User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2012

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

Jan-Mar Apr-Dec

Sonic19912011

This is sonic19912011. Thank You for your advice. I'm new to Wikipedia,but I will do my best to make the information I add or alternations I make as accurate and reliable as possible. I've discovered how you make references,too. All other articles i've seen are fine, I just keep going back to "Jehovah's witnesses." As my name suggests, I am a longtime fan of Sonic the Hedgehog. So I'll keep an eye on articles relating to him as well. You seem to be getting several comments relating to my religion.You're dealing with these people pretty well, aren't you? Tell me,would you like me to prove to you that the Bible is inspired of God? That will be a challenge for me,but may be interesing for you.Let me know. Sonic19912011 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Ps.Someone somehow used my account to destroy your talk page.I don't think I signed out properly.But I restored all your data.

Thanks for restoring my Talk page. I did notice this edit from your account. This could only happen from the same computer that you use to edit. Therefore, I would advise that you talk to the other person and tell them not to misuse your account. Continued misuse of your account (by anyone) could result in you being blocked from editing.

I can readily prove from the Bible that JW doctrines are contradicted by the Bible, so there is probably little point in trying to convince me.

Incidentally, the vandalism of my page sparked me to check your edits, and I noticed your Sonic-related edit. After checking various sites, I've confirmed that Amy Rose did indeed use tarot cards in the official Sonic comics and games.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please also remember to start new sections on Talk pages, using a section heading between two sets of equals signs: ==Title== --Jeffro77 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs)

(See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Disputed Removal of POV and COAT templates on page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs for Willietell's accusation after his failure to properly follow correct process when adding dispute templates. This sequence of edits clearly shows why the templates were removed.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...Funny,Isn't it?

Thank you for explaining the reason why this happened to my account.I realised who it was.One of my relatives who used to be a witness was at my home.I was in a hurry to get somewhere and left the house to him and someone else.And...you can guess what happened.I've spoken to them,but they deny it.However,I recognized the language of the false message to be my cousin's.He lied.But,that's life.They won't be round mine for roast dinner again!You're right that Amy Rose did use Tarot cards-a practice that I abhor as a christian.She used them in Sonic Chronicles as a weapon-that's one I can remember.However,as a knowledgeable fan of sonic games,I can prove that in the very original story[1993 Sega Megadrive version]of Sonic CD,Amy Rose did not use Tarot cards to meet sonic.In the 2011 remake,she did-but not the original.I've got a copy of the instructions,so I know that by fact.But,as she DID use it in the newest vesion,it can be rightly added.But,there you go!Another mistake I've learned from.Not being disrespectful,but I find it thouroughly amusing that you,as an atheist,can use the Italic textBibleItalic text when disproving my religious beliefs.Another thing I find funny is that you don't believe in God,don't like religion,but you still like to take part in editing an article on religion![slightly changing subject]Well,there goes the saying:"seeing is beliving".And in many cases,that is true:except when it comes to wind, and electricity running through a wire,that view changes.The same is true of believing in an invisible God.To some,that takes great faith-as does believing in evolution.All we do as Witnesses of the Living God Jehovah,is bring you Good News of something better.And it'll take a belief in and love of God to get that "something better".I'm glad the end of all unbelievers hasn't come yet,otherwise the likes of you wouldn't stand a chance!The bible Does accurately fortell things that have happened in our time.Read all of Matthew 24&2 Timothy 3:1-12,and you'll see what i mean.It's no good discussing this at length,but have a look and let me know what you think.But thank you anyway for replying to my last message.[ps.A certain user called BlackCab adjusted a few of my mistakes on "Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs"-only two of those changes I didn't appreciate.If you look on his talk page,you'll see how infuriated I was...!I'd like you to see what I told him.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic19912011 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure why you find it amusing that I can use the Bible to disprove JW beliefs. I can also use Star Wars to prove that Yoda was not a pumpkin. It is not necessary to believe that source material is true to determine that it does not support a particular statement. However, you also make the common assumption that an atheist must think that nothing in the Bible is factual, whereas although it contains much mythology, some of it is also historical information, with a Jewish theological and political spin.

It doesn't really matter whether you like or dislike tarot cards 'as a Christian' (sigh). Editors should not censor articles to fit their personal beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And no more preachy rhetoric. Tedious religious 'threats' about 'the end of all unbelievers' will be ignored in the first instance, but will be reported as harassment if they continue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright.Fair enough.I wasn't threatening you,I was preaching-that's my job!But if you say so,I won't bother you with my language.In fact-as an eye opener to you-I not only entered wikipedia as a new editor-I also came to tell others the news I bring to people's doors.If one person doesn't like the message,I go to another.I want to respect everyone I meet.Thank you for the Star Wars joke-It is so simple,but doesn't prove your point.BUT...never mind,you've got a tough one here,so you'll have to put up with me if you make anti-religion arguments.But,anyway,I'll leave you to it,Mr Jeffro77.[emotions are hard to express on written or typed word.In this message I was speaking in a friendly,conversational manner] Sonic19912011Sonic19912011 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

'Preaching' to people who have indicated they don't want to hear it is called 'harassment'. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox, and it is not at all appropriate for you to come to Wikipedia with a goal of 'preaching' to anyone. If you are here primarily to 'preach', you will most likely get blocked.

At my discretion, I will point out logical fallacies in anything you present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation: Kind of curious how the "cousin" who wrote the "You Are A Fool" message at your talk page appears to have an identical typing style as Sonic. Both of them have the habit of neglecting to hit the space button after a full stop at the end of a sentence.[1] BlackCab (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And....Your point?Jeffro 77,explain why this happened.I seem to be being accused here.Sonic19912011Sonic19912011 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[ps.can you look at BlackCab's page because i've answered your comment and would like you to take part in a quick quiz.]

I'm not sure why I've been asked to explain anything here. You (Sonic19912011) claimed the other edit was made by your 'cousin', which may or not be the case. I have no way of confirming your veracity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a JW,but I can see a few faults in Sonic19912011's reasoning.Apparently,'preaching' isn't their 'job',but an 'expression of their faith in God'.Well,that's what one of those guys who where calling my neighbours told me a couple of days ago when I asked them why they preached.Also,the witnesses speak in a cheerful manner,not the childish,dogmatic way Sonic spoke.I have a feeling he was pretending to be a JW.Either that,or he was one of the worst lot.I don't know.Who can judge?[By the way,can you help me?I've got a question I need answered on my talkpage.]Redarrow777 (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

JWs while out in 'field service' are more likely to put out PR spin about enjoying their 'very important' preaching work. However, JWs are told, frequently, that preaching is an obligation, something they must do to avoid 'bloodguilt'; they are also frequently told to 'enjoy' preaching. It is little wonder that JWs would say they enjoy preaching, nor is it surprising that a proportion of them actually do enjoy it. Saying they categorically enjoy it would be an untenable generalisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well,mate,I see where you're going.But I decided to accept their offer to a bible study.I mean,why not give them a chance?Besides,they could be telling the truth,so i'll get it from the horse's mouth.Byebye. :)Redarrow777 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. You accepting a JW Bible Study has very little to do with Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion

Hi Jeffro, It looks like you've contributed to the talk page at Dispute about Jesus' execution method, though not the actual article page. I've encountered this page only as a link off the JW Beliefs page, and have battled with it all day; it's a page that needed a lot of rewriting to change it from a disjointed succession of expert quotes, but to be honest I know little about the subject and have a few unanswered questions about what should happen next. I've left some questions there and wonder if you can contribute any thoughts.

I'm still really unsure about the thrust of the whole page: though the information is certainly worthwhile, for the life of me I don't see why it starts off as purportedly an examination (or critique) of the JW doctrine on the cross: the JWs have certainly sided with one set of scholars, but the religion has presumably turned to those scholars (probably to find support for Rutherford's original 1936 stance) rather than conducting its own study. I've asked a question about this on the talk page, and suggested an alternative theme for the lead section, but hell, I'm fresh on this page and I'm very much interested in the thoughts of others. I've also messaged another editor who seems to have taken a fairly active role in the page's development. BlackCab (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have previously stated at the article's Talk page, my personal preference would be to delete the article, merging relevant areas to other articles, such as Crucifixion of Jesus where alternative views could be briefly summarised. Though the view of the 'stake' is not exclusively a JW view, the article seems to be a coatrack for presenting their view. The article is on my 'B-list' (and was removed from my Watch List), and I had basically given up on it since the last attempt at discussion with a view to merging went stale.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought it was coatrack as well, but mainly pushing the viewpoint of opponents of the JW doctrine! Of the last three sections of the article, the two longer ones seem to be presenting only the views of scholars who present evidence that the stauros was indeed a cross (the last section is poorly referenced and should probably be deleted).

Yes, deletion and merging is one option, but here is another one:

• Reshape the article substantially, and possibly renaming it (again). Insert a section immediately following the lead, laying out the claims of the sources used by the WTS (principally Vine, Parsons and Bullinger) to support their claim that "evidence is completely lacking that Jesus was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at right angles" (their words). Their misuse of Fairbairn, which I've written into the last paragraph of the lead, could be addressed in that section, along with their clear, unabashed misrepresentation of the Justus Lipsius illustration in their NWT with References. The remainder of the article could be sources that oppose that doctrine (in other words, favour a crossbeam or at least allow the possibility of one).

I get the idea you're a bit over this article, and I don't blame you. I found it only a few days ago and I'm now quite intrigued by the info on it, poorly presented as it is. A problem seems to be that whoever wrote the guts of it has since faded away, and even User:Esoglou, who I contacted last night, has indicated he doesn't want to get heavily involved. I'm using the two of you as a sounding board, in the absence of anyone else who is interested in editing (and possibly reading!) page. Having written all this, I realise it's probably better to copy my proposal to the talk page of the article itself, which I'll now do. Maybe it'll flush someone out, who knows? If the current apathy continues, I'll proceed with my proposal and see if it improves the article. My Christmas holidays are almost over, so my spare time will soon disappear, possibly along with my enthusiasm, but I'll have a shot. BlackCab (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to start off as a pro-JW coatrack, and then dissenting views have been piled on over time. I'm for deleting the article, so you'll have to forgive me for not being especially interested in improving it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses publications

• See User_talk:Willietell#JW_publications--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what appears to be an attempt by you to start an edit war on this page. The edits I have made are constructive, well supported by references and factual. You are not only reverting the accurate edits I have made, but are also reverting to create generalizations on the page that minimizes accuracy. To state that the level of accuracy I have placed on the page is unnecessary is illogical. Please explain. Willietell (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained in the edit summaries, and at your Talk page. The numbers change frequently, and it is unnecessary to micro-manage these at the summary article. The extra details belong at the main articles, New World Translation, The Watchtower, and Awake!.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BlackCab (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re

• User talk:Ceci n'est pas une pipe#Out of scope--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not exactly the right place to stick it in. I reckon the piece of information is certainly encyclopedical, neutral, properly referenced, respectful of the copyright of the sources. The point is: which is the right place for it? Would it be better to include it somewhere in Jehovah's Witnesses instead? I find important to highlight that during the Shoah, the JWs just disobeyed the "rules": in this case JW members hid a Jewish young woman because they believed it was their religious duty to do so. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was not the right place to put it. I did not question whether the material was neutral, properly referenced, or raise any issues related to copyright. It was not relevant to the article in which you put it, so I removed it. It certainly is not of sufficient significance to include at the main JW article either, for which it would out of scope of the general coverage at that article.

There are any number of accounts of people of some group or another helping other people of some demographic. Not all of such instances are especially notable, and the fact that it happened to be JWs rather than any other individuals who helped the Jewish girl doesn't seem to be particularly significant. The account of two JWs helping a Jewish girl to avoid Nazis is only related to 'persecution' from the perspective of persecution of Jews; however, it is almost certainly not an especially notable instance of that either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be mentioned in the list at Polish Righteous among the Nations if it is considered a notable instance, and if so, it should be summarised to give the most important points in keeping with the other summaries included in the list. It would only be necessary to mention that they were JWs if the religion of a person is relevant to Jews regarding people considered Righteous among the Nations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not, given that the two were belarusians …

You say that «the fact that it happened to be JWs rather than any other individuals who helped the Jewish girl doesn't seem to be particularly significant». The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations sees it differently. It reports that they were devout JWs and they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God and that's why they did what they did. If the fact is notable for a published Encyclopedia why should it not for Wikipedia?

--Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My best guess from the place names was Poland (I later determined that at the beginning of WWI, it was in fact part of Poland). Whatever the location, it only warrants mentioning within the context of Righteous among the Nations or directly related articles. The account has nothing at all to do with the attitude of governments toward JWs. Nor is there any indication in the account that the action of two JWs is representative of the religion itself. If their status as JWs is relevant in the context of the Jewish article, I have no concern about it being mentioned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the table at Righteous among the Nations, and that article generally, the religion of the individuals who assist Jewish people does not seem particularly important. While it is admirable that these two people helped this one Jewish girl, there are people listed at the Righteous among the Nations article who helped hundreds—even thousands— of Jewish people, with no need to advertise the religious affiliation of those who offered assistance. People of any religious affiliation might see their religious beliefs as their motivation to help others, but that does not necessarily make their specific motivation notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Argument redundancy

When an editor agrees with you, there is probably no need to restate your arguments.[2] It could turn into a very long deletion discussion. BlackCab (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Jeffro77. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to manually archive the WQA, would be of benefit to all of us. :P Gsonnenf (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment including "AuthorityTam and Hitler"

• Context - AuthorityTam claimed of me that two editors have namecallingly referred to me as "stupid", 'bitchy', "obsessed", "inane", "childish", "infantile", and 'hostile'[3], when in fact the other of the "two editors" was the only one who had used those words, and I had only actually used the word hostilely. I provided an example of how this kind of attribution was misleading. There was no intent to compare any editor to Hitler.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:NPA#WHATIS states, "some types of comments are never acceptable: ...Comparing editors to Nazis".
I see that you've written as an example, "AuthorityTam and Hitler are guilty of incivility and exterminating Jews".
I would prefer that you strikethrough or delete that part of your comment.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At least you've finally begun to properly engage at User Talk, so that's a start, so, thanks. The example demonstrated the manner in which your implied attribution of various words to me was inappropriate. The example does not compare you to Nazis, it illustrates the ambiguity of your misleading attributions. However, in the spirit of amelioration, I will think of a softer example.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

came here to add below and saw above. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a point? The intent of my wording was misconstrued, so I modified the example.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Talk

This moved from my Talk page.

I've removed the ad hominem from the page per WP:TALKO. The comments have nothing to do with the article in question. If you believe that I am not able to offer valuable contributions in general, you should follow relevant dispute resolution procedures rather than trying to garner support on an unrelated article Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro. You are doing absolutely everything to suggest a topic ban on JWs would be beneficial both to you and to WP. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion noted. Anything I've done is no excuse for posting irrelevant ad hominem on unrelated article Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)