User talk:Jeffro77

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

 

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Jehovah's Witnesses Related Question

Moved to Talk:List of Watch Tower Society publications#Study aids
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Voice of Holland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Santos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed

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)