Recent Changes. Like many people, I do a little random checking there as well as what I mainly do, which is monitor speedies. What I noticed was a pattern of back and forth changes, and now that I've noticed it, I intended and do intend to follow it up with others also who seem to be doing it there--I never meant to say it was primarily you. I do not want to get involved in the merits of the changes--nor do I intend to edit on this subject, nor have I ever worked with any of the people here who are interested. But I know from my own experience on subjects I edit that repeated back and forth does not turn out well--however annoying it may be at first, it gets worse. I've once or twice been tempted, but what I do at that point is turn off the computer. No matter how right I think I am. If it's worth coming back the next day, I come back.

I personally have never blocked anyone, except once by mistake. If I wanted to, I'd have to check the instructions for the exact steps, for I've never read them in detail & hope I never will need to. If I thought it was needed, I'd ask someone else to double-check and do it, but I've never done that either. However, there's a noticeboard where people can put requests for blocking, and the admins who check that do it if it meets the technical requirements, in the hope of decreasing the intensity of conflict. By my counting, you may have gone over the limit or come close, & I was trying to alert you to that before someone else with perhaps a little less patience did. The more you are in the right, the more you should try not to get blocked, for then you will appear in the wrong.

I will check out things now, and if someone needs a warning, I'll warn them. That's all I'll do. That's the most I ever do. For almost any situation, it's enough. DGG 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG: I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Your genuineness shines through in living color. By the way, I think I inadvertently edited your user page in an effort to communicate with you. Though I am an experienced writer and researcher I’m afraid my Wiki skills are more limited. I did not change my edit on your user page for fear I would exacerbate my mistake. I also left a message today on your talk page. Best regards. -- Marvin Shilmer 04:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (I appreciate your reminding me today, because I had meant to do it yesterday, but got too sleepy. It's easy to post on a user page by mistake.--as I said above, I make that sort of mistake too--and if you hadn't told me, it might have been a while till I noticed,)DGG 05:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I agree with DGG. Edit warring is a bad thing and leads to unpleasant things like page protection and blocking of edit wariors. Consider using the WP:1RR rule. Limit yourself to one revert and then take it to the Talk Page. Since the text that is the subject of the edit war is also being discussed on the Talk Page, don't feel that you have to revert unacceptable wording. Focus on developing a consensus text and then put that text in the article after a consensus has been developed. (Yes, I know that I have been bold and made some edits to the article text but you will note that I have not edit warred when other people have changed my proposed text.) --Richard 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: I disagree with neither your nor DGG. What I dislike is the manifest refusal of editors to respond on academic terms to academic questions. I also dislike it when an editor misrepresents published author’s presentations, and then has the audacity to move their erroneous transposition into the main text. This is so rampant it makes me wonder where are other competent editors. Why are editors not insisting on acceptable standards of academic presentation, such as secondary source verification for starters, and beyond this taking precautions to present from among these sources as they represent an existing consensus in the literature, which is very important to a reference work. At the moment vying editors on the Jehovah’s Witness talk page are more interested in researching my personal background (and then implying motivation from that) than they are in academic excellence. If they expended this time on the subject at hand rather than attempting to torpedo my participation with innuendo of character then perhaps they could realize how tenuous their presentation is. -- Marvin Shilmer 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

info request

Hi Marvin, would you be so kind, I understand you have awesome research tools, I am looking for a good solid estimate of the number of ordained ministers in the United states only. I cannot find this information anywhere. Thank you.--Ice9Tea 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: I'm happy to take a quick look at this question for you. I have a request that will help reduce my time to research. Are you looking for an estimate of ordained ministers with a congregational ministry, or are you looking for an estimate of ordained ministers with a personal ministry? Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, consider each baptized Witness as an ordained minister whether they have congregational ministerial responsibilities or not, whereas among these only a few (elders and ministerial servants) have congregational ministerial duty. I'll wait to hear from you, and then I'll take a look see.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin thanks, I think that the question can be stated like this "How many individuals are there that are counted as ordained ministers by the laws governing such matters in the United States including only those using the Bible in there ministry"? thanks again.--Ice9Tea 23:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marvin, I'm looking for your e-mail address to discuss further. Long time no talk. Use the "E-mail this user" function to send me your address. Hope to hear from you. --Risot7 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It is true that there are subjects that I will completely avoid, but for the most part I rather enjoy having my assumptions challenged. Duffer 12:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, For me it is impossible to hold personal conviction in anything I am unwilling to openly discuss and examine, including cherished personal beliefs and/or preferences. Further, my values compel me to unabashedly examine and test my beliefs for veracity in the face of counterclaim. If I’m wrong I want to know. What sort of conviction leads a person to selectively avoid subjects? The biblical account of Moses and Aaron at Meribah conveys a sobering message when it comes to avoiding or addressing an issue/subject. Because Aaron failed to address the misconduct of Moses, and in fact stood in tacit support of Moses’ misdeed, Aaron was forthrightly removed from his high office and suffered premature death. The same thing happened to Moses, of course. Each man made a choice in this instance. Moses chose to act inappropriately in his capacity of the anointed of Jehovah. Aaron chose to avoid addressing the issue/subject, and to give tacit support to the anointed of Jehovah when he should not have. This was a costly mistake for Aaron, and one we should learn from. -- Marvin Shilmer 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's witness's articles

Please yourself refrain from ill-informed and arrogant criticism of others. The article was rated as a "B" because it requires a formal review from the GA group to get GA recognition. The same holds for FA. I am not myself in the position to grant either. A-class, which perhaps it might technically qualify for, also generally requires, according to current standards elsewhere, more than one editor to agree to that level. I would know this as a member of the Biography project, where I do most of the A-Class reviews. In short, the B class was pretty much the highest level of assessment that could be given out. Frankly, your apparent outrage at the rating surprises me. I can only assume that your outrage is due to it not having received A-Class rating, as it clearly was more than a Start or Stub. Again, if you note the standards set elsewhere, there are now specific groups which tend to put them out only after a rather more detailed review. I'm virtually certain the Jehovah's Witnesses project doesn't have the people to do so themselves, and I'm in the process of tagging and assessing the articles for all the religion projects, so that ultimately all the projects will know which articles are more or less closest to GA or FA status, making (hopefully) some sort of collaboration possible somewhere down the line. Clearly, if you believe that your work demands an A-Class rating, you can change it on your own. Frankly, you could have done so at any time. Also, if you think that it qualifies for GA, which I personally think it probably does, please feel free to propose it. However, if anyone is going to fling words like "worthless" around, I would think that the best place to apply it would be toward the criticisms made by individuals of others who neither have nor seek any understanding of the motivations behind those actions, in short, your own comments. Good day. John Carter 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warlordjohncarter: If you find arrogance in my request that you provide a summary for ratings you apply, then you read the arrogance into the text. My request is only that you follow Wiki recommended practice. I took the time to specify precisely the recommended practice in need of your attention, which is to offer a summarization to explain your rating and/or any related strengths and weakness. The task of providing such a summary does not rest with GA group. The task rests with the editor taking it upon him or herself to apply a rating in the first place, which in this case is you. You applied a B-class rating; hence you have an obligation to explain your rating, including any related strengths or weaknesses. Presumably you are in a position to explain your own actions. As for me, I do not presume to rate my own work. That would be arrogance. However, a request for editors to follow recommended practices is in no way arrogance, except perhaps to an untrained eye. Again I request that you provide a summary to explain why your assigned rating, including any perceived weaknesses or strengths. --Marvin Shilmer 14:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You did notice that every article relevant to the project was rated, not just your own, right? For the purpose of letting the project know where the articles stand in terms of quality? That also is something which is presumably "worthwhile" to the project itself, even if it doesn't make you feel good. And the rating is primarily intended in almost all cases for the benefit of editors to determine which articles they should work on, not for the benefit of the editor/s who already have. Or were you only concerned with this one article? And I did explain the reason for the rating above. Basically, the article might qualify as A class, but right now there is a lot of question going on out there regarding whether A-Class might join GA and FA as becoming a "objectively reviewed" level, and it would probably be problematic to rate any article at that level before it is known whether there will be a specific rating group dealing with that classification in the near future. Personally, when I finish the religion projects' assessments, and include all the GAs, FAs, etc., on their list, it'll be a lot easier for everybody to know which articles are most important and in (comparatively) worst shape. I'll probably try to set up a formal A-Class review for WP:RELIGION somewhere down the road as well. These assessments were only to indicate which articles would benefit most or least from concentrated attention of the project as a whole. However, as you seem to want only a specific literal answer to a question which I think I have basically answered several times already, the article's weaknesses as I see them right now are simply lack of an external peer review, which is what is generally indicated for a detailed review of the article and which can be requested at WP:PR, or any formal reception of GA or FA status. I am also curious as to where the practice you indicated is "recommended" is found, but doubt I'll get a real answer. As per the project's own assessment page, "Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning." Please note the word "usually". Calling someone's work "useless" generally will alienate anybody, even the most fair-minded individual. To repeat, I think the only real impediments, based on the less-than-completely-thorough review which is all that's indicated for assessment, is that the article is in probably, basically, good enough shape for GA consideration. Unfortunately, as GA review isn't itself completely uniform, I can't be sure that any comments I might make regarding what I see might help improve the article's quality might be something which someone else sees as weakening it. If you want the article to be considered for GA status or better, the best thing to do is file a formal request for peer review, and then address any deficiencies indicated there. That way, it will be less likely for a GA or FA reviewer to say "I don't like this" late in the game if it hadn't been mentioned before in the peer review. I hope that answers your question. John Carter 15:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warlordjohncarter: Cutting through your use of a great many words, the request is made right on the tags you inserted with the rating. Have you failed to read your own tags? As for the purpose of a summary explanation of your rating and/or any related strengths and weaknesses, this is for you to do and others to review for veracity and/or future editing needs. Please include a summary with any rating applied. Please add summary for your existing rating tag lacking them. It is, after all, difficult to read another editor’s mind. And, yes, I saw quite a few of your other rating tags, none of which I saw any summaries for. Need I point to every one of them for you to understand the need to include a summary with all rating tag? My presumption was that you would get the message with a single instance cited. Perhaps this is a bad presumption.--Marvin Shilmer 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You also cut through the specific terms which are clearly and explicitly included in the assessment page of the project itself. I explicitly quoted that statement above. It says, and I once again quote the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Assessment page, "Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning." I also indicated that your statement up front calling such actions as I did "worthless" is hardly a way to encourage getting a favorable response. Your assumption stated above is explicitly contradicted by the terms of the assessment page itself. The terms on the project banner were seemingly copied from several others, and was created long before I joined. Your statement above about how the summary is for the purpose of the reviewer betrays a total lack of any acquaintance with the system. Please read the page linked to by me above. The purpose is not to tell any given editor who has already worked on a page how the article stands, but rather to indicate to other editors how the article stands, so that they might improve those that need improvement. Also, generally, importance parameters are included. On this banner, they aren't. They help the project focus the greatest attention on the most important articles. In any event, the purpose is not do tell an individual editor how good his article is, but rather to tell everyone else. Rather than attempting to cut through the words I took the effort to post here, I suggest instead that you actually read them, and show some regard for others yourself. And, by the way, I am no longer watching this page. And please show at least the regard for others to pay attention to what they tell you. Had you done so, your own last comment would I think have been completely unnecessary. Bye. John Carter 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warlordjohncarter: Please read what I actually stated and refrain from reading your conclusions into my words. I never said I failed to read your use of a great many words. I said I was cutting through your use of a great many words to digress (you) back to the original request, which you have still failed to even remotely comply with. So be it. Your answer is, apparently, “I have no need to explain my ratings for the benefit of other editors who want to improve content based on my perspective of strengths and weaknesses.” Let me know when you have something substantive to go along with your rating. As it stands we have several B-ratings issued by you with no shared perspective by you on ways editors can make improvements, or if you even see a need for improvements (not to mention specific improvements). This reduces your rating tags to the status of random (read: worthless) rating. But, feel free to ignore whatever you want. My aim is to progressively improve whatever article or issue I touch. What is your aim?--Marvin Shilmer 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I answered your request above. I said already my purpose in tagging was to let the project know which articles were relevant to it, and what state they were in. B-Class is pretty much the best grade any individual can give out. If you want specific requests for how to improve articles, like I already said to bring them to GA status or higher, the best way to go is to seek peer review and directly respond to what would likely be the multiple comments there from multiple users. Also, doing so reduces the likelihood that an individual will choose to raise an objection late in the approval process. The fact that you did not see that would seem to belie your own comment above. It is by the way standard form for most projects to have few if any articles with comments. If you were a member of any, you might know that. Personally, I can see no purpose in any further conversation with you. I have removed your comments from my own userpage, and will request that you cease and desist making unfounded judgements of others or engaging in making further irrational comments on my user page. Your comments constitute trolling. I am also formally resigning from the JW WikiProject, indicating your activity is why. Good day and goodbye. My purpose was to let the project know which articles were Start, Stub, and otherwise need impovement, which most articles are at. Generally, it takes no effort to realize how such articles need improvement. In fact, if you had bothered to read the page I had linked to and explicitly asked you to read, you might even know that. That's why the project's assessment page is there, after all. However, you don't seem interested in doing anything on your own, but insult others and ignore what they tell you. John Carter 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warlordjohncarter: Notwithstanding the use of a great many words, apparently we are not communicating, for I see no answers whatsoever to my very specific and reiterated request. Here it is as plainly as I know to say it: 1) You tagged an article with a rating. 2) Presumably an editor who rates an article has at least some perspective on weaknesses and strengths, and you are doing the work of an editor. 3) I am interested in improving Wiki articles; hence I am interested in perspectives of editors who see weaknesses and strengths in Wiki articles. 4) Either you see weaknesses and strengths in an article you rate, or you do not. 5) I was asking that you provide a summary for an article you rated to seek your perspectives of weaknesses and strengths. I know the Wiki peer review process. I also know the more typical peer review processes. I was interested in your perspectives in relation to your ratings because you took the time to make a rating (actually, ratings). Apparently you do not wish to share your perspectives of weaknesses and strengths, which is fine. As an editor you have a prerogative to respond to requests of other editors or not. Regarding all your personal remarks of my person and presentation, please refrain from character assault, and refrain from assuming bad things of rigorous academic questions. If you don’t like other editors asking you questions about your editing my recommendation is that you just express this up front, and concisely.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Answers:

• (1) Yes, I have tagged and placed the banner of the Jehovah's Witnesses articles on several articles.
• (2) There are serious doubts about whether anyone can know objectively the full content of any article. Pope Soter, for instance, is still called a stub, despite the fact that everything known about the subject is already included. I have myself created several pages on saints, where, according to the source, nothing is known about the individual beyond his or her name and the fact that some prior book historically called them a saint. In cases like that, even if the article is complete, it is often the case that an article is tagged as a lower class, even if it is complete. Pikachu was once officially recognized as a GA, and is once again, but given the comparative lack of length of the article, had been earlier merged into a larter article. This too is standard.
• (3) If you were really interested in seeing what others thought about the strengths and weaknesses of articles, you would have read my comments, which indicated that I thought peer review would work best. As stated, as soon as I ensure all the religion projects out there know what articles are relevant to them, and creating their "articles" pages to permit maintenance, it is my intention to create a WikiProject Religion peer review/A-Class review department. That will still be some way off, however, given the huge size of several of the other projects, and various other pressures on my time.
• (4) I clearly indicated above that I thought my own judgements were not necessarily binding, and that the appropriate way to seek detailed discussion is through peer review. I provided clear and direct links to extant pages which supported my own actions. Each and every statement and link I made you ignored, in favor of repeating original questions. Considering your repeated use of the word "useless", which is probably the single biggest statment of unsupported attack which has been made, and it has been made repeatedly by you. And, as I indicated, my own views are not necessarily the only ones relevant, and I have found in the past that sometimes the formal reviewer who comes in later disagrees with me about lengths of sentences and other matters, sometimes causing work done on that basis to be undone. Remember, assessment is not a formal review. That is indicated on the assessment page which was linked to. Regarding your particular article, as has been said three or four times now, I don't personally see any weaknesses which would necessarily inhibit it from receiving GA or FA status. However, the formal review for such articles is not done by me, and it is best to seek formal review, rather than informal review, as such review presents a way to determine if any improvements have been made since the formal review. Given my own unofficial status at both GA and FA, any comments I might make would very possibly be disagreed with later, which would be counterproductive. I have repeatedly referred you to peer review. You have consistently ignored that recommendation, and yet you complain about me being noncooperative?
• (5) As stated above, I do not consider my own opinions, which are so clearly informal, worth indicating at great length, which you seem to be demanding as par for the course, but instead have said repeatedly that the way to seek such opinions is through formal peer review. You have ignored that, and have continued to badger me for opinions which I do not generally give out outside of a formal setting. You have also repeatedly impugned both the nature of my actions and my own character in the process, particularly with the word "useless" which you seem so fond of. I could also point out that such assessments are among the most valuable things to the group which is responsible for print versions of wikipedia, but I imagine you might decide that that isn't "useful" to you individually either. In short, it seems to me that the only thing which matters to you is that everything related to the article be done in such a way as you benefit from it. I sincerely urge you to read WP:OWN, which explicitly says such thinking is to be avoided.

In conclusion, my actions for the JW project could even be said to be not specifically for that project itself, but rather for the Religion projects and other projects. By knowing which articles apply to individual "daughter" projects, it is possible to know whether the broader scope projects would also think them within their scope.

Factually, I have answered repeatedly everything you asked. You have uniformly continued to ignore that, and instead make at best insulting, "useless", and certainly counterproductive comments yourself. If your own behavior were better than it has been in this situation, I might have spent the time to completely review the article, as I have in the past. Instead, you were insulting from the word "Go", and indicated at about the same time a total lack of familiarity with many aspects of wikipedia. I have really only spent as much time as I have here to indicate to an editor who seems to have done at least one article fairly well that there is a great deal more cooperation and collaboration involved in wikipedia than you have even remotely displayed to date. If you were honestly interested in such collaboration, you would probably have joined the JW project and actually created a userpage. You have not done either. Those actions in and of themselves betrays a rather weak grasp of many aspects of wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with many of these aspects. Good day. John Carter 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warlordjohncarter: It is an amazing thing to observe such an avalanche of response to a request for you to share whatever strengths and weaknesses compelled you to assign any rating at all to the article(s) in question. All you had to do is say, "I want to rate and I want to tag articles with a rating, but I do not want to share my perspectives of weaknesses and strengths." Did it really take the whole dictionary to say that? As for your petty personal attacks of my participation here, they are amusing. Particularly humorous is your outlandish claim "that everything related to the article be done in such a way as you benefit from it." Where and how you concoct such a conclusion based on these exchanges between us it, to say the least, a mystery. I am glad you have an opinion, and I am glad you felt free to voice it to me. Now if only you could digress from your negative personal assaults and focus on offering the actual opinion asked for (i.e. your perspectives of strengths and weaknesses in the subject article) the discussion would be complete. But, alas, I doubt that is going to happen. If you had anything substantive and/or studied to offer on the subject by now you surely would have offered it.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Approach

Marvin, it is obvious that you have some interest in academia, and that you are probably well intentioned in your disputes. However, your use of many words for little net gain, along with repetetive tired sound bites such as "I am glad you have an opinion, and I am glad you felt free to voice it to me" come across as egotistical and condescending. Because of your approach, people are then forced to question your motives, which you then label as personal attacks. Your methods get people offside, and will not help in getting people to reach agreement with you. If you feel that this is also a personal attack, there may be no help for you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thanks for sharing your view. Questioning motivation is a waste of time in the face of evidence. A weak mind and poor education are usually the culprits behind the behavior. When individuals persist in this it is called ad hominem. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your response, with your condescending explanation of ad hominem, is disappointing. Oh well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro: Apparently it is important to you to expend time talking about people, in this case me. Though this is your prerogative, it is of no consequence whatsoever to readers and researchers here. If it makes you feel better to persist in this behavior, feel free. Your additional presumptive conclusions and assertions of my person are noted. Do not expect me to continue responding to something so irrelevant.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, your point would be valid if cfrito had modified something of your edits that affected the context of what you had written. In fact, including a user's IP address in addition to their username is entirely superfluous to any edit whatsoever, except for possibly a talk page of an article dealing with the ISP associated with that IP address. Your continued insistence in posting that user's IP address (as you did in your response to me in the article's talk page) has the single purpose of trying to irritate that user. That is harassment. I raise this issue because I have attempted to help you in the past regarding your approach in dealing with other editors, which you also treated in an arrogant manner. I really do hope that you will take something positive from this instead of maintaining your superior dismissive attitude.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Tinkering is tinkering. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Please. Always feel free. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Wonderpet's reference to JWs as a "religion" in the JW article is not "vandalism", and stating such in an edit comment is inappropriate. If he said JWs are a "pink cat", that would be 'vandalism'. Just because you disagree with them being called a 'religion', such an edit is merely a disputed point, not vandalism. Your comment about Wonderpet is therefore libelous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article ONCE is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is OBVIOUS, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism." (Wikipedia:Vandalism, emphasis added)

Jeffro77: I appreciate your eagerness to constantly address my person with your opinions. It really is an education. Wonderpet has vandalized by asserting her POV over and over again without any substantiation whatsoever. Though this is pointed out, she persists. This is intentional behavior. Such editing compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, which in this case is the article on Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is not credible for Wonderpet to claim “good faith” when he or she edits without substantiation in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to her edit, and this is done repeatedly despite frequent and open requests to take the issue to talk. You have some nerve to suggest my remarks of and to Wonderpet on this issue are libelous. You should not use words you do not know the meaning of. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At worst, Wonderpet's edit was "detrimental but well intended" rather than "vandalism". Wonderpet's intention was clearly not to reduce the integrity of the article. "New religious movements" are inherently "religions", and the petty dispute regarding semantics hardly justifies calling Wonderpet's edit "vandalism".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thanks for once again sharing your opinion.

Apparently you discount “intent” from intentional act. Wonderpet knew what s/he was doing; hence it was a deliberate act. S/He did it anyway. S/He did the same thing repeatedly. S/He did it despite repeated requests for discussion and substantiation beyond POV. Wonderpet vandalized.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"1" The situation is an 'edit dispute', not 'vandalism'. "2" A "new religious movement" is a "religion", and the 'dispute' is largely just you disagreeing. "3" See "2". "4" The alleged 'large volume of evidence' is merely a selection of sources that you think agree with your view, though those sources do not actually indicate that the group is non-Christian or that it is not a religion, and other religions that are indisputably Christian religions are also discussed in the same manner in other works that you allege to support your view. "5" Wonderpet and other users have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page, and you are the only one disputing what actually represents your POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

1) No. Wonderpet lowered the bar far beyond a simple edit dispute. She did this by insisting on a POV edit despite mountain loads of research and methodology shared, despite lack of verification on her part, and despite repeated requests to take the matter to talk.

You have previously indicated that the group is Christian. You have also previously indicated that the group is a religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I have also previously shown (and indicated expressly) it is contrary to the consensus in peer reviewed literature for an encyclopedic work to present the Jehovah's Witnesses with with declaratory language simply stating the religion is "Christian" or a "Christian religion". I have also provided verification in the way of methodology and resulting research.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2) You have persistently presented “new religious movement” and “religion” as though the two are equivalents, when they are not. New religious movement is a phrase with meaning in the literature. Furthermore, the presentation is not as simple as you depict. The actual declaratory language of comparison is “Christian new religious movement” compared with “Christian religion”. As declaratory terms one of these has weight of vetted resources and one is contrary to vetted resources. This is not simple disagreement. This is what the literature shows in spades.

Incorrect. I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that "new religious movement" is a subset of a "religion". Based on that, the rest of your argument above is invalidated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because "new religious movement" is a subset of "religion" means no more than it would be just as acceptable to write "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion" compared with "Jehovah's Witnesses is a new religious movement." But this does not mean it would be acceptable to declare Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian religion" compared with saying Jehovah's Witnesses is a "Christian sect" or a "Christian new religious movement". The reason we can legitimately declare "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion" is because the body of world knowledge demonstrates a consensus for this presentation. But to declare Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian religion" is contrary to the same body of knowledge.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is similar to saying "the apple is red, and the apple is fruit, but under no circumstances shall the apple be called red fruit". Bias is evident in the objection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Your example fails because it is relevantly dissimilar. In our discussion there is no question of a consensus presentation declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion, just as there is no question of a consensus presentation that “the” apple is red. But when it comes to declaring the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as “Christian” there is a consensus to refrain from this presentation, whereas when it comes to declaring an apple as fruit there is a consensus presentation making that declaration. Your example is, in the end, a strawman. To state “Jehovah’s Witnesses is a religion” is verifiable based on consensus of literature. To state “Jehovah’s Witnesses is a Christian religion” is to make a declaration that runs contrary to consensus of literature. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As previously reiterated, "new religious movement" is the most accurate term available, so further discussion is counterproductive. As also previously stated, I admire your tenacity and look forward to the subjects where we are in agreement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

3) Apparently you do not understand the value of sharing research methodology. The method I employed (and disclosed for purposes of verification/testing) made it impossible for me to select sources.

It is your attitude, approach, and motive I have a problem with, not the method of your actual research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, you need to get beyond your own personal dislikes and focus on good research and presentation. It matters no one iota what my personal disposition is. Nobody cares, accept you apparently. Readers only care about having reliable information that is verified and consistent with the body of knowledge on whatever the subject. Your personal disgust with my "attitude, approach, and motive" has led you to accuse me wrongly by suggesting I selected source material. For an academic this is probably one of the worst accusations to have hurled against them. In this case, your slur of me is not only completely absurd as demonstrated by the record, it also demonstrates how you have let your judgement become clouded by your personal dislike of me, or what you call my "attitude, approach, and motive." Just how you know my motivation is a mystery. Presumably you have supernatural powers to read minds.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, other editors have also expressed concern regarding your motives and style of debating. I have no personal opinion of you at all, as I do not know you. However, I have tried to point out to you several times that your approach does not work in your favour. You have ignored that advice apparently because of pride.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct, who cares? What matters is what can be verified by weight of evidence. Personal motivations are inconsequential to the question of whether an edit has weight of evidence or not. I continue to appreciate your willingness to share your opinions of me with me. As I said before, it is educations. Please always feel free.—Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

4) I have not anywhere suggested the literature presents a view that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is non-Christian., or that it is not a religion. These assertions on your part are either inventions of your mind, or else poor comprehension. A consensus presentation that does not declare a religion as Christian is not a consensus presentation that the religion is non-Christian.

And yet you call reference to them as "a Christian religion" vandalism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That edit is vandalism under the conditions I have already iterated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an edit dispute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for sharing your opinion. I have shared Wikipedia guideline with you establishing Wonderpet’s act as vandalism. You disagree by offering an opinion otherwise. So what? The proof is in the pudding. Wonderpet’s action met the threshold expressed in Wikipedia’s guideline. A spade is a spade, every day of the week. But, again, your opinion is always welcome. The more public the better.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

5) Other religions find their own presentations in the literature. Some of them have a consensus presentation which declare them as Christian and others do not. If this is a field of study you want to bite off, then please do so and report your method and finding. Be assured it will be tested.

The suggested tangent is superfluous. It is apparent though that many sources are biased against JWs (as are apparently even some who claim to be members thereof).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a sweeping generalization to suggest that the body of evidence brought to the table is biased against Jehovah's Witnesses. Because there is bias against Jehovah's Witnesses by "some" or even "many" (weasal words, by the way) does not mean the evidence brought forth on this occasion is bad information. Frankly, during the process I took great pains to point out presentations authored by individuals with known bias one way or another, and recommended discounting the views accordingly. Again, your disdain has grasped the better part of your judgement.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I expressed no concern with your research, however your conclusions are not supported by your research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, when you accuse someone of selectively verifying is it to express a concern with that person’s research. You did this. As to your latter statement, you keep saying conclusions I have shared are unsupported by the research, but you never show it. You just harp out a disagreeing opinion. On the talk page for the Jehovah’s Witnesses article I deal with your schoolyard attempt at leveraging the research I provided. Talk about selectivity!!! – Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

6) Editors had earlier agreed on the expression “Christian sect”. Even Wonderpet applied this usage! I have no problem with “Christian sect” or “Christian new religious movement”. Both of these have weight of vetted source presentations. But the simple declaration of “Christian” or “Christian religion” is contrary to the presentation found in the body of world knowledge when used as declarations.

I conceded that the term 'Christian sect' could be used. Whether other editors agree is up to them. However, the term "new religious movement" is indeed more accurate than "sect". However, calling them a "Christian religion" hardly constitutes vandalism, as it is still an accurate (though less specific) statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It does constitute vandalism under the conditions the edit was made. I have alread explained this, and you have skirted it. No surprise there.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignored.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No surprise here; just more of the same with fewer words.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)--

7) Wonderpet is the one that has stirred this pot; not me. The matter was settled until she began pushing her POV without discussion or substantiation, despite requests for both. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, someone inserting something correct but not in agreement with your point of view is not vandalism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet's edit was contrary to the consensus presentation in the literature; hence it is absurd to say s/he inserted something correct. And, on this final point, my advice to you is that you chew on your own use of the term vandalism--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit in question attempted to place a controversial statement as their foremost belief, which was hardly appropriate, and someone of your academic ability no doubt knew that, or at least should. Giving such a statement more prominence than it deserves promotes bias, and the edit was made after repeated attempts to promote bias in the article. This is not at all the same as Wonderpet's edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, The OPENING sentence in the article was, at the time, making a declaration that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. This was the FIRST thing right out of the box. It is not at all inappropriate then to make this the first address when it comes to the section ABOUT the religion’s beliefs. Your complaint on this point is so feeble one has to wonder what on earth you are thinking to even state what you do above! What you write is an embarrassment to read! You have yet to express how it is INAPPROPRIATE to place a religion’s self-professed status as Christian in the BELIEF section as part of the OPENING sentence when this is exactly what the OPENING sentence of the article was/is attempting to use as an introduction to the religion. You have dodged answering this question just like you have dodged several questions about your accusations of my person elsewhere. In the end, you got caught with your pants at your ankles because you attributed vandalism to my edit (which editing asserted something correct even according to you, and was accompanied with verification!) yet when someone calls Wonderpet’s POV and unverified edit vandalism after it is repeated time after time, you squawk ‘Unfair, unfair, blah, blah, blah.’ Get a grip. Focus on information rather than personalities. Get your own glass house in order before you throw rocks at other houses. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No... You have again completely misrepresented the facts. Your edit in the 'Beliefs' section stated as their first and foremost belief that they state that all other religions are not Christian, not merely that they are Christian. The location and wording of the statement promoted clear bias, which was the reason for the objection. Additionally, Wonderpet's edit specifically comes under the section of 'Stubbornness' under "What Vandalism is not" at Wikipedia:Vandalism (in principle, however, it is merely one editor - you - that is in disagreement rather than Wonderpet violating a major concensus).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, maybe it is news to you, but when it comes to what the Watchtower organization professes of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christianity, the self-professed status is that Jehovah’s Witnesses and ONLY Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. THIS is the self-profession of Christianity maintained by official Watchtower doctrine. You may not like; I may not like it. But ‘Them is the facts’. It may sound cold; it may sound biased; it may sound like emotional vandalism. But, again, “Them is the facts’. I provided verification, and even you admitted this was the self-professed status the Watchtower organization makes for Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is, to borrow your phrase, a first and foremost teaching of the Watchtower organization. Every Jehovah’s Witnesses knows this perfectly well, but they also tend to play it down in public view.

I had anticipated your predictable response, so I will state again: "The location [at the very top of the beliefs section] and wording of the statement promoted clear bias, which was the reason for the objection." Their first and foremost teachings are quite clearly those that they tell people first and foremost, and these are the fundamental things such as use of god's name, the kingdom, and so forth. The statement that you put first and foremost, was contextually out of place, and their was no appropriate reason for its location right at the top of the section other than to promote bias. Additionally, it was put there after you had tried to add a footnote in the lead of the article, stating their view of other religions when such was not directly relevent to a secular definition of the group as Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro, the LOCATION was at the top of the beliefs section BECAUSE (here it comes) editors PLACED the, gasp, belief at the TOP of the ARTICLE in the OPENING sentence. You know, in the opening sentence “at the VERY top” of the article? Get it, now, finally? If, as you suggest, the first and foremost belief IS “quite clearly” the one(s) they tell people first and foremost then placing what the Watchtower organization actually presents as its self-profession of Christianity BELONGS at the very beginning of the section on beliefs, which is what I did. By the way, the reason I placed this information in the beliefs section is precisely because editors felt like it did not belong in the introduction to the article as a footnote. Hence my action was to work WITH other editors by seeking a proper place for information everyone agrees is accurate. But you chose to label this as vandalism, and there is the problem for you. You squawk about me labeling Wonderpet’s demonstrable vandalism as vandalism, but apparently forgot about your own use of the term in my case. There is a term people use to describe this sort of behavior.

Marvin, you are mixing a secular definition in the opening paragraph with a self-professed view which you at first put in the lead and then moved to the very beginning of the beliefs section. If you were merely being co-operative, you would have placed the statement within the beliefs section in a way that was contextually appropriate within that section. It being at the beginning of that section because of a secular view in the beginning of the lead is a defense based on poor logic because it ignores context within the beliefs section. In truth, you wanted the biased view of JWs to be as prominent as possible - first in the lead, and then at the very beginning of the beliefs section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The only reason the article’s opening sentence says anything about Christianity is because of the self-profession of Christianity. The secularity is purely for encyclopedic purposes and presentation. When I placed what I placed into the beliefs section I put it where I thought it best, at the opening. The very beginning of learning about the beliefs of a religion is to know what sort of religion it is (i.e., what is its professed religious disposition.) Using your words, “Their first and foremost teachings are quite clearly those that they tell people first and foremost.” Well, what has the majority of Jehovah’s Witness editors here asserted strongly for expression in the opening sentence of this article? The answer is as plain as the nose on our faces: to declare a religious status of Christianity.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording of my edit was nearly verbatim from Watchtower publication. Should this surprise anyone? I'd work on that skill of aniticipation just a little bit harder, if I were you.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording in combination with the placement, coupled with your previous edits were the issue. Do you actually not see the problem?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to laugh when you claim my act was because I “wanted the biased view of JWs to be as prominent as possible”. It is the teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses, for goodness sakes. If the Watchtower organization wanted its biased views to be less prominent do you think they’d broadcast them as they do? The logical place to put a prominent teaching is in a prominent place. It’s not rocket science. But it does appear to offend the sensibilities of editors who say they are neutral. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Wonderpet, what s/he did crossed the line into vandalism because she persisted in it (despite repeated requests for verification of her stated reason, and request to take it to talk). This is part of the threshold between stubbornness and vandalism. I have already cited the appropriate language from Wikipedia guidelines, and you have consistently avoided this. Again, no surprise. Now I recommend that you move on to another complaint because on this point your pants are firmly at your ankles.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as you persisted in inserting a footnote in the lead regarding JWs view of other religious groups though this was not relevant to what was presented as a secular view of their own status as Christian??--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The wording was accurate. The placement was of a prominent belief into a prominent position, a position paralleling “Their first and foremost teachings are quite clearly those that they tell people first and foremost.” No. I see no problem with this whatsoever. Obviously you do. But so far the reasons you offer are self-defeating. – Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, my act of moving the information upon the objection of editors demonstrates I was acting at the behest the other editors. Apparently you think placing accurate information into the article represents vandalism simply because you disagree with where it is placed. I had already shown I was willing to move the information. So there is no basis left to justify your act. To put it plainly, in this discussion you have been found out to have done what you complain that I have done. Yet you bend your action into a pretzel trying to make what you did into something righteous. There is a term for this, and for sure an education. You have reached the bottom, and clawed even deeper.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had moved the comment to a contextually valid location in the beliefs section, you would have a point. The way you went about it demonstrated that you were trying to give the biased JW view as much prominence as other editors would put up with rather than merely "acting at the behest" of other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: It was contextually valid. The first thing people want to know about a religion is its self-profession of faith. For Jehovah’s Witnesses that self-profession is that they and only they are Christian. As you say yourself, and the article reflects in the opening sentence, “Their first and foremost teachings are quite clearly those that they tell people first and foremost.” Hence your entire objection falls in on your own words, not to mention the weight of common presentation. If, as you claim, location were the only issue, then you would have refrained from labeling my edit as vandalism and simply moved it to another location. But that is not what you did in that instance. Instead, you deleted the edit and labeled it as vandalism. And, that is the point this has come up. You have taken it upon yourself to attack me for labeling an edit as vandalism when you have acted contrary to your own complaint. Your walk does not match your talk. That is the point here. Had you not behaved as you have on this occasion I would never have brought this up. But you have taken it upon yourself to do what you have done. You are reaping the reward.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I had misinterpreted your motives - and I am not saying that is the case - your condescension, arrogance and sarcasm more than make up for any fault on my part. Whatever 'reward' you imagine you're providing, I really don't care.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thanks for so eloquently pointing out the irrelevance of personal disposition in this instance. As you say now, you “really don’t care”. As I have said all along—nobody cares. What matters is what we can verify by weight of evidence. Please never hesitate to share your opinion of me with me.

Finally, at the time I could have cared less how you characterized my edit as vandalism. I still does not matter to me that you labeled that edit of mine as vandalism. (Why should I care?) But given the tenacity of your complaint of me here for everyone to read, readers deserve to see how you walk your talk. Now they see, and it is an education.

Actually, the correct expression is "couldn't [have] care[d] less" (as in, 'already caring as little as possible'). It's a common error so don't feel too badly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thanks for the correction.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As for my motive, it is really a simple one. I want to share objective and verifiable information, and do so as accurately as possible without soft-peddling or overemphasis. Readers deserve well verified information as naked as they can get it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the point. At first, it seemed that your actions were trollish, and other editors agreed. I attempted to assist you in your approach, and you ignored the attempt at assistance. You preach about ad hominem, but you are exceedingly guilty of the same yourself. You are still regarded as a troll, even if you are an unwitting one. Good day.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is always welcome. Now, can you please share an instance where I have attacked the person at the expense of the subject/issue at hand, or rather than offering sound refutation? It would be most appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments placed on User:Marvin Shilmer

The following two comments were placed on User:Marvin Shilmer by mistake, and have been moved here by John Vandenberg (talk) 04

55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marvin. Good additions; however, be aware that Duffer1 has been "guarding the plate," as it were, for quite a long time. He seems to be trying to spin every part of the page, even the Criticism section. He'll reject your changes on the grounds that the quotes you added, though from reputable scholars, were not from a peer-reviewed article. This does seem to be a Wikipedia requirement. As it turns out, only one article has ever been submitted for peer review on the NWT, and it is BeDuhn's. Even though that's because nobody else thinks it is worth the effort, Duffer1 uses this technicality to keep legitimate criticism off of Wiki's pages. See my comments on Duffer1's talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck1776 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 December 2007

Hi, Marvin. I am fairly new to this, not sure how to respond. However, I take your point. If I saw my edits in a vacuum I would think them excessive and irrelevant. My reason for going off like that was that I felt the original statement "Witnesses believe that no other religion other than their own can rightly be termed as Christian." as the only words in that whole section needed at least a reason. We want to be truthful, but coming across as simply intolerant seems counterproductive in this encyclopedic setting. That was my opinion, but it's true that that statement can stand on it's own. User:Brotherlawrence 20:00, 10 December 2007

Re "Christianity"

Just for clarity, no argument, in your revision, citing 'rhetoric', did you mean the use of the word "true" on Dec 27? --Brotherlawrence (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brotherlawrence: The term true as in "true Christianity" is superfluous. I removed it. Please never hesitate to question my editing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It was used to describe their statement of their belief, not as a generally accepted usage. But, your reaction demonstrates that it might be better left out of this venue. Thanks. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Regard

Thank you for your reassuring words. I do not view you as enemy, only as opponent, in the sense of holding an opposing view. Any disagreement we have will in no way prevent me from expressing agreement on, and defending, issues on which we agree. Though I refrain from deferring to religious sentimentality here, I hold you in the same regard as any other editor. I do not respond well to (previous) condescension, and I do take to task your approach in that and other matters previously mentioned, but no more than I would with similar treatment by other editors. At this point I will consider the slate clean.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: It does little if any good for a person to deny condescension when others make the allegation. Either a person is perceived as condescending or they are not, by any particular observer. This is why I do not waste my time trying to argue the point. Particularly in read-write-only communication this is exacerbated because individuals are unable to bring other senses into the mix for perception. Even the tone of a voice over a telephone can make a big difference of impression, and that is but one additional sense to actual words expressed.

It is always a mystery for me wondering why people get caught up in an environment such as Wikipedia (discussion boards, blog… name your poison) worrying or concerning themselves with motive, personality and the like, when these are irrelevant to information exchange. Frankly, in read-write-only environments the most efficient communication tends toward the unemotional and extremely pointed, and this often puts off readers who fail to appreciate all the dynamics at work.

In my case, I have precious little time to expend on things Wikipedia, so I try to make the best use of my time by getting straight to the point, which too often requires sharing more information than voice communication would require. And, lately I have put an unusual amount of work into my Wikipedia participation for the benefit of editors who do not have nearly the access to research material across a wide field of studies. Back in the Spring, and after begging and begging for it, when I finally got an editor (George, I believe) to share with me the research material editors were looking to as authoritative, I was shocked to see the pitiful information editors were having to depend on, and how misunderstood that information was. I decide then to help by sharing well vetted information along with steady assistance on weight assignment. This has not been to assert a POV. Frankly, my own view was altered during the process of reviewing the research material, and this is in the Wiki archival record for readers who care enough to look for it. In this case it is then untenable for an editor to say my efforts were/are to assert a preconceived POV. But I digress.

In answer for my person, I will finally share that I completely disagree with your assessment of my presentation as condescending, arrogant et al. I have no reason to look down at individuals as persons. We are all equal in that respect. On the other hand, it is unavoidable to treat absurd and unstudied opinions and information with anything other than disdain, particularly when an individual is either unwilling or unable to bring learned objective analytical skills to bear, or even to listen and learn in some cases. My reaction to this tends to put off individuals. In my opinion, you have observed this from me and perceived it as condescension et al. You could be right, but my bones don’t agree. In the end the most any of us can do is be honest and fair with one another. We cannot make anyone like us, so I don’t bother trying. People either accept and like us for whatever we are, or not. Whatever I am, that is what I am, and I do not try and hide it. If I am going to be disliked or like, it is better to be disliked or liked for what I am. Aside from all this, it was appropriate for me to finally express my personal views of you to you, so you could ‘hear’ it directly from me. I love you along with the rest of my neighbors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my intrusion here. Yes, Marvin, you have been very condescending, and it has been very tangible. It is not imaginary, as you a basically trying to say with so many words. Perhaps you are blind to what you are doing. However, in the past, it has been so pervasive, and so many people have called you on it, I find this difficult to accept that you are blind to this behavior. In fact, your attempt to argue against Jeffro's comments about your condescension is hypocritical within itself. The jest of your retort is "I'm not condescending and I'll prove it to you." Your attempt to disprove the opinion that you are condescending is itself a tangible condescension.

How can this be properly addressed? I invite you to prove me wrong through your actions instead of continuing to debate it in words. One way to do this is to give more respect to the opinion of others. Stop characterizing others with statements like, "...it is unavoidable to treat absurd and unstudied opinions and information with anything other than disdain, particularly when an individual is either unwilling or unable to bring learned objective analytical skills to bear..." Stuff like that is condescending. In my opinioin, it is also an over-estimation of your own skills, abilities and willingness to be objective. If you cannot convince the majority of the editors about your opinion, maybe you aren't making the argument as well as you think, or maybe you do stand on a weaker position than you believe. Maybe right now, you aren't being all that humble. By taking this to heart and acting on it, you will appear to be less condescending while still able to make your points. --Fcsuper (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: Thank your for sharing your opinion. I am glad you have one, and I am glad you felt free to share it with me. Please never hesitate to share your view of me with me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Following a request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with the page "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". The following have been notified about this:

• user:Cfrito
• user:Vassilis78
• user:Jeffro77
• user:Marvin Shilmer
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I require evidence of the sourced material that you cite in your edits of the article. I have requested a source from user:Cfrito as well regarding his entries. I realise that you said about myself going to the university, but thats a little difficult for me as i come from the UK. If this isnt possible then could you provide me with page numbers etc that the citations are from. Thanks :) Seddon69 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Atm i need the Fred Franz’s university transcript, any information you can give me on this would be appreciated as this is the item thats in contention. Seddon69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded with my address. Seddon69 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the memoirs that have been discussed, available for public review in an institution? or from any public source for that matter? Seddon69 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recieved the documents, could you please look at my recent edit on the talk page of the article. thanks Seddon69 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line what i said to Vassilis78 has been misinterpreted. What i meant was that that the file you sent to me was the same document but not the same file. hope this helps clear things up. Seddon69 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Marvin please understand that the members of the Mediation Cabal are all volunteers who receive no recompense for the effort expended. I know you'd like firm and quick answers. We are all just trying our best to contribute to the project as we can. Have a great day! Wjhonson (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message to my Talk page. No I haven't received an email from you as of yet. Wjhonson (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin thank you for your message to my Talk page. You are quite welcome. As the project grows we are constantly finding new questions on how to interpret certain sections of policy. That your particular question made me go back to fundamentals and rebuild my position from scratch will be an improvement to the project. Wjhonson (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Hi Marvin, regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article - what concerns, if any, do you have with current version? Addhoc (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Franz Transcript

Would it be possible to get a copy of this transcript I keep hearing of regarding Franz's education at UC? Thanks ;) Shaneroosky (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey Marvin and Cfrito I apologise for my absence and not having responded to the discussion on my talk page. I'm in college through the day and last night i went to an opening of an art exhibition. I did try and respond late last night but there was a power cut so i lost the message and i as a result did very little or possibly no editing yesterday. I will do my up most to try and respond in detail later tonight as i have other commitments that i have to attend as soon as i finish this message. I have been reading what has been said from both of you so i haven't been out of the loop and i have a few questions that i have to raise plus several comments. Seddon69 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Arbitration

You should be aware that a Request for Arbitration has been filed on the above article, which lists you as an Involved Party. You may review and participate in the Arbitration at WP:RFARB#New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; please visit that page and make your statement, which will then be considered by the Arbitrators before they make a decision to accept or decline the Request.

Information on Arbitration is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case provides material that you may be interested in reading at your leisure. -- cfrito (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

JW rewrite

Mister Shilmer, "new religious movement" does not work for the same reason that simply declaring JW's as christian will not work. The crusade I mentioned is in reference to the large amount of information which you have presented showing that Jehovah's Witnesses are not popularly considered christian among the community of experts. So I am writing my version of the article to be as neutral and honest and accurate as humanly possible. I welcome your visits and your input. Thank you for stopping by to comment. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mister Shilmer, I suggest "self identifies as Christian" because it is not debatable. "New Religious movement" is debatable, "Christian" is debatable, as we are well aware. Your beliefs and mine aside (debatable), the secular research aside (debatable), self identifies as Christian is not debatable. This is, after all, not a group of scholars publishing an encyclopedia, this is "Wikipedia The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", so we'll have to compromise a bit. You could line up all the worlds experts with all their opinions of Jehovah's Witnesses on one side and all the Jehovah's Witnesses on the other and NEVER de-polarize the issue. JW's don't believe their religion is anything other than Christianity, which is not a "new movement". And there is no shortage of people who think JW's are the opposite of christian. So, "self identifies"? Jesse Jaimes (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I just see it as a matter of courtesy to let Cfrito state himself whether he has any further concerns or not. Seddon69 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

This arbitration case has been dismissed and the final decision is available at the link above. Based on discussion on the case page and the editing history of the article, it appears that the underlying dispute may have been resolved. If serious disputes recur, an application to reopen the case may be made on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Heya

Hiya mate, i just wanted to see how things were going? you taking care? Seddon69 (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in discussion on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

Tre2 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Attitude

I'd just like to expand on the idea here, that I have not met a more arrogant, conceited, and ignorant person online, and that's saying alot. I have tried to remain civil, I'v - even in my most recent posts - left out personal attacks (which you turned right around and said to me). You totally ignore whatever part of my arguement you wish not to see. Most people atleast comment on the points presented, but you keep harping on the same damn thing over and over.

Believe me, I've seen enough on your talk page and history to know that you are no English professor, its very hypocritical of you to focus on my faults in this area. The times you gave the wrong punctuation, did I say "What!? 'On what basis are you questioning Piper's credentials.' That makes no sence! But "."?!"

What do you think, because you claim to 'know God' and are 'going to live forever' that you have some right to talk down to people, to act like you are the one man board of directors for academic thought? From what I've read, it seems as though you are personally in the judgement seat against mandkind. I'd just like to congradulate you on being the most pious bastard I'v met in a long time. I can see why you stay on the computer so much, why you've been stalking these few articles for two years, almost an edit for every day. You probably can't even leave the house without being pelted with tomatos. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks: Thanks for sharing your opinion. I am glad you have one, and I am glad you felt free to share it with me. Please never hesitate to share your view of me with me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Can you provide some feedback to the Objections to evolution article. I have a problem with the wording of the article in terms of its pro-evolutionary standpoint. Reading the article makes it very clear where the author stands in the Creation-Evolution standpoint. I have tried to voicing my issues in the talk page (Talk:Objections_to_evolution#Bias) but I don't think I'm being heard. Thanks in advance Jamie (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Governing Body members

Please watch your accusations. Henschel was at the headquarters in an admin capacity from 1947[1], and a member of the Governing Body member from 1971[2].--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at reconciliation following RfC response

Marvin, after considering your response, I would like to finally achieve some kind of reconciliation to work towards improvement of articles rather than frequent edit warring. To that end, please consider the following comments objectively:

• I cannot concede that you do not use condescending speech, nor that it is an invention of mine, as independent editors have made the same comments. However, I concede that you may not intend to use condescending speech.
• I cannot concede that I have made efforts to 'stalk' or 'harass' you, or that there has been any intentional systematic effort of 'character assassination', and I maintain that all disputes have occurred as a result of interactions on JW-related articles in relation to what I have believed to be legitimate concerns.
• I cannot concede that I have gossipped about you to any party not involved in existing discussion.
• I concede that I have made comments at times that have not worked toward dispute resolution, though I maintain that I have not done so with any intent of misconduct.
• I cannot concede that you have behaved appropriately or objectively on all occasions, particularly in regard to your recent responses to the Milton Henschel issue where you made irrelevant accusations, and your response to the breach of guidelines regarding the NWT subpages.
• I recommend that you consider your choice of words in interacting with editors in a text-only environment so as to avoid future problems, and I will endeavour to do the same.
• I cannot concede that you hold no bias against Jehovah’s Witnesses, as it is evident in other forums in which you participate. I will however make an effort to assume good faith in your future Wikipedia edits.

If you are willing to 'cease hostilities' in accepting these terms, and possibly to present your own objective thoughts, I will withdraw the user ‘request for comment’. I look forward to productive editing in the future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is a way forward from here, and hopefully, collaboration in future may be possible. I do recommend that some degree of interest be shown toward 'personalities and styles of communication', as this is the core of Wikipedia's civility policy, and is to an editor's advantage. The point of this is not to coddle, or to make friends, but to foster respect between editors, and is not mutually exclusive of academic rigor. If you begin to write something that has been (mis)construed by editors in the past as condescending, it may be wise to consider how such was received last time rather than how it may have been intended. I say this because neither of us have control over other editors who have previously questioned your style of communication, but you have some control over it happening again. Because "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, it can't always be assumed that editors know their subject, and we can't always expect them to.

As an entirely independent issue, I do still intend to comment out the categories of the NWT articles on user subpages if the pages are not deleted, so that these are not referenced in namespaces such as Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature. This is solely to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for copies of articles on user subpages. (I have already placed a tag for deletion of the article of User:Cfrito's NWT subpage, as the user has been inactive on Wikipedia for several months.)

If you are content with this response, I will go ahead and withdraw the RfC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

User:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jeffro77 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, I have added this tag to all three of the NWT user page articles, as I was informed by an admin that I couldn't use the PROD tag for deletion of Cfrito's copy, and that I have to use the MFD tag instead. I don't want to be accused of favoritism, so I have listed all three there. Please go to the talk page noted above if you intend to continuing working on this copy of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the categories on all three of the NWT articles. If you do want your NWT subpage deleted, you can say so at the deletion nomination (link above), and it will be removed by an admin.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

JW and blood

I notice you've restored the statement:

A Watchtower representative, Donald Ridley, expresses that Jehovah’s Witnesses pursue a range of objectives, not just one. He relates these interests include medical, psychological, social, economic, legal, educational and spiritual pursuits. Donald Ridley then expresses that “Maximizing the good in one of these spheres will come at a cost in some other sphere. Rational people will trade off benefits in different spheres until the aggregate total is maximized.”

I removed this statement for a couple of reasons. 1) It doesn't say anything clear about JW's position on blood transfusions, and is of only limited (subjective) benefit to readers. 2) The cited source does not contain the quote attributed to Ridley. (Also there should not be two separate sources in the one reference.)

If the statement is to be retained, it needs to be reworded to explicitly indicate how it relates to JWs regard to the blood doctrine, and should cite the correct source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of comments

R the Jehovah's Witnes page: For the sake of clarity, would you please insert your comments at the end of a section? It is becoming confusing who is replying to what comments, makes earlier comments look foolish and allows everyone to follow the conversation more clearly. LTSally (talk)

Link titlevandalismBold text  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.49.131 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 

Organ transplants

Do you have any source for indicating that individuals have actually been disfellowshipped for accepting organ transplants? I can't use your own comments on a forum as support.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Watchtower policy was and is to disfellowship Witnesses who willfully practice cannibalism. During the period that organ transplants was considered cannibalism under Watchtower doctrine the policy to disfellowship cannibals was the policy under which Witnesses were disfelloshipped.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you've said that. But that doesn't constitute a usable reference of any kind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"...the taking of blood is just as despicable to you as cannibalism." (The Watchtower, July 1, 1966, page 401) In 1966 Watchtower policy was to disfellowship for accepting blood.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, though Watchtower had been practicing disfellowshipping since at least the 1940s, and that organ transplantation was cannibalism since the 1960s, it was only as of 1980 the Watchtower told elders not to disfellowship for organ transplantation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that's an inference, not a reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The following is no inference: "...the taking of blood is just as despicable to you as cannibalism." (The Watchtower, July 1, 1966, page 401)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, that is not an inference. The conclusion from statements A. Taking blood is as bad as cannibalism; B. Organ transplants from human donors is cannibalism; and C. JWs can be disfellowshipped for blood transfusions that D. JWs can (in 1967) be disfellowshipped for transplants from human donors is an inference. I have no doubt that they did, but my doubt or assurance is not a reference either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Your counter ignores equivilence. Equivilence refutes your notion of infernce. That Witnesses were disfellowshipped for accepting human organ transplant is substantiated because Watchtower teaching held human organ transplant equal to cannibalism and in moral terms cannibalism was held equal to taking blood. Taking blood was a disfellowshipping offense and no one denies this. The only way cannibalism could be "just as" despicable as taking blood is for the religion to teach each was just as morally wrong; hence dealt with equally on moral grounds of right-and-wrong. Equivilance ("just as") is what refutes the notion of inference.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in principle. But in regard to Wikipedia policies, you are drawing a conclusion that is not specifically stated by the sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: No; not in principle. In logical construction the end is unavoidable. But I agree with you about Wikipedia policy. Wikipolicy does not let us depend on logical construction since aside from extraneous sources a logical construction amounts to original research. On the other hand, there are outside sources that draw the conclusion that the 1967 article represents a ban on human organ transplantation. Are you unaware of these?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not attempted to disclaim, and I do not disagree with, the logic of the conclusion. I have stated elsewhere that the article should (and does) contain the conclusions of other commentators to that effect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked the question "Precisely where in the 1967 article does Watchtower say accepting an organ transplant was a personal decision?" Another editor and I have indicated that the article began with two questions and concluded with some comments about what scriptures would ostensibly guide the "personal decision" of Witnesses on the issues raised in the article. That's your answer. Without further discussion you've removed the reference in the article to personal decisions. Why?

I deleted the remark because the article does not actually say that it was a "personal decision." The assertion that the article presents it as a "personal decision" is an extrapolation, and not a particularly sound one at that. Again I as, PRECISELY where does the article state that it is a personal decision for a Witness to accept an organ transplant (that is more than a personal decision such as accepting a blood transfusion is a "personal decision")? Show me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You and I probably agree that the article's intent was to direct Witnesses to reject transplants and I have added references to show that was its effect. But in the interests of fairness and accuracy, reference to the "personal decision" of WT readers ought to be included as well. LTSally (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you and have added to the article that acceptance of transplants was indicated as a matter of personal choice. The article didn't explicitly say it was a matter of conscience, nor did it expressly prohibit the procedure. Considering what they wrote in the later Awake about the "stand" by Witnesses against transplants, it's clear they assumed no Witnesses would have them (and Penton's book claims the society told individuals not to have them), so I don't know why they used the words "personal choice". But they're there. LTSally (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On one hand you confess "so I don't know why they used the words "personal choice"." Yet on the other hand you write "The article didn't explicitly say it was a matter of conscience". Which is it? Did the article say accepting organ transplantation was a matter of personal choice or not? Which? Again I ask that you show me precisely where the 1967 article say accepting an organ transplant is a personal choice. If you cannot show it to me, and if you do not know why Watchtower chose to use the words it used, then on what basis do you make the claim "that acceptance of transplants was indicated as a matter of personal choice"?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem: it was neither a matter of conscience nor a prohibition. Hence my use of the word "indicated" to try to fudge it. I've explained myself enough: what is your take on their reference to personal decision in the article? If they didn't mean those procedures or acts (acceptance/donation) were a personal decision, what did they mean? LTSally (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't need to interepret what Watchtower said in the 1967 Watchtower. It said that a Witness who accepted a human organ transplant was committing an act abhorant to God. That is what it says. At no time does the article say that Watchtower leaves it to a Witness's personal conscience to accept a human organ transplant. Watchtopwer had been disfellowshipping Witnesses for decades before and after 1967, yet it was only in 1980 that Watchtower instructed elders to NOT disfellowship Witnesses as cannibals for accepting human organ transplants.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:29, 27 November

2009 (UTC)

still arguing with a jackass

LTSally name change

FYI, I have changed my user name from LTSally to BlackCab to avoid the tiresome, but entirely reasonable, false assumptions about my gender. BlackCab (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I have just realised that the Patillo e-mail was dated 2010. At some point, and I'm not exactly sure when, I had gotten it in my head that the e-mail was dated 2011. This was the source of my concern about changing the date of the other source to 2011. I was therefore entirely wrong for complaining about the change of that date, and I apologise. This does not at all alter the validity of my other comments as to Wikipedia policy's position regarding the appropriateness of blogs as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In that discussion you got quite few things in your head wrong. 1) You suggested I wasted everyone’s time by intentionally withholding information. 2) With innuendo you suggested the Hazel Patillo email is a product of deception. 3) You essentially suggested I was involved in a breach of privacy by hosting the Patillo email at my blog. Your participation in that discussion was more of an attempted character assassination than anything else. 4) Even your droning about Wikipedia policy regarding blogs stands as an overstatement at face value. Wikipedia does not say blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. Wikipedia policy says blogs are largely not acceptable as reliable sources. Something has happened to you, Jeffro. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that was ungracious. Oh well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When Wikipedia says that "blogs are largely not acceptable as reliable sources" it does not mean that there is some arbitrary unstated criteria that qualifies your blog for inclusion. The exceptions for suitability of certain self-published sources are explicitly stated directly following the statement you quote, and your blog does not meet the criteria given ("produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"). End of story. (And before you start again about me not knowing about 'the larger body of your work', that is exactly the point—your blog is not identifiable as that of an established expert; if it can be identified as such, then it is for other editors to cite the source without prompting by the author).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not object to you hosting a private e-mail on your blog. I raised the issue of privacy because, in addition to the fact that your blog cannot be used as a source, Wikipedia also cannot use a private e-mail as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro: 1) Read my lips: I have not and never have said that my blog qualifies under Wikipedia policy. You have inserted that red herring over and over again. Get over it. You are making a fool of yourself! 2) If another blog that meets Wikipedia’s exception ("produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") were to assert the same information (along with how the material was corroborated) and then goes on to share a conclusion on the matter there is reason for editors here to consider the source for possible inclusion here. Now please get yourself together and stop your bad behavior. 3) Regarding “that was ungracious,” I don’t usually accept a nickel thumped my way as payment for a dollar, and most especially not by those who make my person the object of attack by wrongly attributing bad motives to me left and right. You have done this. Make of it what you will. My graciousness is found in not embarrassing you at the time with the very information you later figured out on your own! For all I can see, you scratched through some of your attacks on me for the reason that you know other editors would eventually figure out what you did. You did what you did for you, or at least that is what it looks like to me. What has happened to you? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For someone who claims that I presume much about you, you certainly do a great deal of presuming on your own. I in fact noticed the correct date while searching for matters related to JWs' acceptance of blood products and happened upon a web forum where you, 'StandFirm' and 'ThirdWitness' were discussing the e-mail (and where I had been mentioned). As soon as I saw that, I apologised and retracted the incorrect information, which in light of your response was apparently more than you deserve.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to your dichotomous responses about use of your blog as a source, if you've not suggested your blog as a source, then where is the relevance in repeatedly stating that blogs are only 'largely' unacceptable. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro, until the last few days my presumption of you was that as an able and experienced Wikipedia editor your concern was no more and no less than “a rigorous regard for Wikipedia’s editing guidelines”. Then I found out something changed about you. I would not share the above view after your latest display. But, thanks for the nickel. After all, a nickel is still a nickel. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All that changed is that you object when that rigorous regard for Wikipedia's editing guidelines is directed at your misapplication of those guidelines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Asserting black-and-white of a policy that is less than black-and-white is not rigorous regard for policy; it is putting personal opinion ahead of policy. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The only exception is not relevant to the context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro asks: “In regard to your dichotomous responses about use of your blog as a source, if you've not suggested your blog as a source, then where is the relevance in repeatedly stating that blogs are only 'largely' unacceptable.” Comment: As I said at the time, “Because I have not suggested my blog publication as a source for this article on this subject does not mean the subject is unworthy of exploration because in the future this information or more like it may be published on other blogs or blog-like sources.” I continued this aspect of the discussion in an attempt to explore with Wikipedia editors when and what sort of blog presentation might be acceptable. This was met with your erroneous black-and-white assertion that blogs “are not reliable sources” rather than the less-than black-and-white blogs are “largely not reliable”. Rather than engaging the discussion your hurled insulting innuendo of my participation and motivation. Please feel free to have the last word. I don’t need it. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a conflict of interest for the author of a blog to fish for information about how information in their blog might otherwise be acceptable as a source. The policy already states the relevant exception, so there is no need to garner such a response from (possibly misinformed) editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Alexander Thomson (writer)

Hi, I saw you proposed Alexander Thomson (writer) for deletion back in 2009 and I wanted to let you know that I've submitted it to AfD, in case you want to participate in the discussion. Alan Islas (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)