Jump to content

User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome!

Hello, Willietell and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous
Block stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've been blocked because of a false accusation

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Willietell/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked because of a false accusation of holding multiple accounts from a group of very hostile editors consisting of the following editors (Jeffro77, BlackCab, Vyselink, Dougweller. who have exercised a campaign of hostility since I edited a page on bible chronology and another one on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. After I requested that the page on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs be deleted because it is written is an inaccurate and hostile manner, they have become even more obtuse. I was banned without even any notification of a problem, is this the way things are done on Wikipedia? What can I do to rectify this, or is it simply more logical to create a new account since I have only held an account for a few days now anyway? As I am new to Wikipedia, I am unsure of exactly how to proceed, please help. Thanks. Additionally, I would like to receive specific, detailed instruction on how I proceed with filing a complaint against these four editors for the way they have dealt with me in what I feel is an act of gross misconduct, for which I personally feel that all four editors should be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Three of these editors have demonstrated WP: coi in editing pages that claim to dispense information regarding the beliefs and doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, but do so in a negative manner with little regard for the actual truth. I tried to discuss the pages with the editors in question, but was met with little more than hostility from a mob mindset in return. The "Leader of the band" so to speak, appears to be Jeffro77, with Vyselink and Blackcab as his lieutenants. DougWeller seems to be involved to a lesser degree, and is perhaps an innocent victim of circumstance, but I have a feeling that he is actually involved, this I have included his username as well. Please refer to the talk pages of the Wikipedia articles listed, Thank you. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible

Decline reason:

Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates a strong relationship between this user and Spudpicker 01 (talk · contribs). Using multiple accounts to imply more support for a position than actually exists is a very severe violation of WIkipedia's policies and guidelines. The account created first has been blocked for a week, and this account should remain indefinitely blocked, unless the user wishes, after serving the block and committing to no longer abuse the multiple-account privilege, to use this as the single account, then the other can be indeffed instead. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Willietell/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked because of a false accusation of holding multiple accounts. Avi I know that the relationship will "seem" to be a close one, as I have already explained to the parties involved in the interest of being open about the situation(posted on the talk page of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs) that a friend of mine, who shares similar views regarding the material on this website decided to create their own account and submit the request for deletion of the page after I told them I was undecided on whether it was worth effort to do so. They, in my home, on my computer, took it upon themselves, over my objections, to do this. Your reasoning that I would in any way NEED to create a GHOST account to do this is illogical at best, since I hadn't even created an account myself at this particular time and only really did so because I felt that if my friend would go to such effort, then I might as well continue the process of attempting to make honest and reliable changes to the site in question. I let the people on the page know that a friend created an account and finished the request for deletion, so there was no attempt at deception involved, everything has been open and honest, please look at the talk page and you will see that this is true. Again, no attempt at deception was involved and from what i read at WP:sock, the rule seems to attempt to eliminate attempts at deception, which hasn't ever been in question here, since I explained to them the situation up front. I don't have multiple accounts, only this one and as far as I can tell from the rules, there is no rule that states that two users may not utilize the same computer. As for whether my friend will ever choose to use the Spudpicker 01 (talk · contribs) account again or not, I really can't tell you, because I am not him and don't make decisions for him, However you are depriving me of using an account I set up because the other editors requested I set one up and after doing so, this is the result. I would respectfully request that you reconsider your decision, as you haven't really examined all the facts or considered all the relevant information.Willietell (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK. I will assume good faith, give you the benefit of the doubt, and unblock this account, leaving Spudpicker 01 blocked. However, please be very careful as to whom you allow to use your computer and login in the future, as this excuse will probably not work a second time. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Willietell, I'm happy you got it sorted; I've collaped the above mesages. If the block was not correct, I'm truly sorry. I hope you'll prove me right, and do good things. Best of luck to you,  Chzz  ►  21:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Although I've twice tried to explain this on the article talk page, I think I need to mention it here also. If you can find reliable sources interpreting the Bible the way you do, you can use those, but you can't use the Bible to construct an argument in the way you are trying to do. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on User talk:LWG to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence the outcome. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Pharaohs in the Bible. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Willietell/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is both unnecessary and unfairWillietell (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A perusal of your edits shows that you were edit-warring on Pharaohs in the Bible to add your own personal reasoning based on your personal interpretation of the bible, and that you continued after being warned. You will need to make it clear that you understand that you cannot add your own reasoning and deductions to articles (see WP:OR) - you would need a reliable third party that made the deductions you made, and that you must not edit-war (see WP:EW) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Toddst1 I am somewhat confused that you would choose to block me for edit waring and not at least also block the other editors involved when I was the one to come to you bringing to your attention that the disruptive editing and edit waring that was going on. I came to you in an attempt to get some resolution on the matter to try to stop the waring while at the same time I appealed to another editor for help in trying to invite other editors to make changes to the page in question so that this very defamatory page could be presented in a more honest way below is the request

Disputes on a couple of pages-Please help if you can

Hi, I'm a relatively new user to Wikipedia and I ran across your username while investigating the talk page for Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. Since your user page states that you specialize in WP:NPOV disputes, and you seem to have little or no affiliation with the editors I am currently having an issue with, I thought it might be a good idea to ask for your help in a matter with a couple of pages that I have been having difficulty editing since I got here. I will advise you, in advance, that I might not have proceeded in the wisest pattern of edit practices, partly because as a new editor I didn't know the rules, and partly out of frustration of having to deal with editors who cannot seem to be objective themselves(they even falsely accused me of being a WP:Sock) when it comes to material related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The problem of greatest concern is a series of web pages related to Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses that are written in a very defamatory manner, filled with half truths, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and tend to misrepresent the source material to a great extent, by it seems, editors who have a WP:COI when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and also the utilization of source material that is the very definition of WP:fringe. The primary page of dispute at this point is the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs at which I have made more than a few attempts at "adjusting the page" to a less negative and defamatory article(remember what I said earlier about not always in the right manner, but I'm trying to learn the rules and follow them). I most recently made an edit that I think should be left intact, however one of the 3 disruptive editors who have continually fought against any objective change to this negatively written page reverted it, I filed a WP:ani complaint against him for disruptive editing and received a warning for Edit Waring, though I hadn't edited the page for 2 days. I had previously requested that the page be deleted, due to the pact that I felt that it would be a hopeless situation to try to convert the page into creditable material because I felt that I would never receive any real co-operation from the 3 editors in question( Jeffro77, BlackCab and Vyselink, two of which, if not all three, are members of Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. So if possible, please help. Maybe you could invite several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure. The second page is one on Bible Chronology, where I first encountered these editors and their WP:COI WP:NPOV with regards to material related to Jehovah's witnesses after correcting an incomplete and inaccurate chart on bible chronology, I would also like to possibly reach some type of compromise there with an editor who I believe just honestly wishes to have her material presented, she is Lisa, however, I feel that Jeffro77 has made it clear he will continue to revert any edit that I make that contains any material presented that is sourced by material written by Jehovah's Witnesses, even to such an extent that he seems to have become an "online Stalker" by following me from site to site reverting whatever edits I make, regardless of content or accuracy. The page in question is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible any help you provide would be appreciated as I know that this will take a bit of your time to sort out.Thanks.Willietell (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC) As an univolved administrator, I find it hard to believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. Beyond that, WP:Canvassing is not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Which I see you already noticed and posted a very appropriate and untrue comment to, as I am in fact a new editor, and I'm not sure what WP:Canvassing is, but I will look it up. Perhaps there also needs to be a rule on WP:Online stalking to be applied editors who follow other from page to page reverting every edit they make? I don't know and perhaps you could inform me on just how to go about suggesting that one be put in place. However I feel that I am getting off topic. I have only been making honest efforts to correct a page the clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR by editors who have clearly shown WP:COI . IN any case I respectfully request that you unblock my account, because 1. I am no more guilty of edit waring than the editors whom you chose NOT to discipline. 2. I have expressed evidence that I am looking for ways other than edit waring to make the needed changes to the page 3. I was the one to come to you about the edit waring in the first place, thus I and at this point of all the parties involved, only I, have demonstrated good faith in trying to correct the situation Willietell (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Also having looked at WP:canvassing, I noticed it states this In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour.

Surely, by reading my request to LWG it is clear to see that I am seeking "to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." as I requested that he invite "several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure.", I thus requested that he invite editors who would conform to WP:NPOV in hopes of editing the page to be more in line with reality instead of being overrun by those who displayed that they indeed have a WP:COI , so your concern with regards to WP:canvassing seem unwarranted from what I read in the rules.Willietell (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that your Block seems to be for Edit waring on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ and not the page I assumed, which was Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs. Now I am even more confused, because I have been in discussions with the editor on the page regarding the edits, and have posted messages on their his page in an attempt to present an edit he feels is acceptable, as is noted below

Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible

I am somewhat confused by your continued revert on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible. You have reverted to an edit that has NO CITED SOURCE MATERIAL, and yet, you state that you are reverting my material because you view it as OR....I'm at a loss for what basis you are using in 1. Preferring one edit over the other 2. Declaring that the edit I posted required any additional source material than the bible, which is what the overall article is based on to begin with and therefore the best source for the material under consideration. Please explain, I do not wish to, nor will I continue to engage in an edit war with you over this material, but I would like a reasonable explanation of you actions and your line of thinking on this edit as so far something seems amiss. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this as well at the conversation posted on the talk page for Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ clearly show that this is not an edit war, but an honest attempt to reach consensus on what source material is considered acceptable and properly cited. I would again respectfully request that you remove the block, at it is not proper, because there was no edit war taking place. Also I received no warning for edit waring on Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ and therefore don't think that any of the editors involved felt that I was attempting to edit war, so I am confused again as to this block, please explain.Willietell (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Willietell/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Edit waring was not taking place and I received no warning for edit waring in Pharaohs in the Bible , the warning I received was about another page altogether, which I have since not edited. Willietell (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's a few problems here:

  • Discussion is what you do instead of edit waring, not in addition to it. Participating in a discussion does not make it ok to continue edit warring, which is in fact what you were doing. See WP:BRD for advice on how to avoid this in the future.
  • Once you have been informed about what edit warring is, you are expected to know not to do it anywhere. So, whether you were specifically warned not to do it on this particular page is not relevant. Edit warring is never ok, anywhere.
  • It's a short block anyway, you could use this time to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and you will find it easier to avoid something like this in the future. Or turn off the computer and go for a walk.

Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

While it may at first appear that an edit war was taking place in Pharaohs in the Bible , one was not, The other editor, User:DougWeller, and I were trying to reach an understanding as to what would be acceptable to him and Wikipedia as far as my edit was concerned, I was trying to provide what he felt was necessary and he was trying to help me do so, I being a new editor. Here is part of our conversations to that point http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=466113536 And this is the discussion about the last edit I performed, as you will see, we are not waring, but discussing the page http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466180025 I later added this additional information in TALK to clarify for User:DougWeller http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466182966 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466184326 And afterwards, in TALK, posted this message to User:PiCo to relay my position against the material that I felt was WP:OR http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466185365 Then made this MINOR edit to TALK for clarification in the material presented to user:DougWeller http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466186009

Nothing here meets the definition of WP:Editwaring We were not fighting back and forth over an edit and I was simply carrying on ongoing discussions about a page I am attempting to improve. I realize that I was warned about the other page I was attempting to edit to make it adhere to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs but I was the one who sought out the administrator in that case and he warned us both and I have since made no edits to that page. Again I respectfully request that this block be removed.Willietell (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Willietell. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice, Willietell. Please do not edit war with Toddst1 on his talkpage. That is a game that you will not win. I am not suggesting to you that you escalate, since I looked at the timestamps and agree with Toddst1's sequence of events, but am suggesting that continuing to edit war with him will not be productive. Cheers, Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise, he requested that I not continue to post on his talk page regarding this matter and therefore I will honor that request, now I need to decide whether or not to pursue the matter with an ANI complaint, because I think that maybe he was just "helping out Friends" when he blocked me for edit waring. He did accuse me of tendentious editing, which doesn't appear to apply to editing talk pages but only content, still, I don't think that in itself is worth pursuing with only a single accusation. As I examined the rule regarding it immediately and it says partially:
Accusing others of tendentious editing
Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.
In any case, thanks for the sound advice.Willietell (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. If you do take it to ANI my best advice is (1) try and be as brief and direct in your complaint as you can and (2) consider very carefully that making a post on ANI puts you in the spotlight as well. #1 there is common sense, you want people to understand your complaint and make their own conclusions. #2 isn't mean to frighten you or dissuade you, but keep in mind that if there are real problems with your editing you may find yourself blocked or banned. I don't know your background here, I only came across your posts to Toddst1 because I have his page watched (as I do many other administrators). Cheers, Syrthiss (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Replied to you on my talk, in case you don't have it watched. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I would like to just say, as a relatively new user, you seem to be one of the FEW nice people I have encountered on Wikipedia since I started editing pages about a month ago, as an anonymous editor.Willietell (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I do know it can be rough starting out editing. I wish we had more notice to new users that perhaps they would like to edit a page on tree dwelling frogs or something and get more of an idea of how the site works before they jump in to perilous articles like global climate change or abortion. :(
and thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid that my niceness is subjective, sometimes (as you can see from my talkpage and log of blocks). :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I add a few things: you're copy/pasting dates and times. Based on your user settings and/or the user settings of the other person, you may or may not be using UTC or your local timezone. Indeed, the other person may see 00:38 but you see 05:38 ... which, may actually be the exact same time.
Second, you were blocked by an admin who knows their stuff. Your blocks were reviewed by two admins who really know how to follow diffs/links/discussions and the history of contributions and page edits. I know for a fact that the reviewing admins dot their i's and cross their t's in cases of blocks. This was not a group effort - each admin did their reviews independently and came up with the same conclusion.
Third, what are you hoping to gain from pursuing this? Even if someone found that the blocking admin had screwed up, it's a very minor offence - he'll never be blacklisted, nor removed as an admin. The reality is that there's no possible way that the decisions were wrong based on my own review. All you end up gaining is more eyes on your own edits and less on the admins.
All in all, it was a brief block, and rather than read and learn from it, you're claiming it was unfair. Well, as adults, so much of what we do and see is unfair - if we wanted fairness, we would have stayed children and done nothing but play Clue all day by the rules. Indeed, the way you're arguing this, it makes me wonder if you learned anything about WP:DR, WP:EW, WP:OR, or even the five pillars of Wikipedia. Please step back from the carcass, drop the stick, and learn from your mistakes - or, if you prefer, learn from others mistakes. You're not the first person to have this exact same sequence occur - don't self-destruct because of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Confict of interest

In your complaint to User:Jac16888[1] you have accused him of having a conflict of interest because he removed an an inappropriate tag you added to a page. You have previously accused a range of other editors of having a conflict of interest and the basis of this claim usually seems to be that they disagree with you. An allegation of a conflict of interest calls into question the integrity of editors. Please take the trouble to read the guideline on Conflict of interest and then stop making this foolish and offensive suggestion about those who don't do what you want. BlackCab (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstand my statement, I haven't accused him of anything other than deleting the tag too quickly, I only question what the possible motive of someone doing that would be and question whether a conflict of interest might be a motivating factor, but I never make a direct accusation nor do I mention anyone in particular as having such a conflict, I only wish that if such a conflict does exist, that the particular person would not let it interfere with the process of making improvements to the site. It is not my main objective to get the page deleted, but to make it more accurate and less biased. I seek improvement, I don't understand why that is objectionable. Willietell (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The deletion tag was removed because no reason was provided for deletion. You can't just go accusing everyone of 'conflict of interest' when they disagree with your ambiguous rationale. You have been repeatedly requested to outline your specific concerns with the article. Do so, or go away.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is Sonic19912011.Thanks,you were polite to me on the talk page.Erm,can you discuss on your talk page putting "morality" on JW beliefs?It's such an important subject,and I'm suprised it isn't on there.Can you go to BlackCab's talk page and take part in a little quiz i've given my collegues?The only way to solve it is to examine the language of my comment on his page.Sonic19912011Sonic19912011 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what Erm means. I try to have as little direct contact with user:BlackCab as possible, as he has indicated on his user page, his background, which limits how much contact I am willing to have with him. I discuss with him only what is necessary to make changes to the pages I am editing. Therefore, I will not take part in a quiz on his user page. If its related to the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs , then post it on the articles talk page and I will likely give my input. Also, if you wish for a section on morality to be included in the page, write it and edit it in, or open a discussion on the talk page regarding it and I will be happy to contribute. But remember to make sure that anything you include is accurately and completely referenced by source material, otherwise, someone will likely delete the edit and revert it to a previous edit that doesn't contain the material. Willietell (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm is an English interjection, similar in meaning to 'um'.
JW morality is discussed at Jehovah's Witnesses practices. The two articles used to be combined, but it was split when the article became too long.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

CSD

I would suggest taking a look at this diff, and then withdrawing your copyright claim. That page is a copy of Wikipedia, not the other way around. :) 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Willitell, you will be reported soon for disruptive behavior if you persist with this stupid campaign. Please grow up and desist now. BlackCab (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This page: http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ has a copyright from 1999, unless this article has been on Wikipedia since before that time, it must be a copy of this article in violation of copyright laws. I was willing to work to correct the page, but I'm not willing to violate the law, I must obey them...I'm sure you will agree. The copyright information is at the bottom of the web page, so scroll all the way down Willietell (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While you are correct that the page has existed with a copyright since 1999, you can clearly read that that information was not posted to the site until July 6th, 2009. This date is AFTER the orginial article I linked you was created. You can tell by looking at the diffs before that date that the article was being revised since 2004. The is no copyvio issue here. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know that is the case, the article has a copyright from 1999, the 2009 date is likely a revision of the original article, therefore while your argument on the surface may seem logical, I must assume the copyright date is correct. Willietell (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are still misguided. The diff I linked earlier shows that the information was not 'lifted'; rather, it had been worked on over time. If you review the page history, you will see that all that info was not a cut-and-paste moved, but rather that it was content that evolved over time. Ishdarian 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am confused as to exactly who you are, are you the anonymous user or someone else I should recognize? Willietell (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm 132.3.33.68. from earlier. Ishdarian 06:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it seems you are the anonymous user of IP address 132.3.33.68 , the diff you provided really doesn't resolve the issue, because the page overall seems to have been taken piecemeal from the article at the website. I say this because first of all the copyright on the website is dated 1999 and the 6 July 2009 date on the article doesn't necessarily represent the date of its original writing especially considering that articles based of Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs are subject to change as those beliefs themselves are adjusted as the understanding of certain scriptures becomes more clear. The copyright on the site states that the article was created in 1999 and I have no real reason to doubt this. If you look at the article as a whole you will note that it is far more encompassing than the Wikipedia site, which would seem t indicate it was the more complete article and lend support to the idea and belief that it was indeed the original article. What has likely happened is that years ago, an editor took large portions of the article and plagiarized it, but did not utilize the entire article, thus the discrepancies with respect to additional subheadings and additional information in the website article. Willietell (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You are wrong and being quite disingenuous with your new feeble protest that you couldn't possibly break the law by working with copyright text. The "Beliefs" page on the external website, which is datestamped July 6, 2009, is evidently a copy of the Wikipedia page Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses before it was split into two separate pages on "Beliefs" and "Practices" in August 2010. It doesn't have the "Defection" section which I added in April 2009,[2] and apart from other minor differences, the external website's text is pretty well a straight lift from that Wikipedia article as it looked around that time.
It is also important to note that the copyright 1999-2012 tag on the external website exists on all its pages, including one that was created in 2001;[[3].
Your latest attempt to have the page deleted was as baseless, and therefore as unsuccessful, as your first. An admin has now suggested you nominate it for AfD if you wish to pursue your belief that the datestamp on the external website is wrong and that there is yet another conspiracy. I'd prefer you didn't: you are just wasting the time of other editors who are here to improve articles, not spend time hunting down evidence to rebut your far-fetched theories. BlackCab (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Willietell. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

That really belongs on the article talk page, but I've responded on my talk page Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

user:Jeffro77 How can you even accuse me of this? User:BlackCab has stated he will propose deletion of this page and failed to notify. I noticed and only gave the courtesy of letting the user know, since the page was important enough for them to feel editing it was necessary. I shouldn't have had to notify them, because it should have already been done, but alas it wasn't. I'm sure that you will understand it must have simply been a matter of an unintentional oversight by User:BlackCab, especially considering that he also forgot to post a message about the proposed deletion of the page on the talk page of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_salvation#The_.27anointed.27 as well.Willietell (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors may notify other editors involved with an article, as a courtesy, when an AfD is lodged. However, no AfD for the article currently exists. BlackCab has indicated that the page might be submitted for deletion at some future time, if secondary sources cannot be provided to establish notability. Additionally, this is not the first time an editor has advised you about canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I let them know about the proposed deletion, I'm sorry if I offended you somehow, but rest assured, no harm was intended.Willietell (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that you did not advise me when you twice attempted to have Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs speedy deleted. Nor did you advise me about your accusations of me here. When you selectively advise other editors about such actions, it is inappropriate canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
How do I advise everyone at the same time? If you can instruct me as to how to do this I will do so in the future, but as a relatively new user...I don't know how to do it.Willietell (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"As a new user", you certainly found out how to try to delete pages and to go policy shopping pretty quickly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There isn't an automatic way to automatically advise everyone, but since you didn't advise anyone about your speedy deletion attempts, that wouldn't seem especially relevant. And in this case, there hasn't yet been any proposed deletion by BlackCab, only that deletion may be proposed in the future if secondary sources cannot be provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not continue to make accusations against me that are unfounded, please make sure that you assume good faith and please try to be nice as I have only attempted to improve Wikipedia, you may not always agree with my edits, but I assure you they are made with the best intent. I am trying to learn as quickly as possible and as you have noted, after being accused of so many things so quickly, I have become a "quick study" of the things other editors have accused me of doing, If I were accused of less, I would likely learn slower.Willietell (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, you accusation of WP:Canvassing is unfounded, as until this morning, I wasn't even aware that the particular page even existed and I have currently made only a single fairly minor edit to the page and my interest in the page is somewhat limited.Willietell (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your interest in JW-related articles is clearly not 'limited'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess that depends on your definition of limited. I have a limited interest in that particular page because I see little reason to make additional edits to it at this time, but that of course is always subject to change if I see incorrect or non-neutral material creeping into the article. I don't feel the article violates WP:NPOV in the same blatant manner as does the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs and I am at this point somewhat undecided on the proposal of User:BlackCab to delete the page. So at present, I have a limited interest from a certain point of view.Willietell (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, BlackCab has not yet proposed the article's deletion. An AfD is such a proposal. BlackCab has only suggested that it should go to AfD if notability of the subject cannot be established in reliable secondary sources.
There is no support for any of your comments concerning your belief that the Beliefs article is biased. If you like, you could raise an RFC to get a broader opinion at that article's Talk page, however all the points you have raised thus far are well supported by cited sources. You may therefore like to reflect upon your own biases on the subject matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine , I still have serious questions that perhaps you could answer. UserBlackCab claims that the page has been in existence since 2004 and that the sight http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ shows the article written in 2009, however, the site also notes that the page was reconstructed in July 2009 after it crashed in Jan. 2009 http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/ , which would seem to indicate that the article was simply placed back in July 2009 as the site was reconstructed. This site shows a copyright from 1999 and I still have serious doubts as to whether this is a not copyright violation.Willietell (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All the pages on that sites have "1999-2012" mentioned in the footer, but the post date is clearly from 2009. Your theory about a site crash is irrelevant as other pages have different posting dates, as shown here. Additionally, the specific version of the article that was copied from Wikipedia was this version of the Wikipedia article from 5 July 2009, the day before the date of the post on 6 July 2009. Ignoring that obvious fact, you are claiming that the article existed on a different site, was copied to Wikipedia as a substantially different version several years ago, then after many hundreds of edits by many different editors somehow happened to co-incidentally end up exactly the same as the page you allege was posted in 1999. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice the other dates now that you have posted that link, so you may be right, I didn't know about this site until it was posted on the talk page and am therefore not really familiar with it. I am proceeding with the assumption that what you guys have been telling me is correct, because I don't know how to verify it myself. But please understand that I am only trying to make sure that everything is above board out of genuine concern.Willietell (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Sigh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

JW publications

I've modified your well-intentioned edit here for two reasons:

  1. The NWT is published (in whole or in part) in 98 different languages, but in 106 different language editions. This is because some languages are available in more than one script. Even JW literature is not consistent in delineating the number of languages from the number of language editions. For example, the 1 March 2011 issue of The Watchtower (page 7) gave the number of languages of the NWT as 96 when the actual number of language editions at the time was 103.
  2. It is not necessary to micro-manage the figures at the publications article; they are covered in more detail at the main NWT article

I hope this reasoning is clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quoting from the new yearbook, which I am holding in my hand, if you have issues with the source material, please be specific, as I can send you a copy if you need one, or you can order it at the local Kingdom Hall, but I am citing well referenced source material in the edit, so I don't understand your objection. Willietell (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The yearbook is also available for download.
I have clearly explained the distinction here, including the ambiguity between languages and scripts. If you open the book you're 'holding in your hand' to page 26, you can confirm that there are in fact two different scripts for Azerbaijani (1 language), two for Chinese, two for Serbian and two for Twi. The distinction is also clearly explained at the main NWT article. Additionally, six of the languages listed in the yearbook are sign languages, not print editions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the number of languages into which the NWT is being made available had doubled since 2004, *2012 yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pg 24...so the figure is changing as time moves forward. Willietell (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The number available in 2004 is not relevant to this discussion, though the frequent change in the number does demonstrate further why it is unnecessary to micro-manage the figure in the publications article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Just kind of FYI for you, the sign languages the publications are made available in are printable sign languages , in case you didn't know, and the different scripts you refer to are substantially different enough that they are classified as a separate language, as in traditional and simplified Chinese. Willietell (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not removed the sign languages from the count, and you should note the different between print, as in text, and printable, as in able to be printed. The distinction between languages and scripts is also clearly given at the main NWT article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I am curious as to your justification in removing the statement in the article about the Study Edition of the Watchtower being made available at congregation meeting prior to the study of the article's, as this is both noteworthy and a common practice? Willietell (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As I already explained, that level of detail belongs at the main article. Specifically, rules for distribution of the Study Edition are not particularly relevant to a section called Literature used for preaching. Additionally, it is not necessary to go into minutia about rules for visitors borrowing copies at the meeting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are no rules and the copies of the Study Edition are not Borrowed, they are available to any who need a copy and are theirs to keep as a general rule, I have seen instances where there were none left and photocopies had to be made, but that is extremely rare and is shortly rectified by increasing the congregations order of the magazines. Willietell (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
And such trivia is entirely unnecessary in the bullet point in the publications article. The main Watchtower article already indicates that copies are made available to visitors at the meeting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't actually read the main Watchtower article yet, I am still unaware of many of the pages about Jehovah's Witnesses that seem to exist on Wikipedia it seems. Willietell (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The Watchtower article is linked—more than once—from the publications article you've been editing. See also WP:JW#Articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the congregation meeting, if non-baptized individuals are present, and especially during the Public talk and Watchtower study, is considered part of the preaching work. So information about the Study Edition does in fact fit into the scope of the heading. Willietell (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BlackCab (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • - Willitell I read some of your comments on the Pharaoh of the Exodus and found them quite interesting. Could I please have your E-mail address? I would give you mine however you seem to have some critics here. And I'm not sure if they pose to be you. However only you can stamp you signature. --96.46.199.62 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC) --Standforder (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • - Willitell I agree with your theory of that Pharaoh Thutmose I as the most likely candidate for being the Pharaoh of the Exodus. I would like to hear about this. The dates match it we accept the timeline as taken from the city of Memphis rather than from Thebes. Memphis also to seems to better match the Bible's account of the being the city of power of the day.

Canvassing and Signature

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you are currently involved in canvassing. Your recent edits are very much inappropriate, in regards to both the canvassing and the fact that you retained BlackCab's signature[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Please stop this behaviour. Thank you. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Immediately stop posting messages with my signature. You are once again engaging in willfully deceptive conduct. As a nominator of an AfD I followed the guidelines and notified several major contributors to the Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation article. I know of none of the editors you have now sought out and don't know why you have approached them. Stop now or I will report you and ask to have you banned. BlackCab (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Guys, calm down, its neither canvassing nor using someone else's signature, I simply copy/pasted the message from my talk page, and I signed it with my signature. I only notified people that User:BlackCab failed to notify who might have an interest in the deletion of the page from the previous discussion. I did this as a courtesy, I don't know any of them, I just thought it would be the fair thing to do. Willietell (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I forgot to sign a few of them, but they were auto-signed by a bot, so there was no attempt at deception, just human error. Willietell (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not only did you forget to sign some of them, but you retained the signature of another editor. That is unacceptable.
The users you informed do not seem to have had any recent input (any input at all?) into the article, or to JW articles in general. Your rationale for choosing those users in particular remains unclear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks from Willietell's contributions and the previous AFD participants that he informed all those that were still active on Wikipedia. These were my observations as to his method, and he confirmed this as being the selection criteria without any leading on my part. In my estimation then this is not canvassing because he used the same template that one uses to inform article creators and placed the notice on all active participants pages in good faith. I've advised him of the fault in using BlackCab's sig so now that he knows I don't think a recurrence is likely. Does that help, Jeffro? Syrthiss (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for your comments. This isn't the first time there have been issues of canvassing and other troubling behaviour though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there have been issues, but I still think this is more a symptom of Willietell being passionate about his subject area and him being relatively new to editing and that area being an area that can be contentious. He seems to be improving so I'm hoping we can continue to guide him along and treat issues on a case by case basis. Apologies to Willietell for talking about him in the third person on his own talkpage. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My appologies for jumping the gun. The lack of your sig coupled with the fact that it looked like the only editors you notified were the keep voters made it seem like canvassing. Everyone who voted delete was inactive, so I understand you made the notification in good faith. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the Pharaoh of the Exodus

Which comments are you referring too, as I have made several, so please be more specific. I will be happy to discuss them to the best of my ability. Willietell (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Regarding the possibility of Thutmoses I being the Pharaoh of the Exodus. I will give my e-mail address (blackboardglobe at yahoo.ca) And If you're a Jehovah's Witness (which you can prove to me by writing the song numbers for next week's Service meeting) I will give my username on "creationwiki." Which contains my research page. --96.46.199.62 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Sorry your confused. See WP:DISPUTE for suggestions on working through issues.

Ariconte (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 

Really, Willietell, it's you against the rest of the world. The whole POV-pushing allegation at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs came to nothing because no one accepted anything you said. It's time to admit you're wrong, accept it and move on. BlackCab (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources tag etc

Re your addition of the "Fact" tag here: the statement about secular society is part of the quote from Holden's book and needs no further source cited. The reference to closed meetings is also clearly sourced to Franz. Your reference to "non-prescription use (medical use) of addictive drugs" is also confusing, suggesting that medical use of addictive drugs is prohibited. It's clearer the way it is. And the articles have had a long-standing practice of generalising the numbers of languages in which WT publications are published, avoiding the need to update them as they rise and fall. BlackCab (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not accurate, nor is it necessary to generalize that the Watchtower and the Awake are printed in "hundreds of languages", they are in fact, printed in 194 and 84 respectively, which is not "hundreds", Franz is a fringe, biased, POV source and is not acceptable, nor is the POV spin of "closed meetings" , "non-prescription use" is factual and clarifies that some addictive drugs under prescription use are allowed for treatment of medical conditions, and the statement about secular society really needs more clarity, but it is also written in such a way as to appear to be not properly sourced, which is why I added the [citation needed] tag, perhaps some clarification on the statement in the sentence structure will help. Also, this discussion is more appropriate on the articles talk page instead of mine, as others my also wish to contribute to the discussion. Also, if you continue to repeatedly revert pages edited by me without discussion, I will begin to report your attempts to edit war, so please refrain in the future. Willietell (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have patiently explained to you why your edits are unacceptable. Franz has long been accepted as a reliable source and there is no evidence that suggests he is wrong when he says the meetings are held behind closed doors, but if you know of published evidence that disproves that source, feel free to provide it. You have shown repeatedly that you do not accept consensus views, and are therefore work poorly in the collaborative environment of Wikipedia, so I would suggest you ease off on the threats. BlackCab (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Franz is not only not a reliable source, but is clearly biased in his opinion. If you wish to use his statement, then back it up with additional sources stating that they are "closed meetings" as there is also no evidence to suggest that he is "right" either. Also again, this is a discussion for the articles talk page and I think it would be the proper thing to move future discussion there. Willietell (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you think everyone who is not a JW is biased. That will always affect your thinking. BlackCab (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that everyone is biased, only those who demonstrate that they are biased, I judge only from action and endeavor to always assume good faith, until actions demonstrate that good faith in not intended. Ray Franz has demonstrated his bias and convicted himself with his own mouth in doing so. Your user page vocalizes your bias, and demonstrates such, as do some of your public statements. I only ask that you attempt to remain objective and not let your bias against Jehovah's Witnesses dictate your editing patterns. It is not necessary to revert edits simply because you view them as not being negative enough to suite your tastes. An accurate and properly sourced edit should stand, whether you personally like the presented material or not is irrelevant. If you have an opposing view, edit it in and don't simply revert the edit to destroy the work of other editors who are also attempting to work in good faith. I will again ask you nicely, to put back the information I edited into the article. I don't wish to engage you in an edit war, all I am trying to do is improve the article by making it more accurate. If you have a source for the statement where I have placed the [citation needed] tag, then simply place the citation there and expound the statement for clarification as requested in the edit summary. It is every editors right to ask for support and clarification, and the burden is upon the editor wishing to include the disputed material to provide support for it. Willietell (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ray Franz was disgruntled person since he expelled from the Watchtower organization for sharing in meeting with other apostates. This is well documented and we fairly question his real motivation.--Standforder (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion, along with a continuation of it, can now be accessed at the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_practices Please take all future discussion of the topic there. Willietell (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi Willie. I wanted to try and help you out before this gets out of hand. First off, if you make an edit, and someone reverts your edit, use the Bold-Revert-Discuss formula, rather than constant reversions to get your edit in. Just because you think an article should be a certain way, doesn't mean its the right version. This is the edit I'm mainly refering to, but there have been others.

Secondly, you seem to be lacking good faith. You are constantly pushing an argument, making it sound that any statement that doesn't conform to your POV is POV spin. These claims do not breed a collaborative culture, and make it very difficult for other editors to work with you.

This project brings in people for all across the board, with different beliefs and ideals. We may not all see eye-to-eye on everything, but we need to work together to achieve consensus and, ultimately, better the project. If you have any questions, feel free to hit me back. Ishdarian 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your relationship with the editor who keeps reverting the edit is, but I rather think you are not also giving them the same speech. In fact, I know you are not, because I looked at their talk page and you have failed to mention this issue to them. I have requested of that particular editor that they discuss the edit in talk rather than simply revert, they have failed to do so, instead, another editor who has several times closely linked himself to the reverting editor by his historic actions, has also reverted the edit, giving the impression, in my opinion of WP:meat, because they seem to be working in conjunction to one end, as has also been demonstrated in past historical edits. If you feel that the edit I made is POV, please explain how it is so. Additionally, the editors of whom you speak are certainly not attempting to engage in a collaborative culture, unless that culture is to inject POV spin into articles in such a way that it reflects negatively on Jehovah's Witnesses. Every edit I have made has been in a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia, but certain editors will accept nothing, not even the slightest wording, that does not paint a POV spin on articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and if you wish to give advice, please give it to those editors as well, otherwise I may be inclined to believe your advice to me was not in itself made in good faith. Additionally, I am willing to work with others to achieve better articles on Wikipedia, however, I cannot say that I have noticed such a co-operative spirit from certain other editors, I won't mention names, but I am sure you can surmise as to which editors I refer. I came to Wikipedia only a couple of months ago, but I have encountered constant hostility from a certain set of editors, who also seem to hound me from page to page reverting any edit I make. And yet, when I revert the reversion that they made without discussing in talk, I am advised by editors such as yourself, that I need to discuss in talk. Why did you not instead, advise them that they need to discuss in talk? They are after all, the ones making the reversion to begin with. It all leads me to ask myself what your particular relationship with those editors is that you would let it impact the way in which you choose to hand out advice. [11]. I will assure you, that if editors choose to work with me in a spirit of co-operation instead of against me in a spirit of hostility, I can be reasonable, that doesn't mean I will not express my opinion, because I certainly will, but I feel that I am certainly not the only editor that you would do well to advise in regards to "attempting to engage in a collaborative culture". Willietell (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Willitell, you have struggled from the outset with the concept of collaboration. As I have pointed out to you previously, [12], you have been shown great patience by other editors. What you perceive as hostility and conspiracy is what other editors would see as debate and helpful advice to a newcomer. On article after article you show no mood for compromise, arguing ad infinitum over one word at a time and refusing to concede a point even when the consensus is clear. You are receiving the same advice from so many editors; when will you begin to accept it? BlackCab (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that Ishdarian refers to an edit where Willietell tried to make some point about things on noticeboards being available "for inspection by any who wish to examine them"—an entirely redundant statement in regard to the usual function of notice boards, which seems intended as some kind of 'defense' to a non-existant 'attack'. The main problem with many of Willietell's contributions is that they regularly constitute POV pushing, and it is those edits that are reverted. Other edits made by Willietell have not had the same concerns, and have not been reverted; the claim that all his changes are reverted is a lie.
Willietell, your accusation of WP:MEAT is meaningless, but you are welcome to request a CheckUser.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't really care enough as to whether or not some editor/s employ meat-puppetry in order to feign support for their particular view to request a checkuser. It all seems rather childish to me, as does soliciting support via e-mail to friends to avoid "leaving a trail" of canvassing support to individual talk discussions. But I am sure that is also taking place by certain editors and has likely been taking place for years. Simply put, Wikipedia is not important enough for me to employ such tactics, or to be overly concerned about those who do. While I would like to see the information available here be accurate, I realize that there are those who will group together to ensure that a significant part of it is not, thus the poor reputation Wikipedia has overall among the educated. It's a sad but true state of affairs. Willietell (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
All mail sent through WM servers is logged. If you suspect that editors are WP:CANVASSING via email then you can file at AN/I and ask that it be looked into. Of course you'll need more than just speculation, such as odd timings or demonstrations of editors that otherwise would not have known of the RFC. I'll state here that any admin has my permission to confirm that I have sent no emails to anyone, pretty sure ever on WP. Noformation Talk 22:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? Didn't you believe me when I stated above that whether editors are conducting themselves in such a manner is unimportant to me? I will not go to such extremes to prevent the childish actions of others, and as a side point, there is a whole internet out there full of other means than WM servers to send and receive e-mails, therefore, I have doubts that such "canvassing" would be performed on a WM server. Willietell (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Willie, I have had no real interaction with these editors. I didn't speak to Jeffro or BlackCab because they have been here long enough that they should know the policies. You yourself have stated that you have only been here a couple of months, so I am more than willing to extend patience to you.
One thing you are having a hard time understanding is the WP:BRD process. Please read this essay. Here's how a BRD situation would play out in an ideal world.
  • BOLD: Willietell makes an edit to a page.
  • REVERT: Ishdarian does not agree with Willie's edit, and reverts it.
  • DISCUSS: Ishdarian explains why he doesn't agree, and the editors open up a dialogue to help reach an accord.
The BRD process is meant to help prevent edit wars and move editors towards a consensus. You, on the other hand, seem to think your edits are always right. It is not up to other editors to explain why your edits in a controversial area are wrong. If someone reverts an edit and opens a dialogue, don't shut them out. This edit to an article was made only 3 minutes after your explaination on the article's talk page. That is not how discussions work. Also, the snarky comments you left on that page are completely inappropriate. I wanted to talk to you and help move you towards a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies. You are putting up a very aggresive front by accusing every editor who disagrees with you as being biased and thinking everything applying any kind of criticism to JWs is POV spin. I want to help you move in a more positive direction, rather than drudge this out at an RfC or AN/I. Ishdarian 00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am incorrect, but somehow, I am under the impression that your expressed desire to "help" me move in a more positive direction is somewhat "tongue in cheek". I'm sorry you feel I am "putting up a very aggresive front", but I feel you are confusing enthusiasm for aggression. I haven't in fact accused every editor who disagrees with me of bias, only those who push POV spin and are unreasonable in discussing a compromise. My advice is that certain editors should follow their own advice, as I can be a very reasonable person when confronted in an intelligent, tactful and logical manner. But like many others, when I am harassed, attacked and berated, I respond with only as much restraint as I am able to muster. Also, as far as your statement regarding my "thinking everything applying any kind of criticism to JWs is POV spin", I will point out that Wikipedia is not here to serve as a blog for criticisms and personal beliefs. It is supposed to present facts and views supported by reliable source material, and do so in a way that does not introduce personal bias into the article. When I come across the personal bias (POV spin), I edit it out. It is not surprising that the one/s who introduced the bias choose to put it back in. My edits are only objectionable to those who wish to see the bias remain in the article. Unfortunately, that is not a few editors, but many, thus Wikipedia's poor reputation in the academic community. What I do is done for the betterment of Wikipedia, your concerns should be more directed to the "longstanding editors" who continually re-introduce bias into articles in an effort to taint the material presented to readers. Remember it is due to this off-base editing that college professors and high school teachers alike disallow their students the use of Wikipedia as a reference source, and their actions are not without justification. Willietell (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
And this is the problem, Willietell. You campaigned very hard to have the Jehovah's Witness beliefs article deleted in its entirety because of its supposed bias, and then battled word by word to have perceived "POV spin" removed. A range of editors entered the discussion; no one agreed with you. You refuse to accept a consensus view and charge on, insisting that you are right, everyone else is wrong and even uninvolved administrators trying to moderate the mess you create are in on the conspiracy. [13] Without trying to inflame the situation further, may I suggest that the problem is not Wikipedia or its policies or editors, but you. BlackCab (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps you yourself are the problem by constantly reintroducing POV spin into articles in an uncompromising manner and then attacking not only the edits but the very character of editors who would remove it, as you are also doing now. Willietell (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, it is not "POV spin" when reliable sources happen to say something you don't like. You are confusing neutrality among editors with consensus among sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Willie, please. You can help make this project better, but you need to stop making yourself out to be the victim of a conspiracy. I'm going to give this a few days to settle in; I hope you can take some of this advice to heart. No one wants to see another editor chased off the project. Ishdarian 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate Ishdarian's input, which will hopefully work as a circuit breaker. I want to assure Willietell that I do not consult or confer with any other editor about my edits. I emailed Jeffro once, probably two or three years ago, about an editor's conduct on another page, and what little communication takes place between us is either on article talk pages or directly on his talk page, so it is all transparent. Willietell constantly assumes bad motive, interpreting agreement by two more experienced editors as conspiracy. I am tired of reading the phrase "POV spin" in almost every comment by Willietell. He wants information in articles to be accurate, but rejects accurate, balanced, properly sourced information because he senses that much of it is disparaging, and begins a new line of accusations. BlackCab (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Fain is an archaic word meaning pleased; perhaps Willietell meant feign. It's quite amusing that Willietell makes several baseless accusations, and then claims he's simply too 'disinterested' to prove them. Though it's not any of Willietell's business, BlackCab e-mailed my once, on 15 February 2010. The e-mail was not related to any article content or Talk page discussion, and did not continue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffro77 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jeffro77 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, since you have twice made this accusation, I trust you will back it up with some evidence. It's a pretty damaging accusation and I'm intrigued to see what reasons you come up with. If you do not act now to support your claims, and if a checkuser shows your claim is false, I trust you will be honorable enough to apologise and retract. BlackCab (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
SPI clerks have summarily dismissed the claim of sockpuppetry against me as being entirely without evidence. If you (Willietell) continue to make such claims, you will be reported for personal attacks, as was suggested by the SPI clerk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The check user was declined, as they say they don't use such to prove innocence, but I will assume good faith here and trust the two of you that you are not the same person, however I seem to notice definite pattern of working as a tandem when editors make edits to which one of you objects. Its interesting that both of you are from Australia. I'm not sure it would be proper to state on the talk page which city each of you is from, so I will not do that. Willietell (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me understand this. In good faith you accept that I am not a sockpuppet, yet here you clearly assume bad faith and suggest that Jeffro77 or I would assume no checkuser would be carried out, leaving us looking innocent. Your comment in that archived discussion shows you actually persisting in those baseless accusations against us. Stop these ridiculous conspiracy theories now. BlackCab (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The statement was related to the SPI being a waste of an administrators time, no as to whether of not it would be "leaving us looking innocent". Please don't over-react by misconstruing my intent. Willietell (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's false and the SPI fairly clearly indicated my innocence. One closing SPI clerk stated, "I don't see a si[n]gle shred of evidence on two long term users.", and another said, "users in general should be aware that "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" can be considered a personal attack". On the advice of the SPI, you will be reported if you make the suggestion again.
Further, you've stated at the SPI (though you are not supposed to modify an archive) that you 'only' made the charge at an ANI. An ANI is in fact the most condemnatory place that someone could make such an accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The ANI is not related to sockpuppetry, I have brought no such formal accusation, nor do I intend to do so. I didn't really notice it was an archive, but it was archived very quickly, as I only discovered it minutes before posting my comments and I got there through the link posted on this talk page. Please do not continue to infer that I AM A LIAR OR DISHONEST, AS THIS IS UNCIVIL. I was stating my understanding of what was said, your "interpretation" of the words " We do not use CU to prove innocence, and I don't see a sigle shred of evidence on two long term users. Closing. " is simply different to mine, as I read them, I conclude that since no evidence was presented by you in the request for CU, then not a "sigle shred of evidence" existed for the administrator ,(who closed the SPI before I even got out of bed that morning, with it being filed after I went to bed the night before) to base a determination on, thus the fair statement that there was no evidence, because I certainly didn't post any and I don't think you did either. Willietell (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of your unique interpretations and suspicions, the fact remains that I have never engaged in sockpuppetry, and any further suggestion that I have—whether formal or informal—will be reported as a personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI: proposed topic ban

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Sanctions: Willietell: Topic Ban, which the nominating editor should have advised you of. BlackCab (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

This edit is not reasonable, it is dismissive and confrontational for no reason - basically what I would call either baiting or trolling or both. In the post you link to Blackcab is simply stating his views again and he has every righ t to do that without being kept tied to a previous statement by you. I think you ought to remove that statement of yours since it serves no purpose other than to bait him into an extended argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, my post was simply in response to the continuation of a useless and uncivil discussion of AuthorityTam on another page without his knowledge and how this reflected on the comments made previously by an editor, who I will not mention by name, as well as pointing out that another claim was also not entirely accurate. I feel that the editor who suggested avoidance of certain editors for a while has a point and I am trying to maintain that, to bring up those editors here is contrary to that attempt. I am not trolling, baiting or otherwise doing anything inappropriate, simply responding to an obviously false claim, and providing evidence that it was a false claim. You may not like it because you consider the editor in question a friend, but perhaps you need to reconsider their activities and adjust your own thinking. If the edit I made offends you that much though, feel free to strike it yourself, as I only intended it to point out the false statement . Willietell (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

User:AuthorityTam has resumed editing today and has immediately made a misleading claim about me. I have therefore re-opened the previous unresolved ANI where various proposals were suggested. I am advising you because you were substantially involved in the previous discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Resuming_AuthorityTam_ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

Hi. Changed LXX paragraph heading and lede. Please see Talk comments. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

JW doctrines

Re your edit summary here: No, it is up to you to explain why you want to change the article. The current wording is clear, succinct and accurate. The sentence about the consequence of "promoting" (in reality, discussing with other JWs) private views on doctrines that deviate from official teachings naturally follows the sentence that states that the WTS strongly discourages Witnesses from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through independent Bible research. I have added a sentence in the "Apostasy" section that explains that a person who "promotes" such ideas is regarded as an apostate. Your edit, with its usual sloppiness (a lack of a space between sentences, a lack of apostrophe in "congregations") adds a subjective reference to someone who is "unrepentant", a statement that is blatantly POV in presuming a person who acts in such a way as committed a wrongdoing. The statement is as twisted as claiming that a politician who, for example, proposes a new policy should subsequently repent for having done so. I will revert to my wording, which is neutral, accurate and free of the JW loaded terminology. BlackCab (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willietell/Archives/2012_1&oldid=1052800725"