User talk:Logicalthinker33: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 4 October 2010

Logicalthinker33 says that he had quit contributing for Wikipedia-:).

User page

Go to my User page

Talk

Leave me a message.

Sandbox

The testing zone

Barnstars

View shinies!

Logo shop

Request a logo for your user page

Guestbook

Please do sign

Interview Desk

Interviews for The Signpost

Notes to self

View to do list

Contributions

What I've done.

E-mail

E-mail me.

Local time: 22:51, 14 December 2024 IST [refresh].

This is Logicalthinker33's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 7 days

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Inappropriate edit

I undid your inappropriate edit here. The spurious JW chronology is not endorsed by "some historians" as you tried to ambiguously state. Absolutely no independent sources endorse the flawed JW chronology. The 'source' you cite is clearly a personal webpage that fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For further information, I have undertaken in depth research on this issue in which I considered every verse of the Bible that is relevant to the issue,[1] including a tabulation of the entire Judean monarchy based solely on the Bible.[2] (There are other books dealing with this issue, such as The Gentile Times Reconsidered which is reportedly quite good—I haven't read it as I prefer to 'make the truth my own' by doing my own research from scratch.) The 607 doctrine is quite impossible, and is therefore not suitable for articles dealing specifically with history. The controversy about the spurious date, recognized only by JWs is suitably mentioned at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses#Controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:19, 4 October 2010 edit Jeffro77 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 31,569 edits →Inappropriate edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:19, 4 October 2010 edit undo Jeffro77 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 31,569 edits m →Inappropriate edit Next edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:

	I undid your inappropriate edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29&action=historysubmit&diff=388637349&oldid=357894420 here]. The spurious JW chronology is not endorsed by "some historians" as you tried to ambiguously state. Absolutely no independent sources endorse the flawed JW chronology. The 'source' you cite is clearly a personal webpage that fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--[[User:Jeffro77\|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77\|talk]]) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)		I undid your inappropriate edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29&action=historysubmit&diff=388637349&oldid=357894420 here]. The spurious JW chronology is not endorsed by "some historians" as you tried to ambiguously state. Absolutely no independent sources endorse the flawed JW chronology. The 'source' you cite is clearly a personal webpage that fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--[[User:Jeffro77\|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77\|talk]]) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

	For further information, I have undertaken in depth research on this issue in which I considered every verse of the Bible that is relevant to the issue,[http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/jehovahs-witnesses-and-1914-2/] including a tabulation of the entire Judean monarchy based solely on the Bible.[http://jeffro77.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/kings.pdf] (There are other books dealing with this issue, such as ''The Gentile Times Reconsidered'' which is reportedly quite good—I haven't read it as I prefer to 'make the truth my own' by doing my own research from scratch.) The 607 doctrine is quite impossible, and is therefore not suitable for articles dealing specifically with history. The controversy about the spurious date, recognized ''only'' by JWs is suitably mentioned at [[Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses#Controversy]].--[[User:Jeffro77\|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77\|talk]]) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)		For further information, I have undertaken in depth research on this issue in which I considered every verse of the Bible that is relevant to the issue,[http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/jehovahs-witnesses-and-1914-2/] including a tabulation of the entire Judean monarchy based solely on the Bible.[http://jeffro77.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/kings.pdf] (There are other books dealing with this issue, such as ''The Gentile Times Reconsidered'' which is reportedly quite good—I haven't read it as I prefer to 'make the truth my own' by doing my own research from scratch.) The 607 doctrine is quite impossible, and is therefore not suitable for articles dealing specifically with history. The controversy about the spurious date, recognized ''only'' by JWs is suitably mentioned at [[Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses#Controversy]].--[[User:Jeffro77\|<span style='color:#365F91'>'''Jeffro'''</span><span style='color:#FFC000'>''77''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jeffro77\|talk]]) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)