User talk:BlackCab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A barnstar for you![edit]

Surreal Barnstar Hires.png The Surreal Barnstar
This barnstar is given to You as my grateful appreciation for your tireless contributing in former times and by adding special flavor to WP:JW community, particularly with unique style of cooperation and behavior and solely by acting as sort of wildcard and doing acts toward better future and higher quality of articles in English Wikipedia. Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Deserved Barnstar[edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
Just wanted to give this to you for your efforts to improve my knowledge of JW's, especially the books you referenced. Vyselink (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I found the books very helpful in explaining a religion I'd joined decades earlier. Everyone should be entitled to make an informed decision, so I think it's important to share that information. I just wish I'd had it when I considered joining. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


hello. I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point of about wiki and "no own". I have to be frank with you. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves...some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. And this is a wiki... It was not redundant necessarily, but just more not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical".... This is a wiki.... No one owns that article. So please don't remove valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC);

I find your comment "I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like"" priceless. I never said I didn't like your edit. I said it was redundant. BlackCab (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

edits and consensus[edit]

I always ultimately respect and yield to consensus, regardless of whether I think it's correct or not. Please don't get it twisted. In the other article in question, that you're referring to, I DID accept consensus. Whether I thought it was wrong or not. That was the point. There was no real big "consensus" before. Just one editor or two. But leave it to you to be dishonest about what happened, and to mis-interpret it. I even said in the other article Talk, of the article that you think you own...that I would respect consensus (real consensus, not just you and Jeffro), and never violate 3RR. Also, you notice that the other editor "Grrahnbahr" said the word "true" was appropriate, but neither you nor Jeffro wanted that. And yes, I already know that it's possible to "edit-war" without violating 3RR. Because you yourself have been doing that a lot. Without violating 3RR. Just because I don't like my good-faith honest and valid sourced edits or mods removed willy nilly, and that I understandably won't put up with it, and that I'll stand up for my valid edits and additions or modifications, does not mean I'm trying to "own" the article. Coming from you, BlackCab, that's rich...that's hysterical. Yes, you do bully on said article. And I'm not the only one who has noticed it, or has said it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Four days ago you praised me for my hard work on the article, "to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. That's good, and I appreciate the work." Part of that hard work has required me to bang heads occasionally with people who just want their own narrow opinion represented. In the end, the quality of the article speaks for the collaborative effort that has gone into it. BlackCab (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. I do try to give credit where credit is due. The reason I said that is because despite, to be blunt, the overbearingness or maybe some control issues at times, you have kept things fair and balanced overall, for the most part, from what I saw in the edit history recently...(I looked back far too). From either JWs themselves who come in and who might make it too POV, with their injections, wording, and tone...or anti-JWs who would do the same, in the opposite way. It happens. And I see that you (and Jeffro77) overall seem to do some good work, and unlike some people, though I can point out or feel that things have been at times not perfect, I do appreciate time given and hard work, when this whole thing can get very stressful. The point is that I noticed, to be honest, both good and bad, in a way...mostly good...overall. But you can't deny that human nature is such (I've done it too, at times, and have had to catch myself) on WP is to get the attitude of ownership or jealous guardianship, and then diss or remove edits that we personally don't really care for, have hang-ups about, or find "ridiculous". Let me ask you. Do you deny that JWs themselves (whether we agree with the wording or not) have stated phrases like "pagan origins not compatible with the Bible" in any of their writings, books, etc? You know they have, and that really was my only main point. It's from their vantage point mainly, contextually, in that sentence. They have gone by John "no part of world" and Corinthians "do not touch the unclean thing" and "what does Christ have to do with idols" and "be ye separate"...from the things I've read and studied. And in that sense, they feel, it's not in harmony with the Bible. Regardless of Moses saying that Israelites couldn't eat lobsters. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually do not know whether they have used that phrase or not. If they have, it was ill-advised, for the reasons I explained. It's just sloppy language. In any case, this article is written by Wikipedia editors to give all readers a better understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses. It does not need to mirror the language used in that religion's publications. Given the earlier disagreement on the wording of that sentence, I thought Grrahnbahr's truncated sentence provided the information adequately and succinctly. Your edit was unnecessary and plain wrong. BlackCab (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the point. "Unnecessary and just plain wrong", according to you. You have every right to feel that way. But it's an "I don't like" situation, if you're gonna be totally honest about it. Because "pagan celebrations incompatible with the Bible" is a type of thing that is worded and said (and by the way, not JUST by JWs, over the years, but sometimes in general, by some Protestant writers, etc). Meaning, also, if it's sourced, then why impose the view so strongly that it's for sure "wrong", and shouldn't be there? In other words, Wikipedia does not have to mirror exact wording, yes, but it is the policy also to go by what's sourced, and in context go by how THEY (the party in question) views it or says it, more or less. Because also the sentence that was there is not an exact "mirror" word-for-word anyway. The point, again, is that JWs (and some others) view pagan holidays etc as not compatible with the Bible (in general). Whether husbands couldn't have sex with their menstruating wives in the Old Law or not. And again, this is a wiki, why can't minor good-faith and sourced accurate (even if you consider it silly or clumsy wording) be left alone, to avoid big problems? I'm not saying that everything you've ever reverted was unwarranted. In fact, arguably most were understandable reverts that I happen to agree with. But some (you'll deny this I know) were mainly "I don't like" issues. Some of them. And that's what I was saying we all need to be careful with. I've fallen into that too on certain articles. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You keep saying it's sourced. To what? You just plucked that phrase out of the air. An inane "I don't like it" excuse as a reason for removal is something quite different from my objection here. I have already explained my objection. It is sloppy language. If every bit of sloppy language or "silly or clumsy wording" was left in the article it would be a pretty shitty article. That's why I bother to improve it. BlackCab (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The point is I don't necessarily agree that it is "clumsy or silly language" at all. You say that. And maybe Jeffro would, etc. And some others. But many other people (in and out of WP editing) would find the phrasing fine, and understandable. Hence why I said it IS "I don't like" on your part. Because you're not gonna deny ("plucking" phrase or not) that JWs (and even others) have worded things just that way, in general. Such as "incompatible with Bible teachings" or "out of harmony with Scripture", etc. I'm sorry, but having "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" is not all that "shitty", as you put it, or would not necessarily make the article so. Especially in the context there, that JWs don't just feel pagan things should be avoided on their own basis, or on the basis of the Koran, but by what they feel is stuff that would not line up right with Scripture. (Such as the Corinthians and Isaiah stuff, etc). Gabby Merger (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You said it was "sourced", as if that made it acceptable, but it's clearly not "sourced" to anything. Now you try to rest it all on the assumption that the Watch Tower Society has probably used that phrase, or something similar, and that I should be willing to accept that assumption. I have spent the past few years insisting on facts for this article, Gabby. It's facts that achieve accuracy, not vague assumptions. The wording is sloppy and wrong, and unnecessary. BlackCab (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It's NOT a "probably" situation, and it's not an "assumption". They (and others) have said things just like that, either verbatim, or very similar. Not sure what the big deal or problem is. I already explained how it's correct, or at least how it can be understood, and how it's meant, the phrase "pagan celebrations not IN LINE with the Bible's overall drift or teaching or commands", etc. When I say it is "sourced", I'm not saying that there's a specific ref right after the sentence, saying it in that way, per se. But "sourced" in that it is something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know. No "assumption" necessary. And whether the actual addition at the end is so "necessary" is not the point. It's a valid mod, no matter what you think, or the stuff you went on about "menstruation" or "stoning witches". JWs (and some other similar groups, such as the Armstrongites, etc) believe that the holidays etc are pagan in background and not in harmony with Scripture. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Gabby has zero concensus for her edits and is arguing about an extraordinarily minor point, it's amazing that she has generated so much entirely irrelevant 'debate' on the article's Talk page and now here. I also notice that despite that, she has deleted the attempt to approach her on her own User Talk page. Gabby, there was no support for your edit. There comes a time when you should back away from the dead horse. If you believe there are other issues with the JW article (or any other article), feel free to start a new section at the relevant article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby asks above, Do you deny that JWs themselves (whether we agree with the wording or not) have stated phrases like "pagan origins not compatible with the Bible" in any of their writings, books, etc? I have verified that the answer to that question is that no such statement appears in JW literature for over 40 years (at least).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


re Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Re your revert to the 'Evangelism' section.

  • The source material says: "Your goal is to help the student achieve greater insight into the truth, qualify as an unbaptized publisher, and become a dedicated and baptized Witness of Jehovah."
  • The sentence in the wiki article says "Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group."

But source material does not say that the individual, on completing the course, is expected to become baptized as a member.

Either a better source should be provided, i.e. one which supports the comment that an indidual is expected to become a member on completion of the bible study course, or the article should be re-worded to reflect more accurately the source material. Of course, 'evangelism' is one thing, and 'becoming a disciple' is another. Maybe the distinction between the two should also be made clearer in the article. Lepton6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll move this conversation to the article talk page. BlackCab (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

After NZ "Region" articles - then "District" articles?[edit]

Hi BlackCab. I'm just checking with the movers and shakers about their plans. After the NZ "Region" articles have been renamed, are you planning to propose similar rename/moves for the "District" articles, and/or the "Province" and "County" articles? I have already asked Good Olfactory. Nurg (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I sense a note of sarcasm in your question. Articles such as Taranaki Province and Heathcote County are about historical entities and the names of those articles are fine. My concern over the regions was the dog's breakfast of article names -- capitalisation, no capitalisation, brackets, no brackets, "region", no "region". Anything that makes them more uniform, and therefore more readily searchable, is a good thing. BlackCab (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, no sarcasm intended. Just wanted to know if you (as someone with a keen interest) had further intentions - for the "District" articles and others. Nurg (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Colonial troops in NZ wars[edit]

You have me on the RNSWR as you are correct, the unit under that name was formed in 1960 about a century too late. I was going off the book "To Face the Daring Maoris: Soldiers' impressions of the First Maori War 1845-47" by Michael Barthorp as it mentions a NSW regiment which is what confused me. I will look up the reference when I have time, but Barthorp refers to various regiments which took part in the wars which were British regiments, but which included Australian and even South African troops who had joined while the units were stationed in those areas. There is also reference to the Honourable East India Company's Bengal Artillery, but I suppose that qualifies as militia. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would venture to suggest that the bottom line is that unless the Barthorp book says anything different, they were British forces, despite the possibility of the odd Australian or South African soldier among them. They were British regiments doing service overseas -- India, Crimea, Australia -- but were diverted to New Zealand after the panicked pleas of Gore Brown and Grey. Belich commonly uses the term imperial troops, and I have used that too in the body of articles, but in the lead section to the NZ Wars article the phrase "British troops" is a more succinct explanation of who they were. They were from Britain. BlackCab (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Waves (band)[edit]

The assessment is preliminary, pending a more detailed review of the article - you should take it to read, on the surface it is a least this level, but it could be higher. Once one of us from the NZ project gets the chance we'll take a deeper look at it and reassess the ratings. Hope this helps. NealeFamily (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really help, sorry. I don't see any provision in the WPNZ assessment page for "preliminary" or default assessments. I'm not sure of the value of rating it at all if it's not a considered assessment. It seems you have added "start" just to fill a space, but to any reader it's still a judgment on its worth. I'll add it to the list of articles seeking assessment and see what results. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stlwart111 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi BlackCab! (See my disclosures.) I am conversing with Stalwart and I hope this is just a miscommunication that should not blow up any larger. It looks like Stalwart is asking that you agree to stay out of the article and on the talk page only, as a minimum, based on a reading of NOPAY. (There is a list of exceptions to the bright line also.) I would stay off the ANI thread also. It seems that when you had put the word "adverse" under an ordinary glass of milk, you probably had a blind spot there, and you may have already admitted that. But when you have taken a step like that, it becomes very hard to show people you've backed down and are accepting input. You might avoid a topic ban if you can communicate to Stalwart that you're going to be using the bright line on this topic and then you work with the other editors until you can get agreement on the proper medical handling. If you can keep everything cool for a few days and the talk pages can be used to reach agreements you've got some hope. I think it was a mistake to escalate this to a topic ban proposal, but this might be a situation where the system works after all. Frieda Beamy (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


I think we've turned a corner (or a new leaf) and I wanted to demonstrate, in the interests of moving forward, that it can work and work well. I consider Talk:Accenture a great example of COI done well and I've played an active role there after referral from WP:COIN. That's a much larger company with a much larger reach and an editor with a long-term, openly-declared COI. Talk:Winton Capital Management too. Stlwart111 13:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to those two pages, and I agree it seems to work well there. I have also read Wikipedia:Edit requests and found the templates including the one relevant to COI issues. I believe I can work with that. BlackCab (TALK) 03:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
I know we don't see eye to eye on a lot but I thought you comported yourself well at ANi and that this was well earned. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It all seemed to turn out good in the end. By coincidence, my Twitter feed today provided me with what is supposedly an ancient Chinese proverb: If you must bow, bow low. It seemed rather apt. BlackCab (TALK) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, BlackCab. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 13:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Chin Chin (album)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Chin Chin (album), BlackCab!

Wikipedia editor Fevrret just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is an helpful article about a notable album.

To reply, leave a comment on Fevrret's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

jehova imperialismo[edit]

Hey,was just wondering if you thought that the jehovas wittnesis are a bit imparialist?or may have similar beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)