User talk:Cfrito

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

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Cfrito! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Marlith T/C 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Warning[edit]

Inserting the same unverified POV editing over and over again and removing and deleting verified material over and over again is vandalism. Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you will be blocked from editing. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Threat Dismissed as Abusive[edit]

Editors: Marvin Shilmer is a pseudonym for a former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. Shilmer has turned to rabid anti-writing regarding the JW religion and has bullied other editors as they struggle to raise the standards of articles that Shilmer dominates. I have refused to buckle to Shilmer's brow-beating and his threats and his latest is above. I assure all readers that I have only added referenced verifiable source material. Shilmer objects to my neutral phrasing because from his extreme opposition's POV anything that anything however neutral seems extreme in the opposite to him. Shilmer has even gone as far as adding deleted text by consensus to footnote references that it remains a searchable part of the Article's text. He adamantly refuses to accept consensus and is given to edit wars and discussion page tantrums. I invite him to seek professional psychiatric help for his antisocial ranting. -- cfrito (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see this talk page for details.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please also see this section of the same talk page where Shilmer is summarily dismissed in an Administrative review in a similar labyrinthine dispute with another Editor who is also trying to balance Shilmer's truculent domination. After Shilmer's OR is identified and his edits are judged completely unacceptable, Shilmer follows up with a bizarre rant designed to bamboozle and is quite funny really. Even funnier, I then suggested replacement language that was later offered as a positive example by the mediator in a separate Mediation Cabal case-- almost to a T! -- cfrito (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case[edit]

Following a request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with the page "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". The following have been notified about this:

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I require evidence of your edits in the article that you have no provided sources for. I have also requested sources from user:Marvin Shilmer. If this is not possible then i require information on how these source can be obtained. Thank you Seddon69 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Seddon69: I respectfully ask to which edits you refer, there have been many and of some variety. -- cfrito (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning[edit]

  • To User:Marvin Shilmer and User:Cfrito. Your continued counter-editing of New World Translation, that occured after the protection of the page had expired, if continued will be seen as a breaking WP:3RR this can result in an initial block of 24 hours. There is no point in mediation occurring if you are simply going to continue edit warring. I ask you to please stop this. Seddon69 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To All: I added some references and moved some texts around. I had thoroughly discussed the deletion of the translator list when we had reached consensus and waited some time for responses before editing. -- cfrito (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation[edit]

Hi Cfrito, regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article - what concerns, if any, do you have with current version? Addhoc (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

F. W. Franz UofC Transcript[edit]

Hey, do you have a copy of this transcript? Or was it someone else who made the claims of his studies? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaneroosky (talkcontribs) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfito: I noticed your remark to Shaneroosky that “we are waiting to hear” something. There is no need to wait for this information. The copy of the Franz transcript I shared with Seddon69 is the same one Vassilis78 asked about. You can read all about here.-- -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Ire[edit]

Cfrito: Thank you for sharing your comments and thinking.
The page stirring your ire is a personal copy set up for continuing to work on the article while disputes are worked out. Seddon69 has set up the same thing for himself. This is recommended by Wikipedia. Perhaps you should expand your reading habits, and reduce your use of ad hominem.
If you want to assault my person and character I woulld prefer you do it on my use talk page so it is easier for other editors to see your handiwork in respect to me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: It's not ire, its pity, but Shilmer often misses the point like this. He can't have his way so he's made up his very own Article. Seddon69 is the mediator, and Shilmer's work is completely redundant. Shilmer's ad hominem is typical. Shilmer often reacts to specific legitimate references this way. -- cfrito (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Apparently you are unaware what I am doing is encouraged by Wikipedia. Why do you consider my continuing to work on this article is untoward, or in any way remarkable? Also, I am working on the representation you expressed on the mediation page. When you get a chance it would be helpful if you provided sources for consideration on various assertions from your representation. Otherwise, feel free to give input on my sandbox NWT page by using the talk page associated with it. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer is competing with the Mediators. I'm not so sure that's what Wikipedia had in mind, nor what Wikipedia would define as trying to achieve consensus with the other editors. In fact Shilmer has gone to a select group of the editors on the NWT Article and invited them privately to his version of the sandbox I don't thisnk that's in he spirit of the Mediation framework. Probably because on the mediator's edition of the sandbox NWT page, the only edit they've made thus far is to delete one of Shilmer's pet POV's. -- cfrito (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I informed editors and mediators of my NWT sand box. So what? Editors I invited on user pages are not known for agreeing with me. This is why I invited them. Otherwise I used the NWT article’s talk page to invite any editor interested in continuing to work on this article. Again, so what? Can you please explain how this is “competing with the mediators”? Mediators are working on specific editing issues regarding this article. They are not working on the entire article. You filed the request for mediation yourself. Hence above other editors you should understand this. Otherwise, I have already expressed that my NWT sandbox is not the place to discuss issues mediators are working on. Also, Seddon69 moved my comment on his sandbox talk page to his user talk page. What on earth has you so worked up about a user sandbox page? If you are interested in working toward a consensus, then why not spend your time productively by digging up some sources for your representation on the mediation page? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer's idea of productivity and mine are quite different. He sees a good day's work as adding yet another anti-JW reference to the NWT (or any other JW Article), or plugging his books or his friends' books. I don't feel at all comfortable editing any of the other dozen or so JW pages because it discusses beliefs and practices and I will not join in. On history or on linguistics topics such as the NWT, or on things like "word ownership" I don't mind adding insights and I will continue for as long as it pleases me. I am not on the anti-JW mission that Shilmer is, he's been posting such for at least 7 years that I can find, and I haven't really looked very hard. Anyway, I think Shilmer has a lot of nerve telling people, first what to think, then haranguing them if they don't tow his line, and then telling them how to be productive. A lot of nerve. -- cfrito (talk)

My Sandbox[edit]

I would like to say that you need to look at the angle of which im looking at this. I'm not looking to state this as fact as you will see from the way i have worded it. The way that i have used the source at this moment is correct. Although the i would not use the sources for other information, they confirm what is stated by the 2 for JW's. If i stated that those members had been in the committee then that would be wrong and you would be right to question those sources, but im not stating that fact. The fact I am stating is that it has been suggested by this person that Mr Y, Mr X and MR Z were members.

I certainly feel that both you and Marvin have very good points and you understand the policies at hand i just think that they need to be interpreted better. This I feel is the way forward and the only chance that both parties will be able to agree. Neither me or Addhoc (who is one of the coordinators of the MedCabal) can enforce something neither are we here to take sides. The buck stops with you two and the ability for you to come to an agreement. What i would like to suggest with the permission of you and Marvin is to start a Request for Comment. This doesn't mean this problem is being taken to the next level, i just see it as more of a tool to help settle disputes like this. Essentially this will allow other users to give their personal opinion and will allow a community consensus which is most definitely the way wikipedia should work. Seddon69 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Hey Marvin and Cfrito I apologise for my absence and not having responded to the discussion on my talk page. I'm in college through the day and last night i went to an opening of an art exhibition. I did try and respond late last night but there was a power cut so i lost the message and i as a result did very little or possibly no editing yesterday. I will do my up most to try and respond in detail later tonight as i have other commitments that i have to attend as soon as i finish this message. I have been reading what has been said from both of you so i haven't been out of the loop and i have a few questions that i have to raise plus several comments. Seddon69 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation successful?[edit]

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has requested clarification on whether mediation has been successful. Is arbitration still required? Could you please consider adding a concise update (one or two sentences) to your statement at WP:RFAR, within the next 12-14hrs, regarding your level of satisfaction of the resulting article, and whether the user conduct issues have abated.

If there are outstanding content issues, please list them at the talk page. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation[edit]

This arbitration case has been dismissed and the final decision is available at the link above. Based on discussion on the case page and the editing history of the article, it appears that the underlying dispute may have been resolved. If serious disputes recur, an application to reopen the case may be made on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of User:Cfrito/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article User:Cfrito/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.