User talk:Jeffro77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 2005 | 2006 | 2007

[edit] Attack?

Since when arguments and documentation are considered as attack?--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] “Only Unfavorable Edits”

You have accused me of making only unfavorable edits on pages impinging the subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I appreciate that you have a point of view that you feel compelled to share, including accusations of my person apparently. But you are dead wrong in your accusation of me. I doubt you have read every edit I have made in order to make the absurd allegation you do. Nevertheless, you are wrong. Many occasions I have removed unfavorable edits based on one thing and one thing alone: the information was not verified. This is the criteria for encyclopedic content. Also, I have added material such as the purpose and function of the Watchtower’s Hospital Information Services Department expressing that this is a beneficial thing. It is sad that you choose to make derogatory accusations of editors, particularly when these are demonstrably false. You should be ashamed of yourself!!! I advise any editor working on an encyclopedic work to concentrate their skills not on pro or con, but on verifiability. Information that is verifiable is good information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A review of all of Marvin's edits to articles from the user account's creation to partway through May 2007 (at which point I got bored) revealed that almost all of those edits presented JWs in an unfavourable light.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding Your Edit

I appreciate your helping with style and grammar. But the edit of the refs. at 13:26 in the 'Death' section went over my head. All I could tell the it changed from yellow to green. What was the change? --Brotherlawrence (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal case

Following a request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with the page "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". The following have been notified about this:

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane meetup

	Brisbane Meetup Next: In Discussion Last: February 10, 2008 This box: view • talk • edit

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Giggabot (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation

Hi Jeffro77, regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article - what concerns, if any, do you have with current version? Addhoc (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have you thought about this?

Should the articles Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, International Bible Students Association be merged? They are mostly short and would, in my opinion, be more clarified if discussed together in one article. Maybe a discussion is needed. No one seems to have been interested in such a discussion yet. Summer Song (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And what do you think about merging these two articles? Kingdom Melodies and Kingdom songs Summer Song (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that if you do that, the Kingdom Melodies article would need to be condensed quite a bit.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to intrude.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NWT sub-user page

Jeffro77: I have created a sub-user page to continue editing the article on the NWT.

You know the current circumstance of dispute. It is understandable that you have not offered public comment, and I am neither asking that you do so nor that you continue refraining. But, if you want, any feedback on my page set up for continuing the work of improving this article would be appreciated. You understand Wikipedia policy, and have demonstrated a competent perspective on appropriate presentation and verification. Despite my intention of working to improve this article, we both know feedback you offer on this sub-user page could be construed one way or another regarding the current dispute. Hence, if you decline my invitation it is understandable. Regardless, whether you like it or hate it, perhaps something in my editing will offer ideas for later editing to improve the Wikipedia article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

Thank you for your contribution to my talk page. Then, what do you think POV edits? I don't write that JW's view is right. Jehovah's Witnesses don't think forming voluntary relationships to UN is against JW doctrine. If it is true, JW don't form voluntary relationships with governments when disasters occur. You should be careful of the fact that JW also believe U.S. & U.K government are wild beast. If JW couldn't take hand in U.S. & U.K. govenment, how would they help members of disaster victims? JW think it is Biblical requirement to help needy members.(James 2:15-17,NWT) I think Wikipedia's current statement that critics view is the fact is POV. 125.193.23.145 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I never did an edit to the Jehovahs Witness page, it was the talk page but thanks anyway I guess for the advice. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The accusation below is patently false. See reply at Jesse Jaimes' talk page --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, on the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses talk page you defended an editors right to call Jehovah's Witnesses stupid. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if an editor has "the right to be here" where is "here"? Do you mean to say the editor has the right to edit? If so then I agree! There is no other "here" but as editor or observer. But you were defending the editors right to edit, not to observe, weren't you? Then you were defending the editors right to comment on a talk page. Jeffro77, I will defend your right to comment on talk pages and I will continue to comment on talk pages myself. Peace Jesse Jaimes (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jesse_Jaimes

Yep Jesse Jaimes (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah: Your edit of 08:37, 11 February 2008

I agree with you edit. The previous addition to the text was untrue, malevolent and innappropriate. Thanks for your kind attention to detail.--JW-somewhere (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah - restore font for consistency, your edit of 11:03, 12 February 2008

I agree with restore font 'for consistency', but disagree on appearance of typefaces. There must be a better way of representing Hebrew characters. However, I'm not going to engage in a back and forth edit/re-edit exercise. Regards.JW-somewhere (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I might look up your link/reference. Thanks for taking the trouble. Regards.--JW-somewhere (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] self ident

Jeffro77 I have watched the article for over a year, "self-Identifies as Christian" is as close as one can get to neutral on the subject. My personal beliefs aside, self identification as Christian is truthful, accurate and cannot be disputed whatsoever. I think it is a good wording. What are your thoughts?Jesse Jaimes (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not a sock puppet of mister shilmer (LOL) but I have been an observer of his crusade. I know what wording will work in that sentence and "new religious movement" is not it since Christianity is not new. Simply saying JWs are Christian is setting up for an edit dispute since only 7 million of 7 billion (.01%) people are going to accept that. My personal opinion is irrelevent and so is shilmers, this article needs to be torn down and re written, it is monsterously overgrown and hard to read. I am trimming it, something I have planned for quite some time. Since the JW page is just one article in a series I don't believe the one article needs to be a comprehensive explaination of Jehovah's witnesses so I am in some cases simply leaving a link to a sub page. I welcome your input. And Please allow me to apologize for having offended you days ago. I am sorry. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that not every non JW would consider JW's as not Christian, however I am hoping to build a neutral article. Also the article contains the "Christian Series Template" which I am not going to remove. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blank line between section heading and content

I added the blank line between the section headings and content because this seems to be the overwhelming Wikipedia format standard.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style is neutral, with no preference either way.

WP:Mos: "Spaces above and below headings are optional. Only two or more line-spaces above and below will change the appearance by adding more white space."

Personally I agree with the majority usage. Yes, for one edit it will require on to look down one line to compare text, but after that I believe that it makes the section headings and content easier to read and scan quickly. --Editor2020 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)->

ps. If if bugs you, I'll try to avoid it on pages you contribute to.

[edit] your change to "studies in the scriptures" purpose section

Good change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediation successful?

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has requested clarification on whether mediation has been successful. Is arbitration still required? Could you please consider adding a short statement at WP:RFAR within the next 12-14hrs, with a concise update (one or two sentences) regarding your level of satisfaction of the resulting article, and whether the user conduct issues have abated.

If there are outstanding content issues, please list them at the talk page. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Negative Slant?

Jeffro: I note your remarks to editor Jayvdb. Since I do not invoke my membership in the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as an authoritative basis for any edits I have provided on Wikipedia, I fail to understand why the veracity of this claim of membership is an issue that should impede discussions between two editors with a common interest (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Nevertheless, for my benefit it would be appreciated were you to expand a bit on your suggestion that I insert negative slants by “highlighting negative truths and ignoring positive truths.” Do you make this observation based on review of everything I have submitted on subjects impinging the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or based on a selective review of what I have submitted? In either case, it would be appreciated were you to share a couple of examples of what you speak. My intention is to present whatever is the fact of a matter without regard for how this (or these) is perceived in terms of pro or con. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have previously provided such information. Refer to archives of JW Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have read probably every entry you have made on the JW talk page for the last several months, and maybe even for the last year. I find no objective reason from statements of yours for you to have concluded as you have, and as you have expressed to other editors about me. My own observation is that editors here tend to view my participation based on their own bias rather than my actual work. For instance, of my inclusion of information about the governing body as of 1884, editors here expressed displeasure because they thought I was using “true” information to embarrass the Watchtower organization. Yet, admitted JW haters also disliked the exact same edit, and removed the data for this reason. Hence, different biases examined the exact same edit, and both thought the information was slanted contrary to what they would like to see. When one of the JW haters removed the information in question from the Wikipedia article, I added it back. I added the material back because it was spot-on relevant and, most of all, it was verifiable.

In the latest episode editor Cfrito complained and complained about including NWT membership information (names) as presented in primary and secondary sources. My position was to remove this information to the reference section. It ended up that all third-party views of this matter aligned with my own, except that I was willing to have the info in the reference section whereas the others felt it had a place in the main text.

Another observation I have is that too many editors here expend time talking about personalities and "sides" than holding objective and considered discussion of content and presentation issues.

For what it’s worth, my conclusion is that editors here want to label my activity based on a selective reading of my work here and elsewhere. I believe this is what you have done, too. This is made worse when an editor takes the time to share this slanted view of me yet does not take the time to share examples of their claim to help resolve any misconceptions, should there be a misconception. It is disappointing to see an editor is more willing to talk about a fellow editor than to talk with that editor. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. NWT Talk page. 9 January. 8:03am. And to further demonstrate my point, here is a sample of some of your (Marvin's) work over at JWD (from a randomly selected topic created by Marvin):

This is to announce a newly refurbished web site at jwtruth.com.
This site intends to work as a clearing house of information about the WTS and its religious abuses. The site will also aid activists who want the WTS to stop its religious abuses.
I was asked by the administrators of jwtruth.com to make this introduction. I agreed after I was convinced this group of individuals will only present and archive information that is true.
Now I invite readers here to examine the new jwtruth.com and make up your own minds about the material there and whether you want to become more involved with issues affecting the people of Jehovah’s Witnesses by helping to hinder, if not stop, the WTS’ religious abuses.
As you ponder this new web site remember that a whole new generation of children is growing up under the WTS’ religious hierarchical oligarchy and without a doubt these too will face the same nightmares most of us did of an Armageddon held over their heads as recompense for failure to live perfect little lives within the Kingdom Hall and Watchtowerdom.

There is no way of arguing these to be the words of a JW in good standing. Not only do they state that the religion is guilty of religious abuses, but any JW who was known to promote a site they regard as 'apostate' would be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have never argued that the Watchtower organization sanctions (approves of) my work as Marvin Shilmer. There is a distinction between the Watchtower organization and the people making up Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is not newsworthy that the Watchtower organization would undoubtedly take steps to disfellowship me were it to know my identity. I have said as much myself on more than a few occasions. This does not mean I am not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It only means my acts would be punished by the current leadership of the Watchtower organization, or at least by some of them. But, then, this is not newsworthy, either. What they disfellowship for today they did not disfellowship for yesterday, and will not disfellowship for tomorrow. I do not measure my standing as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses by current Watchtower dogma. Rather, I measure it by how I am accepted by the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses that know me in person, including the extensive number perfectly well aware of my work as Marvin Shilmer. Among the latter is the whole body of elders in my current congregation, not that it is any of your business. You neither know me personally nor are fully aware of my work.

The articles are about the organisation. If you imagine that you can disagree with that organisation and still be a member in some wishy-washy sense, that is entirely up to you. However, your objectivity regarding the organisation is biased, and that is why I made my statements regarding my confidence in your veracity. I am not going to discuss the matter further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have never claimed or suggested that I hold no bias regarding the Watchtower organization. But this is not what you have said of my person.

You have accuse me of “making only 'unfavourable' [true] edits, rather than a balance of edits” and you have accuse me of “highlighting negative truths and ignoring positive truths”.

Since you have seen fit to say these things of my person, and to repeat them in full public view, then I expect you to substantiate precisely what you have said. Do you think this is asking too much? Or, are you willing to talk accusingly about someone without bothering to prove what you say?

I am not the editor around here accusing other editors and then failing to substantiate (or at least discuss!!!) what I say. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, digressing back to the subject, it would be appreciated were you to expand a bit on your suggestion that I insert negative slants by “highlighting negative truths and ignoring positive truths.” Do you make this observation based on review of everything I have submitted on subjects impinging the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or based on a selective review of what I have submitted?

Since you are willing to talk about me to others, it would be very much appreciated if you would talk with me about the same issue(s). For your information, when I chose to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses it was considered a badge of honor to speak up for what it true no matter the consequences. What you quote of me above is precisely that. My religious disposition as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses compels that I put my worship of God ahead of any man, group of men, or organization. In my experience, this is a commonly held conviction voiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, though each one decides when, where and how to manifest it regarding the Watchtower organization itself. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: In your entry on the NWT Talk page. 9 January. 8:03am you write, “Various edits of Marvin's over at jehovahs-witness.com do reveal him to have a bias. This is not a problem in itself, as editors are naturally entitled to their own views, and this in itself does not invalidate a person from making edits when those edits are verifiable. However making only unfavourable [true] edits, rather than a balance of edits, is very telling, and quite disappointing.”

I responded to this statement of yours on your talk page and on the NWT talk page. To this day you have not substantiated your allegation of me, yet you persist in derogatory gossip of my person. Why do you do this? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not consider your responses valid. You make frequent negative views about the organisation, even just a few paragraphs above, yet when convenient to you, you try to back up your arguments by asserting that you are a member of the religion. The issue is not merely that you have a bias against the organisation, but that you will play either side when you think it is convenient. Because of this, I have no confidence in your veracity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have not attempted to substantiate a single solitary edit on Wikipedia based on my experience with or long affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you feel otherwise then prove it with something beyond your general accusations! Where have I done this? Show me.

For that matter, what do you mean by “play either side”? What is this supposed to mean? Where have I supposedly done this?

You have taken the liberty of accusing my person of some rather nasty things, yet you have yet to substantiate what you write beyond repeating your accusations and suspicion. Why are you doing this? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have stated to you and to others that I do not wish to engage you because I do not trust your veracity for the reasons stated above; for your condescenion; and for your biased conclusions unsupported by your own research. For that reason I have stepped away from engaging your longwinded debates. I explained that to the user who let me a message about the mediation process - that is not "malicious gossip", it is a solicited explanation. For the reasons I have already stated, I do not wish to engage you further, though this will not dissuade me from continuing to edit articles which may warrant some discussion, which I will limit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I do not give a rat's pattooti whether you 'trust my veracity' because I do not and have not used my own opinions or experiences as a basis for editing content here. I have no idea why this is even something you waste your time thinking about, let alone considering as though it has some significance. Do you think the habit of making me a subject of your gossip and sweeping accusations is behavior that breeds 'trust of veracity', whatever that is supposed to mean? At least I have the decency to prove what I assert here with something beyond my own opinion. To do otherwise would be dishonest, not to mention cowardly! I leave you to your ways. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easier question for you

Jeffro77: Perhaps this is an easier question for you to answer:

Is it okay with you for me to freely and without notice tell other editors here in full public view that you make only unfavorable true edits rather than a balance of edits, and that you highlight negative truths an ignore positive truths, and then refuse to substantiate my allegations in discussion directly with you, the victim of the malicious gossip? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A review of your edits to articles reveals this: From the point you started editing under the name Marvin Shilmer until at least May 2007, almost all of your edits were about promoting dissent among JW members about the prohibition on blood transfusions, with brief forays into mentioning failed Armageddon prophecies and removing the label of Christian. The latter become one of your topics of focus from then on, which then spread out to a few other issues, but almost always promoting negative views of the JW religion. This is a matter of record.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More opinion. No data. Why am I not surprised? In case you have not noticed, I am not an editor who makes other editor's person a subject of discussion with other editors. You are.

The data is in the paragraph above. Specifically, anyone can review the edits referred to above to confirm that they consist of what is stated above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I did review it. Your opinion is reeks with bias favoring your preferential view of me. In short: You see what you want to see. It shows in your interactions with editors, too. I leave you to your ways. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then... which edits to articles during the period specified did not match what I stated above? Do you actually imagine that I have developed a 'preferential view' of you based on absolutely nothing whatsoever? That I have singled you out completely arbitrarily? You've got to be kidding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: None. That’s how many. The primary distinction of edits is whether they express what is verifiable, or not. I have never intentionally presented any edit here that is false, something you admit yourself by saying that I highlight “truths”.

Selective verifiability is still bias. As an example I cite the site formerly known as 'Quotes'. It quoted verbatim passages from JW literature, but the quotes were specifically selected to highlight embarassing or negative aspects of the religion. Entertaining? Maybe. Appropriate? Well, not here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But you have not demonstrated I have selectively presented information, or selectively verified anything. I dislike misuse of information, probably more than you. Particularly the Quotes web site has no place here because it was illegally using copyrighted material. In Wikipedia articles I have removed it as a source. If you believe I have selectively verified anything, anything at all, please feel free to point it out to me for correction.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost without exception, the entire edit history for the period reviewed was selective verifiability. You have entirely (deliberately?) missed the point of the allusion to the Quotes site. The text portions of the Quotes site were permissible under fair use, and whether you have tolerated quoting from it in Wikipedia was not the point being addressed here. The point is that just like the Quotes site, you choose to make edits primarily regarding aspects of JWs that present it in a negative way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You are apparently completely unaware that your entire response is nothing more than one gargantuan opinion. What exactly is "negative" about presenting verifiable information? Unlike the Quotes web site, my edits here are part of a larger whole, a whole where due weight is important, and a whole where multiple editors have content privileges. Hence, I fail to see any comparison between Quotes and me. I do not even know why you think the two have any possible comparison given the unavoidable and huge disparity in content editing.

You have yet to express a single edit here on Wikipedia where my edits are, somehow, inappropriate, or somehow “selective” in presentation or verification. What on earth is keeping you from doing this, given 1) that you have taken time to gossip about my person, and 2) the amount of time you have given in futile attempt at defending your gossip? It is neither my duty nor my care to refute what you say of me. I am only wondering why you gossip about my person rather than speaking directly to me about an edit you have an issue with. That you are willing to do the former rather than the latter is telling. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I could quote almost any of your edits for the period analysed, but it is the bulk of the edits, and the absence of exceptions to those kind of edits that demonstrate the issue. There has been no gossip, only discussion with persons involved; foremost, I advised 'your person' (that's getting a bit old too) of these issues before mentioning anything to anyone else. You close again with another of your tired sound bites - how droll.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Then please do that and stop namby-pamby around. You keep saying what you can do but you do not actually do anything. If you can quote "almost any" of my edits demonstrating what you term as 'selective verification' then please cite one edit I have made that is, according to you, a 'selective verification'. Then we shall see how objective is your gossip! Given the alleged abundance of these edits then providing a single example should be easy, not to mention less time consuming than namby-pambying around. So get on with it. Or, are you finding it hard to actually prove what you gossip of?

Your request demonstrates that you have entirely missed the point. It is like asking someone with a bag of apples to show them one apple to prove that the bag is full of apples. Showing one apple does not prove the point, and it is tedious to show them all of the apples. The fact is, 'the bag of apples' that constitute the period of review contained very little else, and anyone who also reviews your edits will recognise that they are comprised of what I stated earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: It is pathetic that you can accuse me of things like "selective verification" but when asked to offer a single example of such an edit you fail to do so. You keep saying you have a whole barrel of apples. Yet you have yet to show a single apple to anyone! I guess it must be so, since you say it is so! Is that your normal argument form?

My guess is you know by now how silly was/is your gossip of me because you have realized my edits are not as you say, and were you to offer an example it would only allow me to demonstrate your biased perspective on this whole issue. There is little doubt that, by now, you would have offered at least one example of what you allege in order to demonstrate your credibility, if not to show good faith. But you have not. Do you think this behavior of yours helps the process of improving Wikipedia? I see no purpose whatsoever in your behavior other than an attempt to cast aspersion on an editor, which only lessens your credibility. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall no instance of us having a discussion about any editing where a review of the edit and your perspective either resulted in 1) change to the language or 2) refutation of your complaint. In other words, if there are open content issues to complain about you have not made me privy to it, though you have taken it upon yourself to gossip to others of my editing. For the life of me, I cannot understand such behavior. Where did you learn this? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling your bias into question and your consistent focus on negative or controversial aspects of the religion have indeed been previous topics addressed to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have read your accusations of my person. But I have no recollection of you ever accusing that an edit of mine was based on “selective verification”. Please show me where you have ever suggested as much and I was unwilling to examine your claim for veracity.

Since you are apparently unaware of the following, I will express them for you:

1) Holding a bias does not mean any particular edit is based on selective verification.

2) Negativity is seen from a perspective of bias.

3) Controversy has nothing whatsoever to do with whether an edit is appropriately verified. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When a person perceives a seed (or seeds) of dissent in verified statements it is a demonstration of biased perception. Rather than taking and using verified information, and appreciating its usefulness on that basis, you instead treat it like leprosy by characterizing it as “promoting” a political preference. It is a fool’s errand you run.

Ridiculous. Your broad theory of biased perception would mean that no one should ever honestly perceive bias in selective quoting. That is called gullibility.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But you have not demonstrated selective quoting of me, and until you do and I fail to correct it, your perspective remains one of bias rather than using verified information for what it represents.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See above. If you disagree, please provided the edits to articles for the period reviewed that do not present information that is negative or controversial regarding JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, it seems that you haven't taken your own advice. "Then please do that and stop namby-pamby around. You keep saying what you can do but you do not actually do anything."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have no idea how to offer what you ask because I do not look at edits in terms of negative or positive. I only look at edits in terms of 1) verified or unverified, 2) due weight and 3) relevant to the topic. I think any edit that is verified, weighted and relevant is an appropriate edit for Wikipedia, and appropriate edits are positive edits. I do know of any current Wikipedia edits that were made by me that are inappropriate. Hence I am unaware of any edits I would see as negative. A negative edit is one that is either unverified, or unduly weighted or irrelevant. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I must assume you know what you have in mind in your accusations of me; hence you have an ability to stop namby-pamby around and actually show some evidence of what you claim. Yet you refuse to offer this at every turn, even when you are specifically asked to do so. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you consider “promoting dissent among JW members,” but apparently you think it so to speak what is true (verifiable, that is). I consider no statement of truth (verified content) as promoting of dissent among JWs. Do you?

Your comments on the blood issue were for the promoting of dissent that allegedly exists among JWs regarding their blood policies. Nearly all of your edits in the period analysed were about the blood issue and presented unfavourable views thereof. Such focus indicates an agenda.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Says who? You? What I presented regarding the acceptance among JWs of the Watchtower's blood doctrine is what the record shows. No more and no less. If the historical record on this point says something you would prefer it not say, then what of it? Until you can demonstrate what you allege of me, what you accuse me of remains nothing more than gossip when you say it to others rather than me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons for singling me out for your harmful gossip are your own. All I can do is realize what you are doing, and make it plain. I can also talk to you about it rather than other editors. That you choose to do the latter is telling. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

'Harmful gossip'? Well, is it harmful? No, it's not, because other editors already regard you to be biased anyway. The only thing it may harm is your ability to promote negative statements about the JW religion, while at the same time claiming to be a member, particularly to arbitrators during mediation. So is it gossip? No, because I have only made such statements to people who have been directly involved. Also, from the outset, I tried to help you with your prideful and condescending approach, about which, other editors have also concurred. (The irony of your condescending reply to FCSuper regarding their reply to your defense about your condescension would have been amusing if it wasn't so embarrassing.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You read into words what you want those words to say. It is a fool's errand. As for whether gossip is harmful, I suppose it depends on who is on the receiving end. In your case, the sting is disappointment. You are otherwise able and competent. Why you lower yourself to talking about persons rather than things and ideas is puzzling, that is unless you hold an undeclared bias. Unfortunately, your habit of gossip suggests the latter since you take it upon yourself to talk about me without talking to me about the issues first.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I previously addressed the issues of your bias to you, in 2007.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you change your mind, and elect to discuss particular edits of mine with me to improve Wikipedia articles, please feel free. This would be an improvement on that habit of gossip.

FCSuper? I thanked him/her just as I have others who chose to express their opinion of my person with me. Should I do something else? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A tired sound bite is hardly an expression of gratitude, and you demonstrated to FCSuper that you took nothing from their advice. The comment was extremely condescending, and would come across as so to any reasonable person, particularly in view of your previous history of dismissively using the same phrase. If you do not see that, you really need to re-read what FCSuper actually said, rather than just supply your stock footage retort.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have personal opinions of how editors like you and FCSuper come across to me, also. However, unlike you and FCSuper, I do not bother to express these to either you or FCSuper (or gossip about it to other!) because 1) except for egregious exceptions the behavior is contrary to my training and inclination, and 2) it is a waste of time for academic purposes. Would it make you feel better if rather than acknowledge disparaging opinions of my person I would, instead, stoop to the standard of talking about people rather than things or ideas? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had indeed acknowledged the opinions of FCSuper in the true sense, you would have realised that they were comprised of helpful advice rather than 'disparaging' opinions at all. But apparently your pride makes it impossible for you to actually accept advice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You again fall back on your edition of a no-true-Scotsman' fallacy, though I doubt you’ll see it even after this response. Can I recommend some reading on the subject?

Yet another condescending response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FCSuper opined that I am condescending. If I thought that were true I would have acknowledged that. But I do not agree that is true. So guess what? I did not acknowledge it as correct. Hence, it is FCSuper’s opinion, and I am glad FCSuper felt free to express this opinion to me. That you happen to agree with FCSuper sways me no more than any other similar-biased editor agreeing with FCSuper’s opinion. I also have communications from other Wikipedians who believe me too willing to suffer at the hands of what they term “morons”. These do not think me condescending. So what? None of this makes a bit of difference to Wikipedia article content, and I do bother responding to any of it beyond expressing appreciation for having and sharing an opinion. This may come as a surprise to you, but readers and researchers really do not care about the disposition of editors. They only care about quality of content. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that you do not believe that you are condescending. But a third party perspective opinion in these matters is important, and several other editors, including FCSuper and John Carter have stated as much. Regarding your supposed supporters who call other people "morons", I assume that you admonished those alleged "other Wikipedians" for their "harmful gossip". Conveniently, you have not provided enough information to confirm that those who happen to agree with you do not actually regard you as condescending.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: If it is obvious that I do not believe myself condescending then it is preposterous to think I would then acknowledge as correct FCSuper opinion that I am condescending.

You place a great deal of stock in your own opinion, and that of other Wikipedia editors such as FCSuper and John Carter. Based on what I have seen from Wikipedia editors, I have little reason to place a great deal of stock in personal opinions offered from the vast majority of editors here, at least the ones I have crossed paths with. In your case, for instance, why on earth would I think your opinion is sage when I also see you have a habit of accusing people and then failing to let your accusation be tested by you offering examples that are, to you, instance of what you claim.

That you find my remark to FCSuper and others as condescending is, to me, evidence of a common misconception that is bred from poor training. Why should I accept the opinion of someone that is, to me, poorly trained? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So far as bias goes, my only bias is to tell whatever is true without consideration of how the information is percieved by others, who have their own biases, including you. You apparently would have me do something different. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This arguments is tedious and pointless. Marvin does not understand, or does not wish to acknowledge, the bias that becomes apparent by examining his edits over a period of time. If any editor wishes, just review Marvin's edits to confirm that they are almost always used to highlight negative or controversial points about Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Apparently you find it much easier to sling mud than to do the dirty work of actually proving what you say of others is true. I leave you to your ways. This discussion has been quite revealing. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And an amusing penchant for having the last word.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Dates

Regarding to the Mwai Kibaki article, I changed the date format from 15 November to November 15 because most of the date links of Mwai Kibaki including his birth date are in mm/dd/yy not in dd/mm/yy format and there is no consensus for the date format in Kenya related-articles.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Muslim article

Yeah, no problem. I could tell it was a genuine mistake so I didn't bother with leaving a "stop it, you page blanking vandal!" message. Many's the time I too have hit the submit button only to realise I've made a botch of it! Thank goodness for page histories. ~Matticus ^U_C 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Explodicle (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

Can you HELP me? Please see this. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane meetup invitation

	Brisbane Meetup Next: In Discussion Last: February 10, 2008 This box: view • talk • edit

Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC).