User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Well which is which?

Which one of my edits was unesscary and POV? obth of them were fact and no POV. and to to me i feel that both were nessecary. they were facts that were left out. please respond.Mstare88 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Mstare88 couldn't figure out that "This religon is false. and it is not in any part apartof Christianity. Do not follow this religon" was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Sheesh.--Jeffro77 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not those.

i was talking about the edit that i made about the not beliving in hell and the 144,000.Mstare88 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit as regards not believing in hell is simply incorrect. JWs do not believe in the hellfire doctrine, and this is addressed later in the article. This doctrinal point isn't so outstanding that it is really meritous of inclusion in the lead. The detail about the 144,000 is also unnecessary for the lead in addition to being rather misleading and irrelevant. (apologies for answering on your talk page, Jeff) -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T17:30Z

[edit] In need of guidance

Jeffro77 are you the author of contraversies regarding JW's page? If so would you approve this hyperlink to your page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_system and tell me if it's informative enough to be hyperlinked to the United Nations Association block. It would give the reader a clear picture why NGOs is not incorporated into the United Nations System. Would I need to require approval from the author of that other page as well? thanks REVO2 02:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. No, I can't. It might. No, you don't.--Jeffro77 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning about WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin Shilmer

I hope you will take into consideration the latest claims from Marvin Shilmer in the main discussion right now. Wikipedia is not meant for preaching, and not meant for attacking. I hope that the neutrality and quality of Wikipedia can be defended. Wikipedia is actually not for discussions. It is neither for various opinions or personal claims about a topic. Summer Song 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I wish you would for example consider some of the stuff I was discussing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Stafford_no_longer_affiliated_with_Watchtower_Bible_and_Tract_Society

Summer Song 08:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practice instead of Reverence

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that in context refusing to follow someone's "reverence" sounds odd. I also don't want to mis-state their view -- merely to tone down a phrase. "Practice" doesn't violate the context or the Watchtower view. Best, Tim 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro -- I think a direct quote would solve the problem. That way there's no possibility of Wikipedia saying the practice is superstitious, but instead Wikipedia quoting someone saying the practice is superstitious. There's the same issue in the American Standard Version article and I haven't gotten to it yet, but I think it was something like a quote. I've actually been reading up on the subject in some lexical resources. The practice certainly predates Christianity in translation, which is why the Septuagint and New Testament had no qualms using kyrios and theos. I'm not sure of synagogue use, although I would expect Jews to have been observing the third commandment for a long time before. In any case, I've spent WAY too much time on this page. I was expecting five minutes on the info box and then to move on (I've been standardizing the textual base, translation type, and reading levels across the board). It's been close to a week now and I haven't been able to get to any other translations since, and I should have finished the rest of them by now! I appreciate your writing me so we could try to reach some kind of concord on the problem. Best, Tim 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the band

I saw the article on the band, The Jehovah's Witnesses, by clicking "random articles". The record company is a real company. That's all I know. Congolese (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV refs

Point taken. But please give an example or two of offensive refs. and I will try to clean it up. Thanks --Brotherlawrence (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that saying 'loving parents' might be a POV, but, in answer to your question (parents who don't have a bible study are unloving???)your reasoning here has justification, but the logic seems extreme. 'It's like asserting that saying "loving parents buy their children a car" leads to the conclusion that parent's who don't buy their children cars are unloving.' I agree the the word loving is essentially a POV and can be left out. It's just that your wording seems to overstate the logic a bit. The phrase "loving parents still arrange to have a home Bible study with minor disfellowshipped children" is not intended to define loving parents, just to show the loving nature of that action. But, again it is possible to have your POV of that phrase which demonstrates your point. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will take all this into consideration.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Some refs re the use of "ex." (although I wasn't the one who used this abbrev.)
>>"For example" is often abbreviated ex., e.g., and i.e. [1] >>""For example" is often abbreviated ex., e.g., and i.e." [2] >>What is the appropriate usage of "ie.", "eg.", and "ex."?...::::Question: I think I have been using these abbreviations incorrectly. I use them interchangeablly, and I use them each to mean "for example". Any clarification on their usage would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Answers: I always knew latin would come in handy ...i.e. = id est = "that is". Use this if you are restating something. Think of inserting the term "in other words" in place of i.e., if this makes sense you are using it right. e.g. = exempli gratia = "for the dake of example" = use this when listing examples of something. ex. : an abbreviation of example...so I don't reccomend doing it. i.e. stands for "id est" or "that is" in Latin, e.g. is another Latin abbreviation meaning "for example". You can use them pretty much interchangeably, but as you see there is a slight difference in meaning so that one might be more appropriate in a particular context. I assume "ex." simply means "example:" [3]--Brotherlawrence (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you are probably right. I just wondered what your verifiable source might be for your scholarly observation, to wit "'i.e.' is not interchangable with 'e.g.',though is a common error by careless writers. Use of 'ex.' for example is non-standard and not appropriate in an encyclopedia,." Verifying this rule with a source would be helpful. I respect your scholarship. Not trying to argue. Thanks. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regard

Jeffro77: Just a note to express that I am not the enemy, or your enemy. I am a friend, and I want to express my Christian affection. Though you have your own opinion of me for your own reasons, I do not find it offensive for you to share your views one way or another. I love you, and am Christian-man enough to say it out loud. It is good that you feel free to share your views of me with me.

You know, or should know by now, that I have tremendous resources for research at my disposal. If there is something I may be able to help you retrieve or find, please feel free to ask. Best regards,--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)