User talk:Mandmelon

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


Hello, Mandmelon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment regarding tags[edit]

No worries. It wasn't you, per se. Others where tinkering with the tags in ways that didn't really add any value. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 18:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I do not have a vandalism rating. What you are looking at on my userpage is WikiDefcon, which functions as a meter to show how much vandalism is occurring on Wikipedia right now. It appears my revert was AN ERROR and you could have politely pointed it out to me; instead, you chose to insult me. RainbowOfLight Talk 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't care if you continue editing the article. I did not even know I had reverted the edit, or I would have undone it myself, and I'm sorry. Either my finger slipped or I used the wrong hotkey combination. RainbowOfLight Talk 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses article[edit]

It seems that you have replaced much of the content of this article with copyright material from JW publications (such as what has been placed under 'Jehovah', 'Jesus', and 'Salvation'. Not only may you not place copyright material on Wikipedia, but other information has also been deleted - 2 childish sentences under 'Jehovah' is hardly a replacement for the completely valid paragraph that was there. Please not that Wikipedia is not a forum for you to place JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On review, it may not be word-for-word from the JW publications, but much of it is over-simplified as is done in their publications. In any case, the article should read like an encyclopedia. Please also consider logical flow when writing - for a poor example, review your work in the second paragraph under 'Jesus'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did jump the gun a bit in responding to your post, and for that I apologise. (I should make sure I'm properly caffeinated before starting.) There had been quite a lot of edits since my last, so I was stepping back through edits using the 'compare' function. When I got to your edit, it removed quite a lot of existing material and replaced it with what looked very much like something lifted straight out of JW literature, though this may simply be because JWs tend to fall back on standard JW phrasing quite often, because they're exposed to the same lingo over and over.
Regarding your comment that you're not always sure what "side" I'm on. This is because I am not on anyone's side, and if I see something in the article that I think is biased for either side, I will argue against it. If someone is going to say JW is not a Christian religion, I'll tell them they're wrong. If someone is going to say JW is 'the true religion', I'll tell them they're wrong. It's quite simple.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the JW article is a mess, needing significant work. I was going through using edit-by-edit with the compare option for that reason, because it has changed too much to easily bring it under control from its current state, and I don't have time to do a complete rewrite.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting your talk page comments[edit]

Hi Mand, I just noticed you removed your comments on the JW talk page. Idk if this is against policy, I think it isn't, but in any case I think it's preferable to maintain them. You could always strike through if you want them to be disregarded. But since no-one had replied to your post, I won't press the issue. It's up to you whether or not you restore them. Hope you're well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Whether you find an encyclopedia to insult your intelligence is not at issue. If a section of material presents a continuous timeline of information, as in the History section, it is not logical to just leave out a subsection entirely because that particular detail might be somewhere else. It makes the continuity ambiguous for readers who want a quick overview.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel they should be in there, put them in. However, there is a difference between leaving out a particular event, and leaving out a complete block from a contiguous period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


The comment, "Jeffro77 thought it was still talking about individuals" is inaccurate. Do not presume to know what I think. I commented on the vague grammar for the benefit of general readers, not because of how I interpreted it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses page[edit]

Hi Mandmelon, Because of the length of the talk page already, it might be good to limit your comments there to ways to improve the article, rather than a general chat about why you left Jehovah's Witnesses or your own doubts and issues. All the best, LTSally (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah 29:10[edit]

You mentioned the JW interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10. There is controversy about the New World Translation's choice of the pronoun "at" instead of "for" when referrring to the 70 years' relevance to Babylon. However, regardless of whether "at" is supported grammatically as they claim, the New World Translation’s interpretation of this verse is invalidated by the context. The verse in question is part of a letter that Jeremiah wrote from Jerusalem to exiles already in Babylon (around 595BC), advising them that they would not be released until after Babylon’s 70 years had ended. (In the chronology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, this was in 615BC, prior to the beginning of the 70 years.) Specifically, the statement was made in response to counter claims by Hananiah that the Jews would be released from Babylon in two more years (Jeremiah 28:11). It would be meaningless to the already-exiled Jews that they would be in exile for 70 years starting from a period that had not yet begun, as is claimed by the Watchtower Society. I have done much research on the issue of the 70 years, some of which you might be interested in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Jeffro77 delets always necessary content on this page. Please help. Cmmmm 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The content in question is not "necessary", with stated reasons on the Talk page. I will be progressing this issue to mediation and arbitration if not resolved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandmelon, Cmmmm has sought you out because you agreed with their view that Race is a current controversy regarding JWs, a point against which I have not argued, though I do not believe it is of sufficient weight to merit inclusion on the main JW article. Please see the talk page at the Controversies article and comment on the specific issues I have raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am elevating this to Arbitration, as Cmmmm has refused to discuss and continues to revert. I am including your name in the arbitration process because you have been involved in part.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request has been made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from JW convention[edit]

Regarding your comment that the JW statement was 'qualified' with "peers who try to weaken you spiritually", there are two significant issues. One is that this was addressed to young children. The peers of young children are also young children, and young children do not typically even have the faculties to deliberately 'try to weaken spirituality' of other young children. The statement is therefore propagandistic. The second problem is that if a child was trying to sway another child's spiritual outlook, it does not automatically mean that their motive is unloving, even if the alternative beliefs were not correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding articles needing work, probably all of them, but in particular, Jehovah's Witnesses and governments and the various articles on Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses [in...] needed considerable work last time I looked..--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)