User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2011b

Please, read it with heart
(Template:uw-npa3) (Template:Uw-advert2) (Template:uw-socialnetwork) (Template:uw-delete4)

These are my personal! messages for you. Please respect others. I finished that !chat! here. I leaved from my house. And after less than 20 minutes you despite that, continued talking. And start even with personal attacking on me. I was forced to defend myself and you, you not waited for anything, just stronger pressure and still! talking. My only fault was I defend myself. Why did you still attacking on me? Do you have to win every time? Is there any personal problem? Why did you just can´t listen to me and stop with talk, when I stop talk. See that ref. I finished talk first, but you still continued. I wanted to cancel discussion before it could be dangerous and uncivil. But, this was preciously, what you wanted a searched for. Again. You won. Are you glad?

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You said at the Talk page that you would stop discussing the issue. If you choose to stop discussing something, that does not mean that I am not allowed to reply. And then you chose to continue discussion. If you don't want to discuss something, simply don't. Additionally, you made a personal attack immediately prior to saying you would 'stop' discussing. And then you retributively added false warnings to my User page, and made a false allegation of vandalism. And you claim that I misused Talk pages for 'Chat' when you have a subpage specifically for chatting with another JW editor.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 8:28 am, Yesterday (UTC+10)


 * I am just so much tired from Wikipedia and I don´t want to even ´read´ your response. I have my wikibreak. Respect it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my user space I can do what I wish and you have no right to reproach my personal chat in my user space with Lighthead. Huge difference among your public chat on main article´s talk page, what is in encyclopedic part and fully public. You should be ashamed of your spying on me. You should be ashamed for that. It was vile (not only uncivil) from you. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the use of 'your' userspace is also governed by various Wikipedia guidelines, and it is not acceptable to use it for lengthy 'chatting' that is not related to Wikipedia. See WP:UP; the same guidelines apply to subpages. Accessing a user's subpages is not 'spying'. After you posted false warnings on my User page, it was entirely appropriate that I check whether you were doing anything else inappropriate against me.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your´s and BlackCab´s user pages are much more preaching (=in fact, propagandistic and hatred). In my user page is nothing about my personal ideas and values. Only interests about Wikipedia topics are there on my user page.
 * User space (not User Page) should be primarily for creating encyclopedic content. (at least mocked). However, we already discuss with him also several Wikipedia-like issues and I have several other issues to solve or help in future.
 * Again, you have no right to spying on me (like stupid big brother) and you have no right to reproach my personal issues, when +you, +your pages, +your edits, preach much much more, than my quiet non-public conversation. There is huge difference between your hypocrisy, frivolous nature, public loathing on me and others, and between my own attitude, what is greatly reverse than yours.
 * Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement about my User page is a lie. My User page is basically a bunch of userboxes, and contains no 'propaganda' or 'preaching'. I do not control or endorse the content of BlackCab's User page.
 * Everything on Wikipedia is public.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything public is, but is great difference if you write sth. in relatively hidden place like sandboxes or if you write in fully public and highly visible place like you did in main JW article talk. You there uncover my personal issues and used it for continue with personal attack on me.
 * Well, your ´innocent´ userboxes could be for someone hardly offensive, uncivil, hatred, lofty and other very bad things. Some reader of your page could deduced from your user page also your quality and attributes. Do you ´Really!´'think content of your user page is fully all right? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After you posted false warnings on my Talk page and made a false allegation about vandalism, it was entirely appropriate that I check whether you were doing anything else inappropriate.
 * Userboxes are well established in Wikipedia as appropriate for User pages. None of the Userboxes on my User page violate Wikipedia's rules. If you find a particular Userbox offensive, you should raise the matter on the Talk page for that particular Userbox.
 * Other editors have Userboxes on their User page that indicate very different views to me, but such pages are not 'propaganda' or 'preaching'. They simply indicate that other people have different opinions to me.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am not talking about violating Wikipedia rules. I rather would like to touch deeply inside about your preaching userboxes, which you consider as absolutely alright and I consider some of that as I described above. Plus exhaustive, e.g. Probably many other editors could feel it similar. Your page is just hatred and pride. Point of problem is in that you criticize me about activities in my personal user space, while yours and others ´User Page´ are bombing with propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance. But not only userboxes. All your edits are so. Especially in communication with me or other believer editors. You are just used to releasing this attacking point like secular humanists and fanatical atheists do very often. I do not offend on their beliefs, they should not offend me. Although, I am not surprised of it, because I know you and other editors in the project very deep. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim is ridiculous. As stated before, if you have a problem with any of the Userboxes, you should discuss at the Talk pages for those User boxes. You personal opinions about me are not important.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My User page contains about 150 userboxes, of which four have any connection to my personal religious beliefs, with no additional editorial&mdash;clearly not "more preaching (=in fact, propagandistic and hatred)" or "offensive, uncivil, hatred, lofty and other very bad things" or "preaching userboxes" or "hatred and pride" or "bombing with propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You previously said, that I shouldn´t change history and now you did this!?
 * I am glad you did not tell me again that ´I am irrelevant´ (or ´something what I saying is irrelevant´ = what seems to me in same sense). I am glad as well that we today not finished in a quarrel. I stop now. See you.
 * Oh, well! Now I am ridiculous? That´s fine you are so "respectful".
 * Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Your claim is ridiculous." You made a ridiculous claim about Userboxes. If you don't like the Userboxes, discuss them at the relevant Talk pages.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for User Talk pages state that editors may delete sections from their own Talk pages as they see fit; if you add childish comments beneath an 'award', I am fully entitled to delete the stupid comments, the award, or both. See WP:UP. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have never said you are irrelevant (which would be pointless); however, if you make comments that are not relevant or appropriate, I will say so.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again! STOP TALKING! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will respond to anything at my Talk page as I see fit. If you don't want a response, do not comment.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought about our relation many times ago. I found there is something mutually disagreeable between us. Our problems are not about big differences in a worldview, but inside, in personality. Our sort of personality are absolutely incompatible. Every time we have factual talk about topic at the beginning, but finishing in a quarrel. We need a mediator with every issue solving next time. I found BlackCab´s replies on me always more factual, informative, more expected type of information in response, better attitude of cooperation even with those who don´t agree with him, which sometimes includes both of us. But, between you and me, this is not working at all. We always finishing in a quarrel. Next time, when I need to ask someone from WP:JW project to any issue, I´ll rather contact him or other man, because contact between us just does not work. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is often difficult to interpret your broken English, and that may be a large part of the problem. However, in this instance, you were simply wrong.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad you finally ´start trying to interpret´ my thoughts. Previously you was disrespect, mocking, haughty, lofty Englishman. Now, you finally ´try to´ (and not still lazy as previous) at least. Wow! You did some personality progress since that times. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for condescension. My approach has not changed. I realise you are not a native speaker of English, but your disregard for various Wikipedia guidelines was not dependent on your knowledge of English.
 * I am not an Englishman.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From my POV, you are ´Englishman´, because you are native English speaker from Australia. Everyone, who is from USA, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, or from thousands of other places (colonies of British Empire), everyone such is for me ´Englishman´. If someone, moreover, has similar nature like you, I call those people as ´Lofty Englishmen". That´s it! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your definition of 'Englishman' is very general, and not technically correct, but you can use the term if you like. 'Lofty' is your irrelevant opinion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My definition, is, however, for me, much more important, than simple fact, that you are not from England. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I also wish to delete the link from public article talk page, which you got there after my claim "In my point of view, I have no religion." This was evidence of your spying on me, and the evidence of your wish to continue in unproductive talk and strengthen your argument with personal attack (which using that private link in fact was). If you really want to know, how is my intended meaning in that, Okay. I just do not consider my faith as religion. (in sense of your secular view probably religion is, and I also often use this word), (but in my PointOfView, I rather call it evidences and relations, as I stated there). I am not sure if you are capable to comprehend my thoughts, so this could some kind of mystery for you. I have no idea, how to explain my attitude in this. // I want to ´strike-out my name´ in original AuthorityTam section too. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't up to you to strike out other editors' comments that do not break Wikipedia rules. Whether you 'do not consider your faith as religion' is up to you, but your statement was misleading in the context of editing a religious article. It is not against the rules to have your own views, but it is against the guideline to deny potential bias.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked yesterday BlackCab, and you few days ago as well, you do not using revert function on me. I will use the same against you, dear vandal, next time.
 * You shouldn´t use my personal links for ostentatiously purposes. You used the link twice. (Article talk, User talk). Very nasty example of your nature, allowing and even recommending public spying on private. And in both cases you wrote that link only with purpose to hurt my personal interests.
 * --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The links given were directly relevant to the lies you had told as part of discussion. As I have not edited your comments, there is no comparable action for you to 'revert'. It is not a valid request for you to ask that your changes to others' comments not be reverted. You also appear to have an incorrect understanding of what constitutes 'vandalism'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not 'use the link twice'. There were two different links. I linked a diff at article Talk to indicate that you were being misleading regarding your religious affiliation. I linked to your 'Chat' page at User talk after you falsely accused me of 'chatting'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You just lied again. I did not lied in that discussion. I tried to explain you here yesterday, but it´s probably some kind of mystery for you, because you have very different knowledge than me. I not lied. But you still continuing in your justification for reason why you used private links for strengthen your attacking points in that article talk. It´s funny, if you still think that your procedure was in that talk correct!??? Yeah! You don´t disturb Wikipedia´s rules, (only recommendations like Wiki-Etiquette) but there are other rules, which people have in hearts without written on paper! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have clearly indicated the context of your misleading statements regarding your religious affiliation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I several time, again and again, explain you, that was NOT misleading. It IS misleading only in your brain. Respect it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is misleading. Your actual words were, "In my point of view, I have no religion". Any impartial person reading that would interpret it to mean that 'you have no religion'. It is really very clear. The 'special' definition of the words you used only means something to you. I provided a link to indicate that what you implied was in fact false.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest stop responding
Jeffro, with all due respect, I suggest that you stop responding. - danjel  (talk to me) 10:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I'm still putting in my reply here over the edit conflict. Also, if I am falsely accused, I reserve the right to reply. However, I take your point.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you - Danjel and others not interfere with our discussion. We still talking normally and solving one issue. Your and others talking on me, what I take as inappropriate interfering with our private. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an involved party in the dispute, I welcome and accept Danjel's input.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM. Thank you. - danjel  (talk to me) 11:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

 * I realise that JWs consider all their beliefs to be based on the Bible. However, the Bible is also very subject to interpretation, as seen by the number of Christian religions in the world. That is why JW beliefs are referenced to JW literature other than the Bible in Wikipedia articles, to provide the JW interpretation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comment. But it´s not part of award. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment suggesting that my sincerity is limited due to a lack of Bible-based belief is not really appropriate. I therefore will probably not keep the barnstar. But I appreciate the gesture.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel so, you haven´t to keep this barnstar. In one sentence I wrote only! ´you currently haven´t belief´. In pre-last sentence I encourage you to be sincere and depth in all your doing. But, you could trust me, there was not any hidden sense. If you dislike with the text, I encourage you change it to sense you like. I even allow you to do it. Only do not change the whole text of my wishes to you. But if you would like to change it, maybe deleting one sentence is enough. Or similarly. I don´t know how you feel it, and what preciously is dislike to you. Just change it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me re-wording it, I might do that; I'll think about it anyway. By the way, I've noticed a few times that you've used the word "preciously" (=drahocenně) where you seem to mean "precisely" (=přesně). (I got the Czech words from Google Translate.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Sure. It should be "precisely" (=přesně). // Don´t worry. Just change it the barnstar. // --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking up the Czech words reminded me of when I visited Prague in 2007. Good memories. But the only words from then I remember are "dobry den" and "(Karlov) Most".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite good for one-time tourist. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Time zone and Current local time
I never visited Australia, but I watched in TV several events like Olympics in Sydney 2000, Australian Open in tennis and very big success of Australia in swimming, and other sports. And participation with football team in World championship. I like Koalas bears, Kangaroos, Dingo dogs, .... very far through whole country, .... including nature like Ayers Rock, several lakes, grasslands, forest jungle, deserts, and ocean from each side of your country.

In fact, I am not from Prague, but from smaller town. My town, is in yours and Lighthead´s eyes probably rather small village, because population of my city is about 100,000 people. However, in Czech Republic is relatively great town, one of Top 1O´s, regionally very important.

When you watched that "chat site" before, you could read it all. One of gifts on that site was this (time zones of wiki-project members)...Lighthead said, it´s cool, because he could know, I currently e.g. eating or sleeping. :) I think for you this could be useful too. However, Naturalpsychology, FaktneviM, are not apart of the project since.

Current local time in U.S.A. – California – Los Angeles – User:Lighthead

Current local time in Czech Republic – Prague – User:FaktneviM

Current local time in U.S.A. – Ohio – Columbus – User:Pastorrussell

Current local time in U.S.A. – New Jersey – Trenton – User:Naturalpsychology

Current local time in Australia – Queensland – Brisbane – User:Jeffro77

[http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179 Current local time in U.S.A.? – New York? – New York? – User:BlackCab]

So enjoy it! (as i said, - it was in page you watched) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The city I live in is not much bigger than yours, about 150,000 people.
 * Thanks for the time zone info. It is very late here, so I think I should go to bed.
 * I try to work according to the rules on Wikipedia, and that resulted in some problems between us, but I think we would get along okay in other circumstances.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. You should. It´s late night in your town now. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After you´ll wake up and take your breakfast, and say "dobré ráno" their close ones, I´d like to know, how you can saying about JW´s with such hatred tone, with such contempt, .... and few moments after, ... you just offer me "almost friendship and hope for future cooperation". How can you be such big hypocrite, man? Tell me, what I should think about this. There is no doubt about I did rightly, when I leaved from the project. There is no hope for our productive cooperation in future, if you persistently insults mine, and others, values. You did it before. You still continue with it again. I suggest not only striking-out, but fully delete those two sentences. I am so sad from this your act. Bye. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statements in my comment are accurate and reflect the official teaching of the religion. The Talk page for the article is about the religion. Please refer to the JW literature I cited there. Also:
 * Revelation&mdash;Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 92: "Confidently, we now look forward to that day at Armageddon when our “King of kings” will gain the final victory over Satan’s oppressive political organization! "
 * Our Kingdom Ministry, March 2008, page 4: "The Bible indicates that God will fight a war called Armageddon that will end all wars. This magazine explains what Armageddon is and why we should look forward to it."
 * The Watchtower 15 December 1968: "Furthermore, in the Revelation that he gave to his apostle John twenty-six years after Jerusalem’s destruction Jesus spoke of the “kings of the entire inhabited earth” as being gathered to the “war of the great day of God the Almighty” at Armageddon and he thereafter described the enormous slaughter to be wrought in that war of Armageddon."
 * The Watchtower, 1 December 1955: "Picturing the tremendousness of the Armageddon slaughter ... The great Armageddon wine press will be trodden “outside the city” and the horses under Christ and his heavenly troops will fairly wade, almost swim, through blood, so many will be those in opposition to Jehovah God and his King of kings. Do not skeptically think this is too gruesome to come true!"
 * Most JWs I have met are sincere people, and most don't really seem to think that Armageddon will really happen, because if it did they would be truly horrified by it. Individual JWs don't focus on that horrible view for the future with most of mankind being killed, but it is the teaching of the religion. I do not need to like or agree with a person's beliefs to realise that they are nice people apart from those beliefs. It is unfortunate that you are not able to make that distinction.
 * I wish you well.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the other element of my comments, that "they believe that various accounts of murder and genocide in the Bible ... by their god are justified" is not a specific 'attack' on JWs, but applies equally to any religious group that believes the ancient Jewish tribes were justified in killing off the neighbouring people.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From my objective and subjective (both) viewpoints, your sentence "However, they believe that various accounts of murder and genocide in the Bible, as well as their hoped-for future slaughter of most of the planet's population by their god are justified." is extreme POV, without respect, without knowledge, only sarcasm and spreading another hatred thoughts.


 * As I read in your Your Page, you consider sarcasm as "highest level of wit." From my motives, sarcasm is bad. I know you contempt with the Bible and contempt with all what is important for me. The Bible also encourages consistency and firmness when needed. “Let your Yes mean Yes, and your No, No.” — James 5:12. + "Just let YOUR word Yes mean Yes, YOUR No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one." — Mathew 5:37. ... That is main reason, I can´t have similar attitude to sarcasm as you. In sentence, which you wrote on main article talk page, which I cited here is wholly negative, intolerant, your pov.


 * And again, you trying on me another hypocrisy, when you saying "I wish you well." If you claimed what you did on article talk, you wish me no good. I want to certain you, that I hope in Jesus´ mercy in the Armageddon, because from my emotional nature is I felt it sometimes cruel, but who knows how that situation will be in that time when it starts? As I read hundreds of examples, how Jehovah act with mankind, with -his faithful servants, and plus -even with non-believers people, who have not believe in Jehovah, and plus -He even do not kill all hostiles, only them, which wants to be evil from their nature, and for those is undeserved kindness nothing, who are no worthy of it... from that many examples, how Jehovah was full of wisdom and kindness to every type of people. ... I am sure, He do not kill neither one person, which will be good in that time. However, if someone persistently refuse, for those can´t be mercy, because they reject all offered kindnesses. If someone reject board to lifeboat when Titanic goes down, he is just fool and he will die. Personally, I wish you, that you will be alive as well. And that mean from me "I wish you well".


 * I have no interests about your arguments, as you tried above. I only requested decency.


 * ---Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have yourself stated that you think Armageddon is cruel, so why is it such a problem when I say it?? I will say again: I did not say anything about you or about individual JWs, but I accurately stated the official teaching of the religion.
 * It is true that I do consider many accounts in the Bible to be cruel and unjust, and I will not attempt to disguise that fact&mdash;because my 'Yes' means 'Yes', and my 'No', 'No'. However, I do not have any ill will toward individual members of religions who have done nothing to me.
 * I am not being sarcastic when I say I wish you well.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But when you saying sth. bad about my brothers, you also saying against me. If you contempt with the Bible, I contempt with you. // I stated that "I thought (in the past) Armageddon is cruel before! I met Jehovah´s depth and kindness, before I met His acting with mankind, before I met His nature". Today NO! // If you saying "I wish you well", you are not sarcastic, but you are hypocrite, because sentence in article talk clearly reveal you contempt with my values, and with me. For me, there is no difference if you say "You are irrelevant" or "Your claim is irrelevant". For me is no difference. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't like me because I don't like your beliefs. It is shame that you are unable to see any difference. The thing is, I am not offended if you don't like my 'religious' beliefs, just like it would not hurt my feelings if you don't like my favourite colour or my favourite song/movie/whatever. But don't you have contempt for the values of people who don't share your religious beliefs? Should everyone be offended by you because you don't agree with them? I would say, No, because each person is entitled to their own view. It is like when you go preaching door-to-door and many people aren't interested&mdash;they are rejecting your message, but that doesn't mean they hate you.
 * However, my comments at the article Talk accurately reflect the official beliefs of JWs, and were not based on simply my own opinion. You can check the sources I provided.
 * I still wish you well, even though you don't.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not because you don´t like my beliefs, but because I am such as my all neurons together are. All my qualities are based on that. I can be full as whole, or I can be empty as whole. All that matters inside each man are only thoughts, motives, memories, knowledge, emotions etc. You can´t be divided on more than 1 piece. You are as your values are. Nothing less. Nothing more. Could be someone JW in his/her heart and in the same time be hypocrite with deliberately breaking Jehovah´s laws? No! In that time such person is just NOT JW. Not because elders exclude him after some time. Jehovah do not consider such person as a friend even much time before that. People could found reasons for exclude. But always long after. Jehovah reject such person much time before people even found any problems. No-one just can be someone other, than he/she actually is. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you exactly the same as you were 10, 20, or 30 years ago? No. Each person's own values and opinions change over time. And everyone has some things about themselves they would like to change. So why should you be offended that someone disagrees with your beliefs, when the beliefs and opinions you have now (even those things that have nothing to do with religion) are different to what you used to think? Do you hate yourself for changing? If not, why have contempt for others just because they don't share your beliefs or opinions?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It is changing over time. But, it doesn´t matter on that. You, in fact, suggest me that I should try be a hypocrite and mock communion with people with them I have no to share. Should I be hypocrite and mock ´I other than I am´? I am sincere (not only because my sign on wiki). If someone say ´I want to be your friend´, I will very deeply examine such person´s motives, I will be careful many months and years, if is it ´the real´. I have no interest to have another friends, who are not friends. Those who I have is enough. I am used to be suspicious about people, who say that, because experience, in fact empiric is clear. I have not in plan to change my values to worse way. But, if other one would like to change their own, they actually could do it. // I´m sorry, but this discussion have to end. I have other ´time plans´ for now. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 Corinthians 6:13. That is all. I still wish you well.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that you should be friends with everyone, or that you should be my friend. What I am saying is that you are only making things harder for yourself by getting upset and taking things personally when other people disagree with your beliefs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, the things you have objected to most in the last few days have actually been the presentation of JW beliefs you have either not properly understood (e.g. Abaddon = Jesus) or are not comfortable with (e.g. God approved of genocide in the Bible). You should not criticize other people for discussing such things on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia editors are allowed to have a point of view. What is not permitted is for that POV to improperly influence articles. That is why editors are requested to supply sources, and that is what I have done in each instance where you have become upset.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I like widen out too. But qualification is with ≪ 1 Corinthians 6:14 → 1 Corinthians 2:14 → John 3:36 ≫ That is all. I still wish you well. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Email
Which email function are you referring to? The public talk page? Let me know so I can send you one; unless it's what I'm doing now.  Lighthead  þ 15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The desolation of Judah 607 B.C.E. To the return of the Jews from exile  537 B.C.E.  70 years.

-- In the Insight Volumes, Volume 1, page 459 under Chronology. Unambiguous and simple to understand. 539 B.C.E. was evidently the sack of Babylon.  Lighthead  þ 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'unambiguous' statement given in the Insight book is not supported by the facts. The start and end points are wrong and conflict with the relevant scriptures. The Jews returned in 538BCE, not 537. The 70 years run from 609 (when Babylon destroyed Assyria's secondary capital, Harran, and became the new world power) to 539 (when Babylon was captured by the Medo-Persians and its king was 'called to account').-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement "is not supported by the facts". By which facts? Of course, secular! Which could are mistaken and wholly wrong, because all people have limited knowledge and could do mistakes. Are pagan! historians excluded? Not! You simply giving yourself a reason, why do not believe. It is too simple. But foolish from your viewpoint. (verse 14 versus 15) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FaktneviM, you complained a lot when a third person entered your conversations, yet you are doing the same here, after you 'vanished'. However, apart from that, if you are claiming that I am wrong, why not give some supporting evidence to back up your claim.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because your ´sources´ are irrelevant without examining all in other way than you did so far. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed your statement. So the 70 years are evidently from the fall of Jerusalem to the Jewish exile. Mas claro que eso no canta un gallo. If you understand Spanish. Translation: No clearer than that does the cock call. If you were wondering.  Lighthead  þ 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (Note: Signed and dated after the fact..)

An interpretation of Jeremiah 25:12 may also be that by 70 years, all would have been fulfilled. And just as a note, I notice that when people like you are on attack mode (I mean I'm sure that you have a ferocious intellect for the most part, don't get me wrong), they don't spot those finer details. And by the way, are you the only one who sees a discrepancy, in other words that the numbers don't add up in Kings and Chronicles. Because if you're the only one saying that then that might mean that you might have to run the numbers again; and each time from scratch. Do you get the same result each time.  Lighthead  þ 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Final note (for now, as I'm obviously getting sucked into this, not through anyone's fault but my own); that blurb that you mentioned in Isaiah's Prophecy Vol. 1. You should, without a doubt, reread that. There is no contradiction there. By the end, important, by the end of the 70 years the verses state that Tyre would have fallen to enemy forces. Do you say that there is a contradiction in the Isaiah's Prophecy, or Isaiah 23:15b-17? Like I said, I've racked my brain and I see no contradiction there. I did when you mentioned it at first. But trust me, there is none. I kind of think that your viewpoint is so subjective that you're seeing things that are not there. Don't you think that that would be a glaring mistake for the Organization?  Lighthead  þ 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, you should know that I have considered all of the relevant information, in greater depth and for a longer time than you have.
 * When I considered the books of Kings and Chronicles, as well as all other books of the Bible that make any references to the years of reigns of all the Israelite and Judean kings and all foreign kings that were contemporaneous therewith, I tabulated all of their reigns, as indicated in the Bible, without reference to external sources (I have matched those events with other sources after the initial tabulation, without reworking the original data). Particularly focused attention was also given to the books of Jeremiah and Daniel. From this and other evidence, I have established quite firmly that the selection of 607 BCE is quite impossible. It is by no means only that the plain text of Jeremiah 25:12 makes the '607' date impossible, though the meaning of words like when and fulfilled in that verse are pretty unambiguous.
 * The information about Tyre was a sidepoint, but you seem to have missed the relevance.
 * If you would like to continue this conversation, you may e-mail me. The 'e-mail function' I refer to is available under the 'Toolbox' options on the left of the page when you are at an editor's User or Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question is just one. Why do still searching for faults in places, where are not? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think. Where do I see your e-mail; and how do I even see mine. Never ever used this function before.  Lighthead  þ 23:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started on your first (of seven!!) e-mails. It's not a good start to see a claim about my alleged 'track record of being wrong'. In future, please ensure that you do not resort to ad hominem attacks, otherwise this conversation will cease.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is like one of those Nordic sagas!  Lighthead  þ 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I see it.  Lighthead  þ 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You have obsolete and incomplete knowledge, Jeffro. Your informations are from your Bible Student Movement´s family history and from limited and rigid reading. Main reason is that "you just do not want"! That´s all. Whichever argument could not be successful, because you don´t want to believe. It is deep inside brain. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My knowledge on the subject is quite extensive. I don't have a "Bible Student Movement's family history".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When you re-updated your knowledge last time? I suppose that you examined it only once, and 10 or more years ago. You had surely limited sources, which was that time available. Or even worse variation, you tried examining all yourself alone. And surprisingly (=NOT) you found some faults, which you was not able to explain. Easy. I know it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your objection is called argument from ignorance. You are assuming that my knowledge or my sources must be insufficient because you don't like the fact that I don't agree with your beliefs. My knowledge on the matter is accurate and up to date.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM has not vanished, so I have resurrected the issue at WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass. Thank you. - danjel  (talk to me) 04:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem
If I had a dollar for every time somebody else fixed one of my edits, I'd be able to hire my own proofreader ;-) --GenericBob (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

 * Thanks. As I contribute to some controversial topics, for the time being I consider that it would be better to abstain from adminship to avoid perception by others as a potential conflict of interest.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting reservation, which I respect. All the best. My76Strat (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad Jeffro. I think you would have made a great admin. Only those with an agenda would have seen you as anything other than fair, IMO. Vyselink (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)