User talk:AuthorityTam

User talk:AuthorityTam/Bot messages

Hello, AuthorityTam! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes ( ~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sen. John McCain, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sen. John McCain is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sen. John McCain, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "first puck" is virtually unused in hockey. So, despite your rationale, the term "ceremonial faceoff" is correct. Unless you can provide reliable sources that refer to a ceremonial dropping of the puck under the name "ceremonial first puck". Wikipedia is not in the business of coining new terms. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Even your sources use the term "ceremonial opening faceoff". -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) writes...[reply]

No, "first puck" is actually quite widespread throughout hockey. The overwhelming preponderance of actual "reliable sources" supports AuthorityTam rather than long-winded and imaginative complainant. See Ceremonial_first_puck#Related_terms--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supplying references to Jehovah's Witnesses literature. Please note that whilst information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced, it is not necessary to provide a quote from the original publication, unless the exact wording is particularly notable. If the source is quoted, superfluous details (such as 'Jehovah blessed the change') can be replaced with an ellipsis ("..."). Also, references should follow punctuation - that is, commas and periods should be before the ref tag.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to add lengthy quotes from Watch Tower publications on the dubious basis that they are adding context to "balance critical POV". Great care is being taken to ensure these articles are presented in a neutral way. If you can identify points of view in the articles that detract from their neutrality, then discuss or change. Loading articles up with slabs of quoted material from The Watchtower doesn't help at all. LTSally (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are becoming vexatious and appear to be the start of an edit war. You have yet to produce any evidence in support of the edits you are making regarding the exclusive salvation of Jehovah's Witnesses and are ignoring the references cited by other editors that prove you wrong. You are also deleting, without sufficient justification, reference to the WTS survey of elders that produced adverse comments about the pressure placed on Witnesses, and seeking to insert the wording "a former prominent Witness" in what I can only assume is an attempt to belittle the source of the material and detract from its importance. It is better to seek consensus on the talk page rather than simply reverting these changes. Thanks! LTSally (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC) writes...[reply]

The complaints of user LTSally are illogical and factually incorrect. While I (that is, AuthorityTam), happen to believe a thirty-year-old 'opinion study' is out of place in an article about a group's current beliefs, I certainly have not repeatedly deleted references to the supposed study. Furthermore, does LTSally contend that the phrase "a former prominent Witness" is nonneutral or factually incorrect? Either reason might exclude it, but neither reason applies to its usage here.

Regarding the matter of salvation, the fact remains that officially, JWs certainly DO believe that non-Witnesses will be saved (see quote below, from their official website). Far from "many WT articles" or "multiple references", there are NO references which contradict this view, and certainly none newer than their current website.

Incidentally, the edits of User:AuthorityTam have tended to include elucidatory information rather than hide it (by contrast, it is clear that certain others have actively worked to hide information, including actual quotations, that merely balances anti-JW criticism). "Light is the best antiseptic.", no?

The FACTS and VERIFIABLE REFERENCES plainly contradict the unfounded notion that it is "ludicrous and untenable" (per LTSally) to assert that the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the great crowd includes "presumably others with whom God will find favour" (to use the exact phrasing of LTSally). Skeptics should note the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, arguably the MOST CURRENT position of the faith:

As Retrieved 2009-04-14

"Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved? No. ... Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours."

In conclusion... I do not believe JWs contend the following, but even IF Jehovah's Witnesses in the future happened to contend that there is "no evidence" that non-Witnesses will survive Armageddon, that is a different matter than asserting that non-Witnesses CANNOT survive Armageddon or WILL NOT survive Armageddon. Insisting otherwise seems incompatible with the standards of Wikipedia. Please, avoid nonneutral assertions, avoid unwarranted over-interpretations, and avoid hiding elucidatory quotes from the official publications of Jehovah's Witnesses in an article entitled "Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses".--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The import of the quote above from the official JW site is basically "Do you believe that you [people who are already JWs] are the only ones who will be saved? No, because other people who aren't JWs yet might become JWs (i.e. JW terminology for 'take a stand for truth')". The statement on the official site is therefore not conclusive to say that JWs actually teach that people who aren't Witnesses at the time of the 'judgment' will survive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:PEACOCK? "Renowned" is on the list of terms to avoid in that guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the random act of wikience. To my recollection, I've not yet used "renowned" in any article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Croctotheface (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your most recent edit to the Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses article relating to the treatment of Witnesses who voluntarily quit the religion. There are two points here.

The first is that the Watchtower article I had cited, Questions From Readers, July 15, 1985, page 31, unequivocally identified any person who "willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation" as an apostate. The article stated that "such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the ‘antichrist’." Your insertion of the words "with apostates among them" is therefore quite inaccurate. Your edit summary that "JW consider apostates part of antichrist (not all who disassociate)" is wrong. Your edit summary suggesting that the 1991 WT article makes clear that "not all disassoc are apostate (since 1991)" is also wrong. The 1991 WT does suggest that elders approach disassociated ex-Witnesses to invite them back into the fold. It does warn elders against approaching "certain expelled ones, such as apostates, who ‘speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves'" But the article in no way changes the doctrine established in the September 15, 1981 WT, and reinforced in the 1985 WT cited above, that all who voluntarily quit are apostates and part of the antichrist.

The second point is that your explanation of your edit should not be inserted in invisible comments within the article. Please start a new section on the talk page for these issues. And please stop inserting long quotes from the Watchtower in the references. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Talk:Beliefs_and_practices_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Former_does_not_equal_Apostate--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want to briefly thank you for your honest comment on the Talk:Anna Baltzer page, and ask that please vote to "*Keep" the article in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Baltzer project page. There will be further references to support the article in the near future. Thank you for your help. Henry Delforn (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a brief description of circuit overseers doesn't need "a century of background". Such lengthy quotes can usually be summarised and simply cite the source if they are particularly important to the subject being addressed, within the scope of the article. In this instance, the information in the quote is not of particular notability or relevance to the current circuit overseer arrangement, and the import of the quote would be more relevant to an article about the gradual development of JW procedures, though this level of detail probably wouldn't be notable even in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include entire paragraphs in comments in the article just to prove your point about the suitability of references. This kind of thing belongs in Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have guessed that including the actual quote from the actual reference would have avoided pushback. Amazingly, it hasn't.

Invisible_comment#HTML_tags, as of 4/28/09

[quote]Invisible comments to editors (<!-- -->) appear only while editing the page.

* If you wish to make comments to the public, you should usually use the talk page.[end quote][emphasis added]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several paragraphs of unnecessary material do not constitute a 'note'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your issues about the introduction to Holy Spirit on the talk page. Someone 19:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule at Holy Spirit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are generalizing far too much, however, from an unreliable source (it's a Wikipedia article), which does not discuss some of the largest and oldest non-trinitarian denominations at all. (And I apologise talking over your head; but do look up numen, which is the singular.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit, I believe 'Thank you' is the more appropriate response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles The Watchtower and Charles Taze Russell never previously mentioned the long name, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom in the article text. Please do not use edit summaries that imply that the content of the articles was merely changed to use the short name, as such summaries just make it seem that you are disappointed with not having the 'Watchtower' article named the way you wanted it. Previously you asked why it was urgent to only rename the 'Watchtower' article now (though it had actually been named the short name for most of the last several years), yet only now are you asserting that these two articles should use the long name. I agree with the use of the long names where you've changed them, but please remain objective objective in your approach.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend this is a really long message with lots of cool text formatting. I can park it here and just wiki to it. That way, it doesn't interfere with an article Talk page.

Notability of a person so that he may deserve an article in Wikipedia depends on third-party articles. Make a search in google books and I will check JSTOR because I have access.

If nothing is found, then you may add him in the list of the contributors of the Concordance Bible Translation with a brief footnote about his life.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Thompson Translator?
You have asserted that Alexander Thomson was one of twelve translators of the Concordant Literal Version. Though requested multiple times, you have failed to provide a source verifying this claim. Why? Did you make the claim without knowing, or without verifying it? Why don't you provide a source verifying your assertion?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information that has been challenged and not had a verifiable source provided may be deleted per WP:Source#Burden_of_evidence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Thomson (1889-1966)
I have changed the link on the disambiguation page to reflect the recent title change to the above. Additionally, I added on his Talk my also opposing his article removal, citing half a dozen or more places where various Watchtower publications have quoted from him between 1982 and 2001. Glenn L (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's since been changed to Alexander Thomson (writer), since using dates is apparently against Wikpedia policy. Glenn L (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your edits include explicit HTML breaks ("<br />"). It is not normally necessary to include these. If you are entering them manually, you may simply stop doing so. If your browser/editor is automatically inserting them, you might like to consider changing your editor options.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of this edit [2], under 'Worship', seems to have re-instated, rather than removed, vandalism. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when undoing edits. I somehow doubt that this was actually your preferred version of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
Hopefully it's obvious that I intended to "undo" each of the four preceding edits. I've no idea how things got crossed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you need to undo a series of edits with no intervening edits to be retained, it is generally easier and more foolproof to bring up the most recent good version in the article's history and edit it instead of undoing each edit manually. Gadgets (in your Wikipedia preferences) such as 'Twinkle' also provide shortcuts for restoring previous versions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When participating at AfD, please remember to include a rationale; AfD is not a vote, and a simple declaration adds little value to the discussion. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather add a little value than not.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks really good! Sometimes the deletion monkeys really get on my nerves - nice to see a "fun" article kept for once. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And "you" seem to have a "thing" for using "unnecessary 'quotation' marks". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I enjoyed the article. Thanks for the note! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC) PS I also like quotation marks![reply]

Among the list of Wikipedia policies on your talk page is one dealing with personal attacks. I have removed comments from Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford and I suggest you be more careful in future. LTSally (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put things in context, LTSally has accused me of having rabies(diff) and wanting to burn books and authors.(diff).

Those are personal attacks.

By contrast, this is my sentence, which the metaphoric "kettle" pretends to be "black"(diff)...

"Over time, a pattern may emerge that reveals something about editors' scholarship and even more about his agenda and ethics."

Revealing? Yes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen this somewhere before... LOL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restrain your bile and act with more civility when discussing articles on talk pages? The recent exchange at Talk:Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Requests for quotation in which you claim I invented quotes from Raymond Franz's book was quite unnecessary. As I have explained there, it was a communication problem: you didn't indicate precisely what words you wanted to verify with a quote from the source, so I provided a quote from a different section of the page.

Wikipedia is a collaborative work and I find your aggressive, confrontational, domineering and accusatory manner, often revealed in your wordy, rambling diatribes, distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the whole project. Please be civil. Please assume good faith. Let's all work together. LTSally (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the repeated complainant should consider the principle of the Kettle, pot, and black.

To what does the above editor refer? Apparently, a Talk page post from me, specifically...

"In this particular example, the supplied quote from the actual "summary" apparently used neither of the expressions which the Wikipedia editor pretended were quotes (that is, "wrong teachings" and "new understandings", both written with quotation marks implying a quote from the reference). With this revelation, a more conscientious (or chastened) editor will likely correct the wording and punctuation in the article."my diff

That's not personal. In fact, I didn't even know which editor had written the challenged material.
The matter was not as though one hypothetical editor called another hypothetical editor a name, such as "crybaby", hypothetically.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Jeffro77#Purpose_of_JW_study (2009 August)

Actually the passage I had in mind was "the objective of helping Bible students to learn enough about God’s Word and purposes to make a dedication to Jehovah and get baptized," but the reference you've given makes the point just as well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the phrase explicitly quoted above (in the immediately previous paragraph) refers to a particular book title.
Here it is in context:

"May Jehovah Credit Good to Your Account", The Watchtower, September 15, 1996, page 19

"This book was written with the objective of helping Bible students to learn enough about God’s Word and purposes to make a dedication to Jehovah and get baptized."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "[the book published specifically for the sole purpose of JW Bible studies] was written with the objective of helping Bible students ... get baptized." Have you finished splitting hairs?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I began this thread with the goal of encouraging a more-elevated encyclopedic standard.

Not personal pettiness.

Perhaps the editor misunderstands...I confirmed the point in question, but with a reference that was unequivocal. See diff.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit at Jehovah's Witnesses reflects the consensus view of the discussion on progressive revelation. Several editors have made it plain you're wrong. You, once again, have simply reverted to wording you, alone, prefer. I wonder if you're being deliberately provocative. I have offered a compromise solution on the talk page. It's preferable that you address the issue there rather than continue your edit war against the majority. LTSally (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to enforce your personal viewpoint on the page Jehovah's Witnesses without first making sure that the consensus of editors on the talk page supports it. If you continue to editwar against the current consensus-based wording you may be blocked from editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on the Concordant Version article that it is a shame that there is not an article on A. E. Knoch or the Concordant Publishing Concern. I agree, but the difficulty in both cases it seems will be getting hold of third party sources of information. As you might know, the CPC has as an ongoing project the compilation of the Concordant Version of the Old Testament; I could not find much on this project on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csanctuary (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Adolph Ernst Knoch and de:Adolph Ernst Knoch. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up after me! Especially regarding the block quotes you're totally correct. I think it was just overkill on my part because initially it was difficult to distinguish between the regular text and the quote. I hope that my changes otherwise satisfied some of the concerns you had expressed on the article's talkpage. Doc Tropics 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chidejika.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question was inferior to one that was subsequently uploaded by a different editor. The superior image replaced the inferior in both articles, orphaning the inferior. Upon this reminded, I requested speedy deletion of inferior, which was done just a few minutes later (all last week). --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You point out I erred in assuming that the New World Translation does not use "Jehovah" in the New Testament. I find many, many uses of "God" in the NWT New Testament so had assumed it was absolute. This does leave us with a quandary in whether NWT fits in the category "Sacred name Bible]].Pete unseth (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above seems to refer to this article and this edit. He may be interested in these references...

• "Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?", The Watchtower, August 1, 2008, page 18, "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament."
• "Did the Early Christians Use God’s Name?", The Watchtower, November 1, 1993, page 30, "God’s name appeared in the Septuagint, it would also have appeared in the earliest copies of these ["New Testament"] Scriptures—at least where the Septuagint was quoted. Thus, the name Jehovah appears more than 200 times in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
• "The “New World Translation”—Scholarly and Honest", The Watchtower, March 1, 1991, page 28, "Many object to the use of the name Jehovah here [at Luke 4:18]. It is, however, just one of the more than 200 places where that name appears in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the so-called New Testament. True, no early surviving Greek manuscript of the “New Testament” contains the personal name of God. But the name was included in the New World Translation for sound reasons, not merely on a whim. And others have followed a similar course. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew, “Yahweh”) in the text of the “New Testament,” while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use it in footnotes or commentaries."
  

So, 237 times. I do not see any basis for a "quandary". --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JW What Does the Bible Really Teach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has since been used in an article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting the tag on this page encouraging editors to beef up its secondary source information? See Talk:Milton George Henschel.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments here, I have renamed two articles about court cases involving JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone![reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

My thanks for these sincere good wishes. Incidentally, I'm not among "almost everyone" in the matter mentioned in the immediately preceding comment. Still, for a few days it is nice to see almost everyone behaving more kindly than they otherwise would.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly expressed your unaffiliation though. I really don't care what your particular religious affiliation is. I care about accuracy. And to that end, I recognise that your pro-JW point of view is an important factor of keeping articles in check. You may like to read things properly before taking offence though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that you are most welcome (and needed) at the article.EGMichaels (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not link Rutherford's directions about hymns back to 'Kingdom Songs', as such a link implies that Rutherford used the more specific term. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the jargon term had been coined at that time, and unless there is evidence that he did use that specific term, then such presentation is historical revisionism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Kingdom songs, that is my response at the article's Talk and my reinstatement of the correct term "Kingdom songs". --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't read the excerpt to the end. I thought it was a Wikipedia editor who'd had the conversation at the cemetery. LTSally (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor refers to the article Beth Sarim and to this reinstatement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to article talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a tedious little monkey at times. Cute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the context of this comment should have been obvious at the time, I realise that it now seems ambiguous. It was in reference to this counter-complaint about "counter-complaining", with implications of WP:TLW. It was not intended to cause offense, and the presence of 'cute' was intended to suggest that. In hindsight, it was in poor judgement, and I apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this from user talk over to article talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have changed my user name from LTSally to BlackCab to avoid the tiresome, but entirely reasonable, false assumptions about my gender. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AuthorityTam. I have looked at WP:AN3#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: ). None of the reverts there are later than 15 April, and it is now 17 April. So we would normally close such an old report as Stale. If you believe that this is a case of long-term warring by LTSally, let me know. Otherwise, the report will be closed. Generally, it is better to open a WP:Request for comment on issues like this, which are of a very detailed nature. If you think the issue is still not resolved, you may want to consider that option. Both you and BlackCab/LTSally have reverted four or more times, but neither of you made four reverts in 24 hours. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of your complaint at WP:AN3#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned). You should not revert the article again before you have obtained a talk page consensus to support your view. Otherwise, sanctions are possible under WP:EW. I struck my previous comment because:

1. The war only involves the two of you
2. The issue at stake seems like one where wordsmithing might satisfy both parties, with a tiny bit of effort
3. Two of you have continued to revert without trying to bring in any others, or to collaborate to find additional sources. If the point is worth fighting over, it should be worth doing more research on. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is now at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned).

I'd wanted the article to keep the succinct quote from the source, while another editor insisted on an interpretation of the source which was significantly longer than the interpreted quote itself. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's drawing of Nelson Barbour you keep posting to the article profiling his life is NOT public domaine, but is copyrighted material. The original photo appears in a Rochester New York newspaper, but the artist's rendering is copyrighted. The copyright holder is James Penton. You may not post the photo without his permission. Misrepresenting the source of the photo and claiming it as public domaine material does not obviate the need for his permission. Stop posting the photo to the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.226.232 (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) THE NEW IMAGE IS ALSO COPYRIGHT. THERE IS NO PUBLIC DOMAINE PHOTO OF NELSON BARBOUR. STOP USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL![reply]

Hey AT - I just wanted to mention that I am wholehearted with you on this "myth" issue. If you ever need an extra voice in a debate, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. NickCT refers to WP:LABEL and Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#Myth. See the permanent link to that discussion.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I am going to integrate your reference into the text, is that ok? If you don't like the way it looks you can revert the changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor likely refers to this edit. The blockquote was simply the fastest and easiest way for me personally to introduce the information into the article John Frelinghuysen Talmage; I'd be pleased to see it incorporated better. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've been busy ferreting through my editing history again, but just a couple of points of correction ...

• Thanks for the reminder of the wording on my user page about being sickened by the claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community of Jehovah's Witnesses. That was certainly one of the things that drove me out of your religion, but you may note those words don't appear on my user page any more.
• Your collection of my quotes here, which you've used before as part of a previous personal attack, includes the rather poorly edited extract that suggests I was saying you were bent. What I actually wrote was that you seem unnaturally bent on restirring controversy over material I removed in order to minimise offence to Jehovah's Witness readers. And that, disappointingly, is evidently still the case.

You seem similarly bent on misrepresenting my use of the illustration about the sharpened stake to suggest that I mean you personal harm. There may be other distortions and inaccuracies as well in what you say, but I don't have the time or interest to look them up. I think it's time for you to move on and focus more on article content and less on personal invective. BlackCab (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created articles at your suggestion[3][4][5] in the hope that third-party references would be added later. Even at the time you were incapable of expressing gratitude for creating the articles for you[6][7]. I told you at the time that I had concerns about the notability of the content[8][9][10]. With your additional recent irrelevant (and largely misleading) ad hominem attack at the AfD pages, you're very close to being reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid trying to join the dots to work out Jeffro77's relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses, if any. Please focus on the content and arguments for keeping those articles, rather than fomenting a personal dispute. Jeffro77's own potential motivations for nominating those articles for deletion should be of little concern to you, you should be more concerned about persuading other editors that the articles should be retained. Bringing up your speculations in such detail only gives the appearance of a disruptive vendetta. I would advise that you strike your comments at the AfD speculating about Jeffro77's past. Fences&Windows 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you did similar mining of old comments on another editor recently. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Digging through an editor's old comments to find what you think are incriminating comments and then posting them is looking like a pattern of behaviour that might constitute harassment. Fences&Windows 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this isn't on my front burner, but it seems advisable to note that I hadn't 'joined the dots'; I merely quoted and linked Jeffro's own comment. When he was asked how he knew about Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshippings, Jeffro replied "FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE". As a lifelong speaker of English, I believed (and believe) the terms "firsthand" and "firsthand experience" to have concrete definitions.

When an editor later claims to be objective on a matter, I'm not sure it is wrong to quote his own past comments on that matter. I'd be interested to see an official WP policy on that.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you attempted to obscure this response amongst 'hiding bot edits'[11]. If you continue your unfounded insinuations, you will be reported again. To be clear, though it is absolutely none of your business and I am granting you some degree of latitude, I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses. However, as I indicated five years ago in the online comment you so eagerly cite above from a discussion in which you were not involved, I am indeed certainly well aware of a good number of firsthand experiences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were also just as confused when you read in the 8 December 1991 Awake!, "Hearing the firsthand experiences of survivors helps us understand their feelings." How could someone possibly report about hearing "firsthand experiences"? Based on your claimed understanding of 'concrete definitions', this cannot possibly be reconciled. Of course, we both know very well that there is really no problem with the wording in either case. You trawled through my edit history trying to find incriminating 'evidence', and now you're trying to justify yourself. Stop digging a hole for yourself. You may now apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Traveling overseers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

ambiguous redirect

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeffro77 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wont it be good to change the heading "Doctrine" to "development of Doctrine"? because reader may think it as the doctrines rather than as history of development of them..Matrix356 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor refers to the template Template:Jehovah's Witnesses and the article Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. I don't object to his thought, but I feel less strongly than he does about the matter. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is specifically against subpage guidelines to use the structure you started setting up. (Under "Disallowed uses", WP:Subpages states, "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.") I have therefore requested AfDs for those subpages. Additionally, JW statistics for individual specific years are not particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfD's which are discussed in thread immediately above.

• Articles for deletion nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009

I have nominated Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles for deletion nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008

I have nominated Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Burt Brinckerhoff. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested .... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians?. BlackCab (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've drawn up a table of terms at Talk:Christian mortalism#Table of terms regarding the intermediate state. Please take a look and comment. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to have to go to the effort of raising a User RFC. So instead, I request that you refrain from future attempts of 'character assassination' and other personal attacks of myself or other editors. Please restrict your comments to article content rather than relying on your interpretations or speculations of motives. Whilst I am not claiming infallibility, a summary of my purported failings is not required in response to this request. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question elsewhere about the meaning of the term "kneejerk", the term refers to an automatic reflex in response to stimulus. In literal terms, though response time is sometimes measured by tapping the patella, the 'kneejerk' is the patellar reflex itself rather than the time take for the reaction to occur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to exist although it has articles in it. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was on its way. Category:Pyramidology was created one minute after the comment above. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I wanted to leave it to you rather than pre-empt you. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unbalanced archival of the Bible Student movement Talk page was as a result of User:Mikhailov Kusserow's fairly dogmatic process of archiving whatever was there every year. He did this on quite a large number of articles, without any discussion with other involved parties across various WikiProjects. He has been asked to stop by various people including myself, and, at least it seems so far, that he's given it a miss this year. Fingers crossed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a {{hat}} template on the out-of-scope part of the section at the Noticeboard. There is no point in continuing tangents of tangents, nor is there any value in continue to assert things about me there. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, do you doubt the veracity of this fact of history? It has been well documented, and the photo has appeared in many books. Along with all of the documented evidence there were also a few old-timers in the Bible Student movement who would when asked share their stories about Rutherford's alcohol use. There were many who left the Society in the 20s over this matter alone. I'm really surprised you are trying to censor this. Pastorrussell (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for my revert today at the JW article. I expected a zealot would delete the well referenced entry I did (re: "avoid independent thinking") and I did not notice that your entry was indeed quite reasonable and within the rules of Wikipedia. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify your sources before attempting to discredit critics of JWs. James Beverley is a Professor at Tyndale University College and Seminary, not the Tyndale Theological Seminary. See [12]--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a month late, but I did follow up, and it appears that "Thnetopsychism", per Ludwig Ott etc. is primarily a term used in Catholic/Orthodox textbooks following Origen and St. John Damascene, wheras "Psychopannychism" is used in Calvinist textbooks following Calvin. Therefore it's simply semantics; Catholics and Calvinists have different terms for the same "heresy". Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your rant about the Founders section in this edit... Stop! No one ever asked for the lengthy list, and all editors involved already knew about the list at the other Talk page. I did not remove any information, I appropriately replaced it with a link to the original section, which is fully intact. Though restoring the lengthy list was entirely unnecessary, I don't have any major complaint to having it in a hidden section, rather then needlessly dominating the page. The restoration of the section in the hidden template makes your subsequent attack entirely irrelevant. You will be reported if you continue this behaviour of commenting unnecessarily on other editors, as you have also continued doing with BlackCab.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, in future, if you make an attack about me, I am simply going to delete it, as is permitted per WP:TALKO. Comment on content. If you subsequently edit war over the inappropriate comments about contributors, you will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your attempt to unnecessarily continue a dispute here... The comments you're complaining about that were there are there, and they are there in the {{hidden}} template that you suggested. Continuing to complain about it is simply retributive editing and is inappropriate. Can you at least try to make it easier to work with you?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For high endeavour, hardworking during GA nomination of the main JW article, exhaustive citing of sources, and for cooperation with other editors, I give you this "Editor´s Barnstar". Happy and active editing! Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to award you with this barnstar. Enjoy it. You are welcome to change the text of the barnstar towards to proper Standard English. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in shouting at each other across the article talk page, so I'll raise a slight side issue here and we can hopefully address it here in a civil exchange. You plainly don't accept that the Governing Body says that those who disassociate from Jehovah's Witnesses are practicers of lawlessness. I'm genuinely baffled by your strong feeling about this, because by my reading that message is there in black and white and reinforced with the review questions.

Paragraph 18 states plainly that JWs are to cut off contact with those who are "disfellowshipped or disassociated". The review question for that paragraph refers to cutting off contact with "a practicer of lawlessness" and asks for what this is "evidence of our hatred". You have claimed it is a tortured interpretation to apply the term "practicer of lawlessness" to those two sets of individuals. If you remove the view that the article describes such people as practicers of lawlessness, what do you have left? About whom are those seven paragraphs written?

I have said several times that the February 15, 2011 article comes the closest the Watchtower has ever done to fully explaining why those who disassociate should "be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing" (Sep 15, 1981). That 1981 article said they are to be viewed in the same way as wrongdoers (the 2008 God's Love book says without elaboration that the Bible principles pertaining to disfellowshipping of "wrongdoers" "apply equally" to those who disassociate); the 2011 WT finally lays it on the line and says those who secede are lawless and wicked.

As I've said, you disagree that the 2011 WT describes disassociated JWs as lawless. Are you able to explain then why the WTS directs that those who leave are to be shunned? The 1981 WT provided only one scripture as an explanation for the new organisational policy: 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us." That chapter (v.18) warns Christians of the appearance of "several antichrists", a term that in v.22 is defined as "the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ". It is in that context that John wrote "... they had never really belonged. If they had belonged they would have stayed with us, but they left us, to prove that not one of them ever belonged to us." That chapter nowhere applies the term "antichrist" to someone who leaves a religious denomination; nor does it direct that Christians should henceforth refuse to speak to such a person in perpetuity.

If that pale and errant scriptural justification is set aside, what do you have left? The WTS directs that those who leave are to be cut off by family and friends "because we said so".

I'm not trying to bait you here: I believe the 2011 WT finally lays it on the line. You say it doesn't. So why are Witnesses told to cut off all contact with those who leave? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and reasoning. BlackCab (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor apparently refers to this thread, at Talk:JWs#"Unrepentantly practice" revisited.
JWs typically prefer the term "disfellowshipping" to the term "shunning"; they refer to 1) the singular act of expelling an unrepentant sinner, AND to 2) the withholding of fellowship from expelled and disassociated persons, BOTH using the same "disfellowshipping" term. It is not always obvious which of the two meanings is intended. The JW publication The Watchtower of November 15, 2006 stated, "What is accomplished by disfellowshipping [that is, by withholding fellowship]? It keeps Jehovah’s holy name clear of reproach and protects the fine reputation of his people.". JWs apparently believe that a person who both i) once made a public dedication to be a Jehovah's Witness, and ii) continues to fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses, would be commonly (though mistakenly) seen by the surrounding non-Witness community as actually being a Jehovah's Witness. JWs are unwilling to be allow that misperception, it would seem. Of course, JWs themselves are better-positioned to answer questions about their beliefs and practices; their branch offices would likely respond to sincere correspondence.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I approach you directly on a civil basis and you reply in a disdainful manner, referring to me in the third person. You really do have an attitude problem.

In the interests of understanding your viewpoint I have invited you to say about whom those seven paragraphs in the 2011 WT refer, since you refuse to acknowledge that the direction to cut off contact with "practicers of lawlessness" is about disassociated Witnesses, even though they are explicitly identified. You have not answered the question, probably because there is no logical alternative to that which is presented in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. As I have explained at the article talk page here, I have satisfied your request by providing a quote from the article on which the statement is made. It is sufficiently clear and you have failed, both here and at the article talk page, to provide any logical or reasonable alternative interpretation of the article's meaning. The next time you remove the sourced statement without consensus, I will report you for edit warring. BlackCab (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NWT John1-1.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The audio clip was removed from New World Translation because it fails the following stated criteria:

1. the sample is being used for commentary on the recording in question;
2. the sample contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articles in which it is used (listed under the heading "File links" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media;

The clip as used at the NWT article did not provide anything additional to the text of the verse, and there was no commentary about the recording as distinct from the plain text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to inform you of a possible proposed deletion of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_salvation#The_.27anointed.27 which you have contributed to in the past, User:BlackCab, formerly TSally has stated that he intends to propose the page for deletion and inclusion in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs His statement is found on the talk page of a that article here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs under the heading Salvation Section I just wanted to let you know since you have contributed to the article and may have an interest that you feel should be represented. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is reason to address editors' behaviour over a long period of time on Wikipedia, there are appropriate avenues to do so. However, using article Talk pages to dredge up editors' comments from years ago is not such an avenue. Doing so only serves to exacerbate other editors, which may constitute disruptive editing. Please stick to relevant discussion on article Talk pages. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence of edits triggered by your irrelevant objection has been removed per WP:TALKO. Please stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise JW-related topics often become heated, but you are doing absolutely nothing to try to ameliorate the situation. In regard to your continued attacks on editors[13][14][15][16][17] and other retributive edits[18][19][20][21] (and many others), please cease this type of behaviour immediately. Do not attack editors on article Talk pages. Do not make smarmy retributive edits imitating previous editors. Please discuss content. If you have a problem with an editor, address them on the User Talk page, or follow Wikipedia's processes for dispute resolution. If your inappropriate behaviour continues, you will be reported. You now have an opportunity to address your behaviour, rather than simply making snide remarks about the behaviour of others.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to explain why you frequently add "aka LTSally" when referring to me? It's a strange behavior you have previously been asked to stop. I am unable to deduce what, if anything, you mean by it, and how it helps any other reader. There was no attempt to hide my username change almost two years ago; I sent a message to several users at the time, including you[22]. You present yourself as an antagonistic, belligerent and dogmatic editor, so I can only assume you are intending to antagonise and provoke me by continually adding that phrase and then going to the trouble of adding a link, which of course redirects straight back to my BlackCab user page. Your conduct is borderline disruptive editing, so here's the line in the sand. Explain your intent and then stop. If you continue, I will raise an ANI. BlackCab (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally, as an uninvolved editor, found the reference useful, because I have run across many instances where comments have been made by user:LTSally where I would not have associated the comment with User:BlackCab without the reference. I think it is simply a good faith attempt to make sure that there is transparency, and do not see any intent to be "antagonistic". Also, I find it difficult to associate identifying that a past user name is related to a current editor to be in any way "Disruptive". Willietell (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all uses of it have been in a discussion with a very small number of editors, none of whom have any confusion about who I am, nor need it pointed out that two years ago I changed my username. AuthorityTam is the only user to do this, and does this only when on the attack. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] etc etc. He can now stop. BlackCab (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that big a deal, stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. In other words, I think you may be overreacting to the situation and making more out of it than is really there. Willietell (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please assume good faith and do not assume that other editors are "on the attack". Willietell (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlackCab I looked at all the diff's you provided, and I see no attempt to be uncivil or disruptive by user:AuthorityTam. Everything looks above board to me. Willietell (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam has been told repeatedly—by admins as well as myself—to stick to content rather than making irrelevant ad hominem attacks on other editors who do not share his views, particularly when such attempts involve dredging up entirely irrelevant edits that are often years old. BlackCab, I suggest you simply remove blatant irrelevant disruptive comments per WP:TALKO rather than responding to them. Similarly, BlackCab should also avoid making reference to AuthorityTam's status as a member of JWs at article Talk, which has sometimes been the trigger for AuthorityTam's BlackCab=LTSally rants.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam, I also note that you often refer to "a certain editor", usually in obvious reference to BlackCab, or respond in the third person when a 'conversation' (using the term loosely) only involves you and BlackCab. There are very few circumstances where it would be necessary to refer to "a certain editor" rather than to "an editor" or to the named editor, with the implication that you are suggesting something about the motives of that certain editor. If "a certain editor" is simply used as a snide euphemism to side-step a more direct ad hominem attack on a named editor, you should consider whether the comment has any bearing at all on the merits of the argument in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact only in the last of those five diffs did I refer to AuthorityTam as a JW. He normally inserts the "aka LTSally" phrase in particularly tense or contentious exchanges, prompted only by his heated disagreement over content. It seems to be consistent with his habit of focusing on editors rather than content, despite repeated warnings. BlackCab (talk)<

AuthorityTam's membership as a JW is something you have raised more than once, and the number of occurences in that particular selection of diffs is unimportant. I have little doubt that AuthorityTam is a JW or is closely associated with them; he has frequently employed careful wording when objecting to being labelled whilst never actually saying he is not a member, and has also occasionally indicated that he subscribes to various beliefs common to JWs; his indirect references to editors who have left the JW religion rather than directly engaging them in conversation at Talk also comes across as a distorted form of 'shunning'. However, his membership of the religion is not usually relevant to the merits of point of discussion, and is therefore not generally something that needs to be mentioned at article Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's something you have raised as well, which upset him. I don't recall raising it recently and accept that he doesn't welcome such speculation. If there's a need to mention this at all now, it should be only to make the point that he should similarly respect other editors' wishes. He may have initially meant to make clear that LTSally and BlackCab were the same user (and an ex-JW with strongly-held negative views about the religion); continued use on dozens of occasions since then, with no relevance to anything, suggests he is simply trying to needle me and possibly imply some deviousness on my part. That's my guess: I await his explanation of why he does it. BlackCab (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, on the odd occasion, mentioned AuthorityTam's likely religious affiliation. And I indicated why it was relevant to the discussion at the time.

I'm not claiming infallability, but AuthorityTam seriously needs to drop his attitude of snide contempt for other editors who do not support JW beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor here, who has only been editing for a short time, I would like to state that I have seen what appears to be a hostile attitude displayed by some editors on Wikipedia, and usually those hostile attitudes have been directed toward's any editor who might be perceived to be a "JW editor". It seems to me that they are hounded, stalked from page to page, their edits repeatedly reverted, constantly badgered and harassed, accused of multiple violations of this, that and the other thing, and just generally treated in an extremely uncivil manner. Perhaps some self-examination by certain editors would be in order for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. After all, Wikipedia is losing new editors at an alarming rate, and there is likely a logical explanation for this trend. Willietell (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not an impartial editor in this matter. But aside from that, there is a wide range of controversial topics on Wikipedia where arguments easily erupt, and JWs is one such topic. In particular, members of religious groups—full of 'zeal' and 'righteous indignation'—often try to 'defend' or 'promote' their religion, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Instead, editors should present balanced information found in reliable sources. When content is disputed, issues (not editors) should be discussed at article Talk. If you have a problem with an editor, use User Talk or WP:Dispute resolution processes.

I have had to revert inappropriate edits by other editors both for and against JWs over the years, and every time I do, I'm labelled anti- or pro- JW, depending on whose text I've reverted. Such editors often complain that they're being harrassed when they are actually just experiencing the consequences of not following the rules.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willietell, you are certainly not an "uninvolved editor". You have gone into battle on several pages, accusing many editors, including an administrator, of bias and conflict of interest and now seem to joining a "me too" fan club for AuthorityTam, who has much to learn about manners and civility. Other editors have been unfailingly polite and patient towards you even when you persisted with your one-man crusade to have a well-sourced article deleted and rejected constant requests to produce examples of "bias".

In any case your defence of him on the grounds that pro-JW editors are being hounded is fairly lame. He has been at Wikipedia a long time and has not been afraid to resort to sarcasm and petty insult when it suits him. In this case I am approaching him directly (as I have done previously) and asking him to desist from conduct that is unhelpful and seems to be provocative. I am also offering him the opportunity to provide an explanation if his behavior is innocent. He continues to lie low. BlackCab (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in your dispute with User:AuthorityTam , which makes me an uninvolved editor in this instance. And as far as my accusing editors of bias or conflict of interest, I will say that facts are facts and if the shoe fits, wear it, as I haven't accused anyone of anything that wasn't true. Willietell (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, the shoe doesn't fit. In any case, your opinion is irrelevant because it's none of your business. I raised my concern with AuthorityTam, who has chosen to remain silent. BlackCab (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about the edit of mine you reverted [28], I thought it fit into the subheading fairly well. I restored the information after a problematic editor deleted it. Aside from the first sentence, it is almost a direct take from the cited source, which is "Question From Readers", "The Watchtower", August 15, 2011, page 22, which states:

• • • w11 8/15 p. 22 Questions From Readers ***

"Memorial partakers. This is the number of baptized individuals who partake of the emblems at the Memorial worldwide. Does this total represent the number of anointed ones on earth? Not necessarily. A number of factors—including past religious beliefs or even mental or emotional imbalance—might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know. The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones."

The first sentence in the edit "Additionally, only anointed male elders can serve on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." was in existence previously, but I saw nothing wrong with it, because it is basically true. Still, if I am missing something here, let me know, so I can understand your position on this, thanks. Willietell (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You dodged everything that I took the time to state and write, and my points, and didn't address anything, but simply edit-warred and reverted again, per your own tastes, and removed true valid words, that you personally "don't like".

So your words "unlikely that my words will persuade the editor" are applied actually to you. You're getting annoying now. And disrespectful. I went through a whole thing of why "literal" is warranted (which you ignored) and "before ages" is true and necessary and clearer, (which you ignored, but just gave out your bias about it), and ignored the points, and reverted again, stuff that's true and accurate, simply because YOU feel it's "unnecessary", which is against WP policy.

Your objection now makes no sense and is not consistent. You say now it shouldn't be done "without sourcing it", but before you said it was "not necessary because it was already there". The thing is sourced in general, that that's what is meant and taught by them. That the "begetting" was literally "first", and also that it was "before" the universal ages. It's clearer that way, and is sourced in general.

I took the time to go over the matter, and write a bunch of stuff, respectfully and thoughtfully, and deal specifically with the points, and with your objections...and you didn't even care.

You're NOT supposed to revert or remove again, when it's still in Talk, and after I wrote a whole thing dealing with it, taking the time, and then you reverting without discussing it over more in Talk, or getting full consensus maybe (even if the consensus is arguably wrong, that has not even been reached yet.) You just simply reverted again, in rude arrogance. And totally ignored everything I took the time to write and deal with. Not cool. And against WP policy and standards. Keep it up, and I'll maybe bring this to another page. I'm serious. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Hi. I came here to note that I saw your edit, Hashem's delete, restored your edit, was redeleted, invite you to restore it. Wasn't expecting to see the above. Might be better if the sentence was deleted entirely, otherwise good luck with finding a WP:RS and restore. (incidentally I have no idea who is pro-JW and anti-JW in the ongoing edit war?)...... on another topic, your contributions would be welome on general Christianity, Bible, Old Testament pages if you have an interest. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

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

Hi, thanks for the External Links to mp3s, small point - can I possibly ask, as a favour, if in view of WP:Weight that when adding this link to Bible translations into xxxx that you could perhaps do a quick Google and see if there are any of the main versions mentioned in the respective articles which could be added above the NWT mp3. It's only a request/suggestion. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On first look I thought this was a good call. Was going to suggest you add RM tag and enter RM process. The previous move in 2010 didn't, hence the sloppy result. But having just looked at another couple of sources, now not so sure. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought after your comment on my Talk page earlier that you were actually going to improve your behaviour. It seems you've stumbled a little in your efforts with your attack at Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus. I am really hoping that you are going to try to make some kind of effort to remain civil.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you a lot of leeway. Now are you going to stop hounding me, or do you need to be reported? Go on, just apologise. It'll be cathartic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just have no interest in editing collaboratively, do you? The purpose of striking comments is to remove them, so as to not elicit further offense. Responding to the removal of such comments by restating the comment (while ignoring the context) makes rephrasing completely redundant. If you imagine that re-posting the original comment scores you any points with other editors, you're sorely mistaken. Now, will you please stick to content?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see no reason to strike out reference to your use of "juvenile". So another editor called you juvenile first? What, are you five years old?? I've seen no attempt by you to civilly approach BlackCab at his User Talk page to try to work things out like adults.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it that you aim to achieve by presenting tedious tangential arguments at article Talk pages?? Why do you persist in refusing to rationally discuss matters at User Talk? Do you have any interest in collaborative editing, or is your aim simply to try to irritate editors who don't agree with your positions on articles? Please stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and closed it, and broke a guideline in doing so (according to WP:IAR). It was obvious there was no consensus (as listed in my rationale), and I believe you could have probably non-controversially closed it yourself, even though you, as I, were involved - two proponents of different views agreeing on a close means "no consensus" pretty strongly. I added, of course, in my edit summary, "feel free to reverse my close and troutslap me". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user AuthorityTam, who thrives on dispute and antagonism. BlackCab (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI has been resumed from where it left off.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Tam, I regularly see you making useful edits in non-JW areas, so I'm sorry to make middle comment on ANI. I appreciate it's very difficult in a 2 vs 1 situation like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up to the big hassle right now, at least not to deal with the nonsense alone. I was wondering if you could add your edits and comments and input to this matter, of what went on the "God the Father" article. An editor named PiCo made a radical POV change to the lede (and other spots) of this article. A blatantly pro-Trinitarian, way less neutral or balanced, lede (the lede PARAGRAPHS, not just the first line or two, or first paragraph, but everything). He did this recently, and another editor "John Carter" seems to be in agreement with the POV push (though he'll deny it's that of course), whereas "History2007" not very sure about. But no editor seriously challenged or undid this stuff. It seems that PiCo (and John Carter) fail to understand that this article is not just about title "God the Father", but the overall CONCEPT. This article should not give right off the bat the appearance that this God the Father is only about the Roman Catholic trinity view of "God the Father". I'd like your view here. But really, this can't be allowed. I will NOT violate 3RR, but already there are 2 reverts. Check out what I'm talking about right here. I wrote on the Talk page last night, explaining a bit why I reverted, and how I felt the change was way too POV, and way too unnecessary. The talk page stuff can be seen here. Anyway, I'm curious what your take on this is, and if you can help out, because I really don't need the stress this weekend. You'll probably agree with my position on this. But I'm curious. Check all this out right now if you can. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Good analysis. It was not in total agreement with mine, but I think you made the best points overall, actually. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AuthorityTAM,

I just remembered some few nice moments this and this.

You're maybe not aware of this page Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard/JW_discussion, which BlackCab

started after John Carter raised the situation ((on Christianity noticeboard)). I will be glad if you'll do your input on that 'JW discussion' page with polite and content-focused comments there.

When I was blocked almost year ago (because I firmly provoked admins to do that), it was BlackCab and Jeffro77 who was surprised from my attitude.

There is always a problem when some editors feel that Jeffro77 and BlackCab willingly work on articles to include more defamatory views on JWs than it is necessary. Some editors could feel that main article is focused on criticism and controversy, and thus some editors could be frustrated because blocking many of due/undue changes.

I read all another ANIs, User Talk pages, Article Talk pages, in which these editors participated and seems that we could cite some statements (accusations/facts) from those cases. For example "JW-vs-JWbasher", "historical pattern", "firsthand experience", LTSally (I was thinking some days ago what was original meaning of this abbreviation. Later I realized the sense.), "JW watchdogs", "tag-team" etc.

However I am still trying assume good faith WP:AGF from all participants. I also acknowledge that all 3 users including you - AuthorityTAM, are useful for Wikipedia.

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

= (my inner thoughts which I could possibly send at ANI page)

It seems unnecessary to start ANI again due only 1 edit. AuthorityTam did several comments in 1 edit --- most of the contribution was focused on article content. --- only two comments from that single edit seems to be sarcastic. Some editors perhaps could agree that he only stated facts, how he felt them.

Resuming ANI because of this single edit seems like waste of everyone time. I suppose that AuthorityTAM has 'hot head' after resuming his contributing. He probably could 'refactorize' those parts of his single edit, because such personal comments have hardly anything in common to JW articles. Generally speaking, new process here is not useful for 'ambience' amongst involved editors and even not needed, because AuthorityTAM did only 1 edit and did not continue with sarcasm.

I wish that all editors cooperate with aim to improve articles and stick to content.

See You! --FaktneviM (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is hoped that AuthorityTam will stick to content. The problem is AuthorityTam just couldn't resist a further entirely unnecessary (and misleading) attack on others' motives, after having completely ignored the statements of several editors at the ANI who indicated that his behaviour has been inappropriate. It is hoped that he will in future "stick to content".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffro77 should read part '(my inner thoughts which I could possibly send at ANI page)' again. I did not stated that I agree with resumed ANI. Even reversely. I said that single edit likely doesn't mean anything important and ANI is waste of time. He probably felt disgusted by other editors. It is clear that WP:AGF is essential for WikiProject JW. But that applies for everyone! Not only AuthorityTam. For instance User:Jeffro77 have high-ego-nature and he is used to have last word every time. He is not willing to admit the possibility that he has not truth in some way and deliberately resuming ANI because of single comment (= partial citation of others comment) seems like that User:Jeffro77 also have not interest to calm down 'ambience' amongst involved editors. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you agreed with anything at all, and your subjective opinions of my 'nature' are irrelevant. AuthorityTam had the option to simply move on and not continue to comment about other editors at article Talk pages. He still has that option.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it was written in User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#AuthorityTam, I agree that AuthorityTam previously (before resuming editing on 29th) used unnecessary comments about Jeffro77 and BlackCab. He should avoid such behaviour and stick to content only next time. Although I have to repeat again my previous opinion that this edit is not proper reason for resuming ANI and call for all other editors to come. As Fazilfazil commented at ANI, AT never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. (I don't know which words precisely he thought, but I had several times similar feelings with contact) I suggest to simply move on for both sides. There is no simple solution. All editors have to retreat. And after that, perhaps another 'feel the love' amongst JW-articles' editors will come. 'Simply move on' as previous edit here suggested. Do the first step. AT will do the second step. Try it. --FaktneviM (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam is welcome to "move on" by not referring to other editors at article Talk pages and instead, sticking to content. AuthorityTam took "the first step" by continuing to make oblique references to other editors after he returned to editing, without any provocation whatsoever. The response to that first step was to resume the ANI because he has not yet modified his behaviour. He again has an opportunity to take the first step by modifying his behaviour. This remains to be seen. I will not be bullied away from Wikipedia just because AuthorityTam feels contempt toward editors he imagines to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]