User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
Ref desk
There's a question on the Humanities ref desk about Jehovah's Witnesses. As I recall, you're kind of the resident expert, so you might be able to answer the question. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
New World Translation
I noticed on the Spanish translation there is a PDF, EPUB, and MOBI for mobiles on its '87 edition corresponding to '84 English edition. English has not added it yet to 2013 edition being so new. Wondering if adding of MOBI's should be added to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- As this is the English Wikipedia, I would not add unless/until it is made available in English in that format (though I'm not sure it's particularly noteworthy anyway, i.e., it isn't really the purpose of Wikipedia to advertise availability in any particular format). The MOBI format is not available in English for the 1984 version either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's very odd that you would make this attack on me when the version of the article I restored is the same version that you restored when you objected to an edit by Gabby Merger. I can only conclude that you're either confused about which editor you meant to attack, or you'r holding a grudge for some prior perceived disagreement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Gabby Merger have not owning-complex about articles related to JW, and have not shown any off-wiki interests of promoting a specific view about JW, as far as I know. User:Gabby Merger was trying to improve the article, and showed willingness to discuss and adjust his/her own suggestings of the editing. And it is not obvious User:Gabby Merger was breaking the 3RR. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no 'owning-complex' about any articles either, despite whatever you imagine. I have never referred to any 'off-wiki' interests at Wikipedia, and any 'off-wiki' witchhunting you might like to attempt would be a breach of policy. Gabby Merger has quite evidently indicated that she is not willing to yield to consensus unless it's by her arbitrary determination of a 'real' consensus. I have repeatedly suggested to Gabby Merger that she follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.[1][2][3]--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mention you at all, but thank you for sharing you're feelings about how you think I think. All I did was explaining why I didn't post a complain on User:Gabby Merger. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- LOL. That's seriously the response you're going with? So why did you complain about me? And if you're really going to play silly games about not 'mentioning' me, what was the context of your response above if you weren't trying to allege something about me?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- You also claim it is not obvious User:Gabby Merger was breaking the 3RR. How obvious do you need it to be? 8 February:[4][5][6][7]; 12 February:[8][9][10]
[11][12]--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)- Maybe he needs it to be actual clear "reverts" and not just general edits or tweakings of my own previous edits, that for some reason, you, to poison the well in readers' minds, like to say that they were actual clear genuine undeniable "reverts". Maybe that's what he's talking about, logically and more honestly. For him to find it so "obvious". Like I mentioned on the noticeboard page. I do NOT violate 3RR. Neither intentionally nor in true clear actuality, where anyone could see it clearly and definitively. So it would be nice if you didn't insist that I did. It's very debatable and not at all clear, regardless of what links you keep posting all over the place, of what I did. Interpretive and vague, and also very convenient...to try to bolster up an argument against me, in obvious bias, to help your case, that I'm some horrible "edit-warrior", when that's not what I was trying to do. I respect 3RR, where others clearly have violated that on Wikipedia many times. You don't by yourself, but maybe through gaming meat-puppeting with BlackCab, that you'll deny. But that's whatever. What I and Grrahnbahr are referring to are real clear un-mistakable undeniable NON-interpretive non-vague "reverts" of someone else's previous edit, and not just changing my own edits mixed in. That might be it. I don't appreciate you saying I violated 3RR like the way you've been doing, when I really didn't. (And definitely without a doubt did not intend to... But "assuming good faith" is what you like to do...as usual...not.) But really, Jeffro, I did not break clear 3 reverts in 24 hours at all. You have to be careful not to call or think that any "edit" or changing of my own previous wording or edit is ipso facto without a doubt a clear explicit "revert". They may not be. And in my case, they actually really weren't. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of your five non-null edits to the sentence in question on 12 February, four were absolutely definitely reverts to your initial change to the article.[13] (reverted Grrahnbahr); [14] (reverted BlackCab); [15] (reverted Jeffro77); [16] (reverted Jeffro77). So regardless of how much you imagine that you simply 'don't' 'ever' breach the 3RR, the fact is you did. But because Grrahnbahr has his own grudge against me, he chose to accuse me instead, even though only two of the edits that I made could be classified as 'reverts' in the stricter sense that Gabby Merger is insisting. Gabby Merger made more reverts than me in both the strict sense and the broader sense (and of my edits cited by Grrahnbahr, two were to his preferred version), so Grrahnbahr's claim against me is wrong either way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe he needs it to be actual clear "reverts" and not just general edits or tweakings of my own previous edits, that for some reason, you, to poison the well in readers' minds, like to say that they were actual clear genuine undeniable "reverts". Maybe that's what he's talking about, logically and more honestly. For him to find it so "obvious". Like I mentioned on the noticeboard page. I do NOT violate 3RR. Neither intentionally nor in true clear actuality, where anyone could see it clearly and definitively. So it would be nice if you didn't insist that I did. It's very debatable and not at all clear, regardless of what links you keep posting all over the place, of what I did. Interpretive and vague, and also very convenient...to try to bolster up an argument against me, in obvious bias, to help your case, that I'm some horrible "edit-warrior", when that's not what I was trying to do. I respect 3RR, where others clearly have violated that on Wikipedia many times. You don't by yourself, but maybe through gaming meat-puppeting with BlackCab, that you'll deny. But that's whatever. What I and Grrahnbahr are referring to are real clear un-mistakable undeniable NON-interpretive non-vague "reverts" of someone else's previous edit, and not just changing my own edits mixed in. That might be it. I don't appreciate you saying I violated 3RR like the way you've been doing, when I really didn't. (And definitely without a doubt did not intend to... But "assuming good faith" is what you like to do...as usual...not.) But really, Jeffro, I did not break clear 3 reverts in 24 hours at all. You have to be careful not to call or think that any "edit" or changing of my own previous wording or edit is ipso facto without a doubt a clear explicit "revert". They may not be. And in my case, they actually really weren't. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mention you at all, but thank you for sharing you're feelings about how you think I think. All I did was explaining why I didn't post a complain on User:Gabby Merger. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no 'owning-complex' about any articles either, despite whatever you imagine. I have never referred to any 'off-wiki' interests at Wikipedia, and any 'off-wiki' witchhunting you might like to attempt would be a breach of policy. Gabby Merger has quite evidently indicated that she is not willing to yield to consensus unless it's by her arbitrary determination of a 'real' consensus. I have repeatedly suggested to Gabby Merger that she follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.[1][2][3]--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Gabby Merger have not owning-complex about articles related to JW, and have not shown any off-wiki interests of promoting a specific view about JW, as far as I know. User:Gabby Merger was trying to improve the article, and showed willingness to discuss and adjust his/her own suggestings of the editing. And it is not obvious User:Gabby Merger was breaking the 3RR. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It's this simple, and you're completely wrong. I did not violate 3RR, not at all, not even a little bit. You're mis-labeling things conveniently, of what I did big time on the 12th of February. I just checked it again, and I almost can't believe that you're even doing this and saying this. This is how it went. On the 7th/8th of February I reached "3RR" but did not break it. Period. Now, on the 12th, you're totally wrongly and dishonestly mis-interpretating my first edit idiotically as a "revert". IT WASN'T!!!! It was simply an EDIT...and an offering and a suggestion, sincerely made. FAIL in your analysis of that edit as a "revert". Assume bad faith much as usual. And I'm tired of it. Look below. Everything is listed, nothing is left out, and I marked each one as what actually happened. And start from the bottom up...
(cur | prev) 07:47, 13 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,116 bytes) (+31) . . (Restore more accurate wording. JWs *do* engage in various beliefs that have *pagan origins*. They *do not* object to *all* customs that have *pagan origins*. I have already repeatedly explained this at Talk.) (thank) REVERT BY JEFFRO77, HIS FOURTH IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS
(cur | prev) 23:16, 12 February 2014 Grrahnbahr (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-31) . . (removed again the unsourced claim, see talk for explanation) (thank) (revert by Grrahnbahr)
(cur | prev) 13:15, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) m . . (141,116 bytes) (+31) . . (restore earlier more accurate wording. JWs *do* engage in various customs with pagan origins (wedding rings, Gregorian calendar etc). they make a distinction regarding purported compatibility with Christianity) (thank) (EDIT BY JEFFRO77 THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS A REVERT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY)
(cur | prev) 11:59, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-60) . . (Undid revision 595129135 by Gabby Merger (talk) Stop. "with the [unspecified] Scriptural teachings' is even worse than before.) (thank) THIS WAS A REVERT BY JEFFRO77 on the 12th of February (his third)
(cur | prev) 11:55, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,145 bytes) (+60) . . (Sorry, won’t put up with bullying and presumed ownership of article behavior on this... There’s nothing really wrong with the modification, as it is sourced, accurate, and it is JWs OWN WORDING and phrasing and view. NO OWN...This is a WIKI.) THIS WAS A REVERT BY ME, the third one on the 12th of February
(cur | prev) 11:52, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-60) . . (Reverted to revision 595124685 by Jeffro77 (talk): Not an improvement. (TW)) (thank)THIS WAS A REVERT BY YOU, JEFFRO77
(cur | prev) 11:47, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,145 bytes) (+30) . . (changed it a bit...better wording, clearer...less "vague"...as "origins that they find incompatible with the Scriptural teachings.") THIS EDIT WAS NOT A "REVERT" BUT JUST A TWEAKING OF MY OWN PREVIOUS EDIT...was I "reverting" myself???
(cur | prev) 11:40, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,115 bytes) (+1) . . (COMMENT EDIT: it's not more accurate wording, just because you and BlackCab like to control this article and say so. JWs themselves word it this way, per context. Please discuss in Talk before rudely reverting, per your usual tag-team with BlackCab...)THIS EDIT WAS NOT A REVERT BY ME, BUT WAS A NULL COMMENT EDIT, by your own admission
(cur | prev) 11:37, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,114 bytes) (+29) . . (Undid revision 595124685 by Jeffro77 (talk) ot)THIS WAS A REVERT BY ME (the second revert by me on the 12th of February)
(cur | prev) 11:01, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-29) . . (Reverted to revision 595085025 by BlackCab (talk): Restore more accurate wording. (TW)) (thank) THIS WAS A REVERT BY JEFFRO77 on the 12th of February
(cur | prev) 05:18, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,114 bytes) (+1) . . (COMMENT EDIT: this phrasing is how JWs word things in their own writings "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" whether you or I feel the wording is "meaningless" or "ridiculous"...and it's clear in the sentence...) THIS WAS NOT A REVERT, BUT A NULL COMMENT EDIT, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION
(cur | prev) 03:41, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,113 bytes) (+28) . . (stop edit-warring as is your habit, BlackCab, and see Talk. There's no "redundancy" per se...and it's a good compromise and modification......YOU DON'T OWN THIS ARTICLE...though it's obvious you think you do...) THIS EDIT WAS A REVERT BY ME (first "revert" by me on the 12th of February)
(cur | prev) 03:39, 12 February 2014 BlackCab (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-28) . . (Reverted to revision 595065233 by Grrahnbahr (talk): No. A celebration can not be compatible or incompatible with the Bible per se. (TW)) (thank)(THIS WAS A REVERT BY BLACKCAB)
(cur | prev) 03:35, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,113 bytes) (+28) . . (how about this....fair compromise "incompatible with the Bible"? That's NOT "redundant" at all in that sense, and it's definitely a sourced statement, per their view...) THIS EDIT WAS NOT A REVERT, but was just a sincere offering and suggestion and honest-hearted EDIT, days later
I count THREE actual "reverts" by me, on the 12th of February. And two null comment edits. And two regular "edits" by me. My first edit on the 12th of February, for some ridiculous and arrogant reason, you're counting as a "revert"!!! When it was just a suggestion, and a sincere edit...days after the fact. A person is allowed to edit. And NO consensus was actually reached before that. That's FAR from 'clear', and so a matter of interpretation, conveniently, it's not funny. As I said, and you can bring up corny flimsy things all you want, I do NOT violate (real) 3RR. Ever. I think it's really funny how you also count the tweaking or changing of my own previous edit, in the wording, as a "revert". Spare me. Only someone with a bias would go out of his way to think that those edits (those two edits) were actually "reverts" in any real solid unmistakable sense. Notice though that when you count all the reverts by you and BlackCab together, it equals FIVE reverts in a little over 24 hours...four by you in LESS than 24 hours. Pot-kettle-black, regarding who really violated “3RR”. The listing above proves it sure wasn’t me. So it would be nice if you could finally stop saying that. Remember, YOU brought this up and accused me of breaking 3RR, when I made it clear that I never do. Your creative interpreting of things doesn’t change actual facts. If you want to say I “edit-warred” in other ways, then fine, but do NOT say dogmatically that I actually really broke “3RR”, because of biased interpretation of what really went on with the edits, when I never really did. Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's clear that in the mind of Gabby Merger, Gabby Merger never 'really' breaches rules and never 'really' goes against 'real' consensuses. Back in reality, you started an edit war on 8 February and continued it for the following few days. Your first revert on 12 February does count as one of your reverts because you were continuing the edit war that you started on 8 February. It was not merely a 'fresh edit' as you would like to claim. It was another change without consensus in your existing edit war with three editors who did not support your position (even though Grrahnbahr decided to adopt a third view rather than agreeing with anyone else). Even worse, you directly stated at article Talk that you fully intended to continue reverting just outside the 24-hour period, which is explicitly stated as gaming the system and a breach of the policy. And there is no point trying to make some 'issue' out of my supposedly 'admitting' your 'null edits', which were never at any point counted as 'reverts'. You do correctly point out that I inadvertently incorrectly counted one of your edits as a revert, which I will amend; sorry about that. It does not change the fact that you breached the 3RR, nor does it change the fact that you directly stated your full intent to 'game the system'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I intended that first edit on the 12th as a fresh edit and alternative, and sincere suggestion and offering. Otherwise, why didn't I put as that first edit on the 12th the very same edit that I put on the 7th etc? It was different, and I meant well with it. But again assuming bad faith...and putting bad motives, instead of looking for ways to do the opposite, to give the benefit of the doubt, regarding intentions and heart-motivation. And sorry, but no actual "consensus" was really reached days before. It was you and BlackCab and only maybe 20% Grraahn, as he conceded points to both of us, and saw my points too. So I sincerely tried an edit on the 12th that of course got dissed and removed. So there was a back-and-forth with that. But after that no more. And also, as I said, if Grrahn did not do what he did (in reporting you) you would not have heard from me again on this, as I fully intended to back off and not deal with it anymore. Also, you do notice that even before "protection" was put on the article by an Admin, I was not bothering with the article or editing or reverting or modifying or anything. I didn't even know that you and Grrahn were edit-warring or reverting each other on that sentence. I moved on. Then I get a notice call on my page, that my name was mentioned somewhere in ANI. And I didn't understand what was going on. So I clicked and saw what was happening, and the things you said, and that he said, and BlackCab etc. Hence I was dragged back into this. But I do NOT (please understand this) intend to edit that sentence anymore, nor was I for the past few days. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah... I see... so when you add different words, it's a fresh thought, but when I do it, it's just another revert. Gotcha. It's unclear how you determinine Grrahnbahr's supposed '20% disagreement', which seems to be based on nothing but your own supposition. But you are right in saying that Grrahnbahr's actions are quite separate to your own, and part of a broader pattern of behaviour he's been engaging in for several months.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's also interesting that you jumped up and down about your edit that 'tweaked' your own previous edit, but you marked my edit that immediately followed my other edit as 'could be interpreted as a revert'. And then of course we have the 'smoking gun'—my final edit on the following day that happened to be 19 hours later instead of 24. I bet that made Grrahnbahr leap for joy, even though two of my edits were to his preferred version. I'm glad you also noticed his evident bias--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never said that when you add a fresh thought that it's a revert. In fact I said that that's NOT necessarily the case. And the only reason I even said it that way was to have you be consistent in your own view of it. But I don't necessarily think it that way. As far as my rough estimate of "20%" Grrahn being in agreement with you, the point is that it's a fact that he was not (obviously not) 100% in sync and in line in that whole matter (after he dialogued with me etc etc) with you and BlackCab. You can't say with a straight face that during that whole thing, that Grrahnbahr was totally exactly where you and BlackCab were. That's laughable on its face, because he definitely was not, and given the fact that you and he were reverting each other and arguing about that sentence and situation from the 8th onward. He clearly conceded some points to both you and me. That's all I'm saying. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's awfully generous of you to concede that me modifying my own previous edit isn't 'necessarily' a revert.
- I did not claim that Grrahnbahr stayed in agreement with me. But he didn't agree with you either. As I have already told you, Grrahnbahr later came up with his own third view. He wasn't in agreement with anyone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only reason I even said it that way, in the listing there, was to have you be consistent in your own view of it. Because for some reason you counted my editing my own edit as a "revert". But you did similar things, but where I did NOT dogmatically view it as a revert. But that was mentioned that way only to make that point, about consistency. But I don't necessarily think it that way. And I never said it actually was. And the point (again) about Grrahn is that he did concede that maybe a modifier would be ok to have, hence he put forth "true". Which you and BlackCab didn't agree with either. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I freely admit that I was careless in my inattention to the fact that my revert of Grrahnbahr's misleading edit—which was really a separate disputed point anyway—on 13 February was within 24 hours (about 19 hours later) of my revert of your edits on 12 February. That's not quite the same as your reverts on 12 February in quick succession during an existing edit-war and your repeated comments at article Talk that you intended to keep reverting. In any case, the real reason Grrahnbahr decided to complain about me wasn't really about '3RR', but, rather is about his own pre-existing bias against me, that you have already acknowledged. His real motivations are also indicated in his comments above in this thread. Your flippant accusations about me supposedly trying to 'own' the article did not help matters, even though you made the same flippant accusation about Grrahnbahr first, and your false accusations of 'tag-teaming' is also a serious claim for which you have neither provided evidence nor apologised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only reason I even said it that way, in the listing there, was to have you be consistent in your own view of it. Because for some reason you counted my editing my own edit as a "revert". But you did similar things, but where I did NOT dogmatically view it as a revert. But that was mentioned that way only to make that point, about consistency. But I don't necessarily think it that way. And I never said it actually was. And the point (again) about Grrahn is that he did concede that maybe a modifier would be ok to have, hence he put forth "true". Which you and BlackCab didn't agree with either. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I never said that when you add a fresh thought that it's a revert. In fact I said that that's NOT necessarily the case. And the only reason I even said it that way was to have you be consistent in your own view of it. But I don't necessarily think it that way. As far as my rough estimate of "20%" Grrahn being in agreement with you, the point is that it's a fact that he was not (obviously not) 100% in sync and in line in that whole matter (after he dialogued with me etc etc) with you and BlackCab. You can't say with a straight face that during that whole thing, that Grrahnbahr was totally exactly where you and BlackCab were. That's laughable on its face, because he definitely was not, and given the fact that you and he were reverting each other and arguing about that sentence and situation from the 8th onward. He clearly conceded some points to both you and me. That's all I'm saying. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I intended that first edit on the 12th as a fresh edit and alternative, and sincere suggestion and offering. Otherwise, why didn't I put as that first edit on the 12th the very same edit that I put on the 7th etc? It was different, and I meant well with it. But again assuming bad faith...and putting bad motives, instead of looking for ways to do the opposite, to give the benefit of the doubt, regarding intentions and heart-motivation. And sorry, but no actual "consensus" was really reached days before. It was you and BlackCab and only maybe 20% Grraahn, as he conceded points to both of us, and saw my points too. So I sincerely tried an edit on the 12th that of course got dissed and removed. So there was a back-and-forth with that. But after that no more. And also, as I said, if Grrahn did not do what he did (in reporting you) you would not have heard from me again on this, as I fully intended to back off and not deal with it anymore. Also, you do notice that even before "protection" was put on the article by an Admin, I was not bothering with the article or editing or reverting or modifying or anything. I didn't even know that you and Grrahn were edit-warring or reverting each other on that sentence. I moved on. Then I get a notice call on my page, that my name was mentioned somewhere in ANI. And I didn't understand what was going on. So I clicked and saw what was happening, and the things you said, and that he said, and BlackCab etc. Hence I was dragged back into this. But I do NOT (please understand this) intend to edit that sentence anymore, nor was I for the past few days. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Howdy. I see you reverted a recent edit of mine to Verbi dei minister with the reason "restore direct link". The intention of my edit was to fix the misspelling of 'Calvanist' (linked as [[Calvanism|Calvanist]]) to the correct 'Calvinist'. As Calvinist redirects to Calvinism, I corrected it to [[Calvinist]]. Before I reinstate my change, can I check that you see the reason for it now please? Cheers. - TB (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have fixed the minor spelling error. Linking to redirects is discouraged.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
NWT
About the discussion on my talk page - I have attempted to approach the issue neutrally and keep an open mind about user conduct. I did not see problematic edits from you but was willing to look at any presented evidence as I was unfamiliar with the issues, and in any case Fjjlee could be let down from his horse without him thinking I was of the cabal. (The fact he gave no diffs is very telling to me.) Please be assured I still assume good faith on your part. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I do find it amusing that I've been called both anti-JW (by User:Fjjlee) and pro-JW (by User:FONTYBITS) in the same week. Sigh. Just another week on Wikipedia. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
JW Article
Hi there, not a Wiki editor nor intend to be.
Just have a slight suggestion regarding the JW article. The term 'scriptural' and 'unscriptural' is used in the article. I believe the term is correct in the context, but I wonder if the average reader/user might wonder what this refers to? It is a term to refer to the Christian Bible so would it bring additional clarification by naming it as such? So as "Biblical/un-Biblical according to ___ religion"
Just a suggestion and thanks for the hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.48.105 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The proper place to ask is at the article's Talk page. I will start a section there with your query.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)