User talk:Seddon/Archive 1

Chris walley

A tag has been placed on Chris walley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia. First, I see you added the template to your user page, but you should add your name to the list of WPTC participants. Next, the WPTC has its own IRC channel, in which a lot of the WPTC members meet to talk about storms and other topics. If you have Chatzilla, you can use that, but the easiest way is to use this IRC page - put your name as your name, irc.freenode.net as the server, and #wiki-hurricanes as the server. They'll be able to give you help right away. Alright, the thing about articles is that the first one might be a bit difficult, but once you start the rest get easier. Adding to existing articles is one way to make things easier, as is an article on something you're interested in. For example, do you prefer older articles? Newer? Typhoons? Cyclones in the Indian Ocean? Pacific storms? If you like newer storms in the NHC basin (which a lot of people do), what about working on Hurricane Henriette (2007)? Regardless which one you pick, I'll give you some hints to get you along. The first is references; everything you add to the article needs to be cited by a reliable source. The official agency for the warning basin is the best source, but for things like impact and preparations, news sources are fine.

The first major part of the article is the storm history. Storms from last year and before have tropical cyclone reports back to 1995 in html, with older scanned reports back to 1958 (here). For storms from this year without a report, you'd use National Hurricane Center discussions (linked above in Hurricane Season Tropical Cyclone Advisory Archive section), and for the history prior to its first advisory, you'd use tropical weather outlooks (here is the overall archive link). The storm history should provide an entire meteorological history of the storm. Not every single detail needs to be listed, but be sure to include its track (what factors determined the track), its intensity (what factors caused it to strengthen or weaken), and landfalls. Extreme examples of good storm histories are Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma.

Next is preparations. These include tropical cyclone watches and warnings (which can be found in the NHC archive link), evacuations, and any other preparedness actions. Next is impact, which is just a collection of impact the storm caused (damage, deaths, people affected, injuries, damage totals, etc.) Last is aftermath (including monetary aid to people affected, disaster declarations, ect.), but typically that section is only included for more impacting storms (meaning most storm articles will only have storm history, preparations, and impact).

If there's any more questions, give me a post. See you around! Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I see you started working on Henriette. One little thing, though - you should use the tropical weather outlooks - they're easier to use than the discussions, although the discussions are more in depth. Keep it up. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends how interesting the storm history was. A good storm history tells the reader what was going on throughout the storm's lifetime. What circumstances lead to its formation? What conditions allowed the depression to strengthen into a tropical storm? Why did it take the path that it took? Did it slowly becoming better organized, or did low shear and warm waters allow an eyewall to quickly form? Unfortunately, every storm is different, but why don't you use Hurricane Kenna as an example? It's a featured article for a Pacific hurricane that hit Mexico, and aside from the strength, they were two similar storms. One more thing I should mention is that there are no deadlines for Wikipedia. The project could feasibly last for centuries, and while it is useful to have a storm article ready while there is a great interest in it, after it is done the article is there for historical purposes, I guess. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can work on whatever article you want at any time. You don't have to do Henriette if you don't want to. To that, I have two opposing viewpoints. One is that the article can always be finished later on - there is no time limit to get it done. On the other hand, there are hundreds of start articles like Henriette, many of which are never finished, and so when someone has one of them as a project and they drop it, it's a shame. Sandboxes are made by adding a link to them; that may sound confusing, but all you would have to do is add content to User:Seddon69/Sandbox to consider it a sandbox. Regarding Cosme, you can do that if you want. I'd like to note, however, that it did very little, and that it might be a little difficult to make a full article. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

There is an official and more efficient way of warning vandals. You can see all about them and how to use them here. Thanks. ---CWY2190^TC 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2000 NIO

Hey. One thing is that articles should be fairly ready by the time they are published. Given that the sandbox has little more than what is in the 2000-2004 season article, I don't see too much of a need to publish it as it is. I recommend you expand the storm sections. A full paragraph on storm history for each of them, as well as a paragraph of impact (if available) would be nice. Be sure, when you look at it, that it looks like other season articles do. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NY CRs

Could you go through and redirect the talk pages as well? Otherwise it throws off our assessment stats. Thanks, Rschen7754 (T C) 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Climate Change - solutions

New article about the global climate crisis solutions. (Cars, sun, wind vehicles like Toyota Prius)--Tamás Kádár 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox

I think the distinction between the storm category and the main text of the infobox is the distinction between body and header text. When you made that edit the labels of the various parts of the body: formed, dissipated and so on were bouncing around; it looks better to have those aligned IMO. I think you got mixed up with the season infobox which is central (I'm trying to figure out how).

As for the other edit that looks good as it centralises the various category info. The edits are actually different. Oh, and the reason the storm name is not left aligned in the markup is that it is technically a table caption. That is handled by the site CSS, which produces a centrally aligned text.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wellington Street (Ottawa)

Hey, just wanted to drop a friendly note to you. I understand recently you deleted a clickable map from this article. I would be best if next time you add your reasoning to your edit summary or to the talk page. That way, no one thinks it is vandalism by blanking a section of a page. Thanks and happy editing! Icestorm815 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging WikiProjects

Hi, there is a proposal to merge inactive WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change and Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development) into WikiProject Environment. Please voice your opinions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.^Mitch32^contribs 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned

Thanks for asking. I still feel like it was "too easy"; the devil will certainly be in the details. I don't like how I've gotten almost no input on WT:HWY about whether [1] is fine, especially from the people that started out wanting to use the term when I proposed avoiding it. --NE2 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re: not much point in this

True the edit summary's look rediculous, and 1 out of every 20 of my AWB edits are nothing more than a space added before / after == on section headings. But why I'm using AWB on the Hurricane articles is to do the following:

• Fix numerous spelling and formating errors
• Update the refrences template
• Replace USD With USD - > Eliminate redirect
• Replace mbar With mbar - > Eliminate double redirect
• Replace hPa With hPa - > Eliminate double redirect
  • Repair multiple variants of the above to units of measure causing redirects or misdirects
• Replace Yucatan with Yucatán - > Eliminate Redirects

The addition of spaces within the section headings is meerly a work around for a bug within AWB Currently, and oddly about the only thing showing up in the edit summary.

So you see there is much of a point for it and AWB is the usefull tool I choose to use as it's making multiple usefull edits. Only issue remaining is the stupid summary :( Slysplace | ^talk 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your additional comments,

Actually A quick look at The Manual of Style says that the spaces are optional Slysplace | ^talk 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tropical cyclone IRC

I tried, but it says that there is no channel. Juliancolton (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are those? Juliancolton (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure how that IRC works. Does there have to be other users on it? Juliancolton (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will download it later. Have you gotten any feedback on the 1988 FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I use my parents computer...I don't know if they want me downloading all sorts of stuff into it. Juliancolton (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i got in, and I see you and a couple other users, and a whole bunch of code. What do I do from here? Juliancolton (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I can see your messages on the IRC. Can you see me on it? I can't. Juliancolton (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i don't have firewall. Juliancolton (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I saw it. Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore + climate solutions

"I was just wondering whether you think this project can be salvaged and new life put into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seddon69 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)"

I think we have to write some article about the solutions with a lot of details. We should edit the Al Gore article, to develope , to finish to Feature article. (Bali conference)--Tamás Kádár (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Juliancolotn/List of Atlantic-Pacific corssover hurricanes

HEy, sorry I didn't notice your post on this. Anyway, is the name good enough? I think crossover hurricane is a good name, but i don't know if changeover would be better. Juliancolton (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the vandalism to Widor. A look into this IP's history will reveal a consistent pattern of similarly nonsensical inserts - does this count as vandalism and should it be reported?

Incidentally I see you are on the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject. Being an aficionado of hurricane info and trivia, I'd be interested in joining - how do I go about doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pipings (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New World Translation

• Seddon69: Thank you for taking on the task of mediating the dispute going on regarding the article New World Translation. It has been a very frustrating experience. Your input is most welcome.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Which source is it that you seek? If the material is in my personal library I am happy to email a copy to you for your personal review but not for distribution. If the material is a library item then we will have to work out something else. You ask for page numbers. I have provided page numbers in all my citations, except for the one of Fred Franz’s university transcript. Is this the only source material you need?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I sent you two emails. The second one provides an email address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I sent the document you requested. Please verify receipt.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: If you are asking about Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience, you can find this in almost any large library. If you are unable to find this work then let me know and I’ll scan and email the appropriate pages sometime tomorrow.

If you are asking about Cetnar’s statement quoted in the book We Left Jehovah's Witnesses by Ed Gruss, this book will be harder to find, but without a doubt your library can retrieve one for your review. Unfortunately I do not have this particular book in my own collection, though I have read it. If you are unable to get your hands on a copy I will see what I can do. Optionally, you can take a look at the following to online articles where both Cetnar and Franz are both cited. I do not suggest these online article authenticate the material, but you may find them helpful in your deliberations:

http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/jw/jwnwt.htm

http://www.ukapologetics.net/newworld.html

Regarding Cetnar, I do have a leaflet he published in letter form wherein he names individuals who worked within the NWT Committee. I have this as a pdf file and can share it if you want. But this document is difficult to cite because it is undated, and originality is disputable because all I have for authentication is William Cetnar’s widow’s word that the document was of her deceased husband. But, if you want me to send this, I will. Your considered approach to this whole episode is very much appreciated, not to mention refreshing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I have emailed two documents that should take care of your requests. Please confirm receipt. If you need something more please inform.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: There is no foul. I just wanted to make sure Vassalis78 understood clearly that you had the same document he inquired of. Saying the document had a "watchtower" watermark suggests something about the document's authenticity in terms of the Watchtower organization. The watermark is "watchthetower". Not "watchtower". I was just clarifying things for sake of readers and editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: It has been over a week. You have requested information from editors. May I ask what in the world is taking so long for you to review the relatively small of amount of source data at issue in this matter, and why by now you have not contributed substantially to remedial action? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Seddon69: Welcome. We all look forward to your input. -- cfrito (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I have been tied up responding yet again to an interrogatory by Shilmer for the benefit of the other editors

To answer at least partly, I made several edits, mostly removing unqualified statements like "F Franz failed to earn a post-graduate degree or doctorate" since the reference provided by Shilmer did not actually say that (I don't know of a college transcript that predicts the future like that), and the word "failed" suggests that he tried but could not make the grade, which is completely misleading and false. Beyond this the fact that he personally sought this transcript and then provided an analysis of its contents and editorialized on its meaning in the Article constitutes Original Research.

I have also repeatedly deleted the hearsay testimony of anti-JW's such as W Cetnar and R Franz on the basis that these are recollections from memoirs and cannot be corroborated. Shilmer has repeatedly built a circumstantial cases for their probabilistic truth, but cannot supply documentation beyond R Franz's memoir and personal testimonials of another former JW. The two lists are not identical, and even Shilmer agrees that the list is not comprehensive. Thus such a list can never address the question about the technical skill of the translation team, and is merely a point of trivia pushed by some ex-JW's with questionable ethics (R Franz had taken an explicit oath of confidentiality which he felt no longer applied when he began disliking his former colleagues). It cannot be determined whether the list is accurate and given the nature of the source memoirs a reasonable doubt exists as to their veracity in general. And since the NWT has included many other still-unnamed translators and editors and researchers, any partial list, true or not, cannot possibly be used a basis of criticism which is the very premise for its inclusion.

I have tried to add balance to the sweeping criticisms by theologians such as Rowley and Ankerberg by referencing the famous debate between Sir Thomas More and William Tyndale and Martin Luther, where More gives the same criticisms of Tyndale's and Luther's works (including the references to More's Heresies and Tyndale's Reply). While this is not directly addressing the NWT itself, it did address the sense that the NWT was somehow unique in garnering hyper-negative criticism from the established clergy of the day. This is relevant since the bulk of the references are from competing theologians who simply refer to the same handful of linguists, most of whom are theologians themselves. This recursion has the effect of adding undue weight to both the underlying scholars' comments and confers authority in linguistics to theologians who lack them otherwise. When I added an edit stating that it is difficult indeed to divorce theology from Bible translations and the criticisms of Bible translations I cited Dr. Furuli's "Role of Bias and Theology in Bible Translations". Shilmer summarily deleted it because, 'critics don't translate, they criticize.' Of course critics do translate or they would have no basis for their critique and so they are subject to the influences. When I moved historical facts to the History section, Shilmer added critics comments there too,as if their comments were somehow relevant to the history of the work simply by virtue of the critics having said those things in the past.

I hope this is what you were looking for. There are other edits and references, but hopefully this will be enough to get the Editors back on track and hopefully get the Article's rating improved from the "B" it is today. -- cfrito (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Exception Taken!

Seddon69: I take exception to your warning. If you check the talk page you will see where I restrained from further edits pending an explanation from editor Cfrito. This is my standard method. I have just about had it with the means and methods applied to this NWT article among editors. Academic rigor and common decency have been caste to the wayside replaced with idiosyncratic methods of rank bias and schoolboy standards of presentation. If you do not have the time or wherewithal to deal with this then I ask that you recuse yourself and let someone else work in your stead. Objective editing is testable. I suggest you begin testing the veracity of edits by myself and Cfrito, and speak up about it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

HERE--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to excise myself from this case. I think you and Addhoc are equipped to handle it, and then I would feel more comfortable moving on to another case. Let me know that this is fine with you. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

I noticed you are attempting to mediate this case. Has it been closed? The ip has been blocked for a month because of disruption there. I also note that you co-mediator has been indef blocked as a sock. Is there anything I can do to help to wind this up? -JodyB _talk 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Offer of assistance

If you need any help with this case, it has spilled over into my normal domain of reliable sources and verifiability, and I'd be available to assist in mediating as well, having recently joined the Cabal (*eerie music*)Wjhonson (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1988 AHS FA

Congrats on your promotion. Have you selected an article, as part of the contest? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Seddon, thanks for the help on how to join WP:TROP. I think for now, since I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia, I'm going to focus my energies on another project that I'm currently involved in. I'm saving your note, though, and will join the project at some future date - hopefully not too long! I'm most interested in Atlantic hurricanes of the 20th century and have accumulated a considerable knowledge of them and statistics relating to them - Australian cyclones are fascinating too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pipings (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NTROP newsletter

Hi. As you may know, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/Newsletter was started. If you would like to receive the newsletter, place you name here. Also, we need editors for the newsletter. So, sign up at the nesletter HQ to be an editor, and to help out with the next issue, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/Newsletter/February 2008. Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My NWT Sandbox

Seddon69: Creating your NWT sandbox is a good idea. I created one earlier today to continue working on the article. You can view it at the link above.

Thanks for spending time on this. I know some of my responses have probably sounded harsh, and I apologize if any feelings are hurt. This was not my intent. The fact is you are spending your time (little or great, quick or slow) trying to help. We should be grateful. I am grateful and do not want to leave it unsaid. Thanks for your help. If you need more in the way of reference material, let me know.

By the way, I never heard back from you regarding whether you received the secondary source documents about the identity of NWT translators. Did you get this information? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: On the matter of your sandbox reference, http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html, do you believe this to be an accurate, fact-checked source? In short do you believe that this source is a reliable source? If so, why? -- cfrito (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I understand your position and I do greatly appreciate your stepping in to help add perspective to this situation. But regarding the references you added to your sandbox NWT Article, I must make a few points (please don't misunderstand, I am not seeking to "shred" for shredding's sake). Very little care was taken by the editors to ensure the writings and references were accurate on these websites. For example, in an attempt to add extreme undue weight, the http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html web page author writes, "But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as..." This is inexcusable to use the plural for R Franz. And interestingly, this site also shows, by R Franz's own hand that R Franz consulted on specific renderings and lexical matters regarding the NWT. That R Franz should leave himself off the list as having worked on the translation is equally inexcusable and deliberately dishonest. And the same website quotes Penton as saying that, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz." But the second website you reference includes this statement, "Although Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student.". So if this writer is being intellectually honest and Fred Franz was unable to translate even a simple Hebrew sentence, then how could Penton be correct in saying that it was virtually exclusively Fred Franz's work? Cetnar's list includes Henschel, and he's supposedly credible too. Cetnar interviewed Goodspeed specifically with respect to the NWT. No one disputes that Goodspeed was impressed with the work for he wrote in late 1950, ""I am interested in the mission work of your people, and in its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." The freeminds.org editor reports that D r Goodspeed, 4 years before the Scottish trial involving Fred Franz, says the work is pleasing but then also reports Franz is simply not capable of even the simplest translating task. But Penton says it was virtually all Fred Franz's work. So, is Penton correct? Is R Franz correct? Is Cetnar correct? Should R Franz be included? Do any of them really know? The other information has some serious flaws too, but I don't want to give the impression that I am just "shredding" here. My interest is to not mislead NWT Article readers. As frustrating as it may be, we cannot know who actually worked on what and to what extent without clarification from those who did the work or from the publisher. With such conflicts and misstatements, and internal to each individual author's own websites, can they truly be relied upon to give opinions? Can the factual statements truly be trusted? Should anyone's opinions even matter in an instance where it is a factual issue involved? So what happens to the quality of the Article if these names are left out? I argue that its value and integrity are vastly improved because it will eliminate trivia and innuendo. -- cfrito (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For Cfrito and the sake of Seddon69: Cfrito, each and every question you relate has simple answers. 1) Because a person is unable or unwilling to translate a single Hebrew text on a witness stand is not evidence they are unable to translate the text at their own pace and with the aid of translation tools. 2) Penton expresses that Franz brought to bear his formal education in Greek together with his self-taught command of Hebrew as the chief translator of the NWT. 3) Ray Franz has not suggested he worked on the NWT, and the article published online by Bible Research (edited by Michael Marlowe) does not suggest otherwise. 4) I agree the article published by Bible Research erred with the plural "members" of the Governing Body. Likely the editor had in mind two sources (Ray Franz and William Cetnar) but mistook the high position held by Cetnar. 5) Cetnar's inclusion of Henschel was his observation from the early 1950s. Ray Franz made his observations in the 1970s. Hence there is no contradiction by Cetnar including Henschel and Ray Franz not including Henschel. Both men simply related their own observations of who was working on the NWT translation committee during their respective tenure at Watchtower. If you need more please inform. 6) No one sugggests the names of NWT translators should be presented in the article as fact/truth. Information should be presented as presented by the source or sources.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Shilmer agrees that the information is based on recollection, is error-prone, opinions rather than facts, and the two websites include careless errors. They are unsuitable for inclusion because they do not meet the Reliable Sources criteria. Since Fred Franz seems to be the key figure at any rate, and we have positive confirmation, we should just stick to the facts and leave the speculations of others out of it. Shilmer will continue with his tantrums only because he can't add all the anti-writing references he so desperately needs to add to feel good about himself. Just look at how hard he is working to include pure suspicion masquerading as fact, and compare that to how hard he works to make sure that onlyexternally sourced strictly-double-checked factual information about Fred Franz be let in, even though it is more relevant than any whodunit suspects. He won't even allow Fred's own words in from his autobiographical account about his very own background, but would abuse and harass anyone disallowing R Franz's recollections about matters he only observed from afar, who according to Shilmer did not work on the NWT (but according to the excerpt on the website quoting from RF's self-promoting book did actually work on it). So who do we believe? What's the point? How will anyone reading this encyclopedic article benefit? Shilmer can rationalize all he wants but the defects in these sources are too careless, too misleading, too complete, to pervasive, to simply hand-wave away. -- cfrito (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for the sake of Seddon69: Demonstrably you misperceive information.

1) It is false that the article edited by Michael Marlowe suggests that Ray Franz ‘worked on’ the NWT. Ray Franz ‘worked on’ a Bible dictionary later titled Aid to Bible Understanding.

2) It is false that I “won’t even allow Fred’s own words in from his autobiographical account”. If you check my NWT sandbox article you will find this source quoted. What I have objected to is making assertions of this source that the source does not support.

3) It is false that I have agreed that the information of NWT translators is “error-prone” or not factual. This information is published as firsthand testimony and this is how it has been presented; no more and no less.

The benefit for including the information of NWT translators is the same benefit for including all other information in an encyclopedic entry: to expose readers and researchers to the world’s knowledge base on a subject basis. We find the information of NWT translators presented and used by secondary source after secondary source when these address the production and history of the NWT. These present the information as reliable and, accordingly, synthesize various conclusions from it in conjunction with other pieces of information. All these sources accept the information as reliable and coming from reliable sources. Can you name even a single solitary published source that disputes the reliability of this information? Can you?

The misconception of information by you is so profound that I fear communication may be impossible. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: A point-for-point rebuttal showing Shilmer's arrogance and misdirection:

1. Marlowe doesn't say that R Franz worked on the NWT, R Franz does. The fact that Marlowe doesn't say it is a mystery. The quote from R Franz's book from Marlowe's page, "When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase..." R Franz was actively advising and influencing the NWT.

2. If anyone cares to read the NWT Talk Page and the Edit History reversals by Shilmer, it's clear Shilmer exerted great effort in eliminating important details about Fred Franz such as his statement that he indeed studied Biblical Greek, that he was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship, and that he left University because a change in theology much to the disappointment of the school faculty. Shilmer subsequently added them to his sandbox page, showing that he now fundamentally agrees with me, but needs to position it as though it were originally his ideas and bury the material fact that a large reason for Mediation has been his truculence and arrogance. Indeed his sandbox version is now not much different from the version publicly available, which Shilmer has characterized as "evil".

3. Shilmer, in his 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) address above, admits that Cetnar's and R Franz's lists were based on "observations" and not on any particular documented evidence. One lists Henschel, the other does not. Henschel was a contemporary of R Franz, so it isn't as though they were unknown to each other. Could it be that Henschel only made minor contributions? Perhaps, but R Franz did at least that too, so R Franz should be listed as a translator. Shilmer references Penton who says that the NWT work was principally Fred Franz's, i.e., that everyone else was inconsequential. So why are the others listed at all? And according to Seddon69's reference, under the subheading "Are they Bible Scholars?" the editor writes, "Although Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, he was not able, when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student." Clearly this writing says that Fred Franz perjured himself. He 'claimed but was unable', even to a second-year student. So either Penton is right or this editor is correct, but not both. No one seriously doubts that Fred Franz became a master of these languages, but this editor clearly is smearing Fred Franz. This is a basic inaccuracy and demonstrates even in the most obvious and easy-to-test areas, it is unreliable. The sources for these names still comes down to R Franz and Cetnar, of who Shilmer deliberately writes twice that both merely observed and that their observations were limited and error-prone. All the other sources who parrot these two do not make the lists more reliable, just more widespread. I am on no crusade to stop the perpetuating of these lists, but Wikipedia should not perpetuate unreliable information that is factually wrong and that cannot be proven at all.The article should remain silent on speculations, and list Fred Franz, not as a translator but as its first chief editor.

As to the disputes of reliability of the information: Penton says it was all Fred Franz. R Franz says Henschel wasn't involved. Cetnar says Henschel was involved. Both worked with Henschel and was "observable" to both (and personally known to both). The Watchtower says that no one will ever know. R Franz says he consulted on passages and that his input was incorporated and thus he worked on it too. Penton argues that incidental input is irrelevant, that there is one name behind the NWT, Fred Franz, and so R Franz shouldn't be listed. But R Franz listed others that according to Penton were insignificant, and so R Franz should have listed himself (it was his admission that he influences certain verses). And why is it relevant? Purportedly to understand better why certain verses were rendered in a particular way so we must know who rendered them. But we cannot. The lists are disputed even among those who publish them..And the issue at hand is not experts examining facts and drawing reasonable conclusions, it is pure gossip, a coffee klatsch, book-selling, idle speculation. Of all these publishers of various lists containing their guesses, only the Watchtower emerges as reliable: No one knows and the ones who did the work aren't talking. I have argued from the beginning that tis is the approach the NWT Article should take: List Fred Franz, his established credentials, relevant parts from his autobiographical account, and the Watchtower's position that the true translators will never be exactly known, and that it is irrelevant. All the language scholars that comment on the NWT texts did so, and continue to do so, without requiring individual references to the translators and as such the Watchtower and the NWT Committee have been proved correct and the names of those doing the work are irrelevant. -- cfrito (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for sake of Seddon69: You presume so much I hardly know how to respond, or where to begin!

1. Because some change occurred in the NWT after a discussion between Ray and Fred Franz about the same detail does not mean Ray’s question and the resulting discussion was the proximate cause of the change or that the Ray was ‘working on’ the NWT. What you write on this point is one large assumption.

2. I have never resisted using Fred Franz’s autobiographical material. Furthermore, were you to actually research the history page you find that I am the editor who first referenced Franz’s autobiographical account in the May 1987 Watchtower journal. You are the editor who removed the reference to Franz’s autobiography I am also the first editor who began citing Fred Franz’s words from his autobiographical account. What I have resisted is making assertions of this source that the source does not support. In your immediate reply above you again make such an assertion when you write Fred Franz “was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship.” This is not what F Franz’s autobiography supports. His autobiography supports an assertion that Fred Franz says he was told he had been selected to receive a Rhodes scholarship. You presume on this point of proper use of information, and you falsely allege I somehow resist use of Fred Franz’s autobiographical account. (By the way, the “evil” comment was quoted from Wikipedia with a link provided. Apparently you are unable to understand Wikipedia humor as well as proper information presentation. Go back and check the link and the quotation marks.)

3. I have always maintained that Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s statements were their own firsthand knowledge. So what? This is also how I have presented what both had to say. This is Wikipedia policy, not to mention proper use of information. Furthermore, because a person shares information as their firsthand observation does not make the information unreliable. It just makes their statement their testimony. You do not seem to understand this though multiple editors (including Seddon69) have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions.

4. Because Fred Franz is stated as the principal translator does not mean he was the only member of the NWT translation committee.

5. Reading Hebrew and translating Hebrew to English English to Hebrew are two relevantly dissimilar tasks and abilities. Apparently you do not understand this, and you make assumptive assertions accordingly. There is no inconsistency between Penton’s statement and that from Seddon69’s source.

Edited to add: Author Ian Croft helps readers and researchers understand how the NWT could be “the work of one man” (Penton) yet that one man (Fred Franz) declines to attempt translation of a passage from English to Hebrew.

Croft suggests this is due “to an unquestionably high standard of research into the various translational tools available.” (Croft I, The New World Translation and Its Critics, Bethel Ministries Newsletter, Sept/Oct 1988) If it is the case that a translator accomplishes his or her work by means of meticulous research and use of “translation tools” then it is understandable why the same translator would opt not to attempt to translate on the fly during a courtroom cross examination without those translation tools. Though we should expect a fully trained expert in Hebrew and English translation to attempt translation under such circumstances, we should not expect someone that is less-than-expert to make the attempt, particularly if, as Croft theorizes, the translator is dependant on “translation tools”. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

6. You assert that “No one seriously doubts that Fred Franz became a master of these languages” when published secondary source after published secondary source expresses just such a doubt. You just quoted one yourself!

7. That information was already on the street about who was actually performing translation work on the NWT prior to Cetnar or Ray Franz writing a word on the subject is demonstrated (proved) by author Tony Wills in his book A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation, Second Edition. Wills writes, “[Frederick] Franz is a language scholar of no mean ability—he supervised the translation of the Bible from the original languages into the New World Translation, completed in 1961.” (Wills T, M.A., A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation, Second Edition, Lulu, 2006: 253, Originally published in 1967 by Vantage Press) Wills does not provide a source for this information, but he asserts it authoritatively in his work. Hence, prior to Cetnar and Ray Franz publishing anything word was already getting around. It is was Walter Martin says in Kingdom of the Cults, “many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were.”

8. You assert “R Franz says Henschel wasn't involved.” I do not think you understand the assertion of that statement made by you. Where exactly has Ray Franz said that Henschel was not involved? Where? Or, is this just another misguided assertion?

9. You have yet to provide a single source that agrees with you that Raymond Franz and/or William Cetnar are unreliable sources, not to mention all the secondary sources! Why should editors accept your opinion over the conclusion of reliability demonstrated in all the secondary sources cited in this instance when you cannot offer even a single published secondary source in support of your view?

10. The rest of what you write needs no response. Abundant published information already expressed shows how misguided is your extremely loose use of information and poor argument form. I really fear your misconceptions and assumptions will prevent communication, and mediation depends on good communication. In the meantime the NWT article is held hostage. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Okay well I must have come pretty close to the mark to get old Shilmer this worked up. As for the source that agrees with me, that the list that has no documentation, we have the Watchtower organization. They say they've never released the names. As for a second source that says R Franz and Cetnar are wrong, well that's Shimer's boy Penton: He says it's the work of principally one man, not five or six. And R Franz was working on renderings from the original languages into English and was concerned that the original meaning was altered with the existing phrasing. His version was accepted, according to his very own words. -- cfrito (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for sake of Seddon69: Worked up and working the problem are different things. I am working the problem, and I am doing it what published sources of information, and with published and well-known forms of logical construction and refutation, not to mention Wikipedia policy.

1. I asked that you provide a source that agrees with you that the information of NWT translators’ names is unreliable. You offer the Watchtower organization as a source that agrees with you. Guess what? Nowhere does the Watchtower organization even remotely suggest that the names offered by Cetnar and Ray Franz is unreliable information. Not even once. For that matter, the Watchtower organization has at no time suggested that as sources of information either Ray Franz or Cetnar are unreliable. Hence this offering of published evidence from you is worthless as support for your opinion. If you disagree then please offer an actual reference from Watchtower literature that editors can review to see if anywhere the Watchtower organization suggests that the names offered by Ray and Cetnar is unreliable, or that as sources either of these are unreliable. Go ahead. Show us.

2. You assert that Penton “says R Franz and Cetnar are wrong”. Actually what Penton writes is taken right from these sources, and he agrees with them. When Penton states that NWT translation work was principally the work of one man he agrees with Cetnar and Ray Franz:

Cetnar states: “Aside from Vice-President Franz (and his training was limited), none of the committee members had adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators.” (Gruss E, We Left The Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1974, p. 68)

Ray Franz states: “Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind.” (Franz R, Crisis of Conscience Third Edition, Commentary Press, 2000: 54)

Penton states: “From page 50 of Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz states that the members of it were his uncle, Frederick Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas. Then he notes: ‘Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt [a] translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati, but was only self taught in Hebrew.’ So to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man—Frederick Franz.” (Penton J, Apocalypse Delayed Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 1999, p. 173-4)

Your opinion on this point demonstrates either a severe lack of analytical skill or else outright dishonesty. I have given you the benefit of a doubt in the past by expressing the opinion that it is your analytical skill that is the problem. But your relentless pushing of nonsense, such as this about Penton somehow disagreeing with Cetnar and Ray Franz, will soon push you beyond the pale of a benefit of doubt.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: It is time that you stepped up to the plate as a mediator and offer something substantive about Wikipedia policy in view of the large volume of sources and discussion you have had exposure to.

Wikipedia cannot function as it is designed to function if articles are held hostage to personal opinion rather than letting the body of published world knowledge speak for itself. Editors are not here to write their own research, by inclusion or omission. Editors are here to express what we find in the world base of published knowledge that is reliable. In this case, secondary source upon secondary source uses Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s published information as reliable. Additionally, not a single solitary published source has been provided disputing the reliability of these sources! Not even the Watchtower organization with its huge publishing capability has challenged the veracity of information provided by Ray Franz or William Cetnar. What are we waiting for, a sign from God? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: The Watchtower organization states that the true translators are being kept anonymous. That agrees with the position that the names given R Franz and Cetnar are speculative. There is no certainty to what these two betrayers offer, especially in view of their personal ambitions and profit motives. Penton, also a betrayer with a profit motive, stated that there is really only one translator of any consequence, and that was Fred Franz. R Franz and Cetnar wrote in agreement. The other names are likely shills. Now, Fred admitted that he was the NWT's editor (current as of 1954 but uncertain beyond). R Franz is clearly shown by his own writing that he was examining original language texts and translating them into English on his own and was involved in the NWT revision work and directly influencing what was later published, plain and simple. Let Shilmer stomp his feet and flail uncontrollably, but that is exactly what R Franz wrote that he did. So R Franz is the only other one, who by his own admission, worked on the NWT besides Fred Franz. He should be listed too and you can use your source for that. Cetnar exited before R Franz's self-admitted involvement as a translator, so we can understand why he left out R Franz. But both Cetnar and R Franz served with Henschel, so why does one include Henschel but the other omits him? Shilmer admitted their assertions were based on their personal observations which are clearly not in full agreement (even though Henschel should have been within all reasonable assessments). This underscores the unreliability issues with both Cetnar's and R Franz's assertions. And all sources agree on Fred Franz. What Shilmer writes above completely agrees with my position: The only one universally agreed to and is in no serious dispute is Fred Franz, and that's it. It is what I have been maintaining the entire time (except that I have asserted that Fred be listed as Editor and not as a translator, because that is what he admitted to, but I also agree it's a narrow distinction). Ironically, the only two that have ever directly admitted to being involved in assessing and influencing renderings from the original languages to English are Fred Franz and R Franz. Period. I am 100% supportive of listing R Franz as a translator based on his position, responsibility and personal testimony. Oh yes, and Fred Franz too. But no one else (supported by the Watchtower and Penton). Hey Hey! Double-Trouble: now Shilmer can get a legitimate book plugs for both Penton and R Franz. Unless, of course, Shilmer begins arguing that R Franz's testimony should used on account of his unreliability...

The NWT Article is not being held hostage. It is awaiting a break in the deadlock. I do not believe it is the function of the Mediation Cabal to "judge" matters, but rather to provide an avenue for convergence among Editors that have a dispute. Shilmer refuses to accept that Wikipedia is not a collection of muck he rakes up and is furious that he is being so thoroughly challenged on solid grounds (the Mediators have said that we both have good points and we both understand the Wikipedia policies well enough).. On all other JW pages, Shilmer and his ilk have free reign because no JW will edit them regarding matters of beliefs or practices, as those are made public by the Watchtower organization itself, and apart from that would represent personal opinion. Some have tried to correct factual matters but not doctrinal ones -- for example challenging Shilmer's insistence that "Christianity" is a term owned by Trinitarians and should not be applied to those whose plain focus is following the teachings of The Christ, Jesus -- quite apart from Wikipedia's guideline on this foul practice of word ownership. Shilmer is doubly mad because I inferred from R Franz's position responsibility and timing that he likely worked on the translation but would never read R Franz's book and lacked necessary source references to push the point. And then Lo and Behold! Seddon69 supplied the second-source excerpt proving it, and now R Franz is trapped as a self-identified translator of the NWT or we have to admit that R Franz and the second source is unreliable.

Anyway, I would suggest the following addition to the translator's section: "Raymond Franz directly stated that he was involved in reviewing original language texts and offering judgments on NWT renderings, and specifically cited his work on Acts 13:23 as an example." This is supported by R Franz's "Crisis" book and by Marlowe's website article. -- cfrito (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and for sake of Seddon69:

1. Silence from the Watchtower by refraining from verifying or publishing names of NWT translators is not an assertion that Ray Franz’s statement of NWT translators is speculation on his part. Your premise on this point is an equivocation fallacy.

2. Your attempts to have editors/mediators dismiss statements from Ray Franz, William Cetnar and Jim Penton on the basis that these men are “betrayers” and/or “betrayer with a profit motive” is nothing less than ad hominem. More fallacy from you.

3. Your attempt to emphasize Fred Franz in an attempt to suggest other names of NWT Translation Committee members are “shills” is a classic red herring because no published source (not one!) has remotely suggested that membership on the NWT Translation Committee required equal skills or translation abilities from each member. For example, Knorr could have been on the NWT Translation Committee purely as a shaker and mover whereas Fred Franz could have been a member of the same committee primarily for the actual task of translation work. Asserting a red herring into a dispute is fallacy.

4. Why on earth you feel you can assert that Ray Franz was a proximate causer or active participant with the NWT Translation Committee is, apparently, for you to know and everyone else to wonder. There is no evidence that Ray Franz was part of the NWT Translation Committee, as that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about ancillary influences that probably came from hundreds if not thousands of sources. Your statements on this point are just another red herring. It is fallacy.

5. You asked why Cetnar would include Henschel’s name but Ray Franz would omit Henschel’s name. There are several reasons to explain this other than your preferred explanation that the difference amounts to proof of speculation. 1) Since both Cetner and Ray Franz offered their statements as their own firsthand observations and since Cetnar and Ray Franz were at Watchtower headquarters at different times, then it is unavoidable that Cetnar made observations that Ray Franz did not. Hence one explanation is that during Cetnar’s tenure Henschel was actively working with the NWT Translation Committee whereas during Ray Franz’s tenure Henschel was not actively working with the NWT Translation Committee. 2) Another explanation could be that Henschel was active with the NWT Translation Committee the whole time but Ray Franz was unaware of this. Recall that neither Cetnar nor Ray Franz has suggested their lists of NWT committee members is comprehensive. 3) Another explanation is that Henschel was part of the NWT Translation Committee in the 1950s but was not on the NWT Translation Committee from 1965 onward when Ray Franz was at Watchtower headquarters. These and other alternative explanations demonstrate that your premise on this point is nothing less than a false bifurcation. It is fallacy.

6. That you would support including Ray Franz as a NWT translator in the Wikipedia article on the NWT demonstrates an extremely poor academic standard. It is ironic that you would take Ray Franz’s word and use it as a source for this strained conclusion of yours yet you so vehemently reject using what Ray Franz word for what he states explicitly! Not only is your conclusion strained beyond the pale of reason, your use of this source screams extreme bias.

7. There is no deadlock when it comes to what sources have to say, and Wikipedia policy would have articles express what is published rather than the opinions of editors. The article is being held hostage by an editor’s opinion that he has yet to substantiate with published sources. You have yet to name a single third-party (or biased!) published source in support of your opinions expressed throughout this dispute. Surely even you should be able to realize which between us has been diligent to offer source material.

8. Mediating is inappropriate if it results in a compromise where information is asserted (or omitted) without appropriate source substantiation (or contrary to source substantiation/presentation). Mediators here have no choice but to offer recommendations with a result that Wikipedia policies are maintained. These policies do not accept article presentation if that presentation is not as sources assert it. Hence the dilemma of your opinion is that you have yet to offer one shred of published support whereas I have offered layer upon layer of published support.

9. I invite any and all editors to review my continued work on the NWT article (in my sandbox edition). This should reveal my proclivity for including what sources have to say regarding the NWT regardless of whether the view expressed is perceptible as positive or negative by a biased reader. I am not interested in including anything into any Wikipedia article that is other than what editors can substantiate from reliable sources.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Seddon Apologies for my slow response. I have several concerns and points that i would like to raise varying from policies to statements made above. Ill start off by going through the most recent comments. These are not to be taken as arguments against or for, or that i am taking sides. I am simply going through points which i feel need to be addressed.

1) Cfrito You state "The Watchtower organization states that the true translators are being kept anonymous. That agrees with the position that the names given R Franz and Cetnar are speculative." You then go on to describe them as "betrayers". I request you refrain from this and try to maintain a Neutral point of view. What problem is there against using the sources that refer to these two. Your view that they made these suggestions for "personal ambitions and profit motives" need to be backed up by sources. In this case it should then be mentioned that JW's feel that it was for that reasoning. I have no problems with stating that if there is proof that that is what is felt. This would then comply with WP:NPOV.

2) Cfrito You state "R Franz is clearly shown by his own writing that he was examining original language texts and translating them into English on his own and was involved in the NWT revision work and directly influencing what was later published, plain and simple." I have no problem with stating that R Franz contributed to the revision work so long as it is clear he wasn't on the committee unless a source can be found to support that. You later go on to say "Let Shilmer stomp his feet and flail uncontrollably". Please refrain from personal attacks per WP:NPA.

3) Cfrito If "both Cetnar and R Franz served with Henschel, so why does one include Henschel but the other omits him?" then state this in the article. This would comply with "Let the facts speak for themselves" seeWP:NPOV as with the two statements before.

4) Marvin & Cfrito "The only one universally agreed to and is in no serious dispute is Fred Franz, and that's it." This can be stated as fact. As I have stated from the day i took this case anything that cant be proven as fact must clearly be stated as being the beliefs of a certain person and this includes the list. This would comply with WP:OR in that you are not stating assumptions as perceived facts.

5) Cfrito The way Marvin edits on other pages is not at this moment part of this case. I would suggest that if you feel this really is a problem then i would suggest you take that to the Mediation committee as i feel that its a little too big for me to deal with by myself.

6) Marvin Even if there was a statement issued by the watchtower then it would not prevent R Franz statements being included per WP:NPOV.

I hope this is a more thorough response as requested. If i do not reply tonight i will respond as soon as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Thanks for your questions and remarks. In order of your response,

1) Well said. I have expressed this myself scores of times.

2) I suggest you take another look with your own eyes at what the referenced source actually says. Contrary to what Cfrito asserts, Ray Franz does not suggest he had any responsibility or influence over revisions made to the NWT. Here is a link to the source. When you open it search for the phrase “When I pointed out” and it will take you to the opening sentence Cfrito is basing his claim upon. It will only take a few seconds to review Ray Franz’s remark.

3) Well said. I have expressed this myself scores of times.

4) It is fact that Fred Franz testified that he was editor of the NWT, and specifically that he was charged to check it for accuracy. Hence, the fact is that Fred testified to this end. Whether his testimony is/was factual is another question. The same can be said of what Ray Franz has said of NWT translators. That is, it is fact that Ray Franz testifies/writes that Knorr, Gangas, Shroeder and Fred Franz were members of the NWT translation committee. (Note regarding Fred Franz: Fred Franz has never testified that he was a member of the NWT translation committee) Otherwise, it is well said that Wikipedia articles should present information as the sources present the information.

5) N/A

6) Well said, and I have not contended otherwise.

--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

2) Yes i see the passage, with the wording that is there i would be more inclined to omit it based on the fact that there is no direct correlation between what R Franz said and the removal of the 2 words. If there was i would be willing to include some sort of statement that changes came from outside the committee but seen as that is not the case then any such statement would be WP:OR

4) Then a change needs to be made to the wording so that it is en keeping with this testimony, changing what is currently fact to fact that has not been contradicted if that makes any sense.

Any messages i shall respond to tomorrow. Seddon69 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69:

2) Well said. Thanks for reviewing the source material with your own eyes.

4) I am not sure what you are trying to say. Fred Franz’s testimony is that he was editor of the NWT. He did not testify that he was a member of the NWT translation committee. When asked under cross examination if he was a member of the NWT translation committee Fred Franz declined answer. Hence it is verifiable to say that Fred Franz admitted he was editor of the NWT. It is also verifiable to say that Ray Franz (and other sources) names Fred Franz (and other individuals) as a member of the NWT translation committee. Edited to add: Looking again at what you write, in other words it occurs you may being saying it is more accurate to say of Fred Franz something to the effect that “Fred Franz stated he was editor of the NWT,” or perhaps even “Fred Franz was editor of the NWT” and then just leave it at that. (This is what I have done in my sandbox NWT article) However, saying his statement “has not been contradicted” is a perilous assertion because we do not know if this is the case. All we know is that no editor here has produced a published statement at odds with Fred Franz’s testimony of himself, and I am not suggesting that there is such a source. I believe it is generally accepted that Fred Franz was editor of the NWT, but this is purely a conclusion of mine from my own research which has no place on Wikipedia. On the subject of primary source statements, as you have pointed out yourself, if it is acceptable to use Fred Franz’s statements as his testimony then it is equally acceptable to use Ray Franz’s statements as his testimony, just as it is acceptable to use the Watchtower organization’s statements as its testimony. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeddon69:

As a general comment, I am happy to see that Shilmer has taken my advice and broken the Critical Review section on his sandbox page into linguistic and theological subsections. As you are well aware I have made exactly those comments to you on several occasion and even to Jeffro77 even before the mediation was requested. I am truly flattered. The general restructuring seems a positive change. However, what is disturbing is the reference section itself.

1. "Betrayer is given in one dictionary as, "to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.". That is what both of these men have done when they represented their lists as factual. Had they not, there would not be a discussion here. While it is not a pleasant term, it is perfectly accurate and NPOV, much like referring to Ted Bundy as a murderer. As to objecting to the sources themselves, it is a matter of relevance and of undue weight. These names are only relevant if we know who for sure who the translators are. Equating the [apparent] members of the NWT committee with the entire body of actual translators seems weak. Moreover, to add source after source that simply repeat R Franz and Cetnar adds undue weight, especially when these sources mislead explicitly (like Marlowe) or implicitly (like W Martin) and particularly when we as editors know that they are from the same two sources which have already been used. There is far too much emphasis being placed on this and far too many references being gratuitously cited (both specifically in this regard, and in general).

2. Here is what is written by R Franz in a single paragraph: "When the subjects of "Older Man [Elder]" and "Overseer" were assigned to me, research into the Scriptures themselves..." and then a few sentences later R Franz writes, "When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase." The impetus for the latter remark, the subsequent change in the NWT text and follow-on conversations was the assignment given in the opening sentence. These subjects were assigned to R Franz and he looked into the current NWT rendering, commented on it, and it was changed, as a direct outworking and consequence of R Franz's assignment to look into the matter. He was advised to examine other translations only after he gave his review on the NWT. Is there any other admission anywhere that comes as close to identifying translation actions and its originator than this?

As to personal attacks, I was merely highlighting Shilmer's demonstrated behavior immediately preceding. Let me point out that Shilmer wrote in his remarks: "articles are held hostage to personal opinion." Hostage? Really? By Whom? Then he wrote, "Editors are not here to write their own research." The only one in my experience on this Article that has ever been directly identified as adding OR to the Article is Shilmer, and this was judged in an Arbitration. Talk Page contents are not held to encyclopedic standards, but Shilmer puts his own OR on the Article page.Shilmer then wrote, "Not even the Watchtower organization with its huge publishing capability has challenged the veracity of information provided by Ray Franz or William Cetnar." I addressed this and so did the Watchtower organization. By engaging in active refutation of any strawman list, they would ultimately disclose, by process of elimination, who the translators and committee members were, and they are not permitted do that. So Shilmer is just promoting an equivocation fallacy. Then he wrote, What are we waiting for, a sign from God? (emphasis Shilmer's) Clearly, he was shouting in print. This is a written form of a temper tantrum. So I was not attacking him, just calling attention to behavior he himself exhibited in an ad hominem demanding that you pay him the attention he feels he is due and on his time line. Please point out any time I have ever treated you with contempt or disrespect, here and now.

3. I agree, fundamentally. However, the NWT Article is about the NWT not a debate on who were the committee members. The reason I made the Henschel issue an example is to show that these two sources are simply speculating. If they truly knew, definitively, and it was as common knowledge as everyone seems to think, the two lists would be identical. And Shilmer argued that the discrepancy could be explained temporally -- that Henschel was, and then later wasn't, and R Franz would have been unaware. But that is inconsistent with the view that R Franz had exceptional access to solid information. It just proves that these men were not as well known as those publishing these names would like everyone to think.

4. Funny, but I believe Shilmer took me to task for making the distinction between Fred Franz as a committee member and Fred Franz as a translator and Fred Franz as an editor and what is factually correct in terms of what happened with regard to the NWT. Glad to see he's now agreeing with me that these things are different. As to universal agreement, I meant specifically among the three sources that Shilmer loves the most: Cetnar, R Franz, and Penton.

5. If you have the time, please go back and re-read the original request for mediation. You will see that I did cite exactly this matter in exactly this way. So, I have not tried to expand the current mediation with the above, but I chose to accept its initial scope narrowing from you in the beginning out of respect for your valuable time, so that we could all work to achieve consensus. I wrote the above knowing the history.

6. I agree too. But I would still question relevance. If the owner of a painting said, "I own this painting," and no one disputed it, then there would be no reason to add several other sources who say, "yes, he owns the painting." In fact, a specific reference for statement not in dispute is not even required. So adding R Franz in such a situation would be gratuitous and would not neutralize a point of view. For example, when Shilmer states in his sandbox version, "The New World Bible Translation Committee requested the publisher, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, never to publish names of its members," he cites only one of four Watchtower source references. Each gives a different amount of detail but they do reveal a consistent policy. But adding all of them is probably unnecessary. But then, oddly, he adds the reference from Fred's cross-examination as support to the very same sentence. In the first issue, he should add all the Watchtower references since they all add important clarifications. And he should drop the reference to Walsh since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower's stated position.

As another example of Shilmer's poor and POV editing, let's look at this statement on his sandbox page: "However a number of former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators." First off, we know the number and the number is two. So a NPOV version on this point would say, "Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators." But we still have a problem. This suggests that the names they disclosed are undisputed fact, which they are not -- Cetnar, R Franz and Penton all have different lists of translators. So further repairing the poor editing, it should better read, "Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed who they believe were the names of translators but those lists are not identical." But we may still have a problem. The NWT Committee members are being equated with the translators, but I don't recall that being what the sources ever actually stated. If they haven't then the statement should be more like: "Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed who they believe are the names of New World Translation Committee but those lists are not identical. It is unknown what if any translating they themselves did, or if there were others with greater or lesser skill involved. Further, these lists are well out of date, and the NWT continues to be revised by others who have never been revealed." Finally, "insiders" is a strongly loaded term. A more neutral term would be, "members". Or perhaps, "One former Governing Body member and one former senior staff member". And then, of course, we have the undue weight added by Shilmer addressing the same point twice in his sandbox Article, once in the History section and again, redundantly, twice, over and over, in the Criticism section. Once suffices.

But Shilmer will not accept any comments I make or let any edits I make stand -- although he does eventually adopt most of them and then claim to be the originator (e.g., the Fred Franz/Rhodes reference, moving Fred to the History section, changing Criticism to Critical Review, breaking the Critical Review section into Linguistic and Theological parts, etc.). He writes repeatedly, "The misconception of information by you is so profound that I fear communication may be impossible. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)" I think perhaps, this may need to be addressed. Perhaps Shilmer does get to dictate Wikipedia Articles and who can contribute. -- cfrito (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cfrito's Remarks tagged 20:17, 7 February 2008

Cfrito and sake of Seddon69: I will leave it to Seddon69 to remark as he will to each of your responses above. But among the more glaring errors readily identifiable are these:

Cfrito writes,

“As another example of Shilmer's poor and POV editing, let's look at this statement on his sandbox page: "However a number of former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators." First off, we know the number and the number is two. So a NPOV version on this point would say, "Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators."”

The referenced secondary source accompanying the statement you take issue with states, “many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were.” (Martin W, Kingdom of the Cults) Martin provides a reference to Ray Franz's book Crisis of Conscience, but Martin's list of names goes beyond what is found in Ray Franz's book; hence Martin was using information for some source beyond Ray Franz. Since Martin does not cite Cetnar for this information then it is pure assumption to assert that his statement comes from Cetnar as one of the "many Witnesses" he attributes this information. In addition to Martin's statement we have the statement from author Tony Wills (one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, by the way) who explicitly names Fred Franz as supervising the translation work, and Wills originally published this statement in 1967. In 1967 Wills' statement was years ahead of both Cetnar or Ray Franz publishing anything. Yet with his statement Wills places Fred Franz squarely in the middle of the NWT translation committee, which committee was responsible for the NWT. Hence, it is not only true that ‘many Witnesses were fully aware of NWT translation committee members,’ but it is also true that a number of sources leaked this information.

Cfrito writes,

“The NWT Committee members are being equated with the translators, but I don't recall that being what the sources ever actually stated.”

If you take a look at the NWT forward you will see that the NWT translation committee attributes the translation (the NWT) to itself. Hence, the responsibility for the actual translation work lay in the lap of the NWT translation committee.

Finally, and to add some levity to this dispute, Cfrito writes the following two sentences in the same response:

“I am happy to see that Shilmer has taken my advice and broken the Critical Review section” and “Shilmer will not accept any comments I make”. (Emphasis added)

--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Shilmer's Remarks tagged 20:45, 7 February 2008

Mark III for administrator alert

On the subject of levity, Shilmer is "funny". Using long and wearisome and condescending diatribes, Shilmer rejects everything I write on its face when I write it. But later on, after sufficient time passes, he adopts it and casts it as his own work. That is pretty "funny" actually. It is not the first time I have specifically - and with incontrovertible references - called attention to his plagiarisms. If he gave proper credit and was more willing to see others as his peers rather than his inferiors, this Mediation would be unnecessary.

Now on to the other points. The "sources" I was referring to were Cetnar and R Franz. As to the NWTC, they do not say that the Committee itself is synonymous with the translators. The New World Translation Committee writes in its dedication that they were responsible for "producing the work" but not "translating the work." A movie producer is not necessarily its writer nor its star but he is responsible for its realization in usable form. Regarding the NWT Foreword itself, nowhere does it say that the translators were limited to the Committee. Indeed, the Committee refers to the translators as "The translators of this work...They also feel..." Importantly, it does not say "...We also feel..." So Shilmer may conclude they are one in the same but the NWT Committee does not say this explicitly, and the phrasing seems specifically chosen to lead a reader away from that conclusion. My phrasing above was specifically chosen to remain open and flexible. Shilmer used it as a basis for yet another attack.

And regarding Shilmer's equivocation fallacy above, we have W Martin's comment, "many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were." W Martin does not say that he was informed by many, just that many knew. And this W Martin guy is certainly not free from harsh criticism himself, and not just about his policies and agreements, but about his dubious "doctorate", his ancestry, his fact-checking, his research (and by Penton, no less). Moreover, I was completely unaware that W Martin's list expanded on those names given already by R Franz and Cetnar. I am always willing to learn, so maybe we can review his additions. But given the controversies with this particular "Ph.D" (rofl), we would be prudent to check his reference material regarding these "many" Shilmer represents he interviewed, in case one of them is a descendant of Brigham Young, or that he used same source as when he scooped that the Mormon E. LaMar Buckner was president of Standard Oil Company. -- cfrito (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark IV for administrator alert

Cfrito: You have accused me of plagiarism for the last time. Once more and your accusations of my person will be addressed to administrators with a request to have you banned from editing for a period to be detemined by them!

I doubt you even know the meaning of the term! I have not and will not take credit for anyone else’s work. I have not plagiarized your ideas in any way whatsoever. You seem to think when an editor here listens to others and responds accordingly that this is, somehow, plagiarism. I got news for you: that is not plagiarism—it is compromise, if not simple cooperation.

Above you talk abusively of my NWT sandbox article for various reasons, one of which speaks disparagingly of why I divided the critical review section into different subjects of criticism. Apparently you think this is an act of plagiarism. It is not. At no time have I even remotely made an attempt to take credit for this (as though it is one editor's original idea in the first place!). The same goes for all your other rambling accusations of me. The reason I split the section up as I did is because I recalled that someone somewhere thought it a good idea and upon further review I felt the same and began drafting the section accordingly. That’s it. There is nothing sinister or plagiaristic about it. That you think this editing by me is, somehow, plagiarism only demonstrates you have no idea how the term is used in academic circles, or how serious is the charge. I will not warn you again about this sort of accusation coming from you. Once more and that is it!

The problem with your remark of sources is that secondary sources demonstrate the published statements of Cetnar and Ray Franz were not the only sources of information about who was translating the NWT. Furthermore your remark of sources assumes author Walter Martin got his information from Ray Franz and Cetnar when he only cites Ray Franz, yet the information he shares goes beyond what Ray Franz had to say. Specifically, Walter Martin includes the name Henschel as a member of the NWT translation committee yet he is silent on where specifically he obtained this piece of information. (I.e., Martin cites only Ray Franz as a source for information on names of NWT translators)

Regarding the NWT Translation Committee and translating: “It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that over the course of many years this committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. The entire work was originally released in six volumes, from 1950 to 1960. From the start it was the desire of the translators to have all these volumes brought together into one book, inasmuch as the Holy Scriptures are in actuality one book by the One Author.” (Forward, NWT) If this sentence does not demonstrate a direct correlation between the NWT Translation Committee and “the translators” then please tell everyone what the NWT’s Forward is suggesting to its readers.

A producer does not call himself a writer or a director. A producer calls himself a producer. In the case of those responsible for the NWT, they call themselves the New World Bible Translation Committee. Note that the term “Bible Translation Committee” is roundly assertive in its own right, not to mention what the source says of itself in the Forward. I recommended that you read the NWT Forward yourself. I see you decided otherwise.

Of source Walter Martin, I have not suggested that “he was informed by many”. I have asserted that he got his information from a source beyond Ray Franz though he only cites Ray Franz for his list of NWT translators. This means Walter Martin got his information from at least one additional source, but he does not say who. Hence it is assumption on your part to assert his additional source was Cetnar. An argument from silence is fallacious.

Since apparently you have not even personally reviewed what Walter Martin had to say on this point it is monstrous that you would begin to offer criticism based on what Walter Martin did or did not say.

If you dislike Walter Martin’s published work as a source then take your pick of all the other published secondary sources that say the same thing he does. You act like Walter Martin is the only secondary source that speaks to the issue of NWT translators. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark V for administrator alert

At this point, I couldn't care less what Shilmer threatens. So we're all on the same page here, Plagiarism is defined by one source as, "1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. 2. something used and represented in this manner." Further to this, I previously made a public record of this. Here is the exact copy from the relevant talk page. Note the order of events as Shilmer fought to keep Fred Franz out of the History section and in the Criticism section, and then takes credit for putting Fred Franz in the History section in the first place:

Seddon69: Certainly, but this first. As to the edit wars by Shilmer and revisionist history of Shilmer, here goes:

1. At 00:55 2008 Jan 7 I suggested on Talk moving F Franz as Editor from Criticism to History. No one objected and I moved it on 16:23 12 Jan 2008.

2. At 16:36 12 Jan 2008 (13min later) Shilmer summarily reversed the edit.

3. At 16:50 12 Jan 2008 (14min later) I put it back

4. At 17:15 12 Jan 2008 (25min later) Shilmer summarily deleted it again

5. At 21:44 12 Jan 2008 (4hr29min later) I put it back

6. At 00:23 13 Jan 2008 (2hr39min later) Shilmer created new Translators and Editor section, and moved criticisms about Fred Franz from the original criticism section to the newly created History/Translators and Editor section to counteract "the neutral" with "the negative" at close range.

7. On 15 Jan I took it back to Talk where it entered what I generally refer to as the "Shilmer Bamboozles" phase. We battled over whether criticisms should be in the criticism section (Cfrito's suggestion) or follow tit-for-tat any non-negative statements about F Franz (Shilmer's big idea).

8. On 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Shilmer makes the patently false statement that he moved the information from the Criticism section to the History section. Review the Edit History yourself. Shilmer wrote, Seddon69: The reason I moved the information you cite from the criticism section and placed it in the history section is precisely for the reasons you cite. Taking credit to apparently win favor with the Mediators, how low can you get.

9. On 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I wrote this to combat the plagiarism by Shilmer: Editors: I, Cfrito, was the one who moved Fred Franz as Editor from the Criticism section to the History section because Franz as Editor it is verifiable and accurate History. As I recall, Shilmer promptly moved it back -- twice.

10. In answer to #9 Shilmer wrote at 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC), 2. I have no issue at all with an objective presentation of Fred Franz’s credentials. I wordsmithed this myself to make it conform more closely to verifiable records, including his life history. In fact, it was an edit of mine that inserted the reference to his life story in the first place! Hence your allegations against my person on this point are false. Please get your facts straight.

Good, I got my facts straight. It was Shilmer who had it all screwed up. Fine, that's off my chest.

As to your question, I would suggest that the Translators and Editors section include what is known about them and why. Reference the Watchtower's comments on why they are keeping the names and credentials confidential. We can then say that Fred Franz was the first editor and list what we know of his academic career, both what they transcript reveals and what he says about it himself in his autobiography. Then I would suggest adding criticism to the end of the section or keeping them confined to the Critical Review section. I believe this is a saner approach and leads to a more structured Article. The reader has a chance to get their minds around one idea, and then can move on to the other ideas (neutral and critical counterpoints). As you might guess, since Shilmer's List is unproven they should not be listed here since this about who were the translators and editors, and not who they might have been.

Is that what you were looking for? -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Importantly, no one made an issue of that representation (plagiarism) except Shilmer. And, if this gets challenged administratively, I will be happy to spend the effort substantiating every thing I have written. And I will ask that in the process they administratively review Shilmer and his tactics and initial abuse of me without previous provocation, and of others and of summarily dictating page contents. Come what may. -- cfrito (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark VI for administrator alert

Above I make the case that Editor Shilmer harasses editors, prevents their legitimate edits, waits some time, and then posts the work as his own and takes credit for the progressive and unbiased editing. Editor Shilmer has taken offense to this and claimed I have made this assertion without foundation. Here is just one example involving me. There are more for those willing to look into this matter. Here goes:

I added source-verified information on Fred Franz's education and academic achievements. See the edit history reference 21:23, 2008 January 19 Cfrito (Talk | contribs) (37,068 bytes) (→Translators and Editor: added info, references on F Franz's education, imrpoved section flow and organization).

A short 90 minutes later, Shilmer reverts my edits. To wit:

(cur) (last) 22:57, 2008 January 19 Marvin Shilmer (Talk | contribs) (36,540 bytes) (→Translators and Editor: Deleted false information. F Franz DID NOT turn down a Rhodes scholarship. READ what your source ACTUALLY says, Cfrito. You have already been told this is false info!)

30 minutes later the page is locked for editing by Martinp23. See the edit history reference 23:24, 2008 January 19 Martinp23 (Talk | contribs) m (Protected New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: Edit warring doth continue [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

I then created this specific section to discuss the matter. Quoting from there, the issue was summarized for further discussion:

Here's what Shilmer deleted: I wrote, "In his short autobiographical account, Fred Franz admitted to declining the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University. According to Franz, Dr. Joseph Harry informed him of the award in an effort to convince Franz to complete his education rather than pursue a career with the International Bible Students Association. Franz also admits to studying Biblical Greek under Professor Arthur Kinsella and classical Greek under Dr. Joseph Harry.[18]" Reference [18] pointed to the Watchtower reference. The last line was not about the Rhodes award, but rather that Franz said that he studied Biblical Greek and under whom, which Shilmer is desperate to deny. It is also included in the same autobiographical account by Franz. -- cfrito (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

At 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC), Shilmer links his sandbox version of the Article according to Shilmer, "The sub-userpage I have created is purely so I can carry on working on the article even though there is an edit war going on, and even though the version on the top is "the evil one favoured by the other side in the dispute". Notice that Shilmer demonizes me in part for my last edit, which he specifically reverted of false grounds and over which he accused me of incompetence.

Shilmer, on his sandbox page adds the Franz/Rhodes edit to his own sandbox page, though relegated to an endnote (see edit history reference 16:13, 2008 January 30 Marvin Shilmer (Talk | contribs) (40,251 bytes) (→Translators and Editor: added Franz's statement regarding Rhodes Scholarship)

Please recall that the issue of the alleged translator names is relevant because evidencing their background is important. Of one of the two that we know beyond any reasonable doubt that, in part, translated this work Shimer believes a key fact such as this should first be fought to be kept out, and then quietly be end-noted in Shilmer's private edition of the article:

Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati where he was an honor student.[19][20]

and this is reference [20]:

1. ^ The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24, Frederick Franz states he left the University of Cincinnati near the end of his junior year. According to Franz his early departure from the University of Cincinnati was at a sacrifice. He states, “I have never regretted that, shortly before the announcements by the educational authorities regarding the outcome of the examinations for the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, I wrote a letter to the authorities and advised them that I had lost interest in the Oxford University scholarship and that they should drop me from the list of contestants. This I did even though my professor in Greek at the university, Dr. Joseph Harry, informed me that I had been chosen to receive it.”

Clearly the above shows how forcefully Shilmer asserts that he is the only competent editor. Even when he agrees that information is not in dispute, he holds the matter as a bargaining chip to exact concessions in other matters under dispute. Then he claims to be the more reasonable editor by publishing privately what he berated and deleted publicly. If he were sincere iand wished to work with other editors instead of harassing them he could have simply asked for this reference to be added, since there is evidently consensus. But clearly Shilmer will only allow its addition on his own terms and to his own credit. -- cfrito (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

Thanks - yeah, I've got my eye on the IP and if they insert anything again I will block. BLACKKITE 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From Cfrito

A Request For Decision Regarding the "Suspected Translator" Lists

Mediators: I have maintained that the list of suspected translator names is neither reliable nor relevant for the NWT Article. These lists of names are rooted in two sources, Cetnar and R Franz. Neither have ever offered any documentary evidence of their claims. The secondary source writers that have included these lists cannot have fact-checked the information, for the only source of reliable information is upholding its agreement to keep the actual translators anonymous perpetually. R Franz is assumed reliable because he was a member of the "Governing Body" of JW's and therefore allowed broad access to all documents. In 1974, when Cetnar (via Gruss) published his list, R Franz, as a member of the GB and of the writing department clarified the WTB&TS's commitment to the confidentiality agreement -- he opposed Cetnar. Years later, when R Franz also forsook his JW faith, he also published a list, but it wasn't identical to Cetnar's. When Cetnar's list was published, a certain trust was put in it because of his apparent exposure and the "common knowledge" nature of his claim. However, R Franz published his list excluding one key name. While many see this as a minor difference, the trust is based on both men having high rank and special access and reliable inside information.

The Wikipedia policies, guidelines and examples are clear on this matter. While generally allowing sources that are published, it cautions against using data that misleads, data that is superfluous, data that cannot be fact-checked, secondary sources that use known non-verifiable primary source data, data that is recalled, sources with questionable motives, data that is used in original research. These two lists of names fits all these categories. Based on the recollections of but two former JW's who for profit began anti-writing, threw out a list of names that represented only the "highest ranking" members of the JW organization. To trust these lists, arguments have been presented that, "everyone knew," "common knowledge," "special access," "no motive for misrepresenting," and so on. So dubious is the "information" that supporting editors have to bring the Reader to the conclusion that these lists are reliable (when they are not). This is original research. I have shown how both lists surfaced only after the sources began fighting against the JW organization. And in the stream of time, R Franz originally took up position against Cetnar. Indeed, one name that could have been left off R Franz's list is R Franz himself. He was GB member and a member of the writing committee, and exposing himself as having worked on the NWT would be rather inconvenient for him in his new role as Chief Anti-JW.

Then there is the question of relevance. One prolific NWT Article editor suggests that we include it because "it's information," and the Reader can decide its relevance. But Wikipedia's guidelines are clear that not all information should be included simply because 'it's out there.' At issue is the reliability of the underlying data -- the names themselves. Critics of the NWT argue that they can't analyze the NWT properly without knowing, although those same critics have done so and continue to do so. Since the translators cannot be known with certainty publishing a "suspected translator list" adds no clarity or insight for the Wikipedia reader. I remain unconvinced that anyone can know any more or less of the NWT, it's trustworthiness, its accuracy, its features, its weaknesses, its strengths, from adding this list of suspects. Add to this that the "sources" including these lists are books on cultism, books on opposing theology, and sensationalized exposés on JW's. Indeed, the list of references for the Article is itself a rambling mess of expansions constituting original research. Websites of opposing theologians, anti-writing books, you name it. Most of these are included because they quote the same three or four language scholars, adding udue weight to the anti-writers by redundantly referencing each other.

The NWT is a Bible Translation. One can read the NWT and decide whether they respect or like the NWT prose. One can examine the texts and decide whether the translations are done accurately or whether theology was used to make a particular rendering. Its features can be made known. Its weaknesses can also be made known. Its source manuscripts can be made known. Its revisions can be made known. These are verifiable, and the sources themselves tend to be neutral and it yields a more neutral Article while still presenting all facets -- positive and negative. I seriously doubt the entire issue about translator anonymity is even relevant itself, but the publisher's and translators' positions are explained quite thoroughly and should be referenced as directly relevant. There are several reputable language scholars that make plain the names of the translators are indeed unnecessary to test that veracity of the NWT work. Long-winded theological debates are unnecessary and even misplaced. JW theology and its theological competitors' views are thoroughly explained elsewhere in specific pages dealing with those controversies. I have worked editorially to separate the theological issues from the linguistic issues but have met fierce opposition by one editor in particular. One need only read the references section and the comments therein to get a gist of the issue. Outside of a few references to the Watchtower organizations' statements about policy and the translative work itself, and a handful of linguistic criticisms, the rest are theological diatribes, promotional websites, circular references, televangelists, and so on. This Article does little to inform on the NWT, and mostly to presents opposing theologies, and to spread suspicion as verified information (at least in the case of the alleged translators lists). Someone apart from the embattled editors must bring resolution to this matter. -- cfrito (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I am sorry to weary you with such long replies (defenses). I have posted another one to the NWT sandbox talk section. I welcome any private counsel you wish to give me via email. -- cfrito (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Felix from the International Space Station

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Felix from ISS 03 sept 2007 1138Z.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters

So you're thinking of taking up this case? Have you read the rather long (and probably boring) details? Be advised that DBD came to 2 conclusions/recommendations before bailing out: leave complaints as is (issues will sort themselves out), and user Lucy-marie needs mentoring before editing further. As L-m declined any sort of intervention, I'd be interested in how one is compelled to accept a mentor. TunaSushi (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your updated timeline for this case... wondering if you had any preliminary thoughts. Lucy-marie, is off on some sort of break. I'm still interested in exactly what good mediation would do here. The results aren't binding, so the exercise seems a bit pointless. TunaSushi (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect NWT Article

Seddon69, I am requesting that the article on the NWT be unprotected.

It appears disputes have been resolved regarding the NWT article. Two objections were raised. 1) The use of Fred Franz’s university transcript as a source and 2) the article presenting the names of NWT translators as presented by sources. As I understand it, the resolution is 1) that is it is appropriate to use Fred Franz’s university transcript as a source. (Cfrito has applied this transcript in his own edits since the dispute began.) And 2) that editors agree the article should present names of NWT translation committee members as presented by sources. As a caveat to use of the source presentation of NWT translators, specifically Cfrito assented to your recommendation for the article to say, for example, “Ray Franz, a former member of the (Governing Body) stated that (Nathan Knorr, George Gangas, Albert Schroeder and Fred Franz) were members of the NWT translation committee.” Source references would, of course, accompany. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, can I ask you something? You state on your NWT article editon:

Dr. Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls [NWT] “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.”

Does Metzger refer to the entire translation or specificaly to the rendering of John 1:1?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Metzger’s remarks you inquire of are quoted from page 94 of Ron Rhodes’ book The Challenge of the Cults and the New Religions (2001, Zondervan). In the context of Dr. Rhodes’ paragraph he says of the quotations offered from Mantey and Metzger that they are in respect to “the New World Translation”. This is Rhodes’ stated conclusion. I know from other reading that Metzger’s comment “a frightful mistranslation” is in response to John 1:1. Of the remaining three Metzger quotations cited by Rhodes, I do not know which specific renderings Metzger applies his terms to, if any in particular. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this, in order Seddon69 to understand the way you manipulate the sources.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassili78: Your remark assumes bad faith on my part.

Have I manipulated the source BeDuhn when I included his commendation for the NWT? Did I manipulate the source Byington when I included his commendation for the NWT? Did I manipulate the source Thomson when I included his commendation for the NWT? Did I manipulate the source Winter when I included his commendation for the NWT? Did I manipulate sources when I added a sub-Section titled Commendation to the Critical Review Section?

I have worked very hard add balance and perspective to the NWT article. If you feel I have manipulated a source then please tell me how so I can review it for potential correction, assuming you are right, or even half-right. It is not very helpful to just accuse an editor of manipulating information without some specific explanation.

In the case of the Metzger quotations, I have no idea how (or why) you think I have somehow manipulated a source. Frankly, I have not even quoted Metzger in this instance. Rather, I quoted Rhodes who quoted Metzger. I presented Rhodes' use of this material just as he presented it, as censure coming from recognized biblical scholars. If you please, offer something specific as to how you think I have manipulated this information. Have you actually read the referenced source that you are criticizing me as manipulating? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The manipulation is quite evident. Even though you know, or at least you speculate, that Rhodes has misused Metzer's statement, you don't hasitate to use his quotation in order to promote your ideas.

P.S. Seddon69, sorry for using your page for this discussion, but I wanted you to see firsthand the problems we face.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the NWT talk page. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC:Dwarf planet

I am having problems understanding your objection here. Could try to give some specific examples? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added several citations in the paragraph you showed me. The best would be for you to go ahead and place rags where you think it needs it. After that I will look for references to replace those tags. Thanks for your time, Nergaal (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I have added more references in several places. Please let me know here if I am still missing something. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about one of you tags: " Quaoar, however, has a much smaller eccentricity and inclination,[43][27] and so possibly does not qualify as a Pluto-like object.[citation needed]" Why is it needed to cite a statement like "object has characteristics that do not fall into the definition of the group, therefore is probably not a member of the group." I have cited the facts and I do not think it is necessary to cite the "probably does not qualify" fragment.Nergaal (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

*Saying "probably does not qualify" needs to be sourced as being said by some1 on in a text, if it is a statement based apon other facts then it constitutes original research. Seddon69 (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased that statement. How is it now? Does it still require a ref? The other reference is a database with the actual orbital values so it does not state anything with regards to the Pluto-like membership. Nergaal (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I dealt with your issues about references. How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

& nbsp ;

Just out of curiousity, what does & nbsp ; (w.o the spaces) between NY 59 for example do? -Airtuna08 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re

Yea, I have seen the so-called "debate", which is what lead me to say what I did in the first place. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation successful?

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)

My apology; I didnt notice you had already done this.[2] Thanks, John Vandenberg (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The NWT issue

Seddon69: On the Arbitration Page you write, “I would suggest that this case should only be dismissed though when User:Cfrito gives a statement about the resolving of the dispute. Both sides need to be heard.”

Why do you not accept what Cfrito has already said when he wrote “I agree too” and “I have agreed to a compromise”?

You and others have asked and asked Cfrito to remark further on this matter, and he has declined to respond. On the other hand, I have been made a target by Cfrito’s actions. It is less than fair-play that I should continue to have to concern myself with this issue given 1) what Cfrito has already said repeatedly and 2) his subsequent lack of response when specifically requested. Frankly, the latter is rude beyond belief!!! Yet I am forced to remain subject to his complaint nevertheless. I do not understand this from either you (as a mediator) or arbitrators. At some point common decency should have a say. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Of course you were extending a courtesy to Cfrito. That Cfrito has yet to reciprocate your act of courtesy is why I said his behavior is rude. Not only is it rude for that reason, it is also rude because his failure to repeat himself at your request continues to subject me to concerns beyond what is necessary. Were this scenario being played out in a brick-and-mortar institution this nonsense would have ended long ago, and someone’s reputation and career would have been ruined at their own hand. But, in this scenario editors can make whatever complaints they want without fear of real life consequences to careers and/or reputations, and they can do this at others' expense. Furthermore, third-parties seem content to let this thing drag along, which is equally disturbing. Where is the courtesy for those made subject to the complaints of others? I have acted at every turn to respond to requests and to expedite a lasting resolution to a complaint that was never mine in the first place, including compromise that no one even asked for. I suppose no good deed goes unpunished. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: The courtesy I speak of that you extended to Cfrito is found here. Though Cfrito found time to respond on the same talk page since your request, he apparently not found time to follow up at your request on his own complaint. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"9/11 conspiracy theories" renaming: problem with an editor's conduct

Hi Chris. I have a problem with the conduct of another editor on the 9/11 conspiracy theories renaming issue and I really don't know what to do about it. The misconduct in question is very serious in nature, in that I believe the editor in question has intentionally misrepresented Wikipedia policy with intent to distort the outcome of the case. I had already brought this matter to the attention of the editor in question on his talk page, which is why I do not feel able to overlook yet another repetition of this behaviour. Obviously the medcab case page is not the place to deal with it. What I am wondering is whether I should do anything about this matter at all right now, or should I hold back until the mediation process is completed? Many thanks. ireneshusband (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Given your interest in an editor review, I've done one for you - I hope you find it useful...... You've got 6 months of active editing underneath you which has clearly given you a good knowledge of how things work. You've got some really good main space edits, but it wouldn't hurt to work on a a couple of articles and spend a lot of time editing them (e.g. considerable numbers of edits (30+)). You do great work in various content based discussions (such as WP:FAC and WP:FPC) showing you clearly understand our content guidlines. You've got a good number of user talk messages for the number of edits you've got - about 10% of your total contribs is a good number. It's good to see you working for MedCab and I've enjoyed a few chats with you and think you've got some great ideas for the cabal - it certainly shows you've got a good understanding of effective dispute resolution. If you are thinking about running for adminship, then there's a few areas you should work on;

1. Your total number of edits is quite low. I'm not an editcountitis person in the slightest, but at RfA, candidates rarely pass with less than 2500 edits so you might want to try and push that up a bit.
2. I see little experience in areas that require you to use the tools. Admins main functions are blocks, deletions and protections. I suggest you do some recent changes patrol and revert vandalism so you can understand when to revert and which warnings to give out. I see few or no edits to WP:AIV which means you give no evidence to people commenting on an RfA that you understand when to block vandals. RC patrolling will also help you to understand certain situations where protection may be required.
3. Going with the point above, there's very little notability/deletion work that I can see. New page patrolling will help you learn the notability criteria and show evidence that you understand it. Correctly tagging pages for speedy deletion, followed by appropriate user notifications always looks good for an aspiriing admin candidate and again gives evidence of you knowing when to delete pages. It would also be a good idea for you to get involved in some XfD debates which would show evidence of your thought process when deciding when to, or not to delete a page. It also allows people at RfA to judge whether you understand all of our inclusion criteria.
4. Lastly, your edit summary usage hasn't been great, but you acknowledge this (there's a check box you can click in your preferences actually that forces you to use an edit summary) and it's good to see that you've been working on fixing this - just keep it up.

I hope these points will help you. You've been doing a fantastic job here, so keep it up, and with some minor modifications in your editing, I see no reason why you can't run for adminship in the near future. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation

Hi,

I thank you for mediating. Question: is it appropriate to contact a mediator on his talkpage? My real question is: do you have any hope we are going to agree on something?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There no problems with being contacted, If you like you can email me if you need to contact me privately . Either use the email interface or you can use the email address i provide on my user. With regards to this case, it is still early to be able to tell where i feel this case is going. Me and Xavexgoem are still optimistic about this case. Like every other process in dispute resolution, it can be a long process. It just needs the patience of both mediators and the parties involved in the case. Seddon69 (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks - it's an honor (there's no u in honor!)

		Thanks for the support
		lol, right, yer, kk. so, I'm an admin now. My RFA passed 92/2/2, so apparently the community trusts my judgement. I'll practice keeping my cool while I use that mop of justice, and I'll keep a ring of defense around Hurricane Henriette (2007), so you can finish it sometime. See you around, and maybe I'll show you the secret admin handshake in a year's time. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

24 MedCab case Participation Confirmation

• I am willing to par-take in further discussions regarding this case to resolve this case and finalise the issue. I am though not willing to par-take in multiple rounds of "us vs her" again. I would like the discussions to be focused solely on the issues and not the users at all. Can this be ensured?--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I will contribute. You never replied to my comments above, so I thought you had lost interest yourself. TunaSushi (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just wondering, as some of the parties have agreed to come back to the table regarding the case, can I prepare a statement as well? I think I have become a major party in this dispute as well, I feel it would be appropriate. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm happy to participate in the MedCab. Propose discussing specific content problems, which seemed to be the only thing that was effective in the earlier discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I’ll continue to participate. --MiB-24 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll participate as well. I'm a little behind, though, on where we are. I've been out for a while with the flu....Angelriver (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll participate, I never lost faith in the MedCab case, and whenever you are ready, I'll resume participating.--Lan Di (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Convo from steve

• Fair enough. When you feel it's appropriate for me to comment, let me know. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can I have a word with you on #wikipedia-medcab? Steve Crossin (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your advice to try 3o for Aratta dispute

This has seriously been going on for a couple months with very little progress. Believe me, I've tried everywhere. Usually I just get sent somewhere else ("the run around") since it seems like no one else really wants to touch this. Result: Still a two-editor stalemate, with no end in sight as tp whether or not the references can be used. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked on this, this dispute spilled over from our related dispute in Late Feb. over many of the same references at History of Sumer (now indef. locked due to said dispute and lack of mediator) where I did try an RFC among other things. It seems that the RFC History board has been literally broken down for the past month, and articles are not being added to the list as they should be. In addition, I have tried numerous other boards, especially the Reliable sources noticeboard, where an admin had told me to go, but have got only limited response from there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources after I literally had to beg for help there, finally sent me to "mediation:, and now it seems maybe you are sending me from there back to RFC again... But this has been ongoing for so long and has become so bitter, and I have sought help in so many places, it seems like we are probably past the 3o stage, so I'm really hoping to see someone take the careful case I have prepared this time and actually take time to read it, instead of just passing the buck, and thereby prolonging it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Problems.

Gday mate, just letting u know that my internet just dropped out a minute ago, it wont reconnect. It happens to us every so often. Let the others on Irc know. And if u could, tell white cat that i`ll weigh in on their appeal when my net is fixed. If u could reply on my talk page i`d appreciate it. im kinda grateful, i can actually go to 'sleep' now. xD Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I don’t know right now. I’m just sick and tired of being run over by people. I add information with citations, it gets removed. I correct someone’s mistake and cite the correction, it gets changed back. If I try to do anything about it, the person runs to an admin. After going through this same kind of thing twice before, I just don’t have a lot of desire to do it again.

You may or may not have seen where I explained what happened to me on Wikipedia before. The first account I had here, I uploaded about a dozen pictures. All were my own work which I released for use and all were used on at least one article. One day some random user tags them for deletion for “copyright violations.” Despite everything I did in order to explain these were not in violation of any copyright, an admin deleted them anyway. In response, I asked to have my account deleted.

When I decided to try again, it was okay at first until I wrote several articles on U.S. nuclear tests. All were sourced and properly cited. (I’m a grad student; I live and die by citations.) One day while I was at work, again a random user asked for “speedy deletion” and the articles were gone when I got home. I tried to have them restored, but to no avail. So once again, I asked for my account to be deleted.

I stayed off for almost a year, but decided to give it one more try. Now, the same thing is happening again. Some random user has been adding incorrect information to a page I’ve worked on, and when I correct it, he reverts it, and gets the typical attitude of “I’m right, you’re wrong, shut up.” Even when it is sourced from newspapers & magazines such as the Chicago Times, USA Today, Variety, etc. he reverts them anyway and either uses something like IMDB or Amazon.com as a source, or simply doesn’t cite anything and just claims I’m wrong.

Truly, I am so sick of this kind of garbage, smug, arrogant users who game the system to get their way. What’s the point in doing any of this if someone can come in and in 2 seconds, obliterate everything because in their opinion, it shouldn’t exist? --MiB-24 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t get back to you until now. I was buried in a paper on Germany and strategic deterrence during the Cold War this past weekend so I hardly even got on the Internet. Don’t bother getting involved, it won’t do any good. Today, someone just showed up out of the blue and left a veiled threat on my talk page. Not an admin or anything, just some random user. Just another reason why I don’t have faith anymore in Wikipedia. No one is going to convince MJBurrage that he is wrong, especially on the two filmography credits. IMDB and Amazon.com are valid sources in his mind and sources such as newspapers are not. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For now I will. I agreed to participate and I try to keep my word. I might not reply instantly, but I will reply as soon as I am able to do so. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

Thank you for your note and your offer to take this mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The page looks very well organized. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I think a couple of the editors involved have been on brief wikibreaks, so you might want to wait a few more days for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

24 mediation

Could you please move this mediation along as there have been no comments since March 27 and I would like to get this whole issue sorted out as soon as possible. If you are planning on drip feeding questions one at a time, can I request this be scrapped. With all the questions you are proposing be put at once to help speed up this process as this has ben going on for months.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures on the 6th

Kim is starting the lectures on April 6th around 15:00 UTC (although that is apparently open to discussion). Just a reminder (might want to add it to your watchlist :-p) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

lectures

It is 15:00 UTC, and I'd like to start talking on irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adolfo Ruiz Cortines Dam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you Fredrick day?

I saw this edit and was wondering if you might be Fredrick day. 129.174.110.200 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you very much that i am not. The IP i used was from what i assume was a dynamic IP address from my friend mobile phone. Seddon69 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for joining us yesterday for NotTheWikipediaWeekly! Hope you'll be back for our next Skypecast. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

navbox collapsible

Duh! Dorftrottel (canvass) 00:03, April 17, 2008

Regarding the NAS mediation

I have no problem with your participation as mediator, even if you don't hold an "official" position to that effect. Sorry about being late in responding, but I've been quite busy with real life recently. I will try to post an opening statement as soon as possible. Thanks for your time. *** Crotalus *** 01:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A regret

Apologies, router died earlier today, won't be along for the NTWW. Anthøny 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

I apologize for my delay -- I plan to make my opening statement very soon. Is there a formal time limit in place? CJCurrie (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation of List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers

Please do not mediate this case, because the case is made by a banned user, Mykungfu. Thanks. miranda 17:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW 12

See this discussion: [3]--Filll (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Lecture

Due to an immediate personal emergency, I will not be able to make the lecture. I am so sorry for the short notice. Circumstances are completely unexpected. Vassyana (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wannabe Scot contest award

In honor of Seddon69's triumphant performance in the Not the Wikipedia Weekly Wannabe Scot contest, I present this image commemorating Mexican culture. Ole! Durova^Charge! 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

'Grats. :) Durova^Charge! 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Greetings! You have expressed an interest in joining in with the next NotTheWikipediaWeekly episode. We now have a confirmed date and time: the episode will take place at Friday, 9 May 2008, at 00.30 (UTC). For that episode in various local times, see here. If you'd like to attend, please "enroll" at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed participants. Please also feel free to browse the suggested topics for this epsiode. We look forward to seeing you on Friday at 00.30!

All the best, Anthøny 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures time

Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed one instance

Apparently you missed one name from the ogg files.--Filll (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly

G'day NotTheWikipediaWeeklian (p'raps we need a catchier nom de plume?) - it's terribly short notice but I'm going to be hosting a discussion tomorrow, Thursday 15th May at 23.00 UTC (head to the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' page for full info, and a date and time convertor) - that's about 21 hours from now....... There could well be an additional conversation 24 hours later - so take your pick! - I will likely cover the topics which I nominated, and am aiming for a snappy 40minute conversation - do come along if you can! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New anti-semitism

Hi there. I noticed that you are doing the new anti-semitism mediation. I am not a party to that nor have I edited the article so I'm not sure if it is appropriate for me to comment there. But I have taken notice of the controversy, including the issues around that sign. I thought you might like to see another sign that was apparently from the same artist at a smaller SF anti-war rally the previous month.[4] I'm not sure if that helps the debate or any of the debaters but I thought it might be good to have some insight into the artist's mind. Cheers. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't have proof that those are from the same artist but from my own deduction I feel completely certain. I'm sure that would constitute OR if I was talking about something to go into an article but I think it is good enough that just gives us some background. Other users can form their own opinions of course. But the imagery and the text are identical between the two signs and also the third sign which is only partly shown in the "no war" image but available at the source website (third from the top).[5] Incidentally, I didn't notice that the image I sent you had its own references to Israel (or Jews some would say) but when I took another look just now, I can see that two of the American flag's stars are Israeli/Jewish stars of David. It is easier to see if you enlarge the image. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit counter

I might be mistaken, but I believe that you suggested an edit counter that also included information on the number of times a user had been reverted. Am I wrong? Which was it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: article on FSC for the WP Signpost

Hi, I see that you closed a nomination a few days ago. Suddenly we're filling a gap in the weekly Signpost Dispatch section with an article on Featured Sounds, and I'll have to do it within a day. I'm contacting several people on the history page, you among them, who might be able to review the draft (I hope it will be written in about 12 hours' time). Can you suggest anyone else? Do you know anyone who's been around from the start, who might know more about the history of the page? I guess I can find it via the edit histories. TONY (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's "dead"—just needs a boost in numbers and interest; that's partly why this exposure will be good. In the long run, I see sounds (and videos) as a growth are in WP article, don't you? Look at how much in the Commons we don't use in our articles. When the draft is ready (very soon, I hope), I'll post a message at WT:FLC. Thanks. TONY (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

TD One-E

It formed in the Pacific, not the Atlantic. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i was aware but embarrassingly i clicked the wrong link. Many MANY apologies. ŠeDDøΛ ^talk 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It happens. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NAS image discussion

Hi - I just wanted to call your attention to this question since it might get easily buried in the rest of the discussion on that section. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi Seddon. I wrote an article on a Seddon - a strange coincidence! Anyway - as far as the Attachment Theory mediation goes, I am strongly inclined to give it until the weekend and if Kingsley still refuses to participate, close it down and move on. My instinct would then be to suggest an RFC as the next step. What do you think? Neıl 龱 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

email

Hi, I sent you an email. csloat (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)