User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2010
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jeffro77. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Intellectual honesty
Academic honesty is an ethics stance for participating in academia or academic discussions. It is not defined by what it isn't but by what it is. Further a description of one is not a description of the antithesis of the other. While plagiarism and citing of sources are antipodal it doesn't then imply that a forgotten source is an act of dishonesty.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsider10 (talk • contribs)
Nebuchadnezzar II
i have but in arabic Nabopolassar was the king of Bahrain, before capturing Babel Were not empire Persian exist in that time Bahrain is the Babylonian word Meaning the land of the sea There are many Babylonian dynasties came from Bahrain Dynasty II & Dynasty V I do not have sources in English because I do not this see the books in English Do you understand my words If I had sources in English for you sent But my sources in Arabic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrf1979 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not know whether the region Nabopolassar ruled over prior to his takeover of Babylon included Bahrain, however, Nabopolassar's nationality was Chaldean, not Bahrani.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bahrain ancient was the Chaldean. The Persian Gulf is called the Gulf of Chaldeans In the southern region of Qatif, there port were built by Nebuchadnezzar called Jerhae. Historians Greeks At the time of Alexander stated that the residents of Bahrain from the Chaldean—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrf1979 (talk • contribs)
Bahrain towns and villages
I arranged the villages on the basis of geographical location and population—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrf1979 (talk • contribs)
Chaldea
Thank you for the link you sent to me by The Arab ancient were called Bahrain Chaldea—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrf1979 (talk • contribs)
Patience of Jeffro
Jeffro I've got to hand it to you. I took a peep at the JW Talk page today and saw the same old crap being hashed over. It never ends. You are quite a patient man to stick with this like you do. It is something that deserves recognition.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the same old things... sigh. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I may say...."the patience of Job." Andy5421 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Still amazed by your patience, diligence and dedication.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses by country
Let me know if you can't join the Yahoo! group jwtalks, there my 2009 Report.xls and 2009 Sorted.xls files are located. I've made copies of them into my Google mail page and I think you can access the files there.
The Report file is basically the report in the 2010 Yearbook but I've included: (1) A column with the code for the continental region in which each territory or country is located and (2) the subtotals for each region, defined by the region totals on pages 43-64 of the Yearbook. The Sorted file differs from the Report file only in that the territories and countries are grouped by region. This will help you to update Jehovah's Witnesses by country with the 2009 service report stats.
I can also as an alternative eMail the spreadsheets directly to you if this is the easiest way for you to look over the info. Please let me know how you want to proceed. --Glenn L (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Um... I don't really want to join the group. I don't have a Yahoo account, and don't really want one. If someone else updates that article here, I'll probably do some cleaning up, but I don't really have the inclination at the moment to do the whole thing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, perhaps I can eMail you the files so you can see how I would update the information. I've sent a request for your eMail address via Wikipedia eMail to facilitate this. --Glenn L (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't own the article, so I don't really need to review the updates before you make them. You can go ahead and update the article. If I think it needs tidying up, I might do some follow-up on it. But the article in question is kind of in my 'B-list'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, perhaps I can eMail you the files so you can see how I would update the information. I've sent a request for your eMail address via Wikipedia eMail to facilitate this. --Glenn L (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
TARDIS Edit
Point Taken. We all know hot air balloons can't travel through time, and Jack Lake didn't make any pretensions that it could. May Jehovah bless you always. Andy5421 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And may the great and all powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster (Bless His Noodly Appendage) bless you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The distinction is important, because a TARDIS with a properly functioning chameleon circuit could look like a hot air balloon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, unless hot air balloons were designed with open air console rooms. We could also presume that Tardises don't mimic the aerodynamics of hot air balloons.
Eusebius12 (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is of course based on your in-depth knowledge of fictional time machines? Given the nature of the TARDIS in Doctor Who canon, there would be an entrance to the extra-dimensional inside of the TARDIS, and the console room would be inside the TARDIS. From a perspective of surface area, the inside of the basket would be outside the TARDIS (or it could be an illusion caused by a perception filter, or it could be a 'cloaking device', or some other thing. There is no reason to conclude that a TARDIS disguised as a hot air balloon with an inflatable surface would not respond to hot air in the same way as other inflatable surfaces. Doctor Who canon has demonstrated that the intra-dimensional TARDIS (i.e. the outside bit that exists in 'our' dimension) only weighs the outside weight, not the weight of the extra-dimensional inside of the TARDIS, and could therefore feasibly be carried by hot air, just as the Doctor's police box has been carried, hauled, tipped etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes possibly, the exterior could look identical to a hot air balloon, with a door mechanism somewhere on the balloons surface. But it has been established that the weight of the TARDIS is *much* heavier than the exterior would suggest (cf Full Circle, although this is inconsistent and indeed the figure given here seems improbably massive). So given that it would remain resolutely Earth bound. I know it has been moved surprisingly easily at times, but canon most certainly *does not* indicate that which you have stated.
Eusebius12 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Where there are inconsistencies with canon, an element from the new series (the hot air balloon) would logically seek agreement with other elements of the new series where the TARDIS is moved with relative ease (e.g. Army of Ghosts, Blink, Utopia, The Fires of Pompeii) in preference to the old series. Seeking an exception in the original series that isn't even in agreement with other episodes in the original series does not help make your point. You're just arguing for argument's sake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- No I'm not arguing for arguments sake, I think the explicit statement of the Tardis weight must be given er weight
Indeed in the original series it is never stated or implied that the TARDIS is merely the weight of the exterior box...I think it is also stated in Warrior's Gate that the mass of the TARDIS is considerably greater than its size would imply, although of course nowhere near as great as the trader's dwarf star alloyed ship...
The TARDIS is moved from time to time but never by 'two blokes'..even in the new series, moving equipment is required. E.g. in army of ghosts, UNIT have a weight transmogrifier thingy (sorry cannot recall the actual term)
Definitely the weight given in Full Circle is too great but it is worth noting that the Marshmen were going to use it as a weapon against the starliner (viz. 'like a boulder') —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Eusebius12 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is entirely moot. The weight of the TARDIS was raised in relation to a hypothetical scenario in which a TARDIS were disguised as a weather balloon. However, regardless of whether specifically "'two blokes'" could move the TARDIS without some kind of mechanical assistance, it has still been moved with relative ease. It is not stated in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday that the magnaclamps were used to move the TARDIS, and such devices were not used in the other instances cited), so the reference to Full Circle remains inconsistent with canon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Silent Lambs article AfD tag added
AfD tag = Article for Deletion
If you wish to copy your comments from here please do so. Andy5421 (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Freeminds site
You won't accept any anti-watchtower site. I'll put others if you wish.--Automyte (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Automyte
- Sites that are simply hate campaigns are not appropriate. Find sites that are notable, well-established, and cite proof for their claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
End of Time Weeping Angels reference
Are we certain that there's not enough evidence that their face covering isn't punishment? The President does say, "Only two against. They will stand as a monument to their shame, the Weeping Angels of old."Thinkbui (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the conclusion that the statement represents a punishment rather than a declaration is synthesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now that I've thought about it, you're right that I was seeing something that may or may not be there. Not sure what I was thinking yesterday.Thinkbui (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Links
You are not nice. Links that show the other side of the coin, that oppose the Watchtower are worth being added as links. I'm gonna report you for vandalizing.--Automyte (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- You obviously have a poor understanding of what are appropriate as external links. Good luck with your report for what you imagine to be "vandalizing".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
edit warring
Please cease edit warring at Jehovah's Witnesses -- use article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- (I have repeatedly asked the editor concerned to discuss at Talk.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not seeing any discussion here [[1]] ... make good faith effort to start one. If other editor continues to revert without discussion then you've performed your due diligence. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I had previously requested to discuss at User Talk. A section has now also been placed on the article, thus far with no response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not seeing any discussion here [[1]] ... make good faith effort to start one. If other editor continues to revert without discussion then you've performed your due diligence. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is a pattern of editing by one editor. His inappropriate links at the JW article have been reverted by multiple editors. Repeated efforts have been made to appeal to the offending editor on his user page to cease his behavior. The removal of links that are clearly unacceptable to Wikipedia policy on external links is no more edit warring than the removal of vandalism. LTSally (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Gerardw at the Wikiquette page suggested that I invite the user to discuss specifically at the article involved, in order to demonstrate due diligence. Automyte responded by suggesting that Gerardw also be banned for "warring".--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is a pattern of editing by one editor. His inappropriate links at the JW article have been reverted by multiple editors. Repeated efforts have been made to appeal to the offending editor on his user page to cease his behavior. The removal of links that are clearly unacceptable to Wikipedia policy on external links is no more edit warring than the removal of vandalism. LTSally (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)