User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015c

edit variation
hello. Sorry to disturb here. But I'd like your opinion on something. And try to be as objective and fair as possible. Is the term "Hebrew Scriptures" a "contentious change" from the term "Hebrew Bible" on Wikipedia? When the variation term of "Hebrew Scriptures" is many times on various Wikipedia articles and pages, with no problem? Jeppiz, for some reason, has called it a "contentious change", and something is NOT "minor". Not sure what the big problem is. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" links right to "Hebrew Bible" automatically no problem, and is many times used. This wasn't even a big deal to me. But it's the pricinple that why should a valid minor accurate good-faith variation edit be summarily undone for unwarranted unfounded issues? It seems that Jeppiz is doing this for "I don't like" reasons (and possible bias), and not for any true valid Wikipedia policy reasons, in this specific matter. But again, would you call it a "contentious change", simply because I (on the Thomas Cahill article, for simple variation and sounding in the sentence) changed the link from "Hebrew Bible" to "Hebrew Scriptures"? I have used both terms a number of times on WP and in general. Not sure why this is such a big problem for Jeppiz. To call it a "contentious change". Was just curious what you thought about that. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you want the article to say "Hebrew Scriptures"? Unless there is some compelling reason to show alternative text, it is generally better to just link to the common name. The term "Hebrew Bible" is by far the more common term on Wikipedia, with over 3,500 occurrences in the article namespace, as compared to a little over 300 occurrences of "Hebrew Scriptures". You suggested it's for variation, but there aren't any other occurrences of "Hebrew Bible" in the article being discussed. You might like to take a step back and consider whether your preference for the other term has more to do with the fact that it is the term preferred by JWs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also see that in your edit summary at Thomas Cahill, you claimed Jeppiz has 'followed' you, despite the fact that you know very well that Cahill was referenced in the discussion at Talk:The Exodus that Jeppiz was already involved in.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears from the context that Jeppiz described your subsequent edit as "contentious" not specifically because of the content of the edit, but because you repeated an edit that had just been reverted (or contended).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Just to make it clear...I have allowed and I think even put both forms in articles. I have left alone both renderings on WP pages that I've seen many times.  NO WAY am I on some crusade to change the rendering in articles.  So please don't think that at all. I've been fine with both.  Because both are valid and correct.   No problem with "Hebrew Bible".  And also "Hebrew Scriptures".   As I said,  I have left alone the form "Hebrew Bible" in other articles, no problem.  AS this was never an issue for me.   But for some reason, the flow of the sentence in the Cahill article, IMO, in that particular sound of it, seemed to fit better (in a way) with "Hebrew Scriptures"...since it said "he studied Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible".   Saying "he studied Hebrew and the Hebrew Scriptures" (again in my estimation) seemed to go a wee bit better sounding.   Not all will necessarily agree of course, but it was just in that context for me I guess.   It was totally good faith, and something (again) I do NOT make a habit of doing on articles.  For real.   My question to you though was would you consider this such a "contentious" edit?   But again, do you know how many articles I've seen "Hebrew Bible" where I don't care about or do anything with?    Because it's fine to me.   Not a big deal at all...really.   No "major" anything to me either way.  But in this Cahill article I simply felt that it maybe went a bit better with "Hebrew Scriptures" for some reason.   And yes, there's no question that the form "Hebrew Bible" is a lot more on Wikipedia.  ( I have put "Hebrew Bible" sometimes, from what I recall.   And other times, "Hebrew Scriptures", depending maybe on sound of sentence etc, or valid variation.)  My question though to you, again, is would you consider it a "contentious change" or something so monumentally "major", given the fact that both forms on Wikipedia mean the exact same thing, both have been already used on Wikipedia, and both link to the same exact page?   Would you yourself think it a "major edit"?  It seems I was mistaken about the "following" as he explained that he had recently put Cahill on his watchlist, so that's fine...but it seems he did a frivolous revert for mainly "I don't like" reasons, rather than truly valid WP reasons.  As again, this was not a "contentious edit" as he put it.)  But yeah, honestly, would you put this in the category of "contentious change", when both forms have been used on WP (though Hebrew Bible of course used more), and both mean the same, and link to the same exact article?    That's a "major" or "contentious" edit, in your opinion?    Just curious.  Gabby Merger (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. For something that purportedly 'wasn't even a big deal to you', you certainly are going on about it a lot. Reverting twice and then complaining on three User Talk pages, and then clumsily 'archiving' your User Talk page?! Just stop.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but you still didn't answer my question. Would you yourself categorize something like this as a "contentious edit"?   Would this be "minor" or "major" in your estimation?  That's really what I was asking you originally, which you never really answered.   (Also, my last comment to you was explaining why I felt the other rendering maybe sounded better in that particular sentence in the Cahill article.  I was trying to make the position and point clear, that I've been ok with both forms in many articles I've seen over the months and years.)  But again, I ask...do you yourself consider this matter a "contentious change"?  Gabby Merger (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Already answered prior to your response above. The trivial change to something that didn't need changing is a minor problem. Your vastly disproportionate overreaction to other editors following the general principle of linking directly to articles using the more common term is self-evidently a major problem. Sniping at the admin definitely was not a clever move either.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro, I wasn't "venting". Did you even read what I wrote, that you so quickly reverted? I was thanking you for your input, and making the point that Jeppiz said it was "contentious" and "major" right off the bat, even before any reverts happened, and also addressed what you said about my archiving my talk page, etc. Did you even read what I wrote? It was not a "venting" or bad thing at all really. No need for the hostility. I was being polite, gracious, and thankful to you. (And it was ironically gonna be my last comment to you on this anyway.) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please back away from the dead horse. If you were just thanking me, your response could have been one sentence. But you thanked me... and then kept venting... and then when I removed it, you thanked me again... along with some more venting. I'm not going to tell you Jeppiz is a terrible terrible person. I'm not going to tell you you're a terrible person. Nor am I going to say either of you is wonderful. I'm not being hostile. But I'm not here to be your listening post either.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that Jeppiz said the point was "contentious" "even before any reverts happened" is false. After the initial change, Jeppiz simply noted that we normally avoid redirects ("Better linking to the article than to a redirect page"), with no mention of being "contentious" or any claim about the severity of the edit. It was not until after Gabby reverted again, that Jeppiz identified the change as contentious.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Seige of Jerusalem
Jeffro, the siege began 587 and ended 586. I can show you the references. PiCo (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That claim is not consistent with the content of the article. By all means, provide references. Whilst there is some disagreement in sources regarding whether the siege lasted 18 or 30 months (though comparison of the biblical sources indicates Tishri dating, hence a 30 month siege), or whether it ended in 586 or 587 (though comparison of available sources indicates 587), I am not aware of any compelling evidence supporting a start of the siege in 587.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I care enough :) PiCo (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Very compelling stuff. :/ -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chronic is very committed to the earlier dates. Some JW thing? I have no interest in making people like him unhappy - Wikiepdia is more mass blog than encyclopedia, and I get no pleasure from simply being right. PiCo (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The selection of 589-587 for these events is better supported by the source material. The selection of 586 in some works is based largely on confusion of where the biblical texts include accession periods as part of the reign (and some works give the year as "587/6" because the Nisan-based year spans parts of both Julian years). Comparison of the biblical texts with Babylonian records definitely favours what you are calling the earlier dates. However, if you have sources to the contrary, present them.
 * The dates given by User:Chronic2 are not at all related to the dates preferred by JWs. JWs place the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, at variance with scholarship by 20 years; their selection of that year is intertwined with their end-times beliefs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If JWs believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, why discuss 589-6 at all? Or am I wrong in thinking Chronic is JW? (By the way, I've been very impressed by his self-control and essential courtesy in the face of edits of mine that he clearly found offensive).PiCo (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not been following the edits of Chronic2, but on cursory examination, I don't see any basis for thinking he is a JW. What's you're reasoning for thinking he is??-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question, and now that you ask it, I don't have an answer. PiCo (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

JW stats
Hi Jeffro, you created the appearing on the JW page illustrating the growth of Jehovah's Witnesses over time. Are you in a position to update that? I'm intrigued about whether the trendlines have changed. Thanks. BlackCab ( TALK ) 00:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be able to, but it won't be until the weekend at the earliest.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have decided to wait until the statistics for 2015 are available.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job. Thanks for your effort. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 04:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Gabby's page
Oh, come on, not you too! Please don't post there again. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
 * She is continuing to make false claims about me and other editors. But per your advice, I won't respond there again.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And consider this: you don't really think those accusations, made in that way (quite apart from being made on a pretty obscure talkpage), can make you look bad? Affect the way you're perceived? Harm your repute? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Your reputation among those familiar with you is good enough, believe me. If you ever get called an SPA or something similar again, I will point out like I have before that you tend to be one because of the sheer amount of POV pushing in the fields you edit in could keep several editors busy full-time. You've done a damn good job around here for years, and I don't think anyone is going to necessarily be swayed by statements of an editor who has rather obvious POV problems. John Carter (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. You are a great editor and a boon to WP. I've got your back as well. Vyselink (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted your edit
I reverted you destructive edit on JWs talk page. I believe it was a mistake, and I take that in good faith. Please avoid using "ridiculous", "lying" etc when commenting. Focus on the content. Not on the person.Roller958 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happened there. I only corrected "understanding" to "misunderstanding". Maybe there was a database error. I've seen similar happen to my edits in the past. It's also possible that I inadvertently edited an older revision of the page. But I don't think so.
 * If you lie about what I have said, I will point it out. Specifically, you claimed that I have tried to suggest that the Pennsylvania corporation is responsible for doctrine. That claim is a lie.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)