User talk:BlackCab/Archive 4

edit
hello. I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point of about wiki and "no own". I have to be frank with you. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves...some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. And this is a wiki... It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear...as not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical".... This is a wiki.... No one owns that article. So please don't remove valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC);

I find your comment "I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like"" priceless. I never said I didn't like your edit. I said it was redundant. BlackCab (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

edits and consensus
I always ultimately respect and yield to consensus, regardless of whether I think it's correct or not. Please don't get it twisted. In the other article in question, that you're referring to, I DID accept consensus. Whether I thought it was wrong or not. That was the point. There was no real big "consensus" before. Just one editor or two. But leave it to you to be dishonest about what happened, and to mis-interpret it. I even said in the other article Talk, of the article that you think you own...that I would respect consensus (real consensus, not just you and Jeffro), and never violate 3RR. Also, you notice that the other editor "Grrahnbahr" said the word "true" was appropriate, but neither you nor Jeffro wanted that. And yes, I already know that it's possible to "edit-war" without violating 3RR. Because you yourself have been doing that a lot. Without violating 3RR. Just because I don't like my good-faith honest and valid sourced edits or mods removed willy nilly, and that I understandably won't put up with it, and that I'll stand up for my valid edits and additions or modifications, does not mean I'm trying to "own" the article. Coming from you, BlackCab, that's rich...that's hysterical. Yes, you do bully on said article. And I'm not the only one who has noticed it, or has said it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Four days ago you praised me for my hard work on the article, "to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. That's good, and I appreciate the work." Part of that hard work has required me to bang heads occasionally with people who just want their own narrow opinion represented. In the end, the quality of the article speaks for the collaborative effort that has gone into it. BlackCab (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I do try to give credit where credit is due.  The reason I said that is because despite, to be blunt, the overbearingness or maybe some control issues at times, you have kept things fair and balanced overall, for the most part, from what I saw in the edit history recently...(I looked back far too).  From either JWs themselves who come in and who might make it too POV, with their injections, wording, and tone...or anti-JWs who would do the same, in the opposite way.  It happens.   And I see that you (and Jeffro77) overall seem to do some good work, and unlike some people, though I can point out or feel that things have been at times not perfect, I do appreciate time given and hard work, when this whole thing can get very stressful.  The point is that I noticed, to be honest, both good and bad, in a way...mostly good...overall.   But you can't deny that human nature is such (I've done it too, at times, and have had to catch myself) on WP is to get the attitude of ownership or jealous guardianship, and then diss or remove edits that we personally don't really care for, have hang-ups about, or find "ridiculous".  Let me ask you. Do you deny that JWs themselves (whether we agree with the wording or not) have stated phrases like "pagan origins not compatible with the Bible" in any of their writings, books, etc?   You know they have, and that really was my only main point.   It's from their vantage point mainly, contextually, in that sentence.   They have gone by John "no part of world" and Corinthians "do not touch the unclean thing" and "what does Christ have to do with idols" and "be ye separate"...from the things I've read and studied.   And in that sense, they feel, it's not in harmony with the Bible.  Regardless of Moses saying that Israelites couldn't eat lobsters.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually do not know whether they have used that phrase or not. If they have, it was ill-advised, for the reasons I explained. It's just sloppy language. In any case, this article is written by Wikipedia editors to give all readers a better understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses. It does not need to mirror the language used in that religion's publications. Given the earlier disagreement on the wording of that sentence, I thought Grrahnbahr's truncated sentence provided the information adequately and succinctly. Your edit was unnecessary and plain wrong. BlackCab (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point. "Unnecessary and just plain wrong", according to you.  You have every right to feel that way.   But it's an "I don't like" situation, if you're gonna be totally honest about it.   Because "pagan celebrations incompatible with the Bible" is a type of thing that is worded and said (and by the way, not JUST by JWs, over the years, but sometimes in general, by some Protestant writers, etc).   Meaning, also, if it's sourced, then why impose the view so strongly that it's for sure "wrong", and shouldn't be there?     In other words, Wikipedia does not have to mirror exact wording, yes, but it is the policy also to go by what's sourced, and in context go by how THEY (the party in question) views it or says it, more or less.   Because also the sentence that was there is not an exact "mirror" word-for-word anyway.  The point, again, is that JWs (and some others) view pagan holidays etc as not compatible with the Bible (in general).   Whether husbands couldn't have sex with their menstruating wives in the Old Law or not.   And again, this is a wiki, why can't minor good-faith and sourced accurate (even if you consider it silly or clumsy wording) be left alone, to avoid big problems?   I'm not saying that everything you've ever reverted was unwarranted. In fact, arguably most were understandable reverts that I happen to agree with. But some (you'll deny this I know) were mainly "I don't like" issues.  Some of them.   And that's what I was saying we all need to be careful with. I've fallen into that too on certain articles.   Regards.  Gabby Merger (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep saying it's sourced. To what? You just plucked that phrase out of the air. An inane "I don't like it" excuse as a reason for removal is something quite different from my objection here. I have already explained my objection. It is sloppy language. If every bit of sloppy language or "silly or clumsy wording" was left in the article it would be a pretty shitty article. That's why I bother to improve it. BlackCab (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is I don't necessarily agree that it is "clumsy or silly language" at all. You say that. And maybe Jeffro would, etc.   And some others.   But many other people (in and out of WP editing) would find the phrasing fine, and understandable.   Hence why I said it IS "I don't like" on your part.  Because you're not gonna deny ("plucking" phrase or not) that JWs (and even others) have worded things just that way, in general.    Such as "incompatible with Bible teachings" or "out of harmony with Scripture", etc.   I'm sorry, but having "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" is not all that "shitty", as you put it, or would not necessarily make the article so.   Especially in the context there, that JWs don't just feel pagan things should be avoided on their own basis, or on the basis of the Koran, but by what they feel is stuff that would not line up right with Scripture.  (Such as the Corinthians and Isaiah stuff, etc).  Gabby Merger (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You said it was "sourced", as if that made it acceptable, but it's clearly not "sourced" to anything. Now you try to rest it all on the assumption that the Watch Tower Society has probably used that phrase, or something similar, and that I should be willing to accept that assumption. I have spent the past few years insisting on facts for this article, Gabby. It's facts that achieve accuracy, not vague assumptions. The wording is sloppy and wrong, and unnecessary. BlackCab (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's NOT a "probably" situation, and it's not an "assumption".  They (and others) have said things just like that, either verbatim, or very similar.  Not sure what the big deal or problem is.  I already explained how it's correct, or at least how it can be understood, and how it's meant, the phrase "pagan celebrations not IN LINE with the Bible's overall drift or teaching or commands", etc.  When I say it is "sourced", I'm not saying that there's a specific ref right after the sentence, saying it in that way, per se. But "sourced" in that it is something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know.  No "assumption" necessary.    And whether the actual addition at the end is so "necessary" is not the point. It's a valid mod, no matter what you think, or the stuff you went on about "menstruation" or "stoning witches".   JWs (and some other similar groups, such as the Armstrongites, etc) believe that the holidays etc are pagan in background and not in harmony with Scripture. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Gabby has zero concensus for her edits and is arguing about an extraordinarily minor point, it's amazing that she has generated so much entirely irrelevant 'debate' on the article's Talk page and now here. I also notice that despite that, she has deleted the attempt to approach her on her own User Talk page. Gabby, there was no support for your edit. There comes a time when you should back away from the dead horse. If you believe there are other issues with the JW article (or any other article), feel free to start a new section at the relevant article's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby asks above, Do you deny that JWs themselves (whether we agree with the wording or not) have stated phrases like "pagan origins not compatible with the Bible" in any of their writings, books, etc? I have verified that the answer to that question is that no such statement appears in JW literature for over 40 years (at least).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

response....
You see stuff in others, that you don't see in yourself or in your tag-team partner, Jeffo77. And I only mentioned that obvious fact of tag-teaming after Jeffro77 hurled stupid accusations at me of trying to "game the system" by waiting just over the 24 hours. Meanwhile his own arguable "gaming" of trying to get around "3RR" by you two always reverting (combined being MORE then 3 reverts in 24 hours) has become obvious. And others over the years have accused you both of "meat-puppetting" or at least that type of behavior, that could be deemed (and has been by other editors over the years) as such. Spare me your outrage, and hypocrisy. You whine about "repetition" on my part, but don't say a word about it when Jeffro77 keeps repeating his same lines and points. Which prompts me to repeat mine. Also, lectures on "civility" coming from you is hilarious. Really. Again, try being consistent in your complaints, or don't complain at all. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a serious allegation and unless you have evidence you should strike out those comments as a sign of good faith. If I see you repeating them I will raise it with the admins. BlackCab (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The last time I said it on the article Talk, I said it in passing. I was not focusing on that, as I even threw in the words "that's whatever".   My point though is that I don't appreciate Jeffro77 assuming BAD faith on my part, with his accusations and words against me of trying to "game the system"...with waiting just over the 24 hours to willy nilly revert, even if there was clear consensus.   That's why I said that I never violate real 3RR, nor real consensus.   Two editors do not make up "consensus".  I asked for one or two more, and if they agreed with both of you, I would respectfully back off, though not in total agreement.   But Jeffro77 has accused me of breaking 3RR, counting even my own tweaking edits as "reverts" when they weren't, etc.   So if Jeffro77 was gonna say things about me on a NOTICEBOARD no less, that I was "gaming the system"...sorry, then that prompted me to say that it could be deemed that he was in his own way trying to "game the system" also in the matter of 3RR.   That was it.  But it's NOT something I throw around so lightly, and I even stated that.    But no problem...I won't mention that term again.   It's not necessary.   But as far as the matter among you, Grrahn, and Jeffro77, that's it.  I even said that what Grrahhn did by reporting Jeffro77 I don't know if it was necessary...and that I was not gonna even pursue the matter anymore...but my "name" was notified also on that notice board.  Gabby Merger (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah... more ranting about me going on here. I'm getting a bit sick of your unfounded accusations of 'tag-teaming', and it is those accusations that demonstrate your bad faith. Your desired edit is simply unnecessarily offensive rather than an expression of bad faith. The sentence in question already presents the views of Jehovah's Witnesses about Christianity. Adding modifiers such as 'true' or 'biblical' adds an entirely unnecessary implication by Wikipedia that other forms of Christianity aren't 'biblical' or 'true'. And you were gaming the system. You explicitly stated that you intended to continue to revert 'outside the 24-hour period'. That is the very embodiment of 'gaming the system' in regard to the 3RR.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

re Jehovah's Witnesses
Re your revert to the 'Evangelism' section. But source material does not say that the individual, on completing the course, is expected to become baptized as a member.
 * The source material says: "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."
 * The sentence in the wiki article says "Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group."

Either a better source should be provided, i.e. one which supports the comment that an indidual is expected to become a member on completion of the bible study course, or the article should be re-worded to reflect more accurately the source material. Of course, 'evangelism' is one thing, and 'becoming a disciple' is another. Maybe the distinction between the two should also be made clearer in the article. Lepton6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll move this conversation to the article talk page. BlackCab (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

After NZ "Region" articles - then "District" articles?
Hi BlackCab. I'm just checking with the movers and shakers about their plans. After the NZ "Region" articles have been renamed, are you planning to propose similar rename/moves for the "District" articles, and/or the "Province" and "County" articles? I have already asked Good Olfactory. Nurg (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I sense a note of sarcasm in your question. Articles such as Taranaki Province and Heathcote County are about historical entities and the names of those articles are fine. My concern over the regions was the dog's breakfast of article names -- capitalisation, no capitalisation, brackets, no brackets, "region", no "region". Anything that makes them more uniform, and therefore more readily searchable, is a good thing. BlackCab (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, no sarcasm intended. Just wanted to know if you (as someone with a keen interest) had further intentions - for the "District" articles and others. Nurg (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Colonial troops in NZ wars
You have me on the RNSWR as you are correct, the unit under that name was formed in 1960 about a century too late. I was going off the book "To Face the Daring Maoris: Soldiers' impressions of the First Maori War 1845-47" by Michael Barthorp as it mentions a NSW regiment which is what confused me. I will look up the reference when I have time, but Barthorp refers to various regiments which took part in the wars which were British regiments, but which included Australian and even South African troops who had joined while the units were stationed in those areas. There is also reference to the Honourable East India Company's Bengal Artillery, but I suppose that qualifies as militia. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would venture to suggest that the bottom line is that unless the Barthorp book says anything different, they were British forces, despite the possibility of the odd Australian or South African soldier among them. They were British regiments doing service overseas -- India, Crimea, Australia -- but were diverted to New Zealand after the panicked pleas of Gore Brown and Grey. Belich commonly uses the term imperial troops, and I have used that too in the body of articles, but in the lead section to the NZ Wars article the phrase "British troops" is a more succinct explanation of who they were. They were from Britain. BlackCab (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Waves (band)
The assessment is preliminary, pending a more detailed review of the article - you should take it to read, on the surface it is a least this level, but it could be higher. Once one of us from the NZ project gets the chance we'll take a deeper look at it and reassess the ratings. Hope this helps. NealeFamily (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really help, sorry. I don't see any provision in the WPNZ assessment page for "preliminary" or default assessments. I'm not sure of the value of rating it at all if it's not a considered assessment. It seems you have added "start" just to fill a space, but to any reader it's still a judgment on its worth. I'll add it to the list of articles seeking assessment and see what results. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi BlackCab! (See my disclosures.) I am conversing with Stalwart and I hope this is just a miscommunication that should not blow up any larger. It looks like Stalwart is asking that you agree to stay out of the article and on the talk page only, as a minimum, based on a reading of NOPAY. (There is a list of exceptions to the bright line also.) I would stay off the ANI thread also. It seems that when you had put the word "adverse" under an ordinary glass of milk, you probably had a blind spot there, and you may have already admitted that. But when you have taken a step like that, it becomes very hard to show people you've backed down and are accepting input. You might avoid a topic ban if you can communicate to Stalwart that you're going to be using the bright line on this topic and then you work with the other editors until you can get agreement on the proper medical handling. If you can keep everything cool for a few days and the talk pages can be used to reach agreements you've got some hope. I think it was a mistake to escalate this to a topic ban proposal, but this might be a situation where the system works after all. Frieda Beamy (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

COI
I think we've turned a corner (or a new leaf) and I wanted to demonstrate, in the interests of moving forward, that it can work and work well. I consider Talk:Accenture a great example of COI done well and I've played an active role there after referral from WP:COIN. That's a much larger company with a much larger reach and an editor with a long-term, openly-declared COI. Talk:Winton Capital Management too.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links to those two pages, and I agree it seems to work well there. I have also read Edit requests and found the templates including the one relevant to COI issues. I believe I can work with that. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 03:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Chin Chin (album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Chin Chin (album), BlackCab!

Wikipedia editor Fevrret just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This is an helpful article about a notable album."

To reply, leave a comment on Fevrret's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

jehova imperialismo
Hey,was just wondering if you thought that the jehovas wittnesis are a bit imparialist?or may have similar beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.69.125 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Skunkhour
Hi BlackCab

Just a couple of things to help your recent edits/articles. Skunkhour played the Caloundra Music Festival on Friday October 3, 2014. They were fantastic! I was covering the festival and have some great shots that I would be happy to add to the article. Just let me know if you'd like those and any other info regarding the CMF show. As it is "your article", I thought it better that I contact you. You are free to reply here or email me - marc@austin-zande.net

Cheers

Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin-zande (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Flattering, but I've just helped tidy it up recently, that's all. The article could certainly benefit from a picture, but be aware that you sign away any copyright claim to it once you upload it. If you're confident about uploading and adding an image, go ahead -- it's not difficult, and there are also instructions on how to place it and size it at WP:PIC. It will probably be a good idea to create a Wikipedia account (ie, a username) before you start. Sing out if you need help. And I'm glad the gig was great. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 05:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness
WHAT DID I TELL YOU ON MY EDIT SUMMARY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the "strongly worded message" that was promised. Ouch. Good luck recovering from that one. Plus, now we're both evil. Yikes. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Matt200055
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The previously archived ANI indicated above has been continued at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again
BlackCab, just wanted to thank you again for the books that you wikipedia-mailed me with regarding my question for Jeffro. I hadn't yet run into one or two of them, so they will be useful. Vyselink (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

All right
Allright, i understand, thanks. --Pediainsight (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:73.11.72.255
To me, the inclusion of the "Known Apostates" section and repeated reverts and changing sourced material deserves an immediate ANI request to block him, as it is quite clear that they have no intention of abiding WP guidelines. Thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm at work at the moment and unable to give it any real time. I'll get on to it tomorrow unless you want to do something now. And thanks. BlackCab ( TALK ) 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it now. I've never done it before, so I'll do my best, but feel free to chime in on the ANI board. Vyselink (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You did well. Thanks. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 13:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vyselink (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

123.100.149.51
You've warned this IP. I note he/she is continually receiving warnings and simply blanks the talk page.[123.100.149.51] From the IP's interests, I conclude it is one editor with a static IP. Any thoughts about any action that should be taken - or no action? Please ping me if you feel this is worth replying to. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be aware that someone has beaten you to the punch. See this. All the best. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 23:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RL and Arb stuff have distracted me from reading ANI, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

3RR query
Does the 3 revert rule apply to people who continue to remove another's posting? Especially if the posting is factually based and backed by references? I really do want to know. Ever rule or rules I've read allows for providing accurate referenced information. STravelli.
 * If everyone conducted themselves the way you are, Wikipedia would be chaotic. You need to learn basic Wikipedia policies and learn to collaborate. Start with WP:EDIT and WP:EDITWAR. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:BlackCab, WP:BITE. It's obvious they are new here, why not help them rather then eviscerate them. If you can operate off this assumption results should get better Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr Hell, I've noticed you engaging with this person, which is good. I am not biting, I am stating a fact. I have given them two pages to start looking at, which should help them. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 23:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input and help. I truly want to follow the rules. And I'm trying to be objective. It just seems logical that if someone posts something saying that 1+1 = 5 and posts references it should be appropriate to post 1+1= 2 and post a reference accordingly. STravelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have read carefully what you recommended BlackCab. I truly thank you. Everyone is a neophyte at one time or another and I appreciate your help and patience. The one thing I haven't figured out yet is where the common area is on a subject where I can receive an explanation from others as to why something I've posted is not allowed on the site. I will keep looking and learning but thank you again. STravelli (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)STravelliSTravelli (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Every page has an associated talk page. Look for the talk tab. Start a new section, really easy with the new section one it places it and makes it easier for you. Then sign it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have started a discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices where I have explained why I reverted your removal of material. Most commonly, a person wishing to change material, but who is then opposed, would start a new thread on that article's talk page to explain the reason for their change and a discussion would then follow. You are quite welcome to add your comments at that thread, following the guidelines at WP:TALK. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 01:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Tasmania
Hi BlackCab,

I've enjoyed your contributions to the Black War and your expansion of the Tasmanian wikipedia page. May I ask where your interest of Tasmania comes from?  Aaroncrick  TALK 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm an expatriate Kiwi living in Australia and for years I've had a fascination with the colonial period in NZ. I have extensively rewritten and expanded the articles on the land wars there, which prompted my wife to buy me a copy of Nicholas Clements' Black Wars book last Christmas. I devoured it and saw strong parallels with the NZ experience and then moved on to read the rest of the books I've cited there. The clash of European settlers with the indigenous population in Tassie is an equally fascinating subject. The Black Wars article I read on Wikipedia at Christmas was woefully inadequate and I think it's important that people, including school students, gain a much better understanding of that era than I was ever given at school.


 * For the record, I think the History of Tasmania article is pretty lousy too (it's a timeline, not an article) but I'll leave that for others to fix. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 12:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a quick thanks for mentioning the Biliography of JW's page. I hadn't known it existed. Oh, and you might be interested to know that I will be starting my PhD in October, and the subject of my dissertation will be the JW's. Vyselink (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds interesting. Good luck! There is also Jerry Bergman's JW bibliography, linked here, although it receives a fairly negative review here by Richard Singelenberg. Singelenberg's writings, incidentally, are very good -- I cited him in the Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions article; much of that stuff was reprinted in Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy, which is well worth acquiring. I don't know what aspect of the JWs you'll be focusing on, but if your research is to include their fascination with date-setting, an absolute must-read is Robert Crompton's Counting the Days to Armageddon. It is a bit heavy-going in parts, but is a real eye-opener in laying bare how eagerly they seized on dates that fitted with their preconceptions because of their historical "significance" ... only to abandon them later as their calculations changed. Crompton does an excellent job of doggedly pursuing those dates and without outwardly criticising them for it, shows what a farce their whole date system is. It is a book I should have read many years ago! I am very interested in your progress in your PhD, and would be very keen to read your work. I think my email link works if you want to contact me directly. BlackCab ( TALK ) 23:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall. Vyselink (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting at the AfD. I've been in two minds about this article for some time. I'd still like to hear responses from other editors. Strictly speaking, it doesn't really qualify for inclusion (the relevant guideline states, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"), but as I stated at the AfD, quite a bit of effort has gone into it (not a small part of it by me).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Joe Henry
See MOS:INTRO. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Question
Do you know of any way to determine how many Bible Students there were in 1919? Alan Rogerson claims in Millions Now Living Will Never Die (page 44 in my copy, chapter 2, near the end of the section titled "The Transition Period") that only 4,000 adherents remained in 1919 after the Rutherford trial and schism w/in the church etc, but gives no source for this information. I've found no sources that state as such in the WT literature of the time that I have (mostly the magazine), but the Dec 15th, 1919 WT's numbers for talks given, money received, total attendance at meetings, etc. appears to show quite a bit in excess of 4,000 (i'm assuming he meant only the States, as if he meant the world there is almost certainly no question he was wrong). Thanks for any help. Vyselink (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The number was under 10 million (6-7m if my memory serves) in the late 90's so I doubt that there would have been many adherents at that time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hell in a Bucket, I know the current numbers are around 9 million, but it's the 1919 numbers I need. I'm not expecting hundreds of thousands, but given the WT numbers (which I have no real reason to question, as the WTBTS is generally trusted with regards to their published numbers) it seems like it would be more than 4000. Vyselink (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you can use it but this may be useful []. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just moved house and all my books are in boxes out in the garage, so it may take a day or two to get them out. From memory, the WTS published no membership or memorial figures for a year or after the Rutherford coup. I'll see what I can find. The "Divine Purpose" book starts its stats in 1928, so that's no use. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 01:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cab. Anything you can do will help, even if it's just to confirm that there's really no way to know. Don't rush on my part. Vyselink (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Another question, when you have the time and if you can find the answer. When did the Witnesses start using the phonographs? Rogerson and Penton don't state, and neither does the Faith on the March. Vyselink (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NVM. I checked Divine Purpose and it states it in there. Forget it. Vyselink (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

SPA
Please note [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_Accusation] Roller958 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

MOSALBUMS
If you checked you would see that firstly WP:MOSALBUMS is only a 'guide' and that it is not an enforceable requirement. Secondly MOSALBUMS does not restrict the inclusion of references for songwriters - when articles on albums have been considered for GA status it is commonly required that verification be provided for all songwriters. Thirdly MOSALBUMS permits Technical Personnel (including producers) as valid inclusions on the credits for a recording. I suggest that you re-read MOSALBUMS before making unilateral changes in the future. Dan arndt (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a guide to creating high-quality album articles, the result of consensus by hundreds of editors. Why do you choose to ignore it, adding unnecessary citations? You might like to read WP:CITECLUTTER and then explain why you think your personal preference is superior to the style agreed on through consensus by editors who are happy to collaborate? BlackCab  ( TALK ) 09:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again I reiterate WP:MOSALBUMS is only a guide not an enforceable requirement. All the changes I have made however do not directly contradict MOSALBUMS only your interpretation of it. Dan arndt (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot to interpret. I can see the style guide just as clearly as you can; the difference is that I follow it, you don't. Sticking to what's in WP:MOSALBUM and avoiding citation overkill leads to clean, well-presented album articles that are of consistent appearance. I would have thought we'd all be on the same page on that simple aim. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 10:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sweeter Than the Radio


The article Sweeter Than the Radio has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable album. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

biased chime-in...and stalking....
you assume I'm at fault in this matter, for personal bias, plus you have your own issues yourself. You have zero credibility therefore, and are irrelevant yourself. You've been in trouble before for your own "nonsense", as your copious history over the months and years clearly shows. Also, nice stalking and following me around to even know about this. Furthering my point. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your talk page is on my watchlist, Gabby, so I saw the other editor's warning. I was very interested to see your behavior is unchanged and I believe it may be very helpful to other editors to see that you have a long pattern of uncivil and unhelpful conduct. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 21:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't be on your watchlist, as that's not really necessary, and as it's stalker-ish and troll-ish, frankly. Unlike you I don't necessarily automatically think you're wrong in every argument you have, as I try to stay objective, believe it or not. But you're not being that way at all with me.   If I'm blunt or "uncivil" it's only because YOU were first with me, and so is this guy Jezzy.  But others on the talk page have NOT been uncivil, and I have been fine with them...   What's the problem? You think you're perfectly civil?  Is that a joke?  And now following me around?  It's creepy, and shows you have no credibility or objectivity regarding me in ANY exchange.   Who are we kidding here, sir?   You should stay away from me, with your personal bias, double standards, and hypocrisy (how many times have you been in trouble for your incivility and craziness over the years and months, sir?)   But you're assuming automatically that I'm completely in the wrong in this matter, and that Jezzy has been a perfect angel or something.  Sighs...    Why?  Because you don't like me, I have to automatically be wrong in every exchange or disagreement?   that's rather childish and unfair. Because, believe it or not, though I can't stand you either, as you already know, I would NOT knee-jerkly think you're automatically wrong in every encounter or argument you have with other contributors.   As there've been times, in analyzing your stuff, where I actually took your side, and thought you were in the right in some specific matters.  I try to be objective.  Can you be?    But for real, Jezz has been unfair and rude, but two other editors on the talk page have NOT been like that.   And so I have not "gone after" them.   I only deal with what's dealt.   Try to be fair and cool about things, and unbiased, is my request. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, what do you think about this?  Something you never did, nor anyone else that I ever encountered on Wikipedia in my life.   Jezz actually removed whole chunks of sentences from my comment on the article Talk page, that he didn't like said about him, which was in response to insulting stuff he wrote about ME on the very same talk page.   He undid part of my comment on the talk page.  In total violation of Wikipedia guidelines.   So he can write disrespectful negative things about someone on a talk page, accusing and abusing, but God forbid someone responds and says anything negative about him??!!    Again, BlackCab, pleeeeeasee don't assume that he's a perfect angel totally in the right in this matter just because you don't like me.    That's very uncool and non-objective. TRY to be fair and honest and unbiased in this matter.    He is the QUINTESSENTIAL "can dish it out but can't take it" person.   And very out of line. No one's perfect every second every syllable.  But you have to be honest when it comes to this editor.   He has glaring double standards and incivility and bad faith attitudes and violations.    Gabby Merger (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you are once again accusing other editors of 'stalking' because of their valid use of watch lists. You need to stop these paranoid accusations.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

paraphrase
hi dear friend. could you please paraphrase; "It provides the young child with an introduction to books and the Peter Rabbit universe." thanks more info Alborzagros (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive
Sent of behalf of for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disassociation
Thank you for your feedback on using the sandbox, I should have explored Wikipedia more to come to a better understanding of how to use it. The only reason I changed the "dissociated people are wicked" sentence on the Jehovah's Witness page is because the source speaks of disfellowshiping. The acts of a person are deemed wicked, not the person. I think how that sentence was written is confusing.

Best, Allgone266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgone266 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the cited source refers to both disfellowshipping and disassociation. It explicitly states that both are viewed in the same manner, and then goes on to describe the actions of both as "wicked". It further includes reference to "the wicked man" rather than only restricting to the person's action.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)