This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a question on the Humanities ref desk about Jehovah's Witnesses. As I recall, you're kind of the resident expert, so you might be able to answer the question. Thank you! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed on the Spanish translation there is a PDF, EPUB, and MOBI for mobiles on its '87 edition corresponding to '84 English edition. English has not added it yet to 2013 edition being so new. Wondering if adding of MOBI's should be added to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon11 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It's this simple, and you're completely wrong. I did not violate 3RR, not at all, not even a little bit. You're mis-labeling things conveniently, of what I did big time on the 12th of February. I just checked it again, and I almost can't believe that you're even doing this and saying this. This is how it went. On the 7th/8th of February I reached "3RR" but did not break it. Period. Now, on the 12th, you're totally wrongly and dishonestly mis-interpretating my first edit idiotically as a "revert". IT WASN'T!!!! It was simply an EDIT...and an offering and a suggestion, sincerely made. FAIL in your analysis of that edit as a "revert". Assume bad faith much as usual. And I'm tired of it. Look below. Everything is listed, nothing is left out, and I marked each one as what actually happened. And start from the bottom up...
(cur | prev) 07:47, 13 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,116 bytes) (+31) . . (Restore more accurate wording. JWs *do* engage in various beliefs that have *pagan origins*. They *do not* object to *all* customs that have *pagan origins*. I have already repeatedly explained this at Talk.) (thank) REVERT BY JEFFRO77, HIS FOURTH IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS
(cur | prev) 23:16, 12 February 2014 Grrahnbahr (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-31) . . (removed again the unsourced claim, see talk for explanation) (thank) (revert by Grrahnbahr)
(cur | prev) 13:15, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) m . . (141,116 bytes) (+31) . . (restore earlier more accurate wording. JWs *do* engage in various customs with pagan origins (wedding rings, Gregorian calendar etc). they make a distinction regarding purported compatibility with Christianity) (thank) (EDIT BY JEFFRO77 THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS A REVERT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY)
(cur | prev) 11:59, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-60) . . (Undid revision 595129135 by Gabby Merger (talk) Stop. "with the [unspecified] Scriptural teachings' is even worse than before.) (thank) THIS WAS A REVERT BY JEFFRO77 on the 12th of February (his third)
(cur | prev) 11:55, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,145 bytes) (+60) . . (Sorry, won’t put up with bullying and presumed ownership of article behavior on this... There’s nothing really wrong with the modification, as it is sourced, accurate, and it is JWs OWN WORDING and phrasing and view. NO OWN...This is a WIKI.) THIS WAS A REVERT BY ME, the third one on the 12th of February
(cur | prev) 11:52, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-60) . . (Reverted to revision 595124685 by Jeffro77 (talk): Not an improvement. (TW)) (thank)THIS WAS A REVERT BY YOU, JEFFRO77
(cur | prev) 11:47, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,145 bytes) (+30) . . (changed it a bit...better wording, clearer...less "vague"...as "origins that they find incompatible with the Scriptural teachings.") THIS EDIT WAS NOT A "REVERT" BUT JUST A TWEAKING OF MY OWN PREVIOUS EDIT...was I "reverting" myself???
(cur | prev) 11:40, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,115 bytes) (+1) . . (COMMENT EDIT: it's not more accurate wording, just because you and BlackCab like to control this article and say so. JWs themselves word it this way, per context. Please discuss in Talk before rudely reverting, per your usual tag-team with BlackCab...)THIS EDIT WAS NOT A REVERT BY ME, BUT WAS A NULL COMMENT EDIT, by your own admission
(cur | prev) 11:37, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,114 bytes) (+29) . . (Undid revision 595124685 by Jeffro77 (talk) ot)THIS WAS A REVERT BY ME (the second revert by me on the 12th of February)
(cur | prev) 11:01, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-29) . . (Reverted to revision 595085025 by BlackCab (talk): Restore more accurate wording. (TW)) (thank) THIS WAS A REVERT BY JEFFRO77 on the 12th of February
(cur | prev) 05:18, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,114 bytes) (+1) . . (COMMENT EDIT: this phrasing is how JWs word things in their own writings "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" whether you or I feel the wording is "meaningless" or "ridiculous"...and it's clear in the sentence...) THIS WAS NOT A REVERT, BUT A NULL COMMENT EDIT, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION
(cur | prev) 03:41, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,113 bytes) (+28) . . (stop edit-warring as is your habit, BlackCab, and see Talk. There's no "redundancy" per se...and it's a good compromise and modification......YOU DON'T OWN THIS ARTICLE...though it's obvious you think you do...) THIS EDIT WAS A REVERT BY ME (first "revert" by me on the 12th of February)
(cur | prev) 03:39, 12 February 2014 BlackCab (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-28) . . (Reverted to revision 595065233 by Grrahnbahr (talk): No. A celebration can not be compatible or incompatible with the Bible per se. (TW)) (thank)(THIS WAS A REVERT BY BLACKCAB)
(cur | prev) 03:35, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,113 bytes) (+28) . . (how about this....fair compromise "incompatible with the Bible"? That's NOT "redundant" at all in that sense, and it's definitely a sourced statement, per their view...) THIS EDIT WAS NOT A REVERT, but was just a sincere offering and suggestion and honest-hearted EDIT, days later
I count THREE actual "reverts" by me, on the 12th of February. And two null comment edits. And two regular "edits" by me. My first edit on the 12th of February, for some ridiculous and arrogant reason, you're counting as a "revert"!!! When it was just a suggestion, and a sincere edit...days after the fact. A person is allowed to edit. And NO consensus was actually reached before that. That's FAR from 'clear', and so a matter of interpretation, conveniently, it's not funny. As I said, and you can bring up corny flimsy things all you want, I do NOT violate (real) 3RR. Ever. I think it's really funny how you also count the tweaking or changing of my own previous edit, in the wording, as a "revert". Spare me. Only someone with a bias would go out of his way to think that those edits (those two edits) were actually "reverts" in any real solid unmistakable sense. Notice though that when you count all the reverts by you and BlackCab together, it equals FIVE reverts in a little over 24 hours...four by you in LESS than 24 hours. Pot-kettle-black, regarding who really violated “3RR”. The listing above proves it sure wasn’t me. So it would be nice if you could finally stop saying that. Remember, YOU brought this up and accused me of breaking 3RR, when I made it clear that I never do. Your creative interpreting of things doesn’t change actual facts. If you want to say I “edit-warred” in other ways, then fine, but do NOT say dogmatically that I actually really broke “3RR”, because of biased interpretation of what really went on with the edits, when I never really did. Thank you.
Gabby Merger (
talk)
08:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Howdy. I see you reverted a recent edit of mine to Verbi dei minister with the reason "restore direct link". The intention of my edit was to fix the misspelling of 'Calvanist' (linked as [[Calvanism|Calvanist]]) to the correct 'Calvinist'. As Calvinist redirects to Calvinism, I corrected it to [[Calvinist]]. Before I reinstate my change, can I check that you see the reason for it now please? Cheers. - TB ( talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
About the discussion on my talk page - I have attempted to approach the issue neutrally and keep an open mind about user conduct. I did not see problematic edits from you but was willing to look at any presented evidence as I was unfamiliar with the issues, and in any case Fjjlee could be let down from his horse without him thinking I was of the cabal. (The fact he gave no diffs is very telling to me.) Please be assured I still assume good faith on your part. Thank you, BethNaught ( talk) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, not a Wiki editor nor intend to be.
Just have a slight suggestion regarding the JW article. The term 'scriptural' and 'unscriptural' is used in the article. I believe the term is correct in the context, but I wonder if the average reader/user might wonder what this refers to? It is a term to refer to the Christian Bible so would it bring additional clarification by naming it as such? So as "Biblical/un-Biblical according to ___ religion"
Just a suggestion and thanks for the hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.48.105 ( talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a question on the Humanities ref desk about Jehovah's Witnesses. As I recall, you're kind of the resident expert, so you might be able to answer the question. Thank you! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed on the Spanish translation there is a PDF, EPUB, and MOBI for mobiles on its '87 edition corresponding to '84 English edition. English has not added it yet to 2013 edition being so new. Wondering if adding of MOBI's should be added to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon11 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It's this simple, and you're completely wrong. I did not violate 3RR, not at all, not even a little bit. You're mis-labeling things conveniently, of what I did big time on the 12th of February. I just checked it again, and I almost can't believe that you're even doing this and saying this. This is how it went. On the 7th/8th of February I reached "3RR" but did not break it. Period. Now, on the 12th, you're totally wrongly and dishonestly mis-interpretating my first edit idiotically as a "revert". IT WASN'T!!!! It was simply an EDIT...and an offering and a suggestion, sincerely made. FAIL in your analysis of that edit as a "revert". Assume bad faith much as usual. And I'm tired of it. Look below. Everything is listed, nothing is left out, and I marked each one as what actually happened. And start from the bottom up...
(cur | prev) 07:47, 13 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,116 bytes) (+31) . . (Restore more accurate wording. JWs *do* engage in various beliefs that have *pagan origins*. They *do not* object to *all* customs that have *pagan origins*. I have already repeatedly explained this at Talk.) (thank) REVERT BY JEFFRO77, HIS FOURTH IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS
(cur | prev) 23:16, 12 February 2014 Grrahnbahr (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-31) . . (removed again the unsourced claim, see talk for explanation) (thank) (revert by Grrahnbahr)
(cur | prev) 13:15, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) m . . (141,116 bytes) (+31) . . (restore earlier more accurate wording. JWs *do* engage in various customs with pagan origins (wedding rings, Gregorian calendar etc). they make a distinction regarding purported compatibility with Christianity) (thank) (EDIT BY JEFFRO77 THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS A REVERT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY)
(cur | prev) 11:59, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-60) . . (Undid revision 595129135 by Gabby Merger (talk) Stop. "with the [unspecified] Scriptural teachings' is even worse than before.) (thank) THIS WAS A REVERT BY JEFFRO77 on the 12th of February (his third)
(cur | prev) 11:55, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,145 bytes) (+60) . . (Sorry, won’t put up with bullying and presumed ownership of article behavior on this... There’s nothing really wrong with the modification, as it is sourced, accurate, and it is JWs OWN WORDING and phrasing and view. NO OWN...This is a WIKI.) THIS WAS A REVERT BY ME, the third one on the 12th of February
(cur | prev) 11:52, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-60) . . (Reverted to revision 595124685 by Jeffro77 (talk): Not an improvement. (TW)) (thank)THIS WAS A REVERT BY YOU, JEFFRO77
(cur | prev) 11:47, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,145 bytes) (+30) . . (changed it a bit...better wording, clearer...less "vague"...as "origins that they find incompatible with the Scriptural teachings.") THIS EDIT WAS NOT A "REVERT" BUT JUST A TWEAKING OF MY OWN PREVIOUS EDIT...was I "reverting" myself???
(cur | prev) 11:40, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,115 bytes) (+1) . . (COMMENT EDIT: it's not more accurate wording, just because you and BlackCab like to control this article and say so. JWs themselves word it this way, per context. Please discuss in Talk before rudely reverting, per your usual tag-team with BlackCab...)THIS EDIT WAS NOT A REVERT BY ME, BUT WAS A NULL COMMENT EDIT, by your own admission
(cur | prev) 11:37, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,114 bytes) (+29) . . (Undid revision 595124685 by Jeffro77 (talk) ot)THIS WAS A REVERT BY ME (the second revert by me on the 12th of February)
(cur | prev) 11:01, 12 February 2014 Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-29) . . (Reverted to revision 595085025 by BlackCab (talk): Restore more accurate wording. (TW)) (thank) THIS WAS A REVERT BY JEFFRO77 on the 12th of February
(cur | prev) 05:18, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,114 bytes) (+1) . . (COMMENT EDIT: this phrasing is how JWs word things in their own writings "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" whether you or I feel the wording is "meaningless" or "ridiculous"...and it's clear in the sentence...) THIS WAS NOT A REVERT, BUT A NULL COMMENT EDIT, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION
(cur | prev) 03:41, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,113 bytes) (+28) . . (stop edit-warring as is your habit, BlackCab, and see Talk. There's no "redundancy" per se...and it's a good compromise and modification......YOU DON'T OWN THIS ARTICLE...though it's obvious you think you do...) THIS EDIT WAS A REVERT BY ME (first "revert" by me on the 12th of February)
(cur | prev) 03:39, 12 February 2014 BlackCab (talk | contribs) . . (141,085 bytes) (-28) . . (Reverted to revision 595065233 by Grrahnbahr (talk): No. A celebration can not be compatible or incompatible with the Bible per se. (TW)) (thank)(THIS WAS A REVERT BY BLACKCAB)
(cur | prev) 03:35, 12 February 2014 Gabby Merger (talk | contribs) . . (141,113 bytes) (+28) . . (how about this....fair compromise "incompatible with the Bible"? That's NOT "redundant" at all in that sense, and it's definitely a sourced statement, per their view...) THIS EDIT WAS NOT A REVERT, but was just a sincere offering and suggestion and honest-hearted EDIT, days later
I count THREE actual "reverts" by me, on the 12th of February. And two null comment edits. And two regular "edits" by me. My first edit on the 12th of February, for some ridiculous and arrogant reason, you're counting as a "revert"!!! When it was just a suggestion, and a sincere edit...days after the fact. A person is allowed to edit. And NO consensus was actually reached before that. That's FAR from 'clear', and so a matter of interpretation, conveniently, it's not funny. As I said, and you can bring up corny flimsy things all you want, I do NOT violate (real) 3RR. Ever. I think it's really funny how you also count the tweaking or changing of my own previous edit, in the wording, as a "revert". Spare me. Only someone with a bias would go out of his way to think that those edits (those two edits) were actually "reverts" in any real solid unmistakable sense. Notice though that when you count all the reverts by you and BlackCab together, it equals FIVE reverts in a little over 24 hours...four by you in LESS than 24 hours. Pot-kettle-black, regarding who really violated “3RR”. The listing above proves it sure wasn’t me. So it would be nice if you could finally stop saying that. Remember, YOU brought this up and accused me of breaking 3RR, when I made it clear that I never do. Your creative interpreting of things doesn’t change actual facts. If you want to say I “edit-warred” in other ways, then fine, but do NOT say dogmatically that I actually really broke “3RR”, because of biased interpretation of what really went on with the edits, when I never really did. Thank you.
Gabby Merger (
talk)
08:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Howdy. I see you reverted a recent edit of mine to Verbi dei minister with the reason "restore direct link". The intention of my edit was to fix the misspelling of 'Calvanist' (linked as [[Calvanism|Calvanist]]) to the correct 'Calvinist'. As Calvinist redirects to Calvinism, I corrected it to [[Calvinist]]. Before I reinstate my change, can I check that you see the reason for it now please? Cheers. - TB ( talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
About the discussion on my talk page - I have attempted to approach the issue neutrally and keep an open mind about user conduct. I did not see problematic edits from you but was willing to look at any presented evidence as I was unfamiliar with the issues, and in any case Fjjlee could be let down from his horse without him thinking I was of the cabal. (The fact he gave no diffs is very telling to me.) Please be assured I still assume good faith on your part. Thank you, BethNaught ( talk) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, not a Wiki editor nor intend to be.
Just have a slight suggestion regarding the JW article. The term 'scriptural' and 'unscriptural' is used in the article. I believe the term is correct in the context, but I wonder if the average reader/user might wonder what this refers to? It is a term to refer to the Christian Bible so would it bring additional clarification by naming it as such? So as "Biblical/un-Biblical according to ___ religion"
Just a suggestion and thanks for the hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.48.105 ( talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)