User talk:AuthorityTam

User talk:AuthorityTam/Bot messages

Hello, AuthorityTam! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes ( ~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Sen. John McCain

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sen. John McCain, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sen. John McCain is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sen. John McCain, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceremonial first puck

The term "first puck" is virtually unused in hockey. So, despite your rationale, the term "ceremonial faceoff" is correct. Unless you can provide reliable sources that refer to a ceremonial dropping of the puck under the name "ceremonial first puck". Wikipedia is not in the business of coining new terms. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Even your sources use the term "ceremonial opening faceoff". -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

No, "first puck" is actually quite widespread throughout hockey. The overwhelming preponderance of actual "reliable sources" supports AuthorityTam rather than long-winded and imaginative complainant. See Ceremonial_first_puck#Related_terms--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Thanks for supplying references to Jehovah's Witnesses literature. Please note that whilst information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced, it is not necessary to provide a quote from the original publication, unless the exact wording is particularly notable. If the source is quoted, superfluous details (such as 'Jehovah blessed the change') can be replaced with an ellipsis ("..."). Also, references should follow punctuation - that is, commas and periods should be before the ref tag.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are continuing to add lengthy quotes from Watch Tower publications on the dubious basis that they are adding context to "balance critical POV". Great care is being taken to ensure these articles are presented in a neutral way. If you can identify points of view in the articles that detract from their neutrality, then discuss or change. Loading articles up with slabs of quoted material from The Watchtower doesn't help at all. LTSally (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning on edit warring

Your edits at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are becoming vexatious and appear to be the start of an edit war. You have yet to produce any evidence in support of the edits you are making regarding the exclusive salvation of Jehovah's Witnesses and are ignoring the references cited by other editors that prove you wrong. You are also deleting, without sufficient justification, reference to the WTS survey of elders that produced adverse comments about the pressure placed on Witnesses, and seeking to insert the wording "a former prominent Witness" in what I can only assume is an attempt to belittle the source of the material and detract from its importance. It is better to seek consensus on the talk page rather than simply reverting these changes. Thanks! LTSally (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) writes...

The complaints of user LTSally are illogical and factually incorrect. While I (that is, AuthorityTam), happen to believe a thirty-year-old 'opinion study' is out of place in an article about a group's current beliefs, I certainly have not repeatedly deleted references to the supposed study. Furthermore, does LTSally contend that the phrase "a former prominent Witness" is nonneutral or factually incorrect? Either reason might exclude it, but neither reason applies to its usage here.

Regarding the matter of salvation, the fact remains that officially, JWs certainly DO believe that non-Witnesses will be saved (see quote below, from their official website). Far from "many WT articles" or "multiple references", there are NO references which contradict this view, and certainly none newer than their current website.

Incidentally, the edits of User:AuthorityTam have tended to include elucidatory information rather than hide it (by contrast, it is clear that certain others have actively worked to hide information, including actual quotations, that merely balances anti-JW criticism). "Light is the best antiseptic.", no?

The FACTS and VERIFIABLE REFERENCES plainly contradict the unfounded notion that it is "ludicrous and untenable" (per LTSally) to assert that the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the great crowd includes "presumably others with whom God will find favour" (to use the exact phrasing of LTSally). Skeptics should note the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, arguably the MOST CURRENT position of the faith:

As Retrieved 2009-04-14

"Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved? No. ... Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours."

In conclusion... I do not believe JWs contend the following, but even IF Jehovah's Witnesses in the future happened to contend that there is "no evidence" that non-Witnesses will survive Armageddon, that is a different matter than asserting that non-Witnesses CANNOT survive Armageddon or WILL NOT survive Armageddon. Insisting otherwise seems incompatible with the standards of Wikipedia. Please, avoid nonneutral assertions, avoid unwarranted over-interpretations, and avoid hiding elucidatory quotes from the official publications of Jehovah's Witnesses in an article entitled "Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses".--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The import of the quote above from the official JW site is basically "Do you believe that you [people who are already JWs] are the only ones who will be saved? No, because other people who aren't JWs yet might become JWs (i.e. JW terminology for 'take a stand for truth')". The statement on the official site is therefore not conclusive to say that JWs actually teach that people who aren't Witnesses at the time of the 'judgment' will survive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK

Are you familiar with WP:PEACOCK? "Renowned" is on the list of terms to avoid in that guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the random act of wikience. To my recollection, I've not yet used "renowned" in any article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[1] Croctotheface (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Disassociated Witnesses

I reverted your most recent edit to the Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article relating to the treatment of Witnesses who voluntarily quit the religion. There are two points here.

The first is that the Watchtower article I had cited, Questions From Readers, July 15, 1985, page 31, unequivocally identified any person who "willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation" as an apostate. The article stated that "such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist’." Your insertion of the words "with apostates among them" is therefore quite inaccurate. Your edit summary that "JW consider apostates part of antichrist (not all who disassociate)" is wrong. Your edit summary suggesting that the 1991 WT article makes clear that "not all disassoc are apostate (since 1991)" is also wrong. The 1991 WT does suggest that elders approach disassociated ex-Witnesses to invite them back into the fold. It does warn elders against approaching "certain expelled ones, such as apostates, who ‘speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves'" But the article in no way changes the doctrine established in the September 15, 1981 WT, and reinforced in the 1985 WT cited above, that all who voluntarily quit are apostates and part of the antichrist.

The second point is that your explanation of your edit should not be inserted in invisible comments within the article. Please start a new section on the talk page for these issues. And please stop inserting long quotes from the Watchtower in the references. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Talk:Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Former_does_not_equal_Apostate--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Want to briefly thank you for your honest comment on the Talk:Anna Baltzer page, and ask that please vote to "*Keep" the article in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Baltzer project page. There will be further references to support the article in the near future. Thank you for your help. Henry Delforn (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Please note that a brief description of circuit overseers doesn't need "a century of background". Such lengthy quotes can usually be summarised and simply cite the source if they are particularly important to the subject being addressed, within the scope of the article. In this instance, the information in the quote is not of particular notability or relevance to the current circuit overseer arrangement, and the import of the quote would be more relevant to an article about the gradual development of JW procedures, though this level of detail probably wouldn't be notable even in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Shunning

Please do not include entire paragraphs in comments in the article just to prove your point about the suitability of references. This kind of thing belongs in Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have guessed that including the actual quote from the actual reference would have avoided pushback. Amazingly, it hasn't.

Invisible_comment#HTML_tags, as of 4/28/09

[quote]Invisible comments to editors (<!-- -->) appear only while editing the page.

* If you wish to make comments to the public, you should usually use the talk page.[end quote][emphasis added]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Several paragraphs of unnecessary material do not constitute a 'note'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit

I addressed your issues about the introduction to Holy Spirit on the talk page. Someone 19:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule at Holy Spirit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are generalizing far too much, however, from an unreliable source (it's a Wikipedia article), which does not discuss some of the largest and oldest non-trinitarian denominations at all. (And I apologise talking over your head; but do look up numen, which is the singular.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit

With regard to this edit, I believe 'Thank you' is the more appropriate response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchtower

The articles The Watchtower and Charles Taze Russell never previously mentioned the long name, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom in the article text. Please do not use edit summaries that imply that the content of the articles was merely changed to use the short name, as such summaries just make it seem that you are disappointed with not having the 'Watchtower' article named the way you wanted it. Previously you asked why it was urgent to only rename the 'Watchtower' article now (though it had actually been named the short name for most of the last several years), yet only now are you asserting that these two articles should use the long name. I agree with the use of the long names where you've changed them, but please remain objective objective in your approach.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambling message

Pretend this is a really long message with lots of cool text formatting. I can park it here and just wiki to it. That way, it doesn't interfere with an article Talk page.

Alexander Thompson

Notability of a person so that he may deserve an article in Wikipedia depends on third-party articles. Make a search in google books and I will check JSTOR because I have access.

If nothing is found, then you may add him in the list of the contributors of the Concordance Bible Translation with a brief footnote about his life.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Thompson Translator?
You have asserted that Alexander Thomson was one of twelve translators of the Concordant Literal Version. Though requested multiple times, you have failed to provide a source verifying this claim. Why? Did you make the claim without knowing, or without verifying it? Why don't you provide a source verifying your assertion?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Information that has been challenged and not had a verifiable source provided may be deleted per WP:Source#Burden_of_evidence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Thomson (1889-1966)
I have changed the link on the disambiguation page to reflect the recent title change to the above. Additionally, I added on his Talk my also opposing his article removal, citing half a dozen or more places where various Watchtower publications have quoted from him between 1982 and 2001. Glenn L (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's since been changed to Alexander Thomson (writer), since using dates is apparently against Wikpedia policy. Glenn L (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

HTML breaks

I've noticed your edits include explicit HTML breaks ("<br />"). It is not normally necessary to include these. If you are entering them manually, you may simply stop doing so. If your browser/editor is automatically inserting them, you might like to consider changing your editor options.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check this edit

The second part of this edit [2], under 'Worship', seems to have re-instated, rather than removed, vandalism. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful when undoing edits. I somehow doubt that this was actually your preferred version of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
Hopefully it's obvious that I intended to "undo" each of the four preceding edits. I've no idea how things got crossed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you need to undo a series of edits with no intervening edits to be retained, it is generally easier and more foolproof to bring up the most recent good version in the article's history and edit it instead of undoing each edit manually. Gadgets (in your Wikipedia preferences) such as 'Twinkle' also provide shortcuts for restoring previous versions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. When participating at AfD, please remember to include a rationale; AfD is not a vote, and a simple declaration adds little value to the discussion. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather add a little value than not.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

re: List of fictional deer

That looks really good! Sometimes the deletion monkeys really get on my nerves - nice to see a "fun" article kept for once. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• And "you" seem to have a "thing" for using "unnecessary 'quotation' marks". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• I enjoyed the article. Thanks for the note! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC) PS I also like quotation marks!

Personal attacks

Among the list of Wikipedia policies on your talk page is one dealing with personal attacks. I have removed comments from Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford and I suggest you be more careful in future. LTSally (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To put things in context, LTSally has accused me of having rabies(diff) and wanting to burn books and authors.(diff).

Those are personal attacks.

By contrast, this is my sentence, which the metaphoric "kettle" pretends to be "black"(diff)...

"Over time, a pattern may emerge that reveals something about editors' scholarship and even more about his agenda and ethics."

Revealing? Yes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Familiar

I'm sure I've seen this somewhere before... LOL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your offensive behavior

Can you please restrain your bile and act with more civility when discussing articles on talk pages? The recent exchange at Talk:Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Requests for quotation in which you claim I invented quotes from Raymond Franz's book was quite unnecessary. As I have explained there, it was a communication problem: you didn't indicate precisely what words you wanted to verify with a quote from the source, so I provided a quote from a different section of the page.

Wikipedia is a collaborative work and I find your aggressive, confrontational, domineering and accusatory manner, often revealed in your wordy, rambling diatribes, distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the whole project. Please be civil. Please assume good faith. Let's all work together. LTSally (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the repeated complainant should consider the principle of the Kettle, pot, and black.

To what does the above editor refer? Apparently, a Talk page post from me, specifically...

"In this particular example, the supplied quote from the actual "summary" apparently used neither of the expressions which the Wikipedia editor pretended were quotes (that is, "wrong teachings" and "new understandings", both written with quotation marks implying a quote from the reference). With this revelation, a more conscientious (or chastened) editor will likely correct the wording and punctuation in the article."my diff

That's not personal. In fact, I didn't even know which editor had written the challenged material.
The matter was not as though one hypothetical editor called another hypothetical editor a name, such as "crybaby", hypothetically.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

JW study

User_talk:Jeffro77#Purpose_of_JW_study (2009 August)

Actually the passage I had in mind was "the objective of helping Bible students to learn enough about God’s Word and purposes to make a dedication to Jehovah and get baptized," but the reference you've given makes the point just as well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase explicitly quoted above (in the immediately previous paragraph) refers to a particular book title.
Here it is in context:

"May Jehovah Credit Good to Your Account", The Watchtower, September 15, 1996, page 19

"This book was written with the objective of helping Bible students to learn enough about God’s Word and purposes to make a dedication to Jehovah and get baptized."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "[the book published specifically for the sole purpose of JW Bible studies] was written with the objective of helping Bible students ... get baptized." Have you finished splitting hairs?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I began this thread with the goal of encouraging a more-elevated encyclopedic standard.

Not personal pettiness.

Perhaps the editor misunderstands...I confirmed the point in question, but with a reference that was unequivocal. See diff.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

My last edit at Jehovah's Witnesses reflects the consensus view of the discussion on progressive revelation. Several editors have made it plain you're wrong. You, once again, have simply reverted to wording you, alone, prefer. I wonder if you're being deliberately provocative. I have offered a compromise solution on the talk page. It's preferable that you address the issue there rather than continue your edit war against the majority. LTSally (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop trying to enforce your personal viewpoint on the page Jehovah's Witnesses without first making sure that the consensus of editors on the talk page supports it. If you continue to editwar against the current consensus-based wording you may be blocked from editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for A. E. Knoch and the Concordant Publishing Concern

You commented on the Concordant Version article that it is a shame that there is not an article on A. E. Knoch or the Concordant Publishing Concern. I agree, but the difficulty in both cases it seems will be getting hold of third party sources of information. As you might know, the CPC has as an ongoing project the compilation of the Concordant Version of the Old Testament; I could not find much on this project on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csanctuary (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See Adolph Ernst Knoch and de:Adolph Ernst Knoch. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Franz

Hi, thanks for cleaning up after me! Especially regarding the block quotes you're totally correct. I think it was just overkill on my part because initially it was difficult to distinguish between the regular text and the quote. I hope that my changes otherwise satisfied some of the concerns you had expressed on the article's talkpage. Doc Tropics 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Chidejika.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chidejika.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The image in question was inferior to one that was subsequently uploaded by a different editor. The superior image replaced the inferior in both articles, orphaning the inferior. Upon this reminded, I requested speedy deletion of inferior, which was done just a few minutes later (all last week). --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Jehovah"

You point out I erred in assuming that the New World Translation does not use "Jehovah" in the New Testament. I find many, many uses of "God" in the NWT New Testament so had assumed it was absolute. This does leave us with a quandary in whether NWT fits in the category "Sacred name Bible]].Pete unseth (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor above seems to refer to this article and this edit. He may be interested in these references...

• "Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?", The Watchtower, August 1, 2008, page 18, "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament."
• "Did the Early Christians Use God’s Name?", The Watchtower, November 1, 1993, page 30, "God’s name appeared in the Septuagint, it would also have appeared in the earliest copies of these ["New Testament"] Scriptures—at least where the Septuagint was quoted. Thus, the name Jehovah appears more than 200 times in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
• "The “New World Translation”—Scholarly and Honest", The Watchtower, March 1, 1991, page 28, "Many object to the use of the name Jehovah here [at Luke 4:18]. It is, however, just one of the more than 200 places where that name appears in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the so-called New Testament. True, no early surviving Greek manuscript of the “New Testament” contains the personal name of God. But the name was included in the New World Translation for sound reasons, not merely on a whim. And others have followed a similar course. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew, “Yahweh”) in the text of the “New Testament,” while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use it in footnotes or commentaries."
  

So, 237 times. I do not see any basis for a "quandary". --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:JW What Does the Bible Really Teach.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JW What Does the Bible Really Teach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The image has since been used in an article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Milton George Henschel

Why do you keep deleting the tag on this page encouraging editors to beef up its secondary source information? See Talk:Milton George Henschel.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

JW rights

Per your comments here, I have renamed two articles about court cases involving JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

My thanks for these sincere good wishes. Incidentally, I'm not among "almost everyone" in the matter mentioned in the immediately preceding comment. Still, for a few days it is nice to see almost everyone behaving more kindly than they otherwise would.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You have certainly expressed your unaffiliation though. I really don't care what your particular religious affiliation is. I care about accuracy. And to that end, I recognise that your pro-JW point of view is an important factor of keeping articles in check. You may like to read things properly before taking offence though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that you are most welcome (and needed) at the article.EGMichaels (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hymns

Please do not link Rutherford's directions about hymns back to 'Kingdom Songs', as such a link implies that Rutherford used the more specific term. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the jargon term had been coined at that time, and unless there is evidence that he did use that specific term, then such presentation is historical revisionism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Kingdom songs, that is my response at the article's Talk and my reinstatement of the correct term "Kingdom songs". --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Beth Sarim

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't read the excerpt to the end. I thought it was a Wikipedia editor who'd had the conversation at the cemetery. LTSally (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor refers to the article Beth Sarim and to this reinstatement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Persecution article

Moved to article talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL

You are a tedious little monkey at times. Cute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourced Ref

Moved this from user talk over to article talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

LTSally name change

FYI, I have changed my user name from LTSally to BlackCab to avoid the tiresome, but entirely reasonable, false assumptions about my gender. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint

Hello AuthorityTam. I have looked at WP:AN3#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: ). None of the reverts there are later than 15 April, and it is now 17 April. So we would normally close such an old report as Stale. If you believe that this is a case of long-term warring by LTSally, let me know. Otherwise, the report will be closed. Generally, it is better to open a WP:Request for comment on issues like this, which are of a very detailed nature. If you think the issue is still not resolved, you may want to consider that option. Both you and BlackCab/LTSally have reverted four or more times, but neither of you made four reverts in 24 hours. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the result of your complaint at WP:AN3#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned). You should not revert the article again before you have obtained a talk page consensus to support your view. Otherwise, sanctions are possible under WP:EW. I struck my previous comment because:

1. The war only involves the two of you
2. The issue at stake seems like one where wordsmithing might satisfy both parties, with a tiny bit of effort
3. Two of you have continued to revert without trying to bring in any others, or to collaborate to find additional sources. If the point is worth fighting over, it should be worth doing more research on. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This matter is now at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned).

I'd wanted the article to keep the succinct quote from the source, while another editor insisted on an interpretation of the source which was significantly longer than the interpreted quote itself. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Barbour

The artist's drawing of Nelson Barbour you keep posting to the article profiling his life is NOT public domaine, but is copyrighted material. The original photo appears in a Rochester New York newspaper, but the artist's rendering is copyrighted. The copyright holder is James Penton. You may not post the photo without his permission. Misrepresenting the source of the photo and claiming it as public domaine material does not obviate the need for his permission. Stop posting the photo to the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.226.232 (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) THE NEW IMAGE IS ALSO COPYRIGHT. THERE IS NO PUBLIC DOMAINE PHOTO OF NELSON BARBOUR. STOP USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL!

Down with "myth"

Hey AT - I just wanted to mention that I am wholehearted with you on this "myth" issue. If you ever need an extra voice in a debate, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. NickCT refers to WP:LABEL and Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#Myth. See the permanent link to that discussion.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent reference

If you don't mind I am going to integrate your reference into the text, is that ok? If you don't like the way it looks you can revert the changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor likely refers to this edit. The blockquote was simply the fastest and easiest way for me personally to introduce the information into the article John Frelinghuysen Talmage; I'd be pleased to see it incorporated better. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy ...

I can see you've been busy ferreting through my editing history again, but just a couple of points of correction ...

• Thanks for the reminder of the wording on my user page about being sickened by the claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community of Jehovah's Witnesses. That was certainly one of the things that drove me out of your religion, but you may note those words don't appear on my user page any more.
• Your collection of my quotes here, which you've used before as part of a previous personal attack, includes the rather poorly edited extract that suggests I was saying you were bent. What I actually wrote was that you seem unnaturally bent on restirring controversy over material I removed in order to minimise offence to Jehovah's Witness readers. And that, disappointingly, is evidently still the case.

You seem similarly bent on misrepresenting my use of the illustration about the sharpened stake to suggest that I mean you personal harm. There may be other distortions and inaccuracies as well in what you say, but I don't have the time or interest to look them up. I think it's time for you to move on and focus more on article content and less on personal invective. BlackCab (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ingratitude

I created articles at your suggestion[3][4][5] in the hope that third-party references would be added later. Even at the time you were incapable of expressing gratitude for creating the articles for you[6][7]. I told you at the time that I had concerns about the notability of the content[8][9][10]. With your additional recent irrelevant (and largely misleading) ad hominem attack at the AfD pages, you're very close to being reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid trying to join the dots to work out Jeffro77's relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses, if any. Please focus on the content and arguments for keeping those articles, rather than fomenting a personal dispute. Jeffro77's own potential motivations for nominating those articles for deletion should be of little concern to you, you should be more concerned about persuading other editors that the articles should be retained. Bringing up your speculations in such detail only gives the appearance of a disruptive vendetta. I would advise that you strike your comments at the AfD speculating about Jeffro77's past. Fences&Windows 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that you did similar mining of old comments on another editor recently. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Digging through an editor's old comments to find what you think are incriminating comments and then posting them is looking like a pattern of behaviour that might constitute harassment. Fences&Windows 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't on my front burner, but it seems advisable to note that I hadn't 'joined the dots'; I merely quoted and linked Jeffro's own comment. When he was asked how he knew about Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshippings, Jeffro replied "FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE". As a lifelong speaker of English, I believed (and believe) the terms "firsthand" and "firsthand experience" to have concrete definitions.

When an editor later claims to be objective on a matter, I'm not sure it is wrong to quote his own past comments on that matter. I'd be interested to see an official WP policy on that.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Traveling overseers

The article Traveling overseers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

ambiguous redirect

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeffro77 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

change in template

wont it be good to change the heading "Doctrine" to "development of Doctrine"? because reader may think it as the doctrines rather than as history of development of them..Matrix356 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor refers to the template Template:Jehovah's Witnesses and the article Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. I don't object to his thought, but I feel less strongly than he does about the matter. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Statistics subpages

It is specifically against subpage guidelines to use the structure you started setting up. (Under "Disallowed uses", WP:Subpages states, "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.") I have therefore requested AfDs for those subpages. Additionally, JW statistics for individual specific years are not particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Two AfD's which are discussed in thread immediately above.

• Articles for deletion nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009

I have nominated Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Articles for deletion nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008

I have nominated Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)