User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2011a

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

Nebuchenezzar Edited link

You deleted my link about a very rare clock depicting Nebuchenezzer dream, of chopping down the tree of life. This link if for information only, and I believe is a very interesting link on this section.

It should be allowed as the clock itself, if you noticed is marked refer, it is not for sale at present and therefore only here for information purposes. can you please undo your edit on these grounds. It is an honest and not for profit link for info only.

Daniel Clements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The picture on the clock with a brief passage of quoted scripture provides no elaboration about the artwork or of the scripture. Any significance of the picture and the scripture (with no relevant exposition) is completely overshadowed by the primary purpose of the site - to advertise grandfather clocks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

More pointedly, your editing history demonstrates a blatantly obvious singular purpose of promoting a single website. I notice that you have previously removed warnings from your Talk page that indicate you have been advised of this issue before.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I find your comments disgraceful. I have only ever tried to provide valuable information for this service. We continually provide free information about people clocks. My father was editor of the Millers Antiques Price Guide up to 1984. I will answer for any edit I have ever done, never has any been done to promote a site. You completely have got the wrong end of the stiok. Maybe lots of people do this, but I care about helping people and informing them of things that will be of interest. Completely disgraceful comments. The clock I put on Nebuchenezzar, is extremely rare and would be of interest to people lookign at this section. I really have had enough though of comments such as yours. There are some people out there in wider world that care about providing valuable information and not just about driving people to our website. Daniel Clements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Any position held by your father is entirely irrelevant here, and is simply an appeal to authority. The fact remains that you have never made an edit to an article that was not in connection to promoting your own website. See WP:ELNO and WP:COI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I really do not want to argue with you but all changes I have ever made, were made in good faith. I could send you lots of other commercial websites that have information on particular subjects and they use their website for doing so. I promise you I have never tried to use this to further my website. I have been in the antique clocks industry all my life. I have a passion for it and do not mind passing it on. From this moment forth I will not edit again. I think your judgement is harsh and I could send you lots of external links within wikepedia to prove, other people do this exactly the same thing. They might have commercial means, I do not. In relation to my father being editor of the clocks section, this was to inform you we are highly reputable dealers and provide lots of free information and help. I can understand why you may think I have other motives, but if you met me and discussed this, I am 100% confident you would change your mind. I agin confirm your comments are hurtful, because what you say about me is entirely incorrect, but we will leave it at that. You have lost a genuine person. As I said ask the main page editors if they believe the link I posted was very interesting and worthy of a place in the section. I repeat, the clock was listed for information purposes only. Nevermind, it is ashame people liek yourselves jump to conclusions. Yes we sell clocks, we also provide free helful information as well ! Daniel R Clements 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what possible reason you could imagine that I have singled you out among other editors who also may promote commercial websites. When other editors promote commercial sites on articles in my Watchlist, those editors are also advised that they are not following the policy. Whether your company is good, bad, or other is irrelevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, clearly all editors are different with their watchlists, it is a shame the standards are not the same. I could clearly show you many many commercial antique clocks sites with information pages on external link sections within wikepedia and there is not problem with this. They have been there for many years. I am sure you have not singled me out but it is a shame how I get all the rubbish said about me (which is incorrect) and other sites are allowed to do exactly what I have done. I repeat I am a genuine person that is passionate about what I do. I do spend hours providing helpful information to people free of charge. How you can think a link within Nebuchadnezzar will benefit my website god only knows. Nevermind we will agree to differ. It is a shame genuine contributors get treated this way. If you knew me and talked to me, you would understand your comments were incorrect on my motives. Again this is just a shame, but from this moment forth, I am happy not to edit again. I really do not want to be treated in this way, when all I was doing was providing a link, which would of been very intersting within the section.Daniel R Clements 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs)

If it were only the one link among a history of other general article contributions I might agree with you. However, the fact is that you have never made a contribution to an article that did not involve linking to your commercial website. You're welcome to make genuine contributions to articles, but you should not be promoting your own commercial website with external links. There is no need to continue repeating yourself about your efforts of providing 'helpful information'. There are clear policies about conflicts of interest and external links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Those clear policies do not apply in numerous cases which I could show you as already stated. External links from commercial sites show up regularly in antique clock sections. One rule for one, one for another. The link clearly which I added, would of been no commercial use to me, just of interest to the relevant section, nevermind. Daniel R Clements 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs)

I am naturally unaware of the actions taken on pages that are not on my Watchlist (and I am not going to arbitrarily expand my list simply for that purpose). However, I have not applied different standards to different editors. If you are genuinely interested in providing helpful information rather than directing traffic to your site, perhaps you could add content from reliable sources to articles instead.

Regarding the tenuous relevance of the Nebuchadnezzar link in particular—a picture on a clock—it doesn't provide any extra information about Nebuchadnezzar at all, nor would it seem to be a particularly notable (i.e. discussed in reliable third-party sources) depiction of Nebuchadnezzar. There are any number of artistic depictions of Nebuchadnezzar but they don't all warrant an external link, especially when the external site provides no notable information about him, the scripture, or the illustration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We will have to beg to differ on the relevance of the link. It was clearly a very interesting and extremely rare 18th century automaton, depicting one of Nebchadnezzar dreams, chopping down the tree of tree. The relevance of the picture to the arch, was clearly expalined in the biblical passage from Daniel. You are not going to agree. Clearly you cannot expand your watchlists, but any quick search will show you using commercial sites but with sections of helpful information is OK for other editors. Clearly there are one or two when they see a commercial site it is like a red rag to a bull for them, and the assumptions you first made, this smears their judgement. I use my site for this, as it is sensible to have all help pages and info in one place. That does not mean, all I care about is promoting a website. You do not have to explain again. Hopefully if one conclusion will come out of this discussion, you may tell I am not trying to do genuinely what your original remarks say. It would be ridiculous to think people searching for information on Nebuchadnezzar, will be interested in buying an antique clock.Daniel R Clements 10:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs)

Whether the clock is interesting is a matter of opinion, and its rareness has nothing at all to do with Nebuchadnezzar. The picture on the clock is not a notable depiction of the passage of scripture. If it were notable, it would make more sense to upload a copy of the picture rather than direct traffic to an irrelevant commercial site for selling clocks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

'Interesting is a matter of opinion' ofcourse it is, I think the page viewers would have found it a worthwhile external link though. I am happy for you to leave it in discussion on the page. Do they think an automaton 18th antique grandfather clock depicting Nebuchadnezzar dreaming of someone sent from heaven chopping down the tree of life, a worthwhile link within this section. I though we were in a world where we were tring to bring a degree of democracy, not dictatorship. In 35 years I have never seen a similar clock and so it is extremely rare, this is a fact not a matter of opinion. Let the people viewing this page decide for themselves. You are restricting them a worthwile link just based on the fact our normal business is selling clocks. I repeat since wikepdia is a no follow link and Nebuchadnezzar searches are miles away from people wanting to buy antique clocks, clearly this will not be a benfit to me, but to people interested in Nebuchadnezzar. Clearly your mind is set against commercial sites, even if they provide useful info., so however I try and convice you, I believe I am wasting my time. I do not mind if you just add an image of the clock dial and description, totally missing out my website address. Using a link to promote my site has never been, what I have tried to do. I would have happily answered any questions though, which clearly I could not have done just with a picture. Daniel R Clements 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs)

Just stop. I didn't say the rareness was 'a matter of opinion'. As clearly stated before, the clock's rareness has nothing at all to do with Nebuchadnezzar, and depictions of Nebuchadnezzar are not so rare as to make the picture on the clock notable. The page provides no information about Nebuchadnezzar at all, and the context of the site doesn't warrant a link on an article about Nebuchadnezzar. You are indeed wasting your time. If the only value of the link to your site is the picture itself, there are certainly more notable and relevant pictures of Nebuchadnezzar available.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The picture is not the special thing, although this relates to one of Nebuchadnezzars dreams. The special thing is the picture is used in a automaton 18th century antique clock. This is hugely significant and very rare. An English Clock of this period to represent such a historical event like this is unheard of. Unfortunately I know considerably more on this topic than you, and yes it is hugely relevant to the section and the other readers would agree with this statement, if you only would have given them the chance that is. Nevermind though. I could not have said more or explained more to prove your original assumptions incorrect, we will leave it at that. I also happily agreed for a picture of the clock to be used not linked to my website. Any other editor or person reading this, can see I have been entirely fair and reasonable and ONLY interested in sharing useful information with other users.Daniel R Clements 14:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielclements (talk • contribs)

The rareness of a clock, and its perceived interest or importance, have no relevance to Nebuchadnezzar. The picture of Nebuchadnezzar is entirely incidental. Your assumptions about what other editors would think are irrelevant. The edit history is available for anyone to see, and no one objected to the removal of your link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that you know more about clocks is an irrelevant logical fallacy (both a strawman argument and appeal to authority). Please just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the picture is genuinely significant (the clock's significance is out of the article's scope), you need to provide a reliable source indicating as much. It is a conflict of interest to cite yourself as that source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexual abuse detail on JW page

Do you have any comments about the sexual abuse detail on the main JW page? in the discussion. Thanks. Natural (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

The section at the article's Talk page objected to information that does not appear in the article, so the complaint would appear to be redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It might have been there at one point, the specific date of 2007, I'm pretty sure was mentioned in the main article. In any case, it is alright, I think as it is now.Natural (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Russell section

This was the other thing, this Russell section, it is really detailed about eschatology. If anything else is added, it is too much with Russell, shouldn't some of that detail be on a Russell page and not the front page of JW? Also, shouldn't some other things than eschatology be in the Russell section? What do you think, please? Natural (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I already responded to this here last week. What other information about Russell (directly relevant to JWs) would you have the article present?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I put the info in the talk page. It has to do with Russell's rejection of church doctrines such as hellfire, predestination, what he considered pagan teachings such as the Trinity, the PhotoDrama of Creation, etc. (all on the talk page).

Natural (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

A sentence was added in the Russell section summarising his views of the traditional church teachings. I don't think further elaboration about Russell's views about those doctrines is necessary at the JW article. If you disagree, please continue discussion at the JW article rather than here.

Another question about History of Wikipedia page

I added some info on the main page yesterday, but usually if someone reverses it, it shows up in the history section. Is there a reason it didn't show up in the history section? Thanks. Natural (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I don't know what edit you're talking about, and I have no way of knowing what may have happened to it. Edits don't disappear from the history unless oversighted (which is almost certainly not the case here), which would still leave an indication that something had been deleted. Perhaps you simply didn't save your edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Natural (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Hi!

I think the change of doctrine has to go in a new section for a simple reason: the generation of 1914 is almost gone, but generations overlapping with that of 1914 can be current kids, so it adds several decades to the end of the system of things. --Againme (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a discussion for a JW forum, not Wikipedia. The amount of information about the changed doctrine doesn't warrant a new section in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Some errors could be done. Doctrine changes are not bad itself, but conversely. Very desirable. Important is only what Bible says (Mathew 24:3, 36) , (Mathew 24:39, 42) , (Acts of apostles 1:7) , (Luke 12:35-42) - No certain year or day! (like Mayan prediction - hypocrisy with 21.12.2012 - mathematically computed end of world :)) What a joke!) WHEN? , Who Know? ^{and more}. These are official opinions of JW and should be stated in "false predictions" part and everywhere, when sth about. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is especially important what the Bible says on the matter, because there is no evidence that it's true anyway; however, the false predictions of JWs and other groups are stated at unfulfilled religious predictions, with predictions specific to JWs also at Criticism_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Failed_predictions. (The Mayans never predicted that the world would end in December 2012; this is a more recent urban myth based on misunderstanding of the Mayan Long Count calendar system, in which the end of a baktun falls in December 2012. See also 2012 phenomenon.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx, but I know about Mayan, 2012, UFO´s, Conspiracy theories, Pseudoarchaeology, Myths, Fortean phenomenas etc. much more than you think.

Faith of JW is based on believe that there exist one real truth - Bible, because they believe it´s Real God´s Word. Bible is inspirated in their point of view. All other is only man´s opinions, which logically could be false or misunderstood. Many of times falsed religious predictions "was created" for gain many foolish followers or gain much money or just because leader of that religion in that time was crazy or super-crazy. Religious madness is often supported when people have so big expectations in bad time or in bad place. But JW believe, there is one only true - Bible, despite much of from it its not recently (=doctrine changes in time) understood correctly. All are "just people". And human can do misunderstanding from superabundance of faith. Because we are "imperfect". Its reason to fail many times and be correct in exceptional cases indeed. // I have to end now. Thx. Bye. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't need a sermon about what JWs believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A sermon? --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

JWs believe stuff, just like other religions believe stuff. JWs are not special or unique, and their religious beliefs are just as irrational as those of other religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC) But what if some real truth (computingly saying) exist? --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no rational reason to mistake the kind of religious 'truth' inherent to Pascal's wager for actual 'truth'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption is based on precondition thinking that faith is unrational, but real faith is based always on reason and proves. Hebrews 11:1 Real faith is not blind, but by pragmatic reason. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop preaching. It is very boring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the scripture you quote (which is not at all unfamiliar to me) is plainly irrational. It asserts that one should strongly believe something ('faithful' people mistake this for knowing something) simply on the basis that they really really want it to be true, usually because it will result in some kind of personal benefit or to alleviate their fear of the unknown. This faulty kind of thinking is usually bolstered by various irrational and untestable conclusions, usually incorporating thought-terminating clichés. For example, a typical set of faith-based value judgements:

• If something 'good' happens to a 'good' person, then God is blessing the person;
• If something 'bad' happens to a 'good' person, then God is allowing the person to be tested;
• If something 'good' happens to a 'bad' person, then the worldly person is benefiting from the sinful 'world';
• If something 'bad' happens to a 'bad' person, then they're getting what they deserve.

This is a very simplified overview, but it demonstrates the basic point. In any case, I don't need to be lectured anymore about 'faith'. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Last reply ... Problem is ... all your *points ... are nonsenses!!!! Nothing of these points are in the Bible. Bible dont teach preconditions You mentioned. Only falsed clergy and false religion teach these lies. Hypocricy in customs, teaching and feats teach that points, but not Bible. That is not about someone really really want. So, considerer. If its falsed all, is logically and normally reason for You to think no true exist. Its an expected result! But are man´s lies prove, that God not exist? I think No. I was also atheist (hard realistic atheism) before. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is a book written by humans. (Or, more correctly, it's a collection of entirely separate books that a bunch of guys who died hundreds of years ago decided should be put together, to the exclusion of other 'apocryphal' books that they arbitrarily decided didn't belong.) There is no evidence that the Bible was 'inspired' by some magical spirit, nor of any means by which it was supposedly transmitted. Of course I recognise that 'truth' exists; however, I get the sense that you believe that a person doesn't believe in a 'truth' unless they accept some particular irrational belief system, in which case there is no point continuing this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Its written by humans, but not from yours indeed. // Aprocryphal books was written without inspiration and its simple recognized if you read them. Only human wishdom with some trying to disembling of inspiration, but completely false. Its simply recongized difference when You know what you have to find, when testing. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! The Bible says, "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (a scripture very often cited by JWs), but the books that were considered to be "all scripture" when that was actually written aren't even the same books that now make up the Bible, and at the time included various Jewish writings that are now considered 'apocryphal'. Even now, different religions have different ideas of which books are 'inspired', and 'recognising the difference' is entirely subjective. There is no need to continue this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All scriptures, but all inspirated scriptures. ("Protestant canon", or "Hebrew canon" which was also "approved" in end of 1st century. All other scriptures was written after that 2-5.th century.)... We could compare with some public bookcase. ... Some of these books are exclusive and rest of them is waste of time --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the imaginary distinction between 'inspired' and 'not inspired', and I also don't care. Please stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro!

Regarding your opinion that it should go in a JW fourm, I think that JW continued failure to predict the end of the world is central to their religion. I've seen other Wikipedia articles on this subject dealing with how they did to prolong their "long count". It is for that reason that I think it is worth another subheading to mention this latest change in doctrine that extends the period for several decades. It is nice to find a fellow atheist in WP. Regards. Againme (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject is appropriately covered in relevant articles. It simply is not worth having a new section at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses for a single sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What if I expand it? Againme (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Of course. You Can! /// Sorry to insiding into your discuss, but "generation 1914 understanding" is IMHO absolutelly immaterial, despite their organization teach this doctrine as very important. :)) Good result of that many failing are "lessons" because they have been teaching something, which haven´t support from the Bible. They presented in the past (maybe also the current doctrine it will be not right and changed after) rather "wishes" and "man´s opinions". So very desirable lessons for them. Maybe they understand that people havent to speculate about times and other holy things. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The JW '1914 doctrine' is of course central to their beliefs and should be appropriately discussed in articles where relevant. However, I'm not aware that the 'overlapping generations' doctrine has received much, if any, attention in reliable third-party sources to warrant expanding that subsection at the JW Eschatology article. You're welcome to suggest something though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss any such suggestions at that article's Talk page rather than here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Excuse that --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I read some apostasy´s websites for blood or other doctrine criticism and books like from Johnson (Gentile times reconsidered) and Franz (something about conscience or what) ... interesting books, but those men forget about one fact. These infos are not important if they believe in God. Fundamentals of their believe was probably believing in people, so they ended soon. --89.176.227.251 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hearing any more of your opinions or theories about belief in God, or how important you believe it to be. Please stop posting such comments at my Talk page. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

JW chart

Mate, do you know how to update the graph in the Demographics section of the JW article? The data should be easy to find ... I can track it down if there's a problem. It looks a bit lame being five years old. BlackCab (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The image in question is just a picture of an Excel chart. In its current form, it doesn't contain any chart data in a format that can be manipulated by adding more statistical data. The chart would need to be re-generated in Excel with the additional data, exported to a new image, and uploaded. It would be simplest if the original uploader updated the chart (if they still have the source data). Otherwise, the Excel chart would have to be completely re-done from scratch.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And the creator was a rather odd-looking individual called Joshbuddy, who hasn't edited in four years. I don't know if the chart has much significance given that its most recent data is five years old. I'm inclined to remove it, which may prompt someone to update and reload it. BlackCab (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus' execution method

Hi Jeffro77, like you, I had no more time to explore the subject, but I will. First, I must read the book of Justius Lipsius. Have you found an english version of his book "de cruce" ? Jean-Louis Hens (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your helpfulness in the subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Jeffro77 with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded to Jeffro77 for his tireless and endless work on the laborious task of reverting the vandalism of Wikipedia articles. — Bryan Anderson (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Amy Pond edits

Look, I know the edits I'm doing to the Amy Pond article aren't perfect, but aren't they at least a step in the right direction? I condensed the plot down from the gangly mess it was - why not let users just correct any mistakes in my grammar as they go instead of deleting all that work? Hell, you could have even flagged the sections that bothered you.

I'm going to continue editing the article but with the flags restored. Does that sound fair to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.171.2 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from minor issues of syntax and grammar, there were also problems with tone and context, which didn't seem to improve on what was there previously. Also, some of the material you removed, such as Amy's alternative timeline, should remain in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? The section on her alternative timeline is kind of superfluous - it only exists to progress the plot of one particular episode and is erased from time by the end of it. They haven't revisited that timeline in another episode so it's not as though it's a fixture of the overarching plot of the series, and it's already covered in the rest of her character bio, so why not just get rid of the whole extra section. If someone wants to know all the specifics, why not just let them read the article for "The Big Bang" and let that be that?

Anyway, I'm not sure what specifically was wrong with the tone, though I'll agree that I might have been a little convoluted with my choice of syntax in my effort to condense all those paragraphs. But isn't the problem with the article that it's too long and detailed anyway?

Since you're kind of the gatekeeper for me making any edits without getting overwritten here, can you tell me what you would do to make the article better, or at least not get all my work deleted right away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.171.2 (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The context of the article is the character, not 'the overarching plot of the series'. The article should provide enough plot detail to explain important events relevant to the character, but doesn't need to be a complete episode guide.

The alternative Amy section was added to make it clear that that version of Amy is distinct from the other young version of Amy who met the Doctor.

I'm not sure that reverting a single edit makes me a 'gatekeeper', which is kind of amusing. In any case, as with any Wikipedia article, if something you edit gets removed, the recommended procedure is to discuss at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Welp, I sincerely doubt that adding a whole extra section just to differentiate an alternate universe version of Amy who is "the same but different" and only appears for a few minutes out of a single episode makes a lot of sense, but I guess that's a discussion for the Talk section of the actual article rather than here. As for being amused that I called you a "gatekeeper", I know a single edit on Wikipedia is probably microscopic to you given the amount of time you must spend here, but it sure does suck for me to watch the work I did disappear completely because of the opinions of someone who, in my world, is just some other Doctor Who fan. But then again, that's how I guess someone probably feels about the little section on alternate Amy Pond that I deleted in my edit, so easy come easy go I guess. I just wish you weren't the single judge and executioner on the quality of my writing that time, considering that you basically deleted everything I wrote before anyone else could read it and appraise its quality. Just forgive me for being disappointed that my effort to improve the article sucked so bad that you felt it necessary to put my writing out of its misery so quickly. 108.74.171.2 (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your work hasn't been deleted. It's alive and well in the article's History.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know this stuff gets archived, but it's not like I'm just gonna revert it back and try to have it my way or the highway. I'm just gonna write something else. Thanks. 108.74.171.2 (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss at the article's Talk page and refer other editors to your version of the article in the History.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Jeffro: 1) I have read Wikipedia guideline on blogs. You hold a black-and-white opinion of what that policy means. I do not see the black-and-white that you see. I have shared that we hold different opinions on this. So why do you insist on holding your opinion as higher than mine when both are opinions? And, by the way, this is not to suggest I think blog have probability of being a reliable source but, rather, that a blog has a possibility of being a reliable source. 2) Why do you presume so much about my latest participation in a discussion involving you and then assert that presumption as fact? I don’t understand. I have no disdain of answering questions, and if you have questions I am happy to answer them. 3) Promising to give someone a last word is not a license to leave them to trounce on you with ridiculous ad hominem, which is what you have relentless done of my person lately. I do not understand it. Why are you so vicious toward me? Why do you assume bad faith of me? Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the policy at WP:BLOGS (aka WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The only exemption to the policy is where the owner of the blog is recognised as an established expert who has had their relevant work published in a reliable source; in such situations, the policy still recommends alternative reliable sources. Even then, it would be a conflict of interest for such a person to promote their own blog.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro: 1) You cite what I quoted. Wikipedia policy is that “blogs… are largely not acceptable” not, as you have said, that “Wikipedia does not accept blogs as reliable sources”. 2) As for “recognized as an established expert who has had their relevant work published in a reliable source,” that is testable criteria you have no idea if my credentials fit or not—I think it more than safe to say—because you have no idea of the larger body of my work. Because editors here apply this test then understanding how other editors here go about this task is worth exploring. My attempt to explore this was met with your assumption of bad faith on my part and, worse, your factual assertion of ridiculous presumptions of my person and motives. A quick look at my recent edits in the disputed subject would have, for instance, demonstrated that your presumption of my work was faulty at the very least, and probably false. Yet you pressed on attacking my motives. I still do not understand this. To me, you have acted like a childish bully. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy goes on to indicate the only exemption, as I have already indicated, and which should be clear to you anyway.

Your claim of (anonymous) authority or your other credentials are irrelevant, unless your blog is recognised as that of an established expert.

I haven't assumed anything about either you or 'your person', beyond stating where you have not properly followed the relevant policies.-Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro: 1) I see you edited out my quote of Wikipedia policy. Telling. 2) I have made no credential claims you are aware of, and you have not asked. 3) Based on feedback from editors here, and based on black-letter Wikipedia policy, there was/is potential that I publish the Patillo email on a more suitable blog that conceivably would be accepted by editors here as a reliable source. Your recent ad hominem thwarted would could have been a learning experience for everyone. 4) As for me allegedly not following policies, if I have failed to follow one I don’t know what that is outside of your own opinion. Your recent behavior baffles me. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'edit it out'. Your intermediate insertion of that text[2] was inadvertently overwritten while patching in text in an edit conflict. It and the subsequent edit[3] were both made at 3:21UTC. Talk about assuming bad faith! In any case, the extra text is superfluous, because I have already indicated the relevant exemption, which does not apply to your blog.

It is not necessary to ask about your credentials, nor is it necessary or relevant for you to allude to 'the larger body of your work'. If a source is considered reliable it will be cited by other editors without prompting by the author.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously stated at the discussion that even if the e-mail appeared on another blog, that it could still not be used as a source.[4] I have already clearly indicated what the policy says about using blogs as sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro: Thanks for sharing what you do here. It speaks for itself. You previously stating something means you share your opinion. So what? We all have one. Neither your opinion nor my opinion equates to Wikipedia policy. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your attempts to reduce editing policy simply to being 'my opinion' is humorous but irrelevant. Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Just curious

I was just curious (I'm not tech savvy, so I might be entirely wrong), but is a template for age change necessary in this case where the person has died? Or perhaps that template wasn't just for age change? All I know is that when I reverted the change, there was no difference. Please enlighten me. Thanks. Lighthead (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The template calculates the person's age at the time of their death based on their birth and death dates. When you reverted here, it resulted in the removal of the text " (aged 82)". As you suggest, the age of a person when they die is static, and the plain text for the date of death and age at death could be put in instead of using the template. Using the template just helps to avoid manual calculation errors and allows for consistent formatting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That's makes more sense. Thanks. See... sometimes I don't make sense. Ha ha ha! No, but seriously, it does make sense. Lighthead (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Watch Tower Society publications‎

Regarding your edit summary: Undid revision 434342542 by Needscurry (talk) restore chronological order - date of first publication, it is my understanding that Listen to God and Live Forever replaces the Enjoy Life brochure, as well as The Bible—What Is Its Message? replacing the Government brochure. I was following the same format already under that heading for the Good News booklets. --Needscurry (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If the Watch Tower Society has specifically indicated that the new brochures replace those older ones, I don't mind changing it back. Please note that superseded publications in the list aren't bulleted (but are indented), to match the description at the top of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand ... or maybe I do

This is about reverting simple edits. I do not understand why you feel compelled to revert simple edits so if you could please explain your rationale perhaps I could better understand. Grammatical errors? Sure. Factual errors or irrelevant facts? Sure. Simple edits? No. In my view, and surely to most people, to revert simple edits is to exercise an unnecessary control over an article, as well as to imply that another editors changes are not of equal value. You've made edits that I didn't personally like, but because it wasn't a big deal I didn't change them; it was a matter of preference not principle. I shouldn't have to, but I am requesting the same courtesy that I show to you. Religious or not, the principles behind "The Golden Rule" should be respected by everyone. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming I'm thinking of the right edit, there was an 'exposé' tone to some of your comments, which is not neutral. More broadly, if I think something should be changed and the change does not seem controversial, I will change it. If I've changed wording and it is an improvement, there is no cause for complaint. If I've changed wording but you prefer other wording, discuss the specific wording at the Talk page with a simple comment about why you think the other wording is better. If you simply object because it was your wording that was changed, refer to the text on any 'Edit' page, which states, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)