User talk:Willietell/Archives/2017 1

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello
As you know, collaboratively working on building an encyclopedia is an ever-learning process, for both of us. I recently have read more throughly Wikipedia practices and guidelines, as well as some Noticeboard archives to better understand the processes. I have noticed that as per WP:ASPERSIONS, pointing to misbehavior without citing specific links, or using public talk pages to do so rather than concerned user pages, ARB or ANI, is discouraged, as it may be perceived as a personal attack. Although I could have also provided direct links as evidence to support my claims, it also appears that rehashing old misbehevior examples, with linked examples or not, may be considered uncivil and is therefore discouraged. Another editor also pointed out that I was rehashing old material. I hence want to present my apologies for having done so recently, and will use your user page in the future to contact you for such matters, which is the proper avenue.

That said, I still strongly encourage you to open and/or participate to talk pages discussions for content matters, which was the most important message in my rant. I will finish with comments about WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It is very important to understand that "Wikipedia's voice" is encyclopedic, which implies discussing topics from a third party point of view. Here is a humorous example :). But by extension, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rule is not necessarily neutral in the sense that all possible point of views must have equal weight, it must report in a third party voice what notable WP:RS say.  It also may happen that the best reliable sources of information to our disposition may appear "worldy" to a Jehovah's Witness.

Wikipedia cannot, in its own tone, claim to the world as facts, beliefs which are not necessarily commonly established knowledge. It is fine to have an article about a notable organization which also describes their notable beliefs, practices, and even controversy, if they're world-notable. We could say that the Jehovah's Witnesses article represents what the general public or notable experts know about the religion and that it could never have the tone, or present the unique position, of an article from the Watch Tower itself. It would also be inadequate to present beliefs of the religion as historical or scientific knowledge. On scientific topics, you will notice that Wikipedia's voice can make direct claims to common knowledge for which there is scientific consensus, without always needing to attribute claims, but they must still be sourced, and be free of original research, they can only represent the view of qualified, notable experts. Some could call this a double standard, but the reason is that those statements represent the best explanations we currently have to explain the evidence in those fields.

Here is an exemple of a POV sentence, in Wikipedia's tone, corrected to an NPOV one (I am not suggesting that this POV example is one of your own edits). And here is why: Wikipedia cannot claim that those events actually occurred, then were recorded, although an article like Historicity of the Bible could discuss this topic. Why? Partly because there is great discrepency between the style and motives of Gospels and historic records, claims of incredible supernatural events which would also require incredible evidence which we do not have. But it's still not to us to decide this; on the other hand, this is an important, WP:NOTABLE miracle for Christians, enough to deserve an article, and this article still clearly mentions the source, and specifies, "according to the Gospel, [...]". Still, the article would be even better if it used a notable theological source discussing the topic, instead of only relying on the primary text of the Gospel.

Here is a last example of long-term POV (or possibly WP:Advertising in this case) which has recently been noticed and removed by another editor, on the Tenczynek article. Why was this change appropriate? Reason: Is this village large enough, or notably unique enough to require a particular demographics section, other than Poland, Poland and even Religion in Poland which we already have? Actually, it also lists a company name, which probably has the same issue, although it's harder to immediately verify if it's warranted; but as you can see, it is obviously suspect. One may even question if the village is notable enough to have an article, but I'm not the one who could determine without doing some research on Poland. We even have WP:DIRECTORY such that Wikipedia doesn't include tons of large directories full of non-notable items (and links to unexisting articles, or to small stub articles on items not notable enough to even exist). Finally, we all have to deal with the WP:COI issues, and this does not make us enemies. But I suggest, although I'm by no means Wikipedia's official voice, that Wikipedia itself also has its own bias: verifiable knowledge.

It's possible that you already know all of this, in which case my text may seem like a boring and useless sermon. But I'll assume otherwise and hope a better understanding is possible in the future. Have a good day, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have finally created an account (user previously known as 76.10.128.192). Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Very long winded, still I will forgive your POV editorial comments and hopefully your edits will be in a more unbiased fashion going forward Willietell (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * According to your edit summary, my intervention must have been to attempt to insult you, although that was not the case. It is proper procedure for me to discuss problems on your talk page, rather than in public space, except to discuss specific content in articles (which is only possible if you agree to discuss content there).  Your impression of POV, as you portray it above, is not Wikipedia's notion of WP:NPOV, which I tried to represent in the last message.  As for my own (allegedly biased in a non-Wikipedia compatible way) edits, they are not on the same articles you are editing, so I am not sure what you are refering to.  Do you mean that you do not agree with my above explanations, including with the specific examples I provided?  Note that if you consider my interventions here like attacks, I will respectfully stop posting on your user page at your request.  Unfortunately, this would also mean that this avenue will have been exhausted to discuss problems.  My apology above was for having previously discussed issues on public space, which could be considered uncivil; not about the alleged POV pushing.  Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as you don't become abusive or venture into the realm of personal attacks, feel free to discuss anything you wish with me on my talk page. I am not an unreasonable person as some would seem to choose to believe.  My edits are made with a genuine intent to improve Wikipedia and to enhance its sometimes questionable accuracy.  Unfortunately, in my limited time on Wikipedia, I have found the forum to be a rather harsh environment for someone attempting to correct the accuracy of the misinformation present here, as every edit to improve the content is summarily reverted by editor who is seemingly working towards an agenda to disparage the group by whatever means available. But in any case, if you have an issue with my edits, let me know what they are and maybe together we can reach a resolution for the edit in question which will both clarify the subject and arrive at a mutually acceptable content.  Willietell (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. PaleoNeonate (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs is quite problematic. I provided a Watch Tower Society source, with quote, wherein the Watch Tower Society tells JWs that they "want to accept" doctrinal "adjustments", and they are to be "delighted" when they are told that "spiritual light is still increasing" (The Watchtower, 15 December 2008, page 10). Your claim that it is 'original research' is entirely false. If you continue in this blatantly dishonest behaviour, your actions will be reported.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@: I want to reiterate my suggestion to use the relevant article talk page to propose or discuss changes, rather than making bold edits which usually get legitimately reverted. This is what I would do myself if I wanted to propose a change on one of the JW-related articles, because it's a sensitive topic. PaleoNeonate (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit is not problematic, what is problematic is leaving non-neutral POV content in the article and your insistence on re-inserting it there. To state that JW's are told something is an Original Research conclusion that is not supported by a source.  If you wish to indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses literature "suggests" "Implies" or "states" that is one matter, to state that JW's are "instructed" or "told" that should believe anything in particular, that creates a negative impact on the reader because of its suggestive tone and constitutes a NPOV violation and calls for a conclusion from the editor, thus constituting Original Research, which I have noticed your yourself revert many times. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, my edit changing the information to Jehovah's Witnesses "view" changes..... is accurate to the cited source and to the facts in general and your objection to it seems to stem from your desire to paint JW's in a negative light by stating they are "instructed" or "told" to believe something as if Witnesses don't have a mind of their own and are all simply mindless automaton's following "orders". In that regard, JW's are also "told" to "test the inspired statement to see whether they originate with God" which also includes statements from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. But as a general rule, Jehovah's Witnesses do "View" changes to biblical understanding as a positive aspect of the religion and not negatively.  Willietell (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * PaleoNeonate Discussion is only successful when the discussion involves another reasonable person willing to intelligently discuss a matter.  I have made many past attempts to do just that, however, those attempts have met with little success.  Much content contained on the pages concerning JW's is slanted heavily towards criticism of the religion, usually using decades old, outdated material which does not accurately depict the religion today.  As an example, the introduction to this article states that The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr.  and while that may have been true in 1920 or even in 1935, many of the beliefs that Jehovah's Witnesses have today are drastically at odds with those earlier teachings and can no longer be viewed by any reasonable person to be based upon those early misunderstandings and misconceptions held by Russell, Rutherford and Knorr.  There was a time when Christmas was celebrated by Jehovah's Witnesses, smoking was allowed, birthdays were celebrated etc... however, those and many other facets of JW's beliefs have been altered over the years, so to state that  The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr. is not only inaccurate, but misleading to the reader, and intentionally so, because attempts have been made to correct the issue, but they have been rendered unsuccessful be a group effort of editors determined to maintain the NON Neutral Point of View of this article.  A tag to the article pointing out its POV nature has been applied and summarily removed within hours, without discussion, and as has been demonstrated by my very minor edit, any attempt to reduce the blatant neutrality issues with this article are met with stiff and immediate resistance.  To take issues to the talk page has proven to be an effort in futility, as the editor in question simply resorts to endless circular arguments and side tangents until the editor attempting to make the change simply gives up the effort or as is often the case, forgets what the original argument was to begin with and gives up the futile effort. This rant aside, I am sure you are already aware of this especially since, as you claim, you have researched my past edits so thoroughly as to have come to the conclusion that my past edits have been "misbehavior". Willietell (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @: I have been around for over 12 years as an "IP editor", although this account was only recently created. The events I referred to were therefore mostly from memory.  But yes, I also acknowledge having witnessed you occasionally use the talk pages to discuss changes.  Often unsuccessfully, but I also recall instances where constructive changes to some articles were made after these discussions.  I'm not saying that it's an easy and fast process, however.  PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. Anyway, you know for a fact that The Watchtower (especially the Study Edition) are indeed explicitly intended as "instructional" for JWs (for example, see The Watchtower, 15 March 2015, page 8, paragraph 4). Your claim that it is better to say that JWs view something a particular way is not at all an improvement, since you cannot possibly know how all individuals JWs feel about a particular thing. It is exceedingly more accurate to state what they are told. This is especially the case for anything that may be controversial, such as asserting that all JW members 'welcome' doctrinal changes.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Glancing at your comments to the other editor, there are other problems there too. The fact that JW doctrines are based on the teachings of Russell relates to their core eschatology (which was borrowed from the earlier Millerite Adventists). Minutia about celebrating Christmas and smoking is irrelevant misdirection.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply more "Strawman Arguments", while avoiding the actual points of the subject matter. Willietell (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to justify your insertion of POV statements is ridiculous. The article is about what Jehovah's Witnesses, the religious group, believes, not about what each and every existing individual member of the religion believes.  If you attempted to cover the exact beliefs of each and every existing member along with their personal beliefs, and thoughts, you couldn't contain it within the confines any encyclopedia.  Your strawman arguments aside, the facts remain that Jehovah's Witnesses, as a group "view" changes to biblical understanding in a positive light and not as "orders" coming down from the world headquarters. Willietell (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all a 'strawman argument'. The Watchtower is specifically regarded as instructional, and it explicitly directs members to welcome changes in doctrine. It is therefore unnecessary to try to softpedal it as an ambiguous 'view' of members'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote: "is about what Jehovah's Witnesses, the religious group, believes, not about what each and every existing individual member of the religion believes" : It should be about the religion as well as about the organization, its history, notable beliefs and aspects, etc, as much as possible as represented by secondary reliable sources. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you think it is 'negative' to frame JW beliefs as 'direction' from the organisation, despite the fact that it is frequently stated in those terms by the Watch Tower Society. One would think that you would agree with the Watch Tower Society's statements about abiding by the instructions and direction of their publications, rather than trying to suggest that something is just the members' own view as if reached independently (which is also explicitly discouraged in WTS literature).
 * The Watchtower, 15 February 2015, page 7: "It takes lowliness of mind to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead” in the congregation and to accept and follow the direction we receive from Jehovah’s organization."
 * The Watchtower, 15 February 2014, page 15: "When we face specific trials, we need to seek divine guidance from the Scriptures and from our Bible-based publications. Then we should act in harmony with Jehovah’s direction regardless of how difficult it may be to accept it."
 * The Watchtower, 1 May 2006, page 26: "Further direction is provided through letters, in articles published in The Watchtower, and by means of other publications, such as Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will."
 * The Watchtower, 1 September 2005, page 22: "We might feel that explanations of the Scriptures in our Bible-based publications are difficult to understand. The conduct of a fellow Christian might disappoint us. Would it be right to stop walking with God for these or similar reasons? Of course not!"
 * The Watchtower, 1 September 1999, page 14: "Helpful direction can also be found by doing research in the Bible and in Watch Tower publications."
 * Hence the reality is that JWs are told they should follow the directions in Watch Tower Society literature even if they don't necessarily agree with or understand it. Why are you so intent for that reality not to be accurately represented?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Another strawman argument meant to detract from the point, The article doesn't state that witnesses receive "'direction' from the organisation", rather is states they are 'Told' what to believe as if they were not capable of independent thought or capable of making an intelligent personal decision on what to believe. All I am asking is the sentence be worded in a way that presents a neutral point of view as Wikipedia does not take sides Willietell (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also of interest would The Watchtower, 15 November, 2013 (Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes - What They Mean for Us Today): "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not". But aside from these, which are primary sources, there are secondary sources which confirm this point of view.  Moreover, shunning, which can result from disobeisance (alleged or recognized) of some of the rules of the organization, is not a light consequence.  It is not tentamount to simply suggesting ideas then leaving everything to one's conscience...  PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, YOUR strawman argument aside, this still calls for a personal decision from the particular witness as to whether or not they choose to follow the teachings of the religion, thus they make a personal decision, they are not TOLD what to do as if they were merely mindless semi-comatose drones. Therefore, the terminology Jehovah Witnesses "view" or Watchtower Literature "teaches that" is more NPOV than to state that that Jehovah's Witnesses are TOLD, but alas, we are beating a dead horse here, because the goal in this wording is not honesty, but the inclusion of negative misinformation by POV editors.  This type of wording would not be left to stand on another religious article on Wikipedia, but is somehow found to be acceptable on the JW sites. Willietell (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is exactly for the reason that you have indicated&mdash;that individual members might still have any particular view themselves&mdash;that the article should simply state what they are told (and the Watch Tower Society specifically stipulates that JWs should abide by those instructions "regardless of how difficult it may be to accept it"). There is absolutely no implication that members must be 'automatons'. The context of the discussion is about doctrines, not merely suggestions about incidental personal behaviour. Your aversion to words like "tell" is quite odd, and your claim that members having a choice of what they will actually do somehow negates the fact that they are still told to do a particular thing is highly irrational. The fact that someone might not do as they are told does not mean they were not told to do it. The fact remains that the JW leadership frequently stresses the importance of JW members being obedient to the "instructions" and "direction" given in JW literature. JW members who refuse to accept changes in doctrine are subjected to 'discipline', which may include shunning. Changes of doctrine in Watch Tower Society literature are never framed as 'suggestions'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Another editor changed instructed to told because they thought it might be an improvement to curb your complaints. That obviously has not helped. Since I have provided multiple Watch Tower sources that explicitly instruct JWs to following the "directions" in Watch Tower literature, I will make that change.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The same problem as previous exists with your newest edit, as you well know. The implication is still that Jehovah's Witnesses are "ordered to believe" something in particular. As this page is really simply an attack article, bent towards criticism by its overall tone and terminology, perhaps it is better to take the issue to another level to seek adjustments to the article to help it comply to NPOV. Willietell (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the main Jehovah's Witnesses article? I doubt that it qualifies as an Attack page, or it would have been far more challenged, and possibly deleted.  According to "Page information", the article achieved good article status.  There is always Mediation which can be used to gather the attention of other uninvolved editors and obtain their opinion.  PaleoNeonate (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my reference was to the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article. It receives considerably less editor traffic and contains a plethora of NPOV violations.  Willietell (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article has not yet reached the same status, although according to "Page information", there would be 80 watchers and 15 who tracked the recent changes lately. This means that it is likely that ten less-involved, but still interested editors, would be able to read your proposals if they were posted on the article talk page.  PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You raised the same complaint in 2012, Willietell. The consensus was that there was no basis for your complaints. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs/Archive 4 and the lengthy discussion (under two separate threads) that ensued. The issue was also taken to the NPOV noticeboard at the same time. See Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 30. Same result.  BlackCab  ( TALK ) 03:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the issue was never resolved and the NPOV violations remain intact. So much for hoping there would be a self-repair over time.  Willietell (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there comes a time when you must accept that the perception is yours alone. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 03:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already provided several Watch Tower Society sources that directly state that JWs are expected to follow the "instructions" and "directions" given in Watch Tower Society literature as they relate to doctrinal changes. Inasmuch, they are indeed 'ordered' (Willietell's word) to agree with doctrines appearing in JW literature, and if they refuse to accept changes in doctrine, they are subject to shunning.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors who commented at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 30 expressed with no ambiguity whatsoever that the article does not have NPOV issues and is not an 'attack page'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If Willietell genuinely believes there are NPOV issues with the article, he should address them at the article's Talk page. So as not to create tangents that will go nowhere, it would be advisable for him to start with one section about what he considers to be the most egregious 'NPOV violation', and move on to subsequent issues after the previous is dealt with.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Quoting from, at an aforementioned thread link: "You have to figure out as a community how to stop going around and around in circles, and this will necessarily require you not responding to arguments that have been discussed several times already". It's possible that I'm not helping by having started this thread.  On the other hand, the reason was that I regularily see edits which are considered improper and reverted, but no talk page discussion started to propose changes, so my goal was to encourage you to first discuss proposed changes there.  Starting myself a new thread about it on a public talk page when this occurs seems unproductive and perhaps uncivil.  Bringing it here seems to be the recommended approach, but then, if that's not productive either, what can we do?  Should we by consensus just keep reverting changes, keep quiet about the matter and tolerate the situation in the long term?  Should each instance open an escalating warning thread here, systematically involving ANI after each group of three instances?  And if so, how could temporary blocks help at all, if some of those cases resulted in that?  I wouldn't see that particularily productive either.  Unfortunately, when looking at  , it appears that you may not be satisfied until the article transformed into a promotional pamphlet, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia.  PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are seriously going to go back over 5 years to one of my first sets of edits on Wikipedia and use that as an example of my editing practices? At the time I was very new to Wikipedia and was simply trying to correct information that no longer represented who the group is today, It still doesn't, but I have learned that much inaccurate and outdated information will be kept here because of the tremendous amount of push-back from POV editors if such information is altered in any way to bring the reader into present day reality.  Nonetheless, the edit was a good faith attempt to modify the page to present a modern day reality.  As I have suggested in the past, I feel that working together, showing mutual respect for editors without assuming an edit is driven by a conflict of interest is the best way to proceed, however, I find that every small edit is simply reverted in an attempt to paint as negative a picture as possible.  It is not my goal nor my intent to make the Wikipedia page a "promotional pamphlet".  As you may already know, Jehovah's Witnesses are already pretty adept at printing their own literature, they don't need, nor do they wish to use Wikipedia as a voice to "spread the good news" or to promote the religion as a whole. I am certainly not attempting to use it for such a purpose.  I, as an editor, am only attempting to edit pages to which I see a need for improvement.  Willietell (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The problems with Willietell stem from the fact that he is an editor with a serious conflict of interest. I have been weighing for some time raising this issue to have him blocked from editing JW articles.  BlackCab  ( TALK ) 20:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an old saying that People in glass houses should not throw stones Willietell (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your approach (which has improved somewhat), your perception seems unchanged. Then, as now, you complained that the JW beliefs page has a "plethora of NPOV violations". Then, as now, no other editor agrees with you. The 2012 round of discussions, because it involved a noticeboard, prompted editors with no previous involvement with JW articles to scrutinise the article. They found no issue with it. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 22:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that this was a somewhat old thread. Calling Wikipedia's NPOV policy (what other editors seem to agree the JW-related articles adhere to), "POV", still persist however.  When I reached the end of the thread and read 's "I've seen no evidence that you will be satisfied by anything that actually complies with our NPOV policy", that struck me as something which still appears true.  One of my own earlier quotes in this very thread: "Your impression of POV, as you portray it above, is not Wikipedia's notion of WP:NPOV, which I tried to represent in the last message".  You also called my explanations on what POV really is: "your POV editorial comments".  PaleoNeonate (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an essay (it's not a policy), Shunning, which may possibly be similar to my question "Should we by consensus just keep reverting changes, keep quiet about the matter and tolerate the situation in the long term?". It is something I'm not personally very comfortable with, however (even though that does not have the real-life implications of shunning in the real world).  PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @PaleoNeonate, you may be right that there may be little value in continuing discussion with Willietell here. You and I have already both suggested that he start sections at articles' Talk pages, where he should discuss content instead of his endless insinuations about editors' alleged 'POV' despite his own starkly evident partiality toward JWs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm thanks for confirming, I will end it here for now unless Willietell asks to pursue it.  I would just end this by mentioning that a number of other JW editors (it's hard to know all of them and count them, but there obviously are others, and I personally know JWs who use Wikipedia) who also have conflict of interest are not necessarily doing disruptive edits.  They probably recognize the validity of NPOV on Wikipedia, or acknowledge what Wikipedia's rules are and respect them in its space.  Others will prefer to edit on other topics.  Perhaps that mentioning these could serve as a lesson.  I also want to make clear that I am not shunning you despite the mention of the essay, I actually still recommend to open discussions to suggest changes on the relevant talk pages.  Also, thanks for your patience, and for welcoming my messages.  PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)