User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2014b

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

Jan-Jun Jul-Dec

JW founder

Hi Jeffro, I'll be generous here and assume your latest comment at the JW talk page wasn't intended to sound the way it did. We have been able to work together well over the years despite the occasional disagreement, and I know we share the same goal of keeping the article informative, accurate and balanced. But I was taken aback by your comment that "I'll allow the article to remain technically incorrect." There's more than a trace of megalomania in that comment and it's not an attractive look. All these things are decided by consensus, not the whim of individual editors.

You may enjoy the "luxury" of knowing you're right (despite apparently being content with the previous wording for all the years you've been on Wikipedia); I concur with the bulk of authors who see an unbroken line since Russell's day, despite the often traumatic changes introduced by Rutherford after his rather dodgy accession to the throne. The WP:WEIGHT comment that Grrahnbahr raised is the key: even if you are convinced you are correct, the article has to rely on what most sources say. In that context, it's immaterial what you'll "allow" the article to say. BlackCab (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I disagree with the last two sentences of the above. The content has to agree with the reliable sources, and, in the case of disagreement, with the reliable sources which have displayed the greatest degree of competence in the relevant subject. So far as I can tell, that would be sources which deal with the JWs as an organization/corporation, not specifrically as what might broadly be described as a religious grouping. It is also probably the case that editors who have the greatest experience in dealing with content relating to organizations and corporations would be the most knowledgable about any technical meanings to specific terms which other individuals, like me, might not be privy to. I honestly don't know whether that would be the case here, but I don't know. Like I said elsewhere, those who know best the details of organizational and corporate content here would be in the best position to make a decision on such matters. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am completely open to an RfC. I am not open to individual editors declaring that they alone will choose what content stays or goes, regardless of their knowledge of a subject. BlackCab (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. All I meant by 'allow' is that I'm no longer interested in continuing the discussion as it did not seem to be going anywhere (which was prior to input from other editors). The humorous implication of authority was intended ironically.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that I was "apparently being content with the previous wording for all the years you've been on Wikipedia" does not mean that I agree with it. I stated so in the discussion from 2011 to which BlackCab linked in the current discussion at the JW article's Talk page. At the time I wasn't aware of specific sources that state as much about Rutherford, but a couple of those have since been indicated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A few concerns/questions here. One of these I address to both Jeffro77 and @BlackCab:. You both have done very good work on the JW material over the years, but, given the amount of time the two of you have spent in each other's at times seemingly sole company on many of these pages, I don't think it would be at all unreasonable for possible personal considerations to be perhaps involved here. The fact that you both seem to be primarily interested in the JWs could not unreasonably I think raise POV issues about both of you. I honestly do think that the best way to proceed with this would be through using the conflict resolution process, with, the possibility, if required, of going to binding mediation with additional less involved people taking part in the mediation who might be more neutral. As a second, less important, matter, are there any other BS groups which claim some form of uninterrupted descent from Russell's group? That might be worth knowing. Lastly, I personally really hate seeing the two of you arguing, knowing that, to a degree at any rate, it might make it harder for the two of you to work together in the future. Can either of you think of any specific things you might be able to work together on while this matter remains unresolved? I do think personally that there is a really good chance some sort of mediation might be called for ultimately, but, maybe, if there are any really good and useful public domain materials in .djvu format at archive.org or elsewhere that could be added to wikisource, it really only takes two people to take a document to a finished state document there. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John, but I don't think we're quite at the point where marriage counselling is required. Appreciate the thoughts though. If Jeffro wishes to take the founder issue to another forum, I'll repeat my few points there. BlackCab (TALK) 23:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@BlackCab: Part of what I said is a real question regardless. I've actually proposed earlier today a WikiProject Religion for wikisource at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. If either of you has any interest in such, I think there is a lot of very useful work that could be done there. And, FWIW, I've never been married, so I know nothing about that directly, but have sometimes seen similar at corporate retreats, although a lot of them involve paintball guns. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John for your concern. Firstly to your concerns of POV... I have no vested personal interest in regard to whether Russell is or is not considered the 'founder' of Jehovah's Witnesses, except that it just isn't accurate. I do not consider the beliefs of Russell to be any more or less rational than those of Jehovah's Witnesses. Secondly, as to your query about other Bible Student groups... there are indeed groups that have existed continually since Russell's time under the category of Associated Bible Students (a name that has been in use since 1914), which includes the Dawn Bible Students Association and various other groups of generally autonomous congregations that hold to Russell's beliefs and still publish his writings. Unfortunately, the small size of extant Bible Student movement groups means that there are not many sources specific to those groups. Editors such as User:Pastorrussell may know of additional sources specific to the Bible Students, including some that may relate to the current argument (however he appears not to have been active on Wikipedia for some time). Thirdly, to your concerns about continued interaction with BlackCab... I am quite able to compartmentalise this issue such that it will not be detrimental to unrelated discussions. Despite some unsavoury suggestions by BlackCab about "megalomania" and so forth, on the whole I understand his objections to the actual issue. That said, the argument could be resolved by either adding a note to a single parameter in an infobox, or simply removing the parameter, since the text of the articles in question is already fairly clear that Rutherford's group represents a considerable departure from the Bible Student movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your revert

• Moved to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_63#National_anthem

Regarding your reverts on national anthem issue, it is not an isolated issue it went up to the Supreme Court of India and got much media attention and discussions within 1.23 billion Indian population. Moreover, it is true that JW's do not sing national anthem. The issue is also notable in Canada when JW's refused to sing the anthem. Therefore unless get a proper reply, I will revert your edit again and move this issue to the ANI. Thanks.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinesh (talk • contribs)

One case about one school in one country is an isolated incident, regardless of how much coverage the incident receives. (Beyond anecdotes in Watch Tower Society publications, singing of the national anthem in Canada does not seem to have received much attention in the courts.) It doesn't make it notable for the lead of the main article about JWs. It is already mentioned at the appropriate article. You're welcome to raise an ANI, but you're not likely to get much support.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, in the case you cite, the government (i.e. the court) sided with the JWs against the actions of the deputy school inspector. There is no indication that the case represented any sort of ongoing conflict with the government.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It is JW’s common practise as same as their other beliefs such as military, blood transfusion etc. If that was included in the main articles I cant understand the logic behind not including this issue which was highly sparked within India’s 1.23 billion population and went up to the Supreme Court of India and also published by JW YB-1988. Morevoer, it is true that JW’s do not sing national anthem, right? Avinesh  T  00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-stating the population of India is just as irrelevant as when you said it the first time. The one case about three students in one school went to the Supreme Court, in which the government upheld Jehovah's Witnesses' rights to freedom of worship. The case doesn't represent 'conflict' with the government of India in any manner worthy of stating in the lead of the main JW article. The fact that the matter appeared in JW publications—which are quick to point out any 'opposition'—is unremarkable. The case is appropriately covered at Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that JWs do not sing national anthems is covered in the main article under Separateness. The practice is not in question, but one Supreme Court case about one school that was decided in favour of JWs does not constitute notable 'conflict with governments'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Research (Google Maps)

Hi Jeffro77!

You have reverted an edit I did: [1] with the comment: "A reference to something in someone's Google drive is original research." What do you mean exactly? My edit were two links (Google Maps locations and Google Earth file) of the current branch offices of JW and I think it extends the article. Fiorellino (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Providing the location in a reference isn't necessary because the reference is not in support of a statement about the address of the headquarters. The specific location isn't particularly notable, and it's not typical to provide Google Maps locations for Wikipedia articles about corporations, and certainly not in an article where the location of the headquarters is tangential to the purpose of the article. As to your second external link, it's original research because it's just a bunch of files that an anonymous individual has stored on Google Drive, which is just personal cloud storage and not something published by any reliable source. I hope that clarifies matters for you. :)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My user page

HOW DARE YOU DEFACE MY USER PAGE!!! YOU ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED NEAR MY ACCOUNT AFTER YOU MAKE 1, AND ONLY 1, RESPONSE TO THIS!!!!!!! Matt200055 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your response is not valid. Any user may remove inappropriate material that violates Wikipedia rules. No provision exists for you to make special demands about how I might respond to any future inappropriate behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

Jeffro, long time no see. How's life? I'm in school for my MA in American History, but already thinking ahead. I'm currently in the process of writing my PhD proposal, and it is going to be on the JW's, and I have a question that you may be able to answer. While I know I can find it out eventually, I figured I'd ask to see if you happened to know. Ok, the question is this

Growing up a JW, I read countless WT's and AWAKE's, and noticed that down on the bottom of the first page was something to the effect of "Those who saw the events of 1914 will not pass away" before the end of days. In doing some research on the JW's newest published magazines, I notice that has been removed. Do you know when they did that? I remember seeing it at least as late as the late 90's.

Thanks for any help you can give. I will also of course love to hear of any books or writings that you know of that you think might help. See ya Vyselink (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind. I was able to find it out on my own. Just in case you were wondering, it's Oct of 1995 Awake! that had the last reference to 1914. Vyselink (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Howdy. Yeah, that was a bit too early in the morning (middle of the night) here to get a response from me. And I would have had to look it up anyway. Glad you found what you were after.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)!

Out of curiosity, have you read any of Zoe Knox's relatively recent articles on the JW's? Vyselink (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not. Who is Zoe Knox?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

She is a Professor at the University of Leicester here in England. Although her specialty is actually Russian history, she has written several excellent articles on the JW's over the past few years."The Watch Tower Society and the End of the Cold War: Interpretations of the End-Times, Superpower Conflict, and the Changing Geo-Political Order" (Journal of the American Academy of Religion, December 2011, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 1018–1049), "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) and "Jehovah's Witnesses as Un-Americans? Scriptural Injunctions, Civil Liberties, and Patriotism" (Journal of American Studies / Volume 47 / Special Issue 04 / November 2013, pp 1081 - 1108)

I have read them all and they are very good. I don't know how much will necessarily be unknown to you, but they are worth the read if you can find them. Vyselink (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_a_mess

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Please watch the personal attacks. The second sentence here is not helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. A direct statement of fact in relation to specific actions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It was clearly a negative judgement about the editor's actions and, by extension, them. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No. It was a factual statement that anyone making such a claim would be behaving in an asinine manner in breach of the policy regarding gaming the system. This is the case irrespective of whether the unnamed user actually made such a claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Asinine" is a personal attack. Assuming they are trying to game the system is a personal attack. There is nothing more to say. -SummerPhD (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You may as well stop making these assertions. If an editor were to make the stated claim, then the editor would be making an asinine attempt to game the system. If that is what the editor is doing, then there's your duck. If not, they're in the clear. It is not a personal attack. Since the activity is obvious, denial would be asinine. It is not a personal attack to correctly apply a Wikipedia guideline, otherwise there would be no point having the guideline, because no one would ever be allowed to cite it in reference to any user activity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've just noticed that much of your User page appears to be a link farm of perceived wrongs against you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Exposé vs Expose

Dear Jeff, Please enlighten me over this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Franz&oldid=635368836&diff=prev regarding exposé vs expose. I felt expose was more accurate word because of Etymology of exposé which is borrowed from French.( !dea4u  12:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC))

In English, expose is a verb meaning to uncover, and exposé is a noun, and is the word in question. See wikt:exposé. (In French, exposé is used for both the verb and the noun.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Shem Qadosh Version Page

Hello, Jeffro.

I want to take a moment and thank you for reviewing and editing the page. I can see that many people seem to only visit your page to criticize your edits, or even attack you personally. This is not one of those cases. I simply want to say "thank you" for taking the time to review the SQV page. So...thank you. :)

Yah bless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachi3 6 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, and you're welcome. --Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:List of websites by number of languages

Hello Jeffro77. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:List of websites by number of languages, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Whatever this is, it's certainly not a G11. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that it's a puff-piece to promote the JW website. If you don't see it that way, that's fine. It's unlikely to be approved as an article, so it's just a waste of space.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Kings of Judah. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Apologist en (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Responded at DRN.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Jeffro77, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

enough with the hostility!!!!

Just calm down dude. Too much anger. Too many threats. It isn't helpful. I'd like it if you calmed down and dropped the threats, or at least stopped them. I am pretty sure there is a policy page somewhere about it, but even if there isn't, common sense suggests that you going around attacking everyone is bad for them, and bad for you. You'll get an ulcer. KrampusC (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak apology. I'm sure you can do better.

I'm, of course, well aware it's no kind of apology at all—just more false accusations of alleged 'anger' and 'threats'. It is, indeed, unhelpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I went through a bit of the article's history, and I can see that you were one of the good guys, making sure that it was as accurate as possible. I can see that there was a lot of angst surrounding it, with a lot of people very keen on having it made to look like a terrorist attack and having a very strong anti-Islam stance. I am sure that it was very upsetting for you to have to deal with that, and with so many angry people, but it seems that we have the same viewpoint on it, so there is no need for us to fight over it. The hashtag was a very important thing to stop the anti-Islam stance from taking hold, and I am sure that you will agree with me that it is worth mentioning. Anyway, I am backing away from this now, as this is way more than I can handle. Well done on sticking with it, and I guess I can understand you getting angry with me, even if it was a bit ill-directed. I would appreciate you not threatening me in the future though, and perhaps lay off them a bit in general. Or at least only threaten people who have done something worthy of it. Thanks. KrampusC (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I don't recall making any threats, though I understand that pointing out relevant policies may sometimes come across that way. I haven't been angry at any point during the discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you have since continued with inappropriate behaviour here, and your subsequent activity at your User Talk page isn't a good sign.

According to the relevant policy, deleting material from your User Talk page is generally considered an 'acceptance' that you have read the material. However, your edit summaries and subsequent comments there suggest you have a fundamental misunderstanding of various Wikipedia policies and guideliness, as well as a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes a 'threat'.

As advised by Stalwart111, this type of conduct will probably result in you being blocked at some point if it doesn't improve.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Sydney hostage crisis

I have no idea how I missed that part of the media release... Thanks for reverting me to correct the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Red link

The principle I found in Wikipedia:Red link is that a person should not remove red links if the topic should be on Wikipedia. I have been working on my draft for the Bail Act 2013 since about the 17th of December. I think that it's an important topic for the encyclopedia to cover, and I linked to it on the talk page for the Sydney siege when I first made the draft, because I thought some other people might like to help me with it. I did not realise that it would be considered 'antagonistic' to revert your edit with a short explanation as to why. Thanks! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether the article 'should' be on Wikipedia is a pretty flexible definition, and there are many Acts that are not and probably never will be. An anonymous editor working on an unknown draft isn't a particularly good indication. Your edit summary could have said something like "please don't unlink. I'm working on a draft".--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The condition of whether an article is 'unlikely' is equally flexible - particularly as it is not referred to *at all* in the given instructions for whether a red link should exist or not. I had notified the editors about my draft on the same day I made it, I made the draft through the proper channels for doing so, and it is all over my recent edits, because I have been working on it for the last 10 days. It is not like the topic of the bail laws is not worthy of note - part of the reaction to learning Monis was on bail was for several people to ask why - including the Prime Minister. I simply went the next step and researched and drafted up an article for Wikipedia about the relevant bail law. The draft includes government sources, academic sources and media sources, and doesn't give all the focus to the siege. It's frustrating when the documentation suggests the practice is for a person to not remove red links to a valid topic, but the actual practice is for a person to remove a red link on a valid topic because it is added by a person using an IP address. I suppose I could have said "please don't unlink. I'm working on a draft", but I didn't think I would have to, because I tried my best to follow the instructions. Would you like to edit the draft article? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that there are some benefits in creating an account, being an IP editor was not the reason for unlinking. It certainly would have been simpler to say you're working on a draft rather than making a raft of assumptions about whether other editors had seen your other comments. I don't know (or care) enough about the subject to make meaningful contributions, but may do a copyedit at some point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Equally, it would have been simpler for you to follow the instructions at WP:Red link than make a raft of assumptions about the likelihood of the topic. I would appreciate a copyedit or other formatting assistance at the draft page - according to the notice, it will be about a month before it's even looked at. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously an unambiguous edit summary about an existing draft would intrinsically be simpler than reviewing a separate guideline, but I take your point anyway. I'll see what I can do to assist with a copyedit some time in the next few days.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I've added another talk page notice about the draft to the Sydney siege talk page - hopefully this one will gain more notice and edits, and keep the red link in the article until such a time as it turns blue. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pediainsight

Good luck with that particular brick wall you're banging your head against, & thanks for the reply to the nonsense he posted on my talk page.TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. He's since been at it at Jerusalem[2], which was reverted by another editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

110.20.234.69 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thank you for the copyedit to the Bail Act 2013 article. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the kitten. It was delicious. --Jeffro77 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Section22A

My understanding is that Section22A of the old Act was designed to avoid 'magistrate shopping' and the distress to victims of having to repeat themselves over and over again while the defendant reapplied for bail. Unfortunately, because it limited the amount of bail applications that a person could make, it had the effect of making lawyers and such unwilling to apply immediately, because then their one chance for bail was gone. (And therefore increasing the number of people in remand.) This was especially pronounced with young people, who might not understand the system as well. This section of the old Act (Draft:Bail Act 1978, by the way... ;) ) was directly criticised in the review which lead to the new Act. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If that isn't clear in the article, it shouldn't be mentioned. The statement should be expanded or removed. I still don't think it is necessary for the article to refer to the specific section, as it will have no significance for almost all readers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)