User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2011c

Illegitimate complaint
Please refrain from removing my articles :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not your articles. As is stated on every single edit page on Wikipedia, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read and followed what you sent, why are you removing?
I am following all the guide lines that you and others have given me and am no longer citeing scriptures Watchtower style, as you put it.

I am refrencing material published BY the WTBTS explaining the the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sorry that you either do not like the publications or the articles, but I am not breaking any guidelines or policies of WIKIPEDIA.

If a WTBTS publicatiopn says 2+2=4 and I write "The WTBTS says that 2+2=4...." I do not see how I am doing origional research, giving my own point of view, being innacurate, or anything else you seem to be accusing me of... lol

If you are such an expert on Just What Jehovah's Witnesses believe and what their publications say.... Then why are soo many of the article on here innacurate? lol

I am simply putting in accurate information where it is lacking and I am giving you ALL of my sources without using the Bible directly......

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by David42718 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your use of scriptures and original research have not been the only problems with your edits, as I and other editors have tried to explain to you. Please read the relevant policies, particularly about primary & secondary sources, and undue weight.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tone of much of your prose is also of poor quality for an encyclopedia.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a practical example of what is quite simply just bad prose, consider the following paragraph of your preferred wording:
 * Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Satan delegates authority to each Demon as he see's fit, and over what he see's fit, sometimes including whole Nations and kingdoms. They believe that Satan and his demons are in every way the enemy of God, rather then working along side him. They teach that Satan will continue to rule the world until Armageddon, when Jesus Christ and his heavenly Angels come to earth and bind him, eventually killing him, freeing the world of all opposition towards True worship.
 * There are several problems with this paragraph...
 * Incorrect punctuation, e.g. "see's fit"
 * Wrong word: "rather then", "opposition towards"
 * Redundant wordy expressions, e.g. as he see's fit, in every way the enemy of God, rather then working along side him
 * Non-standard capitalisations: Demon, Nations, Angels, True worship
 * -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems you could use a dictionary.....

An Editor is someone who finds erros and innacuracies and corrects them. You are behaving more like a... Hmmmmmm, and Eraser lol

Are you an english major, then correct my punctuation and spelling. How simple is that?

Thanks buddy :) David42718 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will make edits (which may include deletions) as I see fit, in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines. If I have acted improperly, I'm sure Dougweller will let me know.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * David, I see that other editors are agreeing with Jeffro77, and it appears that you still are having problems with our policies and guidelines. People are trying to give you good advice. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Warned IP editor. Sorry it took me so long! Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Thanks. Hopefully, the editor will at least attempt to discuss at Talk in future.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Three Worlds
You are correct. It should have been listed as a G6, not a G8, and was thus declined for its CSD nomination under G8. In my experience, I get yelled at a touch more often for deleting under the wrong technical criterion than for not being flexible, so forgive my erring on the side of caution, and on the side of preferring to have a link to automate the transition as the G6 template provides. - Vianello (Talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The desired end result has now been achieved, so all good. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

JW edit
Jeffro77

Please don't censor my update to the JW entry. It is correct and legitimate JC21051979 Jc21051979 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is correct, and is already adequately indicated in the relevant JW-articles. However, your phrasing and position of the statements is against WP:SOAP. If you disagree, you will need to discuss at the article's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Bible Chronology
Having examined your edits over the previous month, it has become clear that your edits demonstrate a clear agenda with regards to any information that comes from a source related to Jehovah's Witnesses... At this point I would request that you rescue yourself from making edits when Jehovah's Witness sources are provided, since you cannot remain unbiased as has been demonstrated by your previous history. It would also be proper for you to withdraw yourself from editing pages referencing Jehovah's Witnesses, as again, you are clearly biased with regard to this group. It is clear that you view Jehovah's Witnesses with disdain and are quick to judgement when editing pages on Wikipedia that have information that has source material provided by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. You favor sources, any sources, no matter how poorly represented or how inaccurately quoted, over material provided by Jehovah's Witnesses, even as you fail to state a reasonable explanation for preferencing one source over another. This demonstrates a clear and unbridled bias against Jehovah's Witness source material in clear violation of Wikipedia's own rules regarding source material, and I, at this point, must ask you to cease and desist from making such edits. You are, after all, supposed to be and editor, not a censor!

Thank you 98.92.249.28 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every time biased JW editors accuse me of bias, I am vindicated by neutral editors. Please find something better to do with your time.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this person is confused about the way Wikipedia works. Articles are edited by people with an interest in the subject. Jeffro is as much qualified to edit the article as an active JW, who may also have a view that just as easily (and lazily) be described as "biased". All edits come under the scrutiny of all editors, all must conform to Wikipedia policy on verifiability, accuracy and balance and all live or die by the process of consensus. The only attempts at censorship I have seen on JW articles are those made by JWs who are unusued to seeing material about their religion that hasn't been whitewashed. BlackCab (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed about consensus. The editor is actually complaining about edits made at Chronology of the Bible, where the anonymous editor has sought to restore minor JW fringe views that I (and others) have previously removed. That article is not even about JW beliefs, and should present information that has broader consensus. This has been explained to the editor at his Talk page. He also sought out editor User:David42718 at his Talk page for support.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77, You have been far from vindicated, your bias becomes ever more obvious with everything you say with regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, giving ever more reason for you to desist from making edits when Witness views are involved. I left a note on the talk page of User:David42718, not in seeking support, but just to convey a message that I understand his frustration in having to deal with someone as obstinate and hypocritical as you. You tell other to address edit issues in talk, yet, you fail to do so yourself. You accuse others of presenting fringe views, even as you present views that don't have the consensus you claim to seek. You claim others source material is not proper, even as you lie about what material is presented in the sources you improperly cite. With regards to the edits made in Chronology of the Bible, this article isn't about Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, it's about, as the article states,  "BIBLE" Chronology. It isn't about what User:Jeffro77 feels is correct, it's about what the BIBLE states regarding the occurrence of certain events (by the way, I'm not finished editing this page by a long shot). The material you keep presenting runs contradictory to what the BIBLE states, and that is the problem here, your material is wrong and cannot be defended. The material that I have submitted is clearly in line with BIBLE chronology and I am perfectly willing to discuss any dates or events given in "talk" so you may come to an understanding as to why those dates are correct. You however, disobey your own advice when you chose to revert the material rather than address it in "talk". I feel this is another hypocritical thing that you do, showing that you feel this rule applies only to others and not yourself. I will again ask you to desist from making edits with regards to material pertaining to Jehovah's Witnesses as you cannot remain objective and unbiased on this subject.

Thanks.....184.37.2.116 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The material in question at Chronology of the Bible is not 'my material' at all. I simply restored what was there prior to the introduction of the fringe JW views. The rest of your rant has been summarily dismissed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, several editors, and not just me, have been reverting your fringe edits at that article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro, how do you block someone who is using at least three different IP addressess? The two here and 74.232.63.35? Vyselink (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Raise an incident at Sockpuppet investigations, providing any available evidence to indicate that the three accounts are being used by the same person.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Would the fact that he opened this section in your talk page under 98.92.249.28 and continued it (it's obviously the same person, look at the language) under 184.37.2.116 be proof? To be honest, i've never done it before and am unsure how. Vyselink (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 184.37.2.116 states above that he "left a note on the talk page of User:David42718". This confirms without a doubt that he is the same editor as 98.92.249.28..-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * His use of multiple IP accounts may be confusing, but I don't think he's made any attempt to pretend to be different people. It would probably be better to go straight to an ANI for his disruptive editing.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did I even remotely do this correctly? [1] Vyselink (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly. Except you should also advise all involved parties (not just the person in the wrong) with a template ( at their Talk page.

Ah! Darn. Ok. Thanks. Vyselink (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. BlackCab (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

SockPuppet?
I've got a strange feeling that the newly registered Spudpicker 01 might be our anonymous editor. While obviously it isn't technically a sockpuppet offense, as it means he's finally registered, is it something that we should know, or does it not matter? Vyselink (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's the same person pretending to be someone who supports his position. Pathetic and dishonest if that's the case. BlackCab (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any real subterfuge here. When told that only registered users could complete the nomination process, the anonymous editor responded at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs that he would create an account. The nomination has now been continued by a newly registered user. It's not hard to join the dots.
 * Unless he has attempted to deny the connection, I don't believe there is any need to proceed to a sockpuppet investigation .-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really should have checked the article Talk page first!! I guess I just assumed he wouldn't have the gall to be so blatantly dishonest. Since the editor has claimed to be a different person, but has registered a new account just to nominate the article for deletion, an immediate CheckUser seems to be in order!-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly how to do it, and I knew that you're knowledge on the technical stuff of sockpuppetry was better, so that's why I asked. Good to know, and thanks for keeping me updated. Vyselink (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents
I have had a go at the opening para. There are some comments on the talk page about the "Most modern biographers of Herod" quote - where Maier may be over-egging things for his own purposes, so I have gone for something more neutral. Springnuts (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor has reverted it to my version. If you still think it should be changed, please discuss under my existing comment on the article's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)