User talk:Willietell/Archives/2016 1

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss CONTENT
In case you have no interest in discussing content at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, I will also address this matter here. Your edit summary "Noting the tendency of editors to make JW's seem like a secretive cult, I don't think it can be taken as to be assumed" is quite inappropriate. Whether a statement 'can be assumed' should be based on article content, not on your opinion of other editors. The article content at the article in question quite clearly shows that JWs are involved in public preaching, which automatically disproves your claim that 'editors' try to make the article seem like a 'secretive cult'. Stick to content or you will be reported for personal attacks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have never personally attacked you nor any of your personas cohorts, your threat is seemingly just another attack on me, which I feel you have repeatedly done thru the time I have edited on Wikipedia, I find your feigned offence silly and your accusation of personal attack unfounded. However, I would point out that you and other editors who frequently attempt to "control" the content of Jehovah's Witnesses related pages thru a process of working in unison until the other party tires of the argument and constant bickering and simply gives up, to be counter-productive at the very least, and an injustice to the readers of Wikipedia in the end. Due to this process the readers suffer because they do not derive the benefit of a well-balanced NPOV article, but only receive a "story-line" written from a biased set of editors. If you and your personas cohorts would honesty work with other editors in good faith, these articles could be more accurate and also be presented with a more balanced view that lends itself more towards the NPOV to which Wikipedia endeavors to achieve. Unfortunately, that would require cooperation from you and the group of editors who work in unison with you, to "control" the content here and I don't feel that particular group is capable of such a level of cooperation. Personally, I would love to see that achieved, but I am skeptical of the ability and willingness of certain editors to "actually" work with other editors when a simple edit noting that congregation meeting are "open to the public" is repeatedly reverted for such ridiculous reasons.  However, in fairness, I will state that I fully expected it to be reverted, because seemingly EVERY EDIT  made, no matter how insignificant, that doesn't reflect negatively on Jehovah's Witnesses, is almost immediately reverted by one of just a few editors. I realize that you have worked on these articles for years, and I also have noted times when you have corrected many things and made many comments to which I would also have to agree, however, at times your cynical attitude towards Jehovah's Witnesses bleeds through into the articles and that needs to be balanced by a more NPOV edit.  I am going to have little time to work on these pages, but I do, from time to time, look at them briefly and recently was on of those times.  I have never made it a secret that I am a Witness, and as such the correctness of these article is somewhat important to me. I would love to be able to edit them in a "cooperative spirit" with other editors, unfortunately, several editors here have never display such a "cooperative spirit".  I am not here to fight, I am not here for argument, and I certainly am not here for the repeated childish behavior. If you wish to edit the pages in a cooperative manner, I am more than willing to do just that, but I will also need to see a level of cooperation from you and certain "other editors" which to date has been severely lacking.Willietell (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your stated claim that you are willing to work in a spirit of cooperation is immediately undermined by your deliberate and repeated use of "personas" in the comments above. The clear implication is that Jeffro has some sock puppets and is acting deceptively. I think retirement may be a good option for you. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 01:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you are choosing to continue with personal attacks (and you are expected to immediately provide evidence for your accusation about 'personas'/'cohorts'). You claim there are POV issues with JW-related articles, yet the most egregious issue regarding content that you have raised was a trivial mention of JW religious services being open to the public (regarding which I already stated at the article's Talk page that your edit is not especially problematic). If you actually believe there are legitimate POV concerns, start a section at the article's Talk page, starting with your most significant POV concern.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Please also refrain from making false statements in edit summaries, as you did here. My edit could not possibly be characterised as a "mass revert of multiple edits". My revert was about one minor point (a redundant statement already covered in the article) and one very minor point (about a false claim of ambiguity). 'Both' changes were part of the same previous edit in the same paragraph.. The reason for the revert was clearly explained at the article's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm McSly. Your recent edit to the page Evolution appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede in an inappropriate section for numerous unnecessary citations to support an obvious reality that is in need of little supporting documentation, as "the theory of evolution" is exactly what it is purported to be, A THEORY. To state otherwise is misleading and a clear misrepresentation of fact. My edit simply corrected this minor discrepancy. Willietell (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please learn what a "THEORY" is in scientific contexts.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You did that twice despite the note asking editors not to change the lead without discussion.

Time to do that now. Doug Weller talk 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, do you have any reliable sources that explain how 15+ decades of research and documentation is merely "scientific speculation"?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

All science is speculation by its very definition, until it is proven by peer review, that is not anti-science, it is simply fact. Evolution is still and most like will always be considered a theory. That is a fact that goes without argument in the scientific community. Show peer review that supports evolution as a fact, and your will make history. Willietell (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretending that there evolutionary biology has undergone no peer review in the last 15 decades is hypocritical lying.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It has undergone peer review, they simply have never been able to prove the theory with such review, leaving Evolution in the state of still being a theory, that is the issue here, the review has never substantiated the theory. Willietell (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, this is a discussion for the article talk page, so lets move the discussion there...thanks. Willietell (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not discussing anything beyond trying to peddle blatant anti-science propaganda. Furthermore, do not edit other people's comments without explicit permission.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are insist on using foul language, I can strike it, and will, it is unnecessary. Willietell (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Evolution, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There are indeed facts "of evolution", and then there's the theory - not the same thing. Theories may be " generalized explanations of how nature works" and that's the case for scientific theories. I cannot believe that you haven't been told that you can never prove a theory because you can never know that there isn't more information that will give you more understanding of how things work. Thus the theory of gravity will never be proved, but we know that it exists as a fact. You're misusing Popper. Doug Weller  talk 17:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous, "The Theory of Evolution" re-directs to the page "Evolution" as do other queries when searching for the theory of evolution, to eliminate the possibility of such information on the page works against the very concept of science, and makes the "Wikipedia" page on evolution a "laughingstock" in terms of accuracy simply because POV editors have garnered an "Iron Grip" on the page to prevent an honest depiction of the subject. The only "facts" of evolution are that there have been discovered, particular items and processes which now require conjecture and speculation to determine their significance. The discovery is the fact, the conjecture and speculation are the theory.  And again you yourself prove this point by your statement that "that you can never prove a theory because you can never know that there isn't more information that will give you more understanding of how things work".  A statement to which I also disagree, as theories are "proven" if not quite frequently, at least periodically.  There are reasons certain theories are left in the realm of theory, such as the general theory of relativity, still considered a theory, because it doesn't prove true in the field of quantum mechanics and they are still looking for the reason "WHY IT DOESN'T WORK". Thus the advent of String "THEORY" to try to reconcile the failure, and it still doesn't work. Evolution is still a theory for the same reason, there are unmistakable failures in the theory that cannot be explained by present knowledge, that is why it is referred to in the scientific community, on the whole, as "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION", without regard to what group of editors maintains "content control" to the Evolution page on Wikipedia. Just because I believe in creation, does not make me anti-science, I have always enjoyed science and after math, it has been a favorite subject of mine, thus my edits are not anti-scientific but quite the opposite and the Wikipedia page should not read like an opinionated editorial.  Willietell (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Please educate yourself about what a theory is in scientific contexts. Your layman's understanding of the term is incorrect.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, a REAL encyclopedia agrees with my "layman's understanding of the term" as seen here  rather than the total nonsense presented in your argument and on the evolution page for wikipedia. Willietell (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are entirely wrong. Britannica explicitly refers to evolution as a "scientific theory", which it further identifies as "one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, thank you for finally agreeing with me on something. Willietell (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As nice as it would be for you to agree, unless you have very recently changed your view of evolution as a scientific theory, then you still do not properly understand the term.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears to be you who neither properly understands the term, nor the substance of the original argument to begin with. Perhaps you should consider continuing education on the matter to better educate yourself on the subject and possibly looking more into the actual material this discussion is about would help, so you get a better grasp of the argument, because I think you don't even understand what the discussion is regarding. Willietell (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have already been told by multiple editors that your position regarding evolution as a 'theory' is not correct. It is quite childish to continue asserting that I do not understand the term.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And I am not sure what Popper is, that you state I am misusing...so if I am misusing something, please let me know what it is and how exactly I am misusing it...thanks. Willietell (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I made a false assumption. If you don't know what he wrote you can't be misusing it. Doug Weller  talk 15:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If I don't know what WHO wrote? Please explain in more detail, as I feel I must be missing something in the translation here. Willietell (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Popper. Obviously. 5 seconds of investigation identifies 'Popper' as Karl Popper.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My mind was not even going in that direction, as I thought was that DougWeller was referring to some tool of Wikipedia and I never even gave thought to him referring to anything else, sorry, but at the time I must have been suffering from the effects of tunnel vision. When I asked "WHO" my mind was on another editor as possible comments they had made and not into a research scientist and philosopher. Interesting read though. Willietell (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not weasel words
Two of your recent edits at the NWT article made reference to "weasel words". Please note that using words such as claim is not an example of weasel words, which actually refers to unattributed claims.

Whilst there can be issues with words such as claim because they can make text seem less neutral, the word "claim" isn't a 'forbidden' word on Wikipedia, and it is not always necessary to remove, particularly when the alternative word (e.g. profess) means exactly the same thing. Especially since 2000, JW literature has preferred the word "claim" over "profess" when making references to those who claim to be 'anointed'. In fact, the Watch Tower Society hasn't used "profess" in this way since 2003.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)