User talk:David42718

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, David42718, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

POV
Regarding your edit here, please note that the article is for historical events that have consensus in reliable sources. It is not for religious speculation.

Jeremiah 25:8-12 indicates a period during which "all the nations round about" would "serve the king of Babylon", rather than a period of Jewish exile. Also note that verse 12 quite clearly states that Babylon's king would be 'called to account' after the 70 years ended. Babylon's king was called to account in 539 BCE (compare Daniel 5:25-31), and therefore the 70 years could not end in 537 or start in 607.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I disagree completely with your reasoning on why, I do agree that since it is a religious view point, I will not add it to the "Year" page. Thank you. :)
 * The topic in question was not how long anyone served anyone, ((Though that is mentioned) but just how long Jerusalem layed desolate, and since just about 99% of all secular historians and evidence says that Cyrus released the Jews in 537 B.C.E. this must be when it occured. 70 years prior to that brings us to 607 B.C.E.
 * (DANIEL 9:2) in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years whereof the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is notable that you defer to more ambiguous passages while ignoring the very direct statement at Jeremiah 25:12 that a) the 70 years would be fulfilled, and then b) Babylon's king would be called to account.
 * Actually, most historians agree that the Jews were released in 538BC1. In Daniel chapter 9, Daniel discerned that the period had ended, not that there was over a year remaining. Daniel, educated in Babylon, did not count accession years (compare Daniel 1:12 with Jeremiah 25:1; also compare the Babylonian interpolation3 at Jeremiah 52:29 with Jeremiah 52:12) and his reference to the king's first year was therefore 538BC. This is consistent with Cyrus' decree to release the Jews in 538BC. Josephus indicates that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second year (Against Apion, Book I, chapter 21), and Ezra 3:8 places that event in the 2nd month (Iyyar), corresponding with May of 537BC. Ezra 3:1 says that the Jews were “in their cities” in the 7th month (Tishri) of the year before, corresponding with October of 538BC.
 * 1 Note that I have previously restored the correct year at the 530s BC article. To eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest, note that the article had the correct year before my intervention, but had been falsified by an anonymous editor. Also note that the source left intact by the anonymous editor (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/exile2.html) clearly indicates 538 BC.
 * 2 JWs distort the meaning of malkuht (literally, reign) in Daniel 1:1, claiming it refers to vassalage instead. There is no support for this in the original text. They also ignore Daniel's Babylonian reckoning of dating systems to claim that Daniel 1:1 would otherwise contradict Jeremiah 25:1, though these refer to different events in the same year, without and with the accession year counted, respectively.
 * 3 Jeremiah 51:64 indicates that chapter 52 is a later addition to the scroll. Jeremiah chapter 52 is a copy of 2 Kings 24:18 through to the end of chapter 25, except that 2 Kings 25:22-26 are omitted from Jeremiah chapter 52, and replaced with an interpolation (verses 28-30) from Babylonian sources.
 * Also, Ezekiel 40:1 clearly shows that the Jews did not consider their exile to begin with the fall of Jerusalem.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing scriptures
Please don't cite scriptures in articles Watchtower-style, as if the scripture universally supports the statement you've written. Scriptures should be cited when a) directly discussing that particular scripture, or b) when the verse mentioned unambiguously and universally supports a particular statement. If a scripture is being used to support an interpretation, the source of the interpretation should be cited instead. For example, a statement such as "The Bible says that God created heaven and earth," might reasonably cite Genesis 1:1. But a statement such as "God created the universe over billions of years," would not because it is an interpretation not directly supported by the scripture; such a statement would be properly sourced instead with a reference such as The Watchtower, 15 June 1983, p. 22. Interpretations (as opposed to facts) should also be clearly stated as such, either by directly stating so in the statement, or by being within a section that clearly indicates that the views expressed in that section are those of a particular group.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As you have an agenda to discredit the beliefs of a Particulatr group, there is really little to be reasoned with you on. :)
 * If I can not present the scriptures that those belifs are BASED ON (Agree or Disagree) then I suppose it would be quite impossiblefor me, or anyone else for that matter, to explain not only WHAT but also WHY about a particular subject....
 * However, like I said, since there are more peope interested in getting head nods and hand shakes from people of like mind then are interested in any facts of WHY... I suppose it the WHY part of the equation will likely never be apart of What Wikipedia is on MANY subjects......
 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided clear reasoning above for why scriptures should not be used to support arbitrary or ambiguous statements of theological belief. Sources for Wikipedia articles should directly support the statements made. Your opinion that this constitutes an 'agenda' is irrelevant.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather then 'Erase' what I have cited in my contributions, wold it not have been helpfull to both the readers of Wikipedia and myself (A fellow editor) to have corrected the way in which I cited the scriptures rather then completely remove them????
 * It is almost as if you are promoting the idea that a certain group ONLY read the watchtower.... Is there a problem with Citing which scriptures that are used to back up the teachings of a group??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs)
 * It is unclear why I would encourage Wikipedia readers to refer to Watch Tower Society literature as sources for their doctrines if I were in some way trying to limit sourcing. However, JW interpretations do not need to be only sourced from Watch Tower Society literature. Indeed, it is preferable per Wikipedia policy to cite reliable third-party sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are still welcome to properly cite the articles, and I haven't prevented anyone from doing so. You need to keep in mind though, that this is an encyclopedia, and not a preaching platform. You should state what JWs believe, based on sources showing what they believe. You should not be trying to convince readers as to why they believe those things.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to reply, please reply here rather than at my Talk page. It is tiresome unbreaking the conversation each time. Any page I edit is automatically added to my Watchlist, so I will see any response here.-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it terribly funny that you are following me around and acusing me of 'Hijacking' this or that..... Can you explain 'How' I am doing this? Do you not agree with the available material I used as references? Do you have a different 'Point of View'???

Seriously...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you cannot follow a very simple request to keep the conversation together in one place. If you want to reply, reply here. As I have politely asked you twice to do this, further breaking of the conversation of the Talk page will simply be deleted without reply.
 * Anyway... You didn't really supply references. You supplied scriptures that a particular religious group interprets a particular way. This is not proper sourcing. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I supplied scriptures that Define Sin without adding any personal interp or denominational interp.... That SIn is lawlessness is VERBATIM in the scriptures. That it is the cause of Death is VERBATIM in the scriptures.....

These are NOT personal view points.... what does "Romans 5:12" say in YOUR copy of the Bible??? That Sin is the casue of death and that it is spread to all men because they have all sinned???

Seriously???

Step back and take a look at yourself, and ask if your not trying to push your own point of view....
 * I have already attempted to explain proper sourcing to you above. Another user is also directing you to the relevant policy in the section below...-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim that you were simply providing what the Bible says about sin. This might be relevant to Romans 5:12, though there it would be more proper to say something like According to Romans 5:12, sin is the cause of death. However, for example, Genesis 2:16-17 does not directly support the claim you attributed to it (many Christians consider Adam to be allegorical), and nor do many of the other scriptures you used. Do not assert your own (religion's) interpretation of scriptures.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it is not neutral to use the Bible (or any religious text) as a source in a way that suggests that it is definitely correct. Therefore, you should not make a statement and then cite the Bible in a manner that implies that the statement 'must' be factual.
 * ✅ According to Romans 5:12, all humans die because of sin.
 * All humans die because of sin. (Romans 5:12)
 * I hope you understand the distinction. Note that this does not mean that you can simply rearrange your use of scriptures from all your previous edits, as much of your use of scriptures asserted interpretations of those scriptures that do not necessarily represent consensus.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also pay careful attention to what you have been told by User:In ictu oculi about primary sources below.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Your edits to Satan were reverted. Please see WP:NOR, WP:PSTS and discuss on Talk:Satan. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure who or how to post it yet, but If you read the Satan/Job Page you may notice that it is a POV explanation of the book....
 * Reading the Book itseslf you would not come to that conclusion at all, being that the book does not say anything that is in the article that you re-posted....
 * The article that I posted was not POV and taken Directly from the book of Job itself.
 * Please look through the two and if possible re-consider.... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.219.196 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the info :)
 * The article that I posted was using the "Bible book of job" to describe the Character Satan in his role as Accuser. In the book he accuses Job of this or that and also God of bribery, "Blessing his works" for loyalty. This is all apart of the narative and acurate information.
 * I presented it Bullet style so as to make it easier for anyone to follow, and presented an alternate viewpoint to the story, beyond my own view point. The reference material used was not my view point either.
 * If I would, however, use say a Watchtower article as a source rather then some other denomination, or religious articles I would be accused of POV so I am stuck between a rock and a hard place... :)
 * Rather the use many different sources I submit the actual account, free of interp and allow others to use any OUTSIDE source material to Improve the factual story vs a completly biased article....
 * Is that OK???
 * Hi again. No, sorry it is not OK. Please see WP:PSTS, WP:Weight, WP:NPOV, WP:IRS. When you have read, digested and understood these Wikipedia policies, then please discuss on Talk page of article. Also use edit summaries when editing. If you do not know where to find edit summaries the box is at footer. Please also see WP:3RR regarding your edits at Kingdom of God, where you are one step away from being blocked by Admins. But mainly, discuss on Talk. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS, WP:NPOV
I am confused here.... Explain to me how I am violating any rules... Here is my article. I am using the same narative as can be found in ANY Bible with a book labeled JOB.

Are you telling me that unless someone other the Moses wrote any commentary on the subject that I can not post this article?

The current one is Biased, innacurate, and has a complete NPOV violation in every sentence... How am i violating rules with this?


 * In the Book of Job, the Bible the Character known as Satan enters in among the heavenly congregation of the sons of God.


 * God asks Satan if he has had his eye on his servant Job, and praises Job in front of all of the heavenly court to Satan.


 * Satan then accuses God of bribeing Job for his loyalty, "Putting a hedge about him", and "Blessing the works of his hands", for his loyalty.


 * Satan then wagers that if God himself would 'Touch' Job and all he had that he would not be so loyal, and would stop from serving him.


 * God does not strike Job, as he says it would be "without cause", but instead allows Satan to try and prove his accusation against Job and himself (God), by removing his protection from All that Job has.


 * In God again tells Satan, in front of the heavenly court, that even after all of this Job is still Upright and God fearing; that his accusations are baseless Without Cause.


 * Satan makes further charges against Job, and against all humans as he says "...All that a MAN has he will give for his soul."


 * Satan tells God to strike Job again. God leaves it up to Satan to prove his accusation, and allows him to Touch his bone and flesh, but commands Satan "...Spare his Life."


 * Satan's accusations against God and Job are not proven, and God rewards Job for his loyalty. He lives for 140 years and got to see four generations of his family for it.


 * There are some who believe that the narative implies that Satan is being used by God to smite Job and test him on purpose. It is believed by some that God is responsible for Jobs suffereing and is in no way opposed to it. In this light Satan is seen as a tool that God uses to accomplish his goals, rather then an Opposer or an Accuser.

So the way that wikipedia works is that a few folks who have their own opinion group together and decide wether or not factual information can be added on any particular subject?

I have to submit Factual info to non-professional editors and as long as they approve according to their point of view then its ok?

Is that how it works?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * David. In theory how it works is that users read the Wikipedia policies and abide by them. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Please read WP:IRS and in particular note what it says about Primary sources, i.e. Bible verses. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1 October
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Satan. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77
David, your edits are being removed by Jeffro 77 because they are not anti-Jehovah's Witness enough for his taste's and not for any of the reasons he has stated. The guy is clearly biased and working to serve his own agenda instead of following the rules set out by Wikipedia. Its interesting how someone who is starting an "editing war" with you will send you information on "edit wars". The hypocrisy is laughable in and of itself.

Just thought I'd drop you a line after seeing your talk with this guy. 98.92.249.28 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My edits have consistently been supported by neutral editors. If this anonymous editor continues to attack my edits, he will be reported. It would be wise not to align yourself with him.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism