User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2009a

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script

Hi Jeffro77,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script in the past; I hope you've found it useful.

I have to let you know on your talk page that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses project

I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Comments regarding template and project. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your last paragraph meant on the project talk page. Can you explain there what you're proposing? Thanks mate. LTSally (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Compliments

I admire your good edits to Christian Conventions. Reads much better now. I have made note of some of MOS stuff I used to remember but appear to have forgotten. Realizing that I may be an acceptable writer, but I'm a terrible editor. --nemonoman (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that! I have provided a citation you requested, and have also reworked an edit in the Consolidation section which left an impression that there were individuals who supported both Irvine and Cooney following the schism(s). Since I have not come across any materials referring to supporters of both, I tried redoing. You may want to check my edit to see whether it is clear enough. Other than that point, your edits have made it much cleaner - thank you. Astynax (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

TheWatchtower

Just to let you know, I speedy closed the discussion at WP:RFD. It's preferable not to have a deletion discussion running at the same time as a move discussion, and the results of the move discussion can be implemented either way without needing a separate request for deletion. If it closes as a move, which seems right to me, then an administrator will take care of the technical details for you. Thanks for the work you're doing in this area, by the way; it's very much appreciated. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian Conventions

Now s/he's getting disruptive. --nemonoman (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I'm staying out of the fray for the moment, as I tend to try to put out fires by pouring on more gasoline, and in this case I think you and Asyntax are handling things OK. But if an extra pair of hands is needed ---- for example to avoid a 3RR ---- please give a whistle.--nemonoman (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Sloftstra has requested outside input on whether the material which he recently restored would be an improvement on the article. Some of the unsourced material in the restored portions could be cited, while other material included in the restored portion has since been objected to and removed by editors over the last months. I'm not averse to changes, though restoring the material makes the article a mess as it now stands. I admit to having developed some intolerance towards this editor, based upon reading through the archives, so fresh input would be welcomed by me as well. • Astynax ^talk 19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. The same user Slofstra (now using the RSuser ID) is again disputing material based on RS arguments he's repeatedly raised in the past. The thread at RS Noticeboard. Most of the works cited are not from big publishing houses, and I'm not sure that sources exist which would satisfy some editors. If you have time, it would be good to have more input as to whether materials being cited can be used. • Astynax ^talk 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I understand, looking over the subjects that pop up here on your talk, that your projects must demand your attention. In the event a bit of breathing space opens up, definitely do breathe first. But if afterwards you are able, I think your experience with some of the same controversial issues would help myself and the other editors on the CC article. The discussions will likely circle 'round to the same points, so the article should still be there whenever you have time to take a look. Thank you. • Astynax ^talk 07:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A brief question: The Christian Conventions members seem to alternate between claiming direct apostolic succession founded by Christ, and claiming to be a restoration of that original church. The CC article notes that they claim this in the doctrine section, but members on the talk page continue to object to the founding (among other things) being mentioned elsewhere in the article. As other groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have also raised these claims, I'm wondering whether there is some other way to handle their disagreement with the historical record which shows a more recent founding?

We've been trying to get the article out of its current "Start Category" assessment, but members keep recycling the no-founder stuff, arguing sources are all "critics" who aren't RS, arguing their faith-based view should be accepted without sourcing, objecting to doctrines being included by claiming only the Bible is their doctrine (while it seems to be their interpretation of it, like others), insistence that they are not a denomination or organization, etc. Although I did redact the article from what was there before, I'm apparently now a "critic" for finally providing citations for the previously unsourced article. Sound familiar? • Astynax ^talk 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no magic cure to convince editors who insist on their own 'faith-based' opinions rather then sourced information. However, you can cite Wikipedia policy which clearly states that information in articles must be reliably sourced. If editors continue to dispute the reliability of such sources, you can raise an RFC (Request for Comment) for the article to enlist the assistance of impartial editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Your Personal Message

• User_talk:Rodbender2001#JW articles

You stated to my objections in the JW article about it's main contributors, "I find it amusing that you accuse me of being "anti-JW", particularly since I am occasionally also accused of being pro-JW for various edits - an accusation that I also find amusing. If you can indicate a specific edit of mine in an article where you believe I have injected a personal opinion, please let me know, and we can discuss how the wording should be improved. Thanks.-"

I did not mention you specifically, nor did I say you specifically were "anti-JW." But I also find it amusing that as an atheist (which is heavily indicated in your personal page) you are in such control of an article about a group with heavily believes in God, yet claim complete balance in who you quote and how you quote them. It would seem that our beliefs and interests are by default at odds, to say the very least. Of course you are careful not to include your personal opinions, I realize that. But personal bias could also possibly affect what you and the other main contributors choose to quote. Therefore, personal bias does in in the end affect the integrity of the information. Of course I am skeptical and weary of most sources, since almost all of them paint JW's in a bad or less than flattering light. And when someone does say something good, the detractors are right behind screaming foul, as if there is not one single thing that could possible be good about us. But I think I have a right to defend myself to such people, as do all people of good conscience who are misrepresented.

I'm sure you mean well. But I'm very curious why you chose Jehovah's Witnesses as your main subject to comment on in WIKI. Do you like them or hate them? Motive, in the end, is what affects the truth about anything. Perhaps if you shed light on why you are so interested in us, it might quell my suspicions. After all, in the end, all I want is the truth to be revealed about every subject I read about. I hope in the end that is the product we will get in the WIKI article on Jehovah's Witnesses.Rodbender2001 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did note that you did not specifically name me, but the implication of who you were discussing was clear, and is re-demonstrated in your comments above. I am under no obligation to indicate my motivation for editing JW articles, particularly to someone who has maligned me and questioned my motives from the outset. As previously stated, "If you can indicate a specific edit of mine in an article where you believe I have injected a personal opinion, please let me know, and we can discuss how the wording should be improved."--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom

• Copied from User_talk:Mikhailov_Kusserow#The_Watchtower by User:Soc8675309

Why have you moved The Watchtower away from its most common name without discussion??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he was right to give the article the same title as the magazine. The Watchtower is the name of the Society, the Watchtower Society, so its confusing to use that same name for the magazine. The magazine actually has more than two words in the name. The magazine name is The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soc8675309 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jeffro, you are correct: the name The Watchtower does refer to the magazine, not to the Society. Again, while the 5-word phrase is its official title, the magazine itself (over 99% of the time) and the public in general use the common name The Watchtower. As for "the name of the Society", the short terms the Society and the public use are Watchtower or Watch Tower without the prefix "The" attached. A phrase commonly used by the public when they see Witnesses at their door is: "Are you Watchtower (sometimes 'the Watchtower') people? We're not interested." The official abbreviations used are WTS for Watch Tower / Watchtower Society and WTB&TS for both Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. Note that "WT" is used in the abbreviation when referring to either "Watch Tower" or "Watchtower". Glenn L (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, where did the discussion on this point take place? Unless I've suffered some memory loss (excusable in my case given work pressures and threat of further layoffs) I didn't see any of the talk at the time. Such proposals need to be highlighted on the project page so we all get a heads-up. LTSally (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It took place here. Soc8675309 changed the article title to the five word official name from the two-word common name despite the discussion that resulted in the two-word name being decided on. It was put in protection mode just a few minutes ago, according to the watch page. Glenn L (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive

You know how to archive talk pages, I think: are you able to do the honours at the Charles Taze Russell page please? It's becoming unwieldy. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article: Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine

I think you're being silly reverting this diff. You reverted:

1995: Expressions "vindicating Jehovah's sovereignty" and "sanctifying Jehovah's name" explicitly replace "vindicating of Jehovah’s name". The replaced expression had not appeared in any publication since 1986, but was listed in 1979 among "key Bible teachings" which were "emphasized by Jehovah's Witnesses".

You retained:

1995: "Vindication of Jehovah’s name" declared unnecessary, with emphasis on "vindicating his sovereignty" and "sanctifying his name". The expression had not appeared in any publication since 1986, but was listed in 1979 among "key Bible teachings" which were "emphasized by Jehovah's Witnesses".

In the version you retained (and consciously reverted to), would a typical reader immediately understand what it is which was "declared unnecessary"? Was the concept of vindication declared unnecessary? Or was the quoted expression declared unnecessary? You might snap, "Both!", but again... Would every reader figure that out?

Also, in the version you retained (and consciously reverted to), another matter is less than obvious. Among the three quoted, which "expression had not appeared in any publication since 1986"? Was it the "unnecessary" expression, or one of the two expressions now "with emphasis"? Admittedly, this second ambiguity can be figured out, but why not just communicate the point effectively in the first place?

Furthermore, your reversion's edit summary noted "The 'new' statements had also been in use since the 1970s".history That note seems intended to correct someone asserting otherwise. Who asserted otherwise?

Of course the expressions "vindicating Jehovah's sovereignty" and "sanctifying Jehovah's name" weren't new. No one pretends they were new. Watchtower Library shows similar expressions used almost every year since 1950; I wouldn't be surprised if the expressions had been used a hundred years ago or more. Frankly, the ideas had enjoyed their own "emphasis" for quite some time before 1995, which makes it seem odd to imply that 1995 introduced:

<quote>emphasis on "vindicating his sovereignty" and "sanctifying his name"<end quote>

There was not some new emphasis on those two expressions beginning in 1995; both had been emphasized for years or decades already! What was new in 1995 is that the two expressions now explicitly replaced the newly-obsolete expression. You obviously have a great personal attachment to your own choice of words. Why not think about this and come back to reconsider it in a few days? I'm moving on, but shaking my head wearily.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're talking about what we think is silly, I think tedious repetition of stuff like "(and consciously reverted to)" is a bit silly too. (And is there some other manner in which I should revert??)

Both the concept and the expression were indeed considered unnecessary. ('Snap'? Anyway...) The quote marks indicate that the phrase is referred to rather than the concept, which would seem to be the conclusion most readers would draw, and which implicitly includes the concept being unnecessary anyway. Your alternative wording does no better to indicate any changed view of the concept, however I don't mind adding the word 'expression' back in.

In your wording you said that two expressions "replace" the old expression. Typical understanding of something that replaces another thing is that it is something "new". The other expressions were already also in use and had been for decades, so they didn't replace anything, their use merely continued, and a different expression was no longer used. However, the 1995 article (the focus of the entry in the timeline) did emphasize (I said nothing about anything being "introduced") that they viewed the other expressions as more accurate.

Regarding your other concern about some ambiguity of which expression had not appeared for some time, I'll re-word that slightly to be clearer.

On inspection, the expression "vindication of Jehovah's name" was actually used up until 1989 (rs p. 266 par. 2); I'll also fix this in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure many would agree that repeating something exactly once constitutes "tedious repetition"...

It does when it's a habit.[1][2]--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!

--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in the continued wording, but not terribly disappointed.

I cited an instance in 1991 which makes that second sentence still less interesting, and popped in the word "former" which may or may not disturb you.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the 1991 reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

It seems there is some tension between us. My preference would be to resolve any issues we have otherwise there will be cases where editing involves or is motivated by emotions. On the "official website" issue why have you brought it up again? Once a matter is resolved or a compromise/consensus reached between individuals how often is it necessary to again address it? For example, let us say that you insist we reach another consensus on this matter to which I can agree. What happens six months or a year from now if someone else brings it up again? As I see it, to bring it up again and rehash the issue only creates a diversion from more important matters. Not everything on Wikipedia (or life) is black and white. There are many areas which require some form of compromise or consensus. In fact some Wikipedia guidelines state that very thing. Please explain your reasoning as to why you felt it necessary to bring this up again, and please also state what new consensus or proposal you'd like to make. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can appreciate that any editor who edits articles about a topic, and run a website about the same topic, must openly deal with any perceived conflict of interest. In answer to your questions about previous consenus, the appropriate course of action would be to specifically cite that consensus, preferably with a link. Then, either that consensus is accepted, or if there are outstanding issues, they should be dealt with to establish a new consensus.

When I archived the CTR Talk page recently, I saw several requests to establish your site as 'official', but such requests do not seem to have been answered satisfactorily, though someone accepted omission of the word "official". Additionally, there are other elements I addressed that do not seem to have had any consensus established.

After explicitly stating that I had no problem with you editing articles, I recommended to:

• not call your website official - An informal agreement between a website creator and a relative of the deceased subject not responsible for their estate does not deem a site official. You seem to be fine with not stating the site as official in articles, however the site itself is titled "official website charles russell" [sic].
• not cite it as an authoritative source - As a personal website, particularly one produced by a Wikipedia editor editing articles about the same topic, the site does not meet Wikipedia criteria as a reliable source. Other than reproduced materials from Russell's era, which are available from various sites, new information, interpretation or opinions would constitute original research. The site therefore doesn't have any special authority for the purposes of Wikipedia citations.
• not link directly to its main page - Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion of someone's own website. If a site is considered official and notable, it should be left to editors other than the site's creator to insist on its inclusion. It would not be inconceivable that much of the traffic to your site is as a result of the links you have placed in Wikipedia articles.
• only link directly to hosted materials that are exact reproductions of original sources - This would not leave you open to any accusations of self-promotion, conflict of interest, or original research.
• not claim copyright of the hosted materials - you seem to be fine with this, though you have previously claimed that such materials from other sources were "stolen" from your site.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to assume you are raising this issue on good faith and are trying to be fair and objective. Some of the things you have said, though, seem to go against that and it this which is most upsetting. Yes, it is fair to initially address a potential or seeming conflict of interest. It is not fair, however, to bring it up ad nauseum. Some of the things you have said here, and perhaps it is simply a misreading, seem to be accusatory or assumptive. The site is official, and there is no clear way to prove that to editors with a critical nature such as yourself. When someone opposes an idea and has no history of budging or seeking consensus nothing done will change their mind. It's "my way or the highway" as the saying goes. That is not fair, nor even consistent with Wikipedia standards. Not calling the website official applies only to those places it is listed on Wikipedia. There is no way it is being removed from the website itself because it is official regardless of how others on Wikipedia may wish to characterize it. The copyright issue was not only my idea. The website was the first to place many of those documents online back in May, 1996. Since then many have stolen the documents stolen photographs and even entire sections of the website without any permission and without any citation, including by one self-claimed Bible Student with a questionable background. A website constitutes intellectual property, and in the USA at least it violates copyright law to take material from a website and claim it as your own. It is considered stealing. Many of those who stole the material where seeking to use it against CTR. When they were confronted they eventually found others who had some of the references and then scanned them and put them online still without citing where they originally found or learned of the material. To suggest that the site receives most of its visitors through Wikipedia links was unnecessary and unkind assumption, which again seems to prove there is more to this. Most people don't even know who CTR is or have even heard of Bible Students. If the site were to receive a large number of visits from any link through Wikipedia it would probably be through the JW article, and it is not there. The site routinely receives between 500-1000 unique visits per day, a very small percentage of which come through Wikipedia. I'll close with this: what would you want to see to prove the site is official? What would satisfy you on that issue? Pastorrussell (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the site is in fact official is not in fact the centre of the issue. If the site is notable, other editors will link to it. As the creator of the site, you are obligated by Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines to not be the person who links to it, or to attempt to establish it as a notable site. Again you assert copyright of items for which the copyright has expired. If you host materials on a publicly accessible website that are not subject to copyright even if you have the only existing original copy, people can download and reuse those materials in any way they like, and the materials are not stolen at all. The fact that most people haven't heard of CTR strongly supports the conclusion that Wikipedia would be a source of link traffic to your site. As previously stated, the status of the site as official is not the primary issue. Re-read the bulletted statements above, especially the third.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My intention here was to keep the conversation civil and kind, and will continue to do so on my end. I don't possess the wisdom to know how to respond to your statement. You are making unfounded accusations. Either my words are true or they are lies, and it is up to you to determine for yourself what you wish to believe. Most website hosting companies provide statistics for who visit a website, and from where. The site receives a small percentage of visitors from any links on Wikipedia. I don't have the time at this moment to calculate it but it would perhaps be around 10%. The website receives a lot of 'word of mouth' and there has been some small bit of advertising on MSN, Yahoo, and Google Ad-Words in the past sponsored by others, as well as linked on other websites, and in forums (not by me). You say that if a site is notable other editors will link to it, and that is exactly what has happened. When any link was removed it was replaced by other editors and I had nothing to do with it. I don't know what else to say to you. It's difficult trying to have a conversation like this simply with words on a screen. You are harping on having the links placed by other editors, and those there now were. There's nothing I can do about convincing you because you seem bent on proving me wrong, which can be a potentially dangerous and harmful attitude to possess. I'll leave it at that for now and will pray for you. Pastorrussell (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact amount of traffic garnered from Wikipedia is not the issue. I have not seen any article in which an editor other than you spontaneously added a link to your site without it having been previously placed there by you. The fact that you have had a measure of success in promoting your site on Wikipedia by having other editors occasionally re-add the site (probably unaware of the inappropriate introduction of the link in the first instance) does not minimize the initial conflict of interest and self-promotion that got it there in the first place. It is also unsettling that you continue to argue the point now rather than simply allowing other editors to determine whether the site is notable in view of the history of the introduction of the links in Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was the point when you first made it: "It would not be inconceivable that much of the traffic to your site is as a result of the links you have placed in Wikipedia articles". You are assuming the link was added to advertise the site. That is calling my motives into question, and making an assumption. "Either my words are true or they are lies, and it is up to you to determine for yourself what you wish to believe". The links were never placed for advertising, but for linking to accurate information to the official website. It's 9am here on the East Coast USA, and time to work. Pastorrussell (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that most of your traffic must come from Wikipedia, but only that such would not be inconceivable. In any case, that wasn't "the point", but one of several points. In view of the fact that you were the first to link to your site into the several articles indicated at Talk:Charles Taze Russell#Pastor Russell website (despite your claim that you only did so in some), I can do little other than to assume that there was intent to draw attention to your own site.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pastor_Russell_website

not claim copyright of the hosted materials

It depends what's being asserted. The text of out-of-copyright materials is by definition not copyrightable; but you can claim copyright in the particular presentation of those materials. This setup is pretty standard with things like newspaper archives that provide scans of old newspapers. There's no problem if you read and transcribe the content of a news story; but it is breach of copyright to save and re-use their image file. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Several PDF files on the site are scans of original material that have been watermarked with a copyright statement by pastor-russeell.com. See Talk:Bible Students (diff) and PDF with watermark. It should be noted though that User:Pastorrussell has stated that such scans are to be replaced with copies without the claim of copyright.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

link?

Jeffro, I could not find any discussion on article names at the Jehovah's Witnesses Wikiproject page. Can you give me a link that goes directly to the discussion? I'd like to take a look at that, Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• User_talk:NancyHeise/Archive_5#link