User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2008c
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |
My NWT Sandbox
Jeffro: You know wiki-speak and wiki-tools much better than I. Unfortunately I do not know how to remove/delete/blank/rename/whatever my NWT sandbox page. Please feel free to do it if this is a concern. I have successfully (I think) downloaded a file version for my own use moving forward.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jeffro: I have no idea what it means to comment out a category, but I trust you did a good job of it. Thanks.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Article Edit
I did not add any information into the article; I simply restructured that particular section to be more chronologically correct. Look at the edit history to see for yourself.Gyrferret (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's alright. I'm sure you become swamped managing and editing so many articles per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Re. miracles
Consider that the current construction can mean that JWs believe Jesus doesn't perform miracles anywhere, not just on earth. Does the source assert that? --Brotherlawrence (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Racism
You were heavily involved in the discussion on the "race" section of the talk page of Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. The discussion seems to have died down, but I'm not sure the issues are resolved. I'd be inclined to tag that entire section for breaching the WP:OR rule. Apart from a paper written by a PhD at the Freeminds website, which is of highly dubious value as a reliable source, the entire section consists of nothing but the observations and arguments of a Wikipedia editor, who supports these claims by citing WT articles. LTSally (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Response
Well your comments on the talk page have been somewhat terse in tone and in combination with removing things like fact tags and neutrality tags that I placed without talking to me or the other editors involved in a pertinent discussion related to those tags first makes me think otherwise. Gee that was a run-on. Anyways, I'm probably being too sensitive and I wish I had never filed the dang thing in the first place. I'll go ahead and remove it if you'll promise me that you'll at least talk about pertinent changes before you make them and just try to be a little nicer. You don't have to like me. And I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just try and be nice. I can't explain it better right now. It's 3:46 in the morning here and I really should have gone to bed hours ago. And I'm rambling. Just chalk this whole thing down to me being tired and not completely emotionally rational right now. I'm usually much more level headed. I'm sorry I draged you into a 3RR. I've never ever filed one before. I'd really like to work this out another way. So just promise me you'll try to be a little more considerate and I'll withdraw the 3RR.Broadweighbabe (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was kind of a non-appolgy appology. lol Look I don't really want an appology. I just want you to talk about relevent changes before you do them. That seems reasonable. I'm holding off on making any changes related to the discussion until a consensus is reached. Maybe you could agree to do the same?Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I'll accept that. I may look through the archives as well when I get the chance. Would you mind if we remove our spat from the talk page as well?Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. And I hope there is no hard feelings. I'll be in a better frame of mind tommorow. I'm off to bed. Have a good night or day or whatever it is for you. Ciao!Broadweighbabe (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
JW convention quote from a few discussion pages back
The quote was:
"So my dear young friends, think about this: any of your peers who try to weaken you spiritually may say they care about you, they may even say they love you. But it's a fact that they don't. And don't believe even for a moment that they do." I think I have gone along with you in thinking that this quote was a valid way to view Jehovah's Witnesses. Having reread it, there is the qualification in there that it's talking about "peers who try to weaken you spiritually." I've taken a break from these pages. It was getting too much for me. I'm ready to go again now. Do you have any suggestions about what needs doing? I have the M.J. Penton book in my possession now, as well as the Carl Olaf Jonsson book.--Mandmelon (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Response to comment
Hi Jeffro77. I've answered a comment of yours on Str1977's talk page. Koro Neil (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk page indentation
Jeffro, would you mind reading and taking note of the indentation guidelines (discussed in more detail in WP:INDENT)? Also, I would advise against inserting comments within other people's, as you did in the bottommost part of this edit. Ilkali (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Gender of God
Hi,
Thanks for tackling Gender of God. It takes extreme fortitude to do much of anything to that article. I like the rewrite of the Christianity section. Happy editing, Alynna (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Page Tabs
Thanks for the help on Page Tabs. Them being extra tall was a problem I could not quite figure out how to get around. I didn't invent them for Wikipedia, someone else did so I wasn't really sure exactly how they worked. What I did was fix it so that one could use up to nine in a row, make them so that they were self-organizing and provide documentation for how to set them up. And it always bugged me that the tops would get really tall in some cases. I loved the concept because when you have several pages to show, using tabbed browsing provides much better organization. I decided not to go above nine because you want a reasonable number of tabs, not to be excessive. Again, thanks for your help in improving a feature that can be used on Wikimedia software. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Existence of God (Tipler)
Your version is much better. It had been reverted but I have put it back again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Noah's ark..
Hey, just so you don't think I was doing a mindless revert (as is often the case with editors on that page): the lead wording is under consideration by an external mediator. They should have some input into it shortly. I think a separate addition needed is the mention of qur'an etc (an edit I put in also [1]). So I guess we just play the waiting game for a bit. NathanLee (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree totally that the link should be Qu'ran, not Koran (should be consistent with the main page on wikipedia). It wasn't my edit that put that spelling and I don't think it should be put in so that it sounds like an afterthought. The page is rather christian centric, but slowly improving. NathanLee (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
JW Peer Review Reply
Hey Jeffro77. I agree with you and it seems we are on the same page in this respect. The balance in the source of information is vital. The fact that other editors insist on using 'secondary sources' is seen in the bulk of the citations. I believe the secondary sources are vital and necessary when discussing philosophies and religions, however, there should be equal amount (if not arguably more) JW publications cited. Fairness and balance is the name of my game. I would want that if I were researching. Look forward to working on this project with you. Hope you are well. Brocknroll81 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Cite tags
Thanks for fixing the cite tags at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Looking at it now I realise I've been copying and pasting the wrong material from the citation template. Does it actually cause a problem? If so, I'll change the ones I've added recently. I added a swathe to the Governing Body article. LTSally (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Argue" in Governing Body
No problem. I know what you mean, but the material I've added has already started to ruffle some feathers and I want to try to keep the terminology as neutral as possible. Someone might view the word "argue" as suggesting they were defending themselves or, as you suggest, debating critics. I agree the word "claim" also carries some negative connotations and it's a word that already appears heavily among the JW pages, often without there being a good alternative. I might say I appreciate your cleanups and your vigilance of all the Witness articles. They're in much better shape than they were a year or so ago. I'll be out of the picture for a few weeks because of holidays, but I'll return with a couple of small projects next month. LTSally (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
References on CTR entry
I'm interested in knowing where/how/what you consider to be missing in the references in the Russell entry. There is an exhaustive list of references, and just about every section has footnotes to said references for the points and details mentioned. Does every sentence need a footnote? Some of the paragraphs have several references where only one would have been sufficient. Please explain your rationale. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jeffro77 for advising me of your reversion .. and I too appreciate the wish/concern to promote high(er) encyclopedic standards on Wikipedia articles.
The original purpose of the edits you reverted, was to make that one small paragraph's dealing with the local group's native title a little more precise .. being aware as I am (professionally) that locally indigenous property rights (ie native title) persists and exists as a matter of local indigenous tradition and law. Local groups merely 'apply' to the Federal Court to have the Court affirm existing property rights .. and, in Cairns, no such application is currently before the Federal Court (yet indigenous property rights 'may' on balance of probability persist/exist .. as per reference cited)
I have now attempted a less wordy, and, perhaps, less controversial wording to achieve my original purpose .. of which I hope you approve and/or can accept? In the mean time, I note the article as a whole is tagged as needing upgrade/better referencing .. the native title article is also tagged as needing upgraded/refurbishment .. and an Yidinji people article might also be useful ....
All in good cheer Bruceanthro (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to know the article is currently being edited/upgraded .. and will watch with interest. In the meantime (wont be fast I'm afraid) I will start up an Yidinji people article .. plus the suggestion that there be an Aboriginal law article does also seem good! Bruceanthro (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
Can you please regard some of this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
In fact, I think the entire article was more helpful as it was. The recent version claims that "the origin of the governing body is not clear", while the previous version clearly stated that the leadership of JW before the 70's was the board of the Watchtower Society. That is also the view in most literature I have seen. I feel the article as it is now is not giving satisfactory information. Summer Song (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I won't say anything to your last comment, but I really think that the recent article should be regarded. Is it really giving informative facts, or is it wagging over to be polemic? Summer Song (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)