User talk:Vyselink/Archive 2

Editing guidelines
I noticed some bad advice on your User page about editing guidelines: Someone adding a citation for their own publication may be a conflict of interest and should not be encouraged, especially if they are self-published, and this may still constitute original research. Even if the person had their views published by a reputable publisher, it would still be better for an independent editor to add the citation without any suggestion by the author. ;) -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "If you want to do OR, write a book, get it published, then insert it as a reference."

That was really supposed to be tongue in cheek, but I see the point. Vyselink (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, but I have to maintain my Wikipedia reputation for having no sense of humour.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

New redirect discussion for “The Doctor”
Hi. Since you participated in the discussion at WT:Wikiproject Doctor Who, you may wish to post at Talk:Doctor. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Last warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert obvious bias into Wikipedia, as you did at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, you may be blocked from editing. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The flaw with your argument is the mistaken belief that I have tried to introduce anything. I have not. I have reverted changes to sourced material that you had yet to discuss on the talk page. I beg you to please bring up an ANI case against me, as it would fail miserably when the history of your interactions with myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77, including placing Cab and myself on a page of "Known Apostates" (which counter to your claims on other users talk pages IS IN FACT A PERSONAL ATTACK) is instantly revealed. Vyselink (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to make the article clearer and more reflective of current sources, rather than those that are out of date. I felt that BlackCab and you were mindlessly reverting me and trying to preserve text that was not accurate.  I am working hard to discuss matters in a collaborative fashion. You may face serious consequences for your behavior. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem attempting to make great articles. However, you have not attempted any meaningful discussion, and continue to remove sourced, reliable statements for your own POV ones that are either misleading or entirely inaccurate. Your latest revert of the sourced material belies your protestations of attempts at a neutral productive discussion. Vyselink (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:79.97.222.210_-_Persistent_disruptive_POV_pushing_and_edit-warring. Thank you.

This notification is simply because I make mention of you in my report about an IP you reverted. Mabuska (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Mabuska Thank you for the heads up. I have added my cent-and-a-half to the page. Vyselink (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of guest stars in 3rd Rock from the Sun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dick Martin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Vyselink (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeframe of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Hi there, I noticed that you reverted a user's reintroduction of dates to Huckleberry Finn after I had removed them as unsourced. There is a bit of a debate going on at Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn regarding the propriety of those dates; the user you reverted would like to put them back in and he has at least one supporter in thinking it's pedantic of me to insist that deducing "1835-1845" from "40 or 50 years ago" is synthesis. I thought I'd drop you a line in case you want to give your two cents worth.Eniagrom (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me. I have added my thoughts there. Vyselink (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

More Help
I have a question and I'm sure you offered to help when I had such a question. If not please forgive me. I wanted to get your thoughts on something. This statement in one of the early paragraphs of the article about Jehovah's witnesses... "they prefer to use their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.[8]" Is it not proper to edit in this way?... "they prefer to use their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.[8] They do however, quote other translations in their publications." Based on what I've already learned I have a feeling that will be edited out. But for the life of me I can't see what's wrong with making that slight clarification? It can be argued that since it says they prefer to use the NWT that means they must also use other translations. However, I believe any given person could take that to mean they only use th NWT. Many examples of quotes from other translations can be referenced. I know I need to read more carefully some things recommended in the rules and such. But it seems to me such an edit fits within the editing guidelines. If it doesn't qualify as a proper edit could I trouble you to explain why? STravelli (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * my recommendation is to WP:BRD, which stands for Bold Revert Discuss, meaning make the change, and if someone reverts it, open up a talk page discussion about it. However, if you are going to make the change, I would highly suggest adding a WP:RS, probably not a JW source but a secular one, that states that they also use other translations, as I think you are correct that it will probably be challenged. Vyselink (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vyselink. I know I'm cautioned about quoting the Watchtower. But if I show several places, many places in fact, where they do quote other Bible translations surely that would be acceptable. It would be right there in black and white. I need to clarify something you mentioned. That I said I'd read Raymond Franz' book. I did not say that and have not read his book or any writings he may have produced. Well I'll go ahead and try the edit. I really do think it improves the article. If it's edited out that's fine. I've become pretty thick-skinned. :-). STravelli (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. I recommend Franz's book. If you've read Penton why not Franz? Vyselink (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The main answer to that is I knew Franz well. And know things he's said and done, not hearsay. Though people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand it, I would not speak with or read anything from Raymond Franz because of my knowledge about him as a person. I know he died in 2010. I know you know I have that right. I also know you think it's in-human. I would try to explain disfellowshipping or shunning but my experience is that unless someone is convinced the Bible is the inspired word of God, there is no chance of their understanding it. Even if a person does believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, they still rarely understand it. STravelli (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Vyselink (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have modified the text slightly. The proportion of non-NWT citations is extremely small compared to NWT citations. I have also replaced the referenced examples (which might be seen as original research) with a citation that explicitly mentions use of other translations.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I read that. I personally think it is a good addition. If does not he is welcome to open a discussion on the talk page, but I think it accomplishes the goals. Vyselink (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox person. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have added my two cents. Vyselink (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of JWs in the US
Hi Vyselink, is there any chance you could email me a PDF of the William Shepard McAninch paper you cited in the JW talk page? I'd be very interested to read it. Many thanks. BlackCab ( TALK ) 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Cab, I don't have your email address, and I am unsure how to email a PDF using Wikipedia. But it would be easy for me to do as I used it in my MA thesis and so have it on file. The article is mostly about the differing cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1930's and 40's, and their interaction with the law during this time. Vyselink (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll email you through Wikipedia with my email address. Thanks. BlackCab ( TALK ) 12:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sent. Vyselink (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sending that through. It's a fascinating read, representing the JWs' beliefs and practices very well (apart from one small error on the definition of "apostasy" (pg 1058); it also very well highlights the stark paradox of a religion that on one hand uses courts to champion individual liberty for their members (rather than society at large, as the author notes) but on the other hand has zero tolerance for the "individual automony and intellectual and spiritual independence" of those same members. (pg 1057, 1077). There may be places I can use some of this material in several JW articles at a later date. The author further supports the views of the authors already cited in the Wikipedia article on how the religion, under Rutherford's direction, demonstrated an "antagonistic manner" (p.1001, 1002) that precipitated a public and official backlash, which in turn seemed to prove to the JWs that they were God's chosen ones (pg 1003, 1021). And stuck in the middle of this were the poor sucker JWs themselves, who were told it was a test to prove their faith to God (pg. 1021). When I think back to how I was taught the JW version of their 20th century history, I realise it was a classic, quite sophisticated and highly effective form of propaganda. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah Witlesses
How we correct the error missing tile in the references? --Alejandrocaro35 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the sources are properly referenced. Vyselink (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)