User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015

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

Jehovah's Witnesses Related Question

• Moved to Talk:List_of_Watch_Tower_Society_publications#Study_aids

Hi Jeffro,

I don't remember ever actually writing any Wikipedia comments before, so forgive me if my formatting ends up wonky. I was just looking for lists of Watchtower Publications to help me with my collection, when I stumbled across this page and section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Watch_Tower_Society_publications#Primary_study_aids

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Watch_Tower_Society_publications#Study_aids

The heading "These publications are intended to convert interested individuals" struck me as a bit jarring and out of place. For one, the immediate next header is: "Secondary aids are considered just before or shortly after baptism" so it is not even consistent. Secondly, I am not sure that I agree with the talk page reason you give for keeping the header, as it includes original research (private interpretation of primary sources) and citations of a publication that might not even apply to all of the books listed, e.g., how does a 1980's Kingdom Ministry support the statement that "Studies in the Scriptures is intended to convert interested individuals"? Thirdly and lastly, making statements about intent is always notoriously difficult and subject to conflicting interpretation, while making statements of fact is much simpler and should be preferred.

With that in mind, a possible alternative header might be something like:

"These publications are generally considered prior to baptism"

It is concise, clear, consistent with the other headers and doesn't make assumptions about intent, only fact. May I have your thoughts? Teary Oberon (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(You have previously commented at Wikipedia Talk pages, and you had mastered Wiki-formatting such as indenting at the time. You also referred to yourself in the third person a few times. I hope you've recovered from that oddity.)

The intended purpose of the 'Bible study' program offered by Jehovah's Witnesses most definitely is to convert individuals to the JW faith, though the students are not told of that goal at the outset of the study. For example:

• "Your goal is to help the student achieve greater insight into the truth, qualify as an unbaptized publisher, and become a dedicated and baptized Witness of Jehovah"—Our Kingdom Ministry, April 2001, page 5;
• Chapter 18 of What Does the Bible Really Teach?, pages 174–183;

Your alternative wording would therefore be misleading, because the students don't start out with any intention of being baptised as members of the religion—they just think they're 'learning more about the Bible'. Your wording would only be suitable if the order of events was a) a person wants to be baptised as a JW; b) they study the necessary literature; c) they get baptised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added references to the article supporting the fact that the publications are used with the goal of converting individuals.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pediainsight

Can you supply diffs of plagiarism / copyvios? If that is genuinely what the user is doing then I have this shiny banhammer in my tool belt... Guy (Help!) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For a few examples previously indicated, see User talk:Pediainsight#Citations. More recently, his edits[1][2] at homeopathy plagiarised an extract of Dana Ullman's book. If you'd like other specific examples, please advise which ones.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Line Breaks

Thanks for your contributions to the Tonga Adventist article. A minor point: you have been removing line breaks from the end of sentences. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, "Do not insert line breaks within a sentence, since this makes it harder to edit with a screen reader. A single line break may follow a sentence, which may help some editors." I am one of those editors. With some visual and physical impairment, it is easier for me to rearrange text if the line breaks are present. It has no effect on what the readers see. I ask that in future you leave single line breaks when you find them. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't come across that before. I'll try to keep it mind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion is here and here. It is an obscure point, but I suspect I am not the only old fart with shaky hands and weak vision editing on Wikipedia. Every time I put something up on the main page I grit my teeth and wait for some IP to carefully remove the line breaks. Maybe they think they are saving space. Regardless of my physical handicaps, I like to treat an article as a series of assertions, each starting on a new line and ending in a citation, that can be shuffled until the natural sequence becomes obvious. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that, stylistically, I don't like the line breaks, and I understand why people remove them on sight (which I doubt is limited to IP editors). It's not about saving space. It's just... bad. Or to put it slightly more technically, it disrupts the flow of the paragraph, which has an impact on reading comprehensibility while editing. But I understand how it may help editors in your situation. If I'm aware that an editor such as yourself is a primary contributor on a particular article, I'll try to remember to leave them in place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Don't use line breaks – opinions are divided on the subject. If you find an article with that style, assume it is written by an editor who prefers it. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. This is like citations or English variants: conform to the style that has been established. The reason I dread seeing an editor remove line breaks is that it gives a diff like this one where it is very hard to see what changes have been made, and then hard to fix them if they have garbled the text. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I note the essay (not a policy or a guideline) you've pointed out, and I won't 'fix' articles where line breaks are obviously being used for the purpose you've indicated (though it probably isn't good form to cite such pages that you've modified yourself for your own benefit, as is the case with both the essay and the previously-indicated MOS subpage). In about 10 years as a Wikipedia editor, I don't recall ever seeing an article before where line breaks have been used for this purpose, so it's clearly not something I'll encounter very frequently. As far as comparing diffs goes, you may find things easier if you enable either the wikEd or wikEdDiff tool in the Gadgets tab of your Wikipedia Preferences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Made me laugh

I like your style with your comments at Luxure's talk page about Australian time zones. (Deliberately not linking, I was looking up for something you have put at WP:RfD).

But you're wrong surely: let Adelaide survive, but didn't Billy Connolly propose that when Skylab] fell out of orbit he was praying "Please, hit Brisbane". So I propose Brisbane should have its own time zone.

Where I live, we have our own time zone, it is called 1956. Or it seems like that sometimes.

Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Whenever I visit my home town, I have to remember to wind my watch back 50 years. Which is inconvenient, because I don't have a watch.

Defending Adelaide probably constitutes disruptive editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least the crow-eaters were smart enough not to elect a LNP government. Can't say that much for the banana benders (how much was it, 78/89?) All to elect the 'humble' Campbell Newman. I don't know what you cane toads do up there. Luxure Σ 09:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully this is being rectified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that he's left politics he can go work in Bunnings; so he can be with all the other tools. Luxure Σ 11:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well aren't you pleasant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Puérto Douglas

See here. Luxure Σ 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Religious categorisation

Having read the biography of a fellow categorised as "Jewish" since 2008 despite his objections, I have come to understand why Wikipedia has to be careful about religious categorisation.

A brief question, which you may wish to ignore or delete, of course: Do public JW's generally avoid discussing their religion in specific terms, because they want to recruit for religious reasons rather than because of celebrity?

Sincerely, is a 16:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have come to understand that religious categorisation must follow a higher standard.

I couldn't possibly know the personal motivations of individuals I have never even met, and there is no reason to suggest that there is only one reason for such individuals to refrain from stating their religious affiliation. A few possibilities I can think of right now are:

• They may avoid mentioning it because negative statements about the religion may result in shunning by family members.
• They may believe their religious affiliation may negatively affect their status as a celebrity.
• They may believe that their specific actions or general status as a celebrity may negatively affect public perceptions of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• They may believe that their religious affiliation has no relevance to their public life.
• They may more broadly avoid discussing any elements of their private lives.

Therefore, whilst it is possible that your suggested reason might occasionally apply, there is no basis for citing it as the reason. In fact, it's less likely than the other reasons given, because devout JWs are more likely to follow the constant commands from the Watch Tower Society to be "no part of the world".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding User:73.11.72.255

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vyselink (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection

Is there anyway to get an edit protection put on some of the JW articles? Some random IP editor has once again reverted back the edits of User:73.11.72.255 and I'm just getting tired of dealing with it. Thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Admins can protect pages so that only registered users can edit them, and hopefully that will be the result of the ANI discussion. The 'random' IP editor was also involved in the previous edits on 3 and 4 February on the articles. I suspect that the IPv6 editor is the same person as the other IP editor (e.g. using a wireless connection instead of ADSL).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You are much more knowledgeable of the procedures on how to go about getting something like that to happen, so I'll leave it up to you to do w/e you think is best. I too had noticed the multiple edits by both users being the essentially (if not exactly) the same. Vyselink (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is already an open ANI case about the matter, and that process may result in page protection anyway. It would unnecessarily complicate things to concurrently start a separate process.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thank you. Vyselink (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Working Together

I am attempting to make the articles clearer and more reflective of current sources, rather than those that are out of date. I felt that BlackCab and you were mindlessly reverting me and trying to preserve text that was not accurate. I am working hard to discuss matters in a collaborative fashion. You will face consequences for your opposition to truth. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been any confusion. You've made dishonest ad hominem attacks. You have lied about what is the stable version of the article. You have lied about there being consensus for your edits. If you are going to now cease that behaviour, then you may be able to contribute meaningfully to articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the claim that you are providing information from "current sources, rather than those that are out of date" is demonstrably false. You haven't provided any new sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim that I will "face consequences" along with your edit summary about the "lake of fire" was hilarious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You got that too huh? I thought I was special......Vyselink (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses Publications Page

Dear Sir. At the "Jehovah's Witnesses Publications" page of Wikipedia, found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_publications#Life.E2.80.94How_Did_It_Get_Here.3F_By_Evolution_or_by_Creation.3F

the following statement is found:

"Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, first published in 1985, presents the Old Earth (Day-Age) creationism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and their criticism of evolution. Biologist Richard Dawkins criticized the book for repeatedly presenting a choice between intelligent design and chance, rather than natural selection."

This statement is not true. The book “Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?” does discuss the theory of natural selection in detail in Chapter 8 of the book entitled, “Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?”, from pages 99 to 113.

With regards to Richard Dawkins' mentioning of the theory of natural selection, New York University professor Irving Kristol wrote a piece for the September 30 1986 New York Times newspaper about the theory of natural selection. Here is an excerpt:

“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae (gaps). Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. …The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”—The New York Times, September 30, 1986 - Room for Darwin and the Bible

I am not able to post this information on the "Jehovah's Witnesses Publications" page because you have protected the page from further edits. Please respond to my inquiry about clarifying the misleading statement made by Richard Dawkins on this page.

Tom75cheung (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Tom75cheung

I did not protect the article. It was protected by an admin because of repeated disruption by an IP editor.

The article provides Dawkin's view of the publication, and it is clearly presented as his view. Richard Dawkins is a biologist and an established authority on the subject of evolution. Irving Kristol (now deceased) was a conservative commentator, and was not an expert in any field relating to evolution. It would therefore be undue weight to provide his view.

Dawkins didn't say the book never mentions "natural selection", but instead he referred to a particular section of the book that repeatedly misrepresents natural selection as 'chance'—specifically, Dawkins cites examples found on pages 144–146 of the Watch Tower Society's publication, where it does indeed inaccurately refer to "chance" instead of "natural selection".

The phrase "natural selection" appears only twice in chapter 8, both at the end of the chapter. The phrase appears a total of fifteen times in the entire book, and most of those are in quotes from other sources. The book provides almost no actual discussion about "natural selection".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I also see that you are the editor who added a lengthy copy-and-paste from Awake! to that article. That edit constitutes a copyright violation. Aside from that quite serious breach, the material you added also misrepresents the definition of "creationism". The Awake! article incorrectly claims that Jehovah's Witnesses are not "creationists" because they are not young earth creationists. Jehovah's Witnesses are in fact day-age creationists, which quite definitely makes them creationists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jeffro77:

Thanks for your reply. I respect the points you have made in your reply to me. At the same time, Irving Kristol is not alone in the views he expressed in his article for the September 30, 1986 edition of The New York Times newspaper. Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky agrees with the views expressed by Kristol.

Tom75cheung (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Tom75cheung

I have deleted your irrelevant lengthy copyright violation from Awake!, 22 July 1987, pages 10–13. (The quote you attributed to The New York Times in your earlier comment was also lifted from the same Awake! article, and you should have cited it properly, but the excerpt is probably brief enough to keep you out of trouble in that instance.) Please note that you may be blocked from editing if you persist in pasting large sections of material from other sources. As previously suggested, you should read WP:COPYPASTE.

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the JW publication about evolution or about Dawkin's review of it. Nor does it even relate to your initial protestation that JWs should not be described as creationists, which they definitely are despite their misuse of the terms. The fact that there other people who also don't believe in evolution is also quite irrelevant. Additionally, research into evolution has come a very long way since the sources from the 1980s you're appealing to.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If what he wrote is so irrelevant, Jeffro77, then why are you trying to refute his post after you deleted it? Lol.Emily sorensen (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)emily_sorensen

I refuted his point. I deleted his copyright violation. You only seem to have one edit. Did you really create a user account just to make that asinine comment?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You refuted his point? What is your basis for saying “research into evolution has come a very long way since the sources from the 1980s you're appealing to”? A 2008 article in the journal “Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences” describes the many serious flaws and fallacies there are in the Biological Species Concept that your friend Richard Dawkins is a proponent of, found at philosophy.stanford.edu/download/19041/velasco_SHPS_final.pdf Although the author of the article also believes in evolution, his article shows that evolutionists such as himself and Dawkins cannot agree with one another, not only on minor details, but on theories that constitute the foundations of evolutionary theory. This undermines the credibility of evolutionists in general. By the way, I can see that I touched a raw nerve in you, judging by the bellicose tone of your last post. Lol. Emily sorensen (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)emily_sorensen

Your impressions of my comments are of little interest to me. I have no affiliation with Richard Dawkins. There is certainly more agreement among evolutionists than there is among creationists. You might like to try actually learning about the subject at some point rather than making vapid claims about what you imagine 'undermines the credibility' of evolution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I’m confident that I’ve learned more about the subject of evolution than you may imagine, Jeffro77, but you’re free to believe whatever you want. For your information, I don’t believe in creationism regardless of how creationism is defined. I question the credibility of both evolutionists and creationists. Evolution is still a theory, not a fact, and it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in either evolution or creationism.Emily sorensen (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)emily_sorensen

Apparently I missed this response. You obviously do not understand what theory means in a scientific context. Do you believe in the theory of gravity?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism on the Moon

If we're going to keep Mormonism in Norway, I figure we should probably also have an article about Mormonism on the Moon we could fill it up with just as much content, and at least we know for a fact that the number of church members on the moon is zero, whereas we have no reliable data about the number of Mormons in Norway. If someone nominates it for deletion all we'll have to do is say that it is notable without giving any support as to why it's notable...end sarcsm -War wizard90 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism on the Moon may be slightly more tenuous. Although a quick search reveals that a Mormon did dance with Buzz Aldrin on an episode of Dancing with the Stars. However, since Aldrin is apparently a Freemason, maybe there should be an article about Freemasons on the Moon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, which works perfectly since Joseph Smith stole a bunch of rituals from the Freemasons... -War wizard90 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Plus, everyone knows the moon landing was faked by the Illuminati. :P --Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Singular they reply

I started a discussion on the bottom of the talk page to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Grammar on whether the definite article should be used and wondered if you could contribute. I have noticed that Wikipedia's spell check does not pick up definately. Is there a way to complain about it? I have looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and Wiktionary. Wikitionary lists it as a misspelling of definitely and besides it is easy to misspell words because of the irregularities of English spelling which confuse even native speakers. Tk420 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not offer a spell check function. If the spellcheck function in your browser or associated plugin does not identify this particular error, you will need to address that separately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower Page Edit

RE: Your Message: "Your edits to The Watchtower have been removed, as your changes constituted an unsourced opinion".

REBUTTAL: Unsourced opinion? So it's not common knowledge to readers of the the Watchtower and Awake periodicals that the New World Translation is used almost exclusively? Additionally, you're suggesting that it's my "opinion" that the New World Translation is used SOLEY by the Jehovah Witnesses as the Society's only authorized translation of Scripture? In contrast, since the information I wrote was factual and public knowledge, it doesn't require a network of "sources" to validate the claim. You're willful removal of public information constitutes an abuse of privilege and degrades the unbiased value of Wikipedia. This is not a WBTS platform - so leave factual information alone, even if YOU deem it "unfavorable" to the organization!

RE: "Additionally, it appears that your User Talk page is being used primarily as a platform for stating your religious opinions rather than for discussion about article content or user behaviuor [sic]

REBUTTAL: My talk page is my business. Don't swim in my pool if the water is too deep. In either case, it addresses editing concerns and disputes with registered members. HBCALI (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not based on 'common knowledge', they are based on reliable sources. The fact that JWs use their favoured translation is not contested, but their use of their favoured translation does not support your POV claim that use of a particular translation contradicts a statement about it being 'based on [their interpretation of] scripture', even if their claim is false. All Christian denominations base their beliefs on their own interpretation of scripture, and it's not your place to say that one irrational belief is less reasonable than your own unevidenced beliefs. Since I'm usually accused of removing positive information about the denomination, your claim that I am removing "unfavorable" material about them is amusingly refreshing.

The content of your User Talk page is not actually simply 'your business'. I have already directed you to the relevant guidelines about what sort of content is not appropriate. Using it as a soapbox for your religious opinions is outside the purpose of the page. You may like to set up your own blog for that purpose. I'll give you an opportunity to rectify the matter, otherwise it will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

edits

hello. I see your edits, and you may have had a valid point about the sub-headings or maybe consolidation, but you went overboard. Please don't follow me around. Not cool. I don't appreciate it (and definitely won't stand for it). Hounding and second-guessing is against WP policy, and you did that with me in a way, to be honest, right after I did an edit on the other article. Then you checked my history and went to article and undid hard work for basically I don't like reasons. Do it again in that sweeping way, and get reverted again. Seriously. You don't own any article, and whole-sale removals of sentences and valid and accurate elaborations that you personally don't like or care for or that you don't think are necessary is not something that's really supposed to be done. Modifications are one thing, but sweeping disrespectful I don't like type total deletions etc are another. I did try to collaborate with some of your points about it though. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not 'followed you around'. I have subjects related to the JW project on my watch list. I don't really care that it was you who improperly edited the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You followed me to the "Ransom view" article obviously. By checking my contrib history, and that's what I mean. And your doing whole-sale removals of sections and paragraphs that YOU find pointless is not kosher. Modifying or altering or trimming sure...but 99 or 100% deletions are not really called for. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what the watchlist is? I don't really have time for paranoid claims about being 'followed'. Your duplicate material was properly refactored into a section that explains the single belief common to both groups. The information about Catholicism lacked substance, and simply posting longwinded quotes is not adequate content. And despite your misleading edit summary here, I already stated a section at article Talk. And I also explained there why the longwinded quotes about Catholicism are not appropriate content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I had only checked the recent diffs when reviewing recent changes in my Watch List, so I hadn't noticed the lengthy quote in the existing section. I have now also trimmed it out as well. Those sections should be expanded with prose supported by sources rather than only brief statements followed by excessive quoted text. If you have good reasons for providing undue weight for minor denominations that have exactly the same Adventist view of atonement, please discuss at article Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they should be prose-based, and that those lengthy quotes were really too long, and I never entirely liked the way this article was structured or presented. It was either unbalanced in one way, and lacking in others. My point about "following" (try to put yourself in my place for a minute) is after you did undoing on the Atonment article, you immediately went to an article (Ransom view) that I had just previously worked on. I know about "Watchlists". But that's not how it seemed necessarily with the Ransom article, as I never really saw you edit on that one prior to this. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have many articles on my watch list. Many of those are about religious topics that relate to Jehovah's Witnesses, as part of my work as a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject (though there are also various other topics on my watchlist not related to religion). On some of those articles, I often only intervene where the article contains content related to the JW Project, because I simply don't have time to examine all of the content of all of the articles. When my review of recent edits of an article in my watch list revealed recent changes that added content related to Jehovah's Witnesses (which happened to constitute undue weight because the JW view on that particular doctrine is identical to the broader Adventist view), I intervened at that article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, you need to stop falsely claiming that I have ever removed content for "I don't like reasons". I provided specific reasons why the content was replaced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, but you did go to my edit history to see that I just before worked on the "Ransom" article. There's no question of that, because there's NO edit from you in the past on that particular article. So that is kind of obvious. Way too coincidental. Just because of your interest in JW related things on WP. I mean, you did check my edit history. And that's what I'm referring when I said "following around". You did click my contrib history. You can't deny that. Right? Gabby Merger (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Though I owe you no explanation, I have already explained about articles on my watch list. Perhaps you do not understand that articles can be added to the watch list even without editing them. In any case, your continued speculation is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Just from the "watchlist", and not checking my history in that moment? Even though I edited the Ransom article days ago and you never did anything with it days ago, but only until I edited and restored some stuff on the Atonement article. The fact is that the Ransom article never seemed to be on your watchlist prior to this. Why didn't you do what you did to the Ransom article DAYS ago, when I first did those edits on the Ransom article? No, instead you did it right after seeing what I did on the ATONEMENT article. So I'll take that as a yeah you did look at my edit history but just don't want to clearly openly admit it. Though it's obvious, and there's no other way that could have happened in quite that timing or way. I do understand putting articles on a watchlist without editing them, but you're telling me that you added the Ransom article to your watchlist some time in the past? Coincidentally, even though the very LAST article I myself edited (before the Atonement one) was the Ransom one? It just (at the very least you have to admit if you do put yourself in my place, like I asked you to do) seems a bit fishy. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it just implausible that it was coincidence that it was a watchlist situation, rather than you actually checking my edit history.

I edited on the Ransom article days ago, and you didn't step in then...but only after you saw what I did on the Atonement article. Right after immediately. It seems that the Ransom article was not even on your watchlist prior. Plus, you never edited on that particular article before. The Ransom article. But suddenly you do right after you saw my edit in the "Atonement" article, which of course is on your watchlist (I know) because you did edit on THAT one before. Why can't you just admit the obvious?? (It does seem obvious with the timing etc.) That's the only reason I said "following me around". I would not have said it if you only reverted the Atonement one, since I know you worked on that already in the past. But you never did with the Ransom one, until the very same day that you re-edited my stuff on the Atonement one! Because (unless I'm missing something) there's no way for you to have gone on the Ransom article at that particular juncture unless you, out of curiosity maybe, checked my edit history, since you saw that I restored some of what you removed on the Atonement article almost 2 months ago. So it's not really "speculation", but just logical deduction and observation of obvious occurrence. Because, again, if it was just a "watchlist" matter, with the Ransom article, why didn't you do what you did days ago, when I edited on the Ransom article days ago, but instead only did IMMEDIATELY after the Atonement article matter? That's what made me think (and rightly most likely) that you checked my history. Hence my statement. Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well... that's quite a rant. Have you finished frothing at the mouth yet? I edited the article when it contained content relevant to the WikiProject I work on. I have no need whatsoever to explain or justify the timing of my edits or the priority I assign to reviewing changes to articles that are less directly related to the WikiProject I work on. I certainly do review contributions of editors who become trouble-makers, but it is not the case in this instance. Given your current rabid suspicion, it probably will be the case in future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you're showing lack of civility and rude insults now, when that's not really necessary. I did not do that with you. And saying nonsense like "rant" and "frothing at the mouth". What's up with that? That's courteous and civil and assuming good faith? I simply took the time to state why it seemed that it was a history check right after the "Atonement" article situation. And also the point that you never edited on the Ransom article days ago when I edited days ago, but only right after the Atonement article matter. I was simply explaining WHY I thought it was a "following around" matter. Cuz that's how it (at least on the surface) very much seemed. You're being disrespectful because of that. And now I have a clear threat from you that you probably will follow me around and in reality violate WP:Hounding. And if you do, obviously things won't be pleasant for you or me on Wikipedia. So I'd strongly advise against that. I'll save these recent exchanges (un-edited) where your uncivil remarks and rudeness are clear. I did not disrespect you, by simply stating (thoroughly) why I felt that you did check my history given the timing. I was simply saying straightforwardly that it did not happen until the "Atonement" article situation. Seemed too soon and too coincidental given the timing. That was it. I even said "anything is possible I guess" but it didn't seem likely. That was all. No need to be insulting now. (Or threatening). In violation of at least two WP parameters and principles. Also, this point is overly belabored now anyway, and not even my intention in reality, as the real issue is the structure of the Ransom article (which I said already that I mostly agree with you on, as for as long-winded quotes etc). Gabby Merger (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I made no 'threat', and my description of your lengthy unnecessary response above seemed appropriate. I advised you that I will be more likely to review your edits because you have demonstrated not only that you add extraneous POV content that constitutes undue weight, but also that you are argumentative. In the past, it has been necessary to monitor the edits of editors who have acted in a similar way not only in view of article content, but also in regard to frivolous reports about alleged behaviour. I didn't say I would definitely review all your edits or that I would 'follow' you. I have no interest whatsoever in your edits that fall outside the scope of the subject areas I already work on.

I owe you no explanation, but since you have indicated a tendentious intention to "save these recent examples", I will also provide a little more information for other readers... I have hundreds of articles on my watch list. When I review recent changes on my watch list, I don't review every single article that has had recent changes. There are currently dozens of recently changed articles on my watch list that I haven't yet reviewed at all, because I prioritise the relative significance of the subjects. When I notice changes to multiple articles on a similar subject, such articles have a higher priority than articles that are less closely related, and that is the case in this instance.

Ignorant of those facts, you've come to my User Talk page, where you launched into your own speculation about my motives and behaviour, falsely accused me of removing content merely because I supposedly 'don't like' it, failed to assume good faith when I provided my initial response, and then repeated your assumptions ad nauseum. It's also interesting that you seem keen to save the "un-edited" versions of my comments, even though you have made several changes to your own statements at this page to make them appear more conciliatory after the fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the "I don't like" thing I said was probably a bit of an over-statement, and to repeat, I said that I mostly agreed with you on the Ransom article issue with the (as you said) "long-winded quotes" and should be "more prose" etc. But by the way, for the record, as far as the statements I made on your talk page here, I never made several changes to my own statements "after the fact", but always within the span of time before you responded. Toning SOME thing down, sure, as many people do (as do you), at times, but not really 'after the fact' per se. In other words, it's not like lots of time lapsed, and you already responded with statements, and then I went to a previous comment of mine, and re-worked whole sentences to make them seem "more conciliatory". If I did that (in that way) I don't remember. Most of my tone-downs (which were not even that many overall) were done before you responded to the statements. So not sure why you would say "after the fact". Gabby Merger (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the entire conversation is only about a day old, my use of "after the fact" inherently did not refer to an extended period of time. But the point was that you felt the need to say you would "save these recent exchanges (un-edited)", even though you are the only one that has changed any statements in this discussion at all in regard to their tone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In summary, 1) you agree with some of my edits, and have made no effort to discuss the other edits, 2) you have acknowledged that you mischaracterised the nature of my edits, 3) I have indicated how reviewing articles on my watch list may have given you the appearance of 'following' you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Given the last couple of conversations you've had (and the anon ip issue that we were both involved in) thought a nice message from someone who is not accusing/attacking you of anything would be a nice change. So. Hi :-) Vyselink (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (Sigh.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Part of the hassle of being a good WP editor my friend. I'm currently embroiled in one of the most annoying conversations/arguments I've ever had on WP regarding the use of "best known for" or "as" etc. Vyselink (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

B.H.M.S. & D.H.M.S.

Hello Jeffro77, you redirected these two articles created to another page. I would like to know which guidelines were not met due to which you put a redirect? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

These certifications appear to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They are not broadly recognised certifications, and the information that was in the articles was merely administrative in nature, and could very likely be viewed as inappropriate promotion of the courses. The availability of the courses recognised by the one institution that provides those courses can be adequately mentioned in a single paragraph at the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No Jeffro77, the course are not offered by one institution but is a course offered by several universities and medical schools in India. You should have read and understood the article before taking such action. Please show me a specific rule that says article is not notable. I don't want to indulge in edit war and hence would let you restore the pages. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The courses are recognised by one organisation, though they are offered by various schools. The articles provided mundane promotional information about course length and entry requirements, which is not notable. As previously advised, the availability of the certifications can be briefly stated at the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jeffro77, I am not even sure what are you talking about now. Almost all courses in the world are recognized by and regulated by one organization and are offered by various schools. That's how the education system works. What you mentioned is your interpretation; please show me a rule that fails the articles. And since when did mentioning course duration / requirement become promotional? If that is the case then I would like to see you blanking Bachelor of Science. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comparison with a section of Bachelor of Science is invalid, because that article is about a very broadly recognised certification, and the article contains significantly more than just basic information about a specific course. Further, the section about course length at the BoS article provides comparative detail about related courses worldwide, rather than mundane information that promotes a specific course. I have already indicated that the articles fail Wikipedia's guidelines about notability and promotion. However, if you like, the articles can be nominated through the AfD process instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, and why is the comparison invalid? Just because you feel so? Who decided that article was about a very broadly recognised certification? What do you say about this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Once again, show me the specific rule please. Where is the promotional material in the article? I don't think we deal in generality. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is rarely a good argument for keeping an article, and it may be the case that some of the other articles are not required either. However, none of the other certifications you have listed are about a subject broadly recognized as pseudoscience.

Aside from all of that, I already quite clearly indicated why your comparison with the section at Bachelor of Science was invalid. I have also already indicated a number of relevant policies and guidelines, and as such, I consider your requests for a 'specific rule' to have already been answered. However, you are welcome to start a broader discussion about the content at the relevant article Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Jeffro77, you have not once quoted any specific rule. What I got was notability and promotion; both pages I know exist. Once again, please tell me which specific rule fails the article. As far as pseudoscience is concerned, I am still not sure why can't a recognized degree be recorded on Wikipedia? All I am asking for is show me which specific rule has been violated. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have indicated the relevant policies and guidelines. I'm not interested in wikilawyering over the matter. I see you have raised a request for third opinion, so I will await comment from other editors. However, I would also add that several of your edits[3][4][5][6] appear to confirm my concerns that the articles are intended as promotional.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, since when did adding links to other articles become promotional? I do that to lots of articles I write. You cannot blatantly start WP:Blanking articles and redirecting them to pages just because you feel so. If the article did not hold merit, please use CSD, AfD, merge or atleast start discussion in article Talk Page. None of that was done and both pages were redirected. You also should know that one of the pages was even patrolled already by someone and you just ignored everything. Since you are so confident, I assume you know about some specific rule that both pages failed; somehow you don't want to share it. As you said, I will wait for the outcome from request for third opinion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be quite obvious that linking a broad subject (particularly one that is broadly recognised as pseudoscience) to a specific educational program is likely to be viewed as promotional.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jeffro77 quite obvious is your opinion and cannot be taken as a rule. By whom will the broad subject be viewed as promotional and what was being promoted in those pages? You clearly should have invited discussions before WP:blanking the page and redirecting it. Lets wait for the outcome from request for third opinion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This is a borderline issue, but I actually agree with the redirects. Both articles pretty much looked like promotional carbon copies of each other before the redirects. (SN: AKS.9955, if you plan to improve the articles and thus remove the redirects, I'm not sure "diploma" is the proper word in the respective lead sections; maybe you mean "academic degree"?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Erpert, thanks for your time. I am sorry but the word diploma cannot be removed as that is the proper name of the course. By the way, the other course is Bachelors degree and does not have the word diploma. Now why is a redirect applicable there? If this is the borderline case as you said, then should the articles not be tagged for improvement with scope for improvement. Reason they appear to be carbon copies is very simple; they are similar in nature except the term and name. Now I cannot really come up with something that is not valid, can I? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the articles were intended as promotional is also confirmed by the fact that you immediately linked them from other articles related to homeopathy but not at all related to educational programs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your question to me, AKS, are you sure "diploma" is actually the name of the course? I'm not sure how academics work in India, but in America, for example, when one attains a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science, the degree itself is called Political Science, not Bachelor of Science Degree in Political Science. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Erpert, let me explain it from scratch. Homeopathy is recognized pseudoscience practiced since 1796 in several countries (even today). In India, the apex body to monitor education in Homeopathy is Central Council of Homoeopathy. This apex body functions under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (India) and vide and act in 1973 standardized the Homeopathy education being imparted by Collages and Universities in India. Two of the courses are called Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery and Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery (I had provided necessary references in the article). These courses are being imparted by over 100 institutions in the country (actually more than 100, yesterday I was reading a list and noticed more than 100). So, long story short, yes it is called "diploma". In Indian education system (like US) there are different ways to call a degree but one of the two degrees in discussion is certainly called diploma and the other bachelors. Since we are on the subject of education in US, you may want to check Diploma in Nursing. Moreover, only one of the articles had the word diploma. Nothing wrong in the articles I wrote Erpert, I can assure you. The only reason the editor who redirected the articles has is promotional because it has links?? Since when did creating links become promotional and it really makes me feel bad that we really have to listen to argument like this from an editor who has 6 times more experience than I have. Let me know if you have any further questions and I will be happy to answer them. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining the courses. As for the promotion situation, though, I think you might be a little confused about what "promotion" means in Wikipedia terms. WP:NOTPROMOTION briefly goes over this, but I think WP:TONE would better explain what was wrong with the articles as is (and it isn't because of the links). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Erpert, I am glad that now the issue is being discussed with some real reason. As far as WP:Tone is concerned, I would like to state that if the tone was inapt then the articles should have been tagged so and I would have gladly amended the relevant parts. As part of housekeeping, we all tag lots of articles. Since you pointed tone, I am taking the liberty to explain every point in the policy below;

• Formal tone: I tried best to keep the tone formal. If there are shortfalls, I will improve it.
• Reliable sources: All the sources in the article were reliable. If at all any source is doubted, I will improve upon it.
• Argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon: None of them were used in the articles.
• English language should be used in a businesslike manner: Yes, it was. Being an Indian, I might phrase things differently (Indian way of narrating) but that's acceptable.
• First or second person perspective: That was certainly not the case. If I overlooked, then I will correct it but as far as I remember, I did not.
• WP:NPOV, I am in no way connected to the articles in discussion. No proof about it.
• WP:NOTHOWTO: Did not use the article as manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.
• Gender-neutral pronouns: Not an issue.
• Punctuation marks: Not an issue.

If I have missed out on any points, then please let me know and I will be happy to answer them. I request you to reinstate the pages and I will work on improving them further. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't say all the points of WP:TONE referred to the articles. And if you think you can make the articles more non-neutral, go for it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955, the articles read as advertisements for a course offering, not encycelopedic articles. The fact that you linked generic articles about homeopathy to these articles is also problematic, but is not the only reason they are promotional in nature.

Erpert, it probably isn't good advice to suggest making the articles "more non-neutral", which I'm assuming was in error .--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

AKS.995, your assertion of "No proof about it" in regard to NPOV seems unnecessarily defensive. On that basis, can you confirm that you are in no way affiliated with Dr. Ramjee Singh, president of the Central Council of Homoeopathy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Erpert, thanks for your understanding. Honestly, I am very concerned about edit war; especially with senior editors like Jeffro77. If I made a mistake in any part of the article, I am more willing to acknowledge it and make amends but I should be told so with clear reasons (like you raised a point and I clarified every point). My request to you and the editor is to remove the redirects and I will make sure that you guys will not have a reason to complaint. Request further action from you and from Jeffro77. Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of concern of edit-warring seems unwarranted, since I have already previously advised you that you had the option of reverting from the outset. Aside from that, it has not at any point been made clear why the available accreditations cannot simply be mentioned at the article, Central Council of Homoeopathy, as previously suggested several times.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Further action"? What do you mean? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dear Erpert, I mean to have the redirects removed or do you suggest I do it? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Like I said before, if you think you can make the articles better, by all means, remove the redirects, but...since you appear to be a little confused by what we mean by "tone", I would suggest you first read WP:FIRST as a guide to creating better articles. Have a good day. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:Jehovah's Witnesses

I notice that you removed my citation needed tag. I have read the following sections and cannot find any response from courts and scholars. Could you please add some. Thanks. Editor2020, Talk 01:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't carefully reviewed the section. However, if the summary does not accurately reflect the content, the summary should be changed rather than providing superfluous citations for the summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Criticism article quite definitely does have some supportive statements from both scholars and courts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The main article also contains some supportive statements from scholars (in the Criticism section) and courts (under Legal challenges).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! Editor2020, Talk 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)