User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2010c

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec

Moved from Talk:Selena

You can drop this now. lolz why you got a pink unicorn on your userpage haha (in my NY accent) AJona1992 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you click the image, it will take you to the relevant article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But still? I'm not trying to be mean or anything lolz but why have that there hahaha? never mind don't answer that question. I think I know. AJona1992 (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that you think you're implying, but the point of the article linked to the picture makes the reason somewhat self-evident.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Um ok well just be proud then lolz. AJona1992 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've still missed the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jona, wrong meaning. :-) Look up "Invisible pink unicorn" - it's usually (and I say usually, because I dont want to speak directly about Jeffro's beliefs, which I am not sure of) something pointing out the logical fallacies of certain beliefs. Often religious circular "logic" and impossibilities, though sometimes related to other topics with similar beliefs where contradictory attributes make for an impossible creature/premise/conclusion/event/etc. Read Invisible_Pink_Unicorn for more info. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a goddess of a particular religion, along a similar vein as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the goddess of a particular religion, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.

It generally denotes atheism, or skepticism of some of the more absurd claims made by certain religions that are paradoxically impossible (for instance, how can a unicorn (fictitious creature to begin with) be both invisible and pink, since each attribute contradicts the other?). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Rob; I was hoping that I wouldn't need to explain it because the image already links to the relevant article, which I already explained to Jona. I would only add that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a satirical goddess, as it's crucial to the whole point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I intentionally removed satirical because it's just as believable as... other things... to me. ;-) I'll talk to Jona later. I know he means no harm... ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Invisible Pink Unicorns in your email...

Hello, Jeffro77. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Those sneaky invisible pink unicorns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the burrito

Jeffro77, I know this is a strange request. I'm asking for your help to improve Timeline of the burrito because I know you are a responsible editor. I'm not looking for someone to support my attempts to improve this article. The article simple needs attention of more neutral parties prior to its merger with the main burrito article, as it is currently being protected by an individual that does not want to accept any changes. Please feel free to ignore this request if you are not interested. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just gotten back from a very busy work trip, so I haven't read the entire history at Talk. However, given the subject matter, I would endorse the suggestion to merge to Burrito#history. To me, at least at the moment, the article seems to constitute trivia and undue weight about a mundane foodstuff. There does not seem to be a preponderance of articles for timelines about particular foods.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI...OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is the same as arguing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not only do we have a preponderance of culture and food-related timelines, but we also have a preponderance of reliable sources about the history of the burrito. Food history is not trivia. Please give me something more challenging than that to counter. AfD nomination made as the result of inappropriate canvassing noted. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this tedious debate. I have raised the AfD to broaden the discussion. If the increased audience decides to keep it, fine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, but neither you nor Fcsuper have bothered to do the slightest bit of research on the topic. In the U.S., Mexican-American food the number one ethnic food in the non-Hispanic demographic. Burritos are as American as apple pie, and a timeline of their history is far from trivial. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the ponderous claim that there are other articles of timelines about specific food products, that is in fact not supported by the category Category:History of food and drink, which instead for the most part indicates articles (prose, not timelines of trivia), primarily about basic foodstuffs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we cannot have timelines about specific food products, and the fact that we don't have them means that nobody has yet done the work. This is an encyclopedia where we write articles based on reliable sources. I'm not sure where you got the strange idea that we don't write articles because they don't yet exist. That is just bizarre. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason for such a timeline, and much of the content in the 'article' is simply not notable. Burritos are not so notable that a timeline of their development is warranted—perhaps a broader foodstuff such as the tortilla might be notable enough for such a consideration, which would include notable information about burritos and other similar foods. Aside from that, there is no good reason any notable information about the history of burritos should not be in the main burrito article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many good reasons for this timeline, including those offered by the notable efforts of multiple authors who have documented their search for the origins of the food. Most of the article is based on notable information, and if a datapoint is disputed, we don't automatically delete an entire article. The fact is, the article is notable, and can be expanded with more timeline-related info. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors on Wikipedia know (or should know) that anything they contribute has the risk of being removed, and their effort expended is not on its own any reason for retaining an article. I have raised discussion for deletion of the article. It's a process. No amount of complaining to me here will alter the result, and that result will not necessarily be that your pet project gets deleted anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Asking you to have an informed opinion is not a complaint. Unlike your contribution history, I don't have any pet projects, nor do I focus on single topics like you do. I do have an interest in the cuisine of Hawaii and California, all of which is evidence-based, unlike your own. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your poorly-constructed ill-conceived attempt at a personal attack is irrelevant and consequently ignored.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read my comment again; There is no personal attack whatsoever in the above, and it is a statement of fact.[1] Just because you are a single-topic editor, doesn't mean others are. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on that 'logic', I could say you are a single-topic editor on hippies.[2]. But is of course irrelevant to assessing the article in question, or having the ability to do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have the majority of my 95,767 edits been made to hippie or hippie topics? Clearly not. What about the majority of your 12,666 edits? Have they been made to JW topics? Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My involvement in the JW WikiProject is of no relevance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is of direct relevance to your original personal attack accusing me of having a "pet project". When I explained to you, with evidence, that it was you, not me that had a singular focus on Wikipedia, a "pet project", if you like, you denied it. So the relevance lies in your original accusation against me, which I've turned right back around on you. Your pet project appears to be JW articles. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My participation in the JW WikiProject is dissimilar to an article that an individual editor created and singularly controls, which is the context in which I referred to it as a 'pet project'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(An examination of article's history indicates that editors other than Viriditas have either made only very minor additions to the article, or made requests to merge, or have removed non-notable detail which was subsequently re-added by Viriditas.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Like your opinion above, your "examination" is also in error. The page history shows that many other editors, mostly anon IPs, have added info, and I have agreed that some content should be removed, but there has been no response to my comments. The content was re-added prior to discussion or any response from myself because good content was removed unilaterally with the bad. Please try to pay closer attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your tedious retort re your opinion of my attention levels is irrelevant. The examination I made was correctly stated. Diffs taken of intermediate edits other than yours reveal fairly limited changes. In any case, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the AfD process and your continued posturing here is unproductive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "examination" was entirely incorrect as I previously pointed out to you, and your latest comment on the AfD shows that you've compounded these past errors with new ones. It would help if you would stop acting as a proxy for other editors after being inappropriately canvassed, and start paying close attention to the discussion and the points raised in that discussion. Editing on behalf of your friends is one thing, but continuing to make erroneous claim after erroneous claim is another. In the future, please present informed opinions based on facts and evidence only. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with or personal knowledge of User:Fcsuper. If you object to his drawing of my attention to this problematic article, take that up with him..--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The facts directly contradict your above claims. You have edited the same topic of JW's alongside Fcsuper for years,[3] and he has posted several times on your talk page[4][5][6] and you posted on his.[7] Recently, he inappropriately canvassed you for help on the topic of the timeline of the burritos,[8] and you subsequently nominated the article for AfD during a merge discussion, only after Fcsuper himself had threatened to nominate the article for deletion on the talk page. This particular diff from 2007 pretty much contradicts everything you are saying and proves my point. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another tedious response. I did not state that I have not edited articles in common with Fcsuper, or that I have never communicated with him on Wikipedia. What I stated is that I have no affiliation with him or personal knowledge of him. I don't know his real name. I don't know where he lives. I don't know anything about him outside of Wikipedia. As previously stated, if you have a problem with Fcsuper making me aware of this problematic article, you must take that up with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, none of that (i.e. your attack) has anything at all to do with the actual content dispute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See below. You don't seem to be reading for comprehension or taking stock of the discussion. You're just editing from ignorance, over and over, again and again, refusing to do the slightest bit of research or educate yourself on the topic. I sincerely hope this is not how you edit Wikipedia. For example, you recently left an inline comment on the article page, "Are 'breakfast burritos' significant??" What kind of question is this? Of course breakfast burritos are significant, especially to American regional cuisine, such as New Mexican cuisine. It is incredibly hard to take you or your edits seriously in any way. You did the same thing regarding the addition of breakfast burritos to the menus of fast food corporations, claiming this was an advertisement. Are you aware of just how many sources there are in the industry trade magazines discussing the introduction of breakfast burritos by fast food companies or why menu changes are significant in this business? Do you understand that the history of food and restaurants is a significant topic? The rest of your edits are all the same, consisting of ridiculous tags, such as questioning the notability of World Wrapps, the company responsible for the worldwide "wrap" craze. Granted, your expertise might be a single-topic like JW's, but you will need to actually do some research and review the sources if we are going to have an informed discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The opening of a restaurant that might happen to sell burritos is not especially relevant in the scope of the article in question. I asked whether 'breakfast burritos' were significant (rather than claiming they weren't) because I am not American and not directly aware of their purported significance. However being American is not relevant to whether a particular restaurant is especially notable with regard to the specific point of an article, nor is it relevant to identifying elements that are plainly trivial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The restaurants in question are notable in relation to the timeline of the burrito, and have been covered in that context. The hunt and investigation into the origins of the burrito is a topic of some merit, and these restaurants are part of the timeline, showing the movement of the taco variety to the burrito, from Mexico to the United States, from border to border, region to region. It can actually be mapped out with sources in a nice graphic, which was the original intent of the timeline; in other words, a geographical history of food. This is somewhat of a new technique, but is rapidly being embraced in many different disciplines, particularly military history. In the very near future, you will be able to take data from any list, timeline, or data rich article on Wikipedia and generate a map or visualization. In any case, you could easily look at the sources about the breakfast burrito in the parent articles, or look at sources on Google books which clearly document the notability of the food. This isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The usefulness of timelines in general is not in dispute. Nor is having an article about burritos in dispute. The fact remains that anything notable about the history of burritos can quite sufficiently be indicated at the main article, and a particular restaurant opening or some novelty world record are not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedic article about burritos.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that you are saying this from a position of ignorance, not having done the research nor looked at the sources. In terms of cuisine and food history, restaurants are indeed notable, and have been described as such by the original authors. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If specific restaurants are notable within the scope of the history of the burrito, then that specific point needs to be made, and this has not been done. For example, see User:Dohn joe's requests at the article Talk page. If I open a restaurant and start selling burritos, it does not automatically mean that my restaurant is particularly notable in the context of the history of the burrito. My restaurant may or may not be notable in itself but any such notability is not automatically conferred on the history of the burrito or any other particular menu item.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And please desist from irrelevant ad hominem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, you appear to be editing disruptively. I recently explained to you on the talk page that most of the points in the article have reliable sources, and many are notable, not trivial or advertorial in nature.[9] You then ignored what I said and began tag bombing the article,[10] claiming that an "editor claims most points are sourced, that all are notable, and that none are trivial or advertorial."[11] Do you recognize and understand the difference between "most" and "all", and "many" and "none"? I ask, because you do not appear to be reading for comprehension. Furthermore, have you reviewed the entries that I agree should be removed? Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that you're the only one vying for retaining the article, it remains unclear why you would not simply remove those entries that you purportedly agree should be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So then, you did not read the talk page like you claimed above, and you did not read where I said that I agreed with the removal of certain entries. The reason, my young friend, that I did not remove anything that I agreed should be removed, is because unlike you and Fcsuper, I do not engage in unilateral editing during a dispute over content. I agreed to the removal of some content, and in such discussions, it is helpful to wait until the outcome of the discussion or to wait until there is agreement to take the next step. Because Fcsuper was unable to engage in any discussion on the topic, the talk page shows he never responded nor acted on my agreement, but continued to ignore that it ever occurred, preferring to keep asking the same questions, over and over again. Please read for comprehension. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed read where you purportedly agreed to remove some entries. And I laughed when you said that "someone got carried away and added non-notable data points",[12] but neglected to mention that it was in fact you who added the specific entries in question when the article was first created.[13]--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to my edits, but to edits like, "Burritos appear at Cd. Juarez,Chih. Mex. by Modesto Calleja " Gorgorito " Who sell burritos on a three wheel cycle",[14] edits I did not make. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I figured you'd leap onto that. Here are the diffs indicating all of the additions that you did not make that exist in the current version:. All other existing entries were added by you. These diffs do not include points that do not exist in the current version or minor edits such as wikilinking.

• '2001 world record'[15];
• 'three wheel cycle'[16];
• 'dictionary entry'[17] (after which, you restored the 'Elvis' trivial entry[18]).

--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. If you had bothered to read the talk page, you would have noticed where I discussed edits that were made by other editors as they came up for discussion, such as this edit that added Anna's. In other words, I've been nothing but honest and forthright about every aspect of this discussion, you know, the discussion you never read. That became obvious when you laughingly claimed that I "nominally agreed to merge the article". Then you had the nerve to claim that you never had any connection with Fcsuper. Best to stop digging, don't you think? Let me know when you actually do the research and read the sources. It would be nice to see you try to improve the article in some way, but I suspect you are only involved to harass me. I proposed the merge to solve the problem. You are welcome to raise specific points on the talk page, and I will address them as time permits. Tag bombing and editing out of naked ignorance is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the diffs only after you started trolling my editing history (ad hominem), and only because you made contradictory claims about entries that you in fact added to the article but attributed those edits to other editors. For the time being, I am leaving the article to the attention of editors considering the AfD, though I might raise an RfC as well, at my convenience, so that other editors can review the content and decide neutrally, which is why I raised the AfD in the first place. Your claim of 'harassment' is laughable as you're the one continuing to harass me at my Talk page. Let the AfD run its course and let those editors comment on which points they consider to be trivial or otherwise inappropriate/unnecessary. You really don't need to reply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made a single contradictory claim about this topic or any other. The consistent theme in this discussion with you, both here, on the AfD, and on the talk page of the article, shows that you are very fond of making stuff up...a lot. Good luck with that. There's this thing called "diffs", and they paint a very poor picture of you. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the 'Anna's' diff; inadvertently missing a single entry doesn't change the fact that all the entries explicitly raised by Fcsuper at the Talk page were added by you and you ambiguously attributed them to "someone" (and indeed almost all the entries in the article were indeed quite definitely added by you). In any case, other editors can review the suitability of the content of the list for determining what is of notable relevance to the merge target.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I attributed nothing of the kind, and continually trying to distort and twist what I said about edits made by other editors shows that you aren't the slightest bit interested in the topic but in trying to attack me. Diff after diff on this page, on the AfD, and on the article talk page shows that you have tried to distort the discussion rather than directly addressing it or working towards resolution. The reason I proposed the merge in the first place was to resolve concerns and see which editors were willing to do the hard work and which editors would oppose it for the sake of opposing it. And as I predicted, Fcsuper opposed it, refused to do the research or read the sources. He then inappropriately canvassed you against best practices, and now you are opposing the same merge by proxy. This is all very clear. Perhaps the best way to describe it is as a "reboot [of your] efforts to correct the [Timeline of the burrito] article and get it out of the hands of the lone-crusader."[19] Don't you agree? Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. The specific dialogue follows, with the diffs showing where you added them:[20]

Could you list the problems ones below? Viriditas (talk) 6:44 am, 19 October 2010, Tuesday (1 month, 10 days ago) (UTC+10)

The entire 2007 list of entries to start with.

Mar: Chipotle Mexican Grill starts "Don't Stand in Line " online burrito ordering system[22][21]

Jun: Ryan Goff gets prison term for Taco Bell burrito extortion"[23][24]

Jul 29: Moe's Southwest Grill (FL) starts annual competitive burrito eating contest[25]

Rosemary Gonzales arrested for smuggling drugs inside Taco Bell burrito

Burritophile.com launches

Freebirds World Burrito (TX) starts online orders[22] [same diff for last five entries]

etc etc etc. That's just the 21st century entries. The fact that this article is so heavily loaded with this nonsense tempts me to tag it as AfD. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 8:44 am, 23 October 2010, Saturday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC+10)

It is not nonsense, but someone got carried away and added non-notable data points. Please remove them. Viriditas (talk) 9:34 am, 23 October 2010, Saturday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC+10)

The explicitly stated entries were added by you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

After you told Fcsuper to go ahead and remove the edits purportedly added by 'someone', you reverted his edit[23], restoring the non-notable, trivial and tenuous entries, including those entries explicitly indicated above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As previously (and repeatedly) stated... If you have a problem with Fcsuper drawing my attention to this article, you need to take the matter up with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making stuff up again. When Fcusper said he had a problem with the entire 2007 list of entries, he added at the end: "etc etc etc. That's just the 21st century entries. The fact that this article is so heavily loaded with this nonsense tempts me to tag it." In response to that statement about nonsense in the article, I said quite clearly, "It is not nonsense, but someone got carried away and added non-notable data points." I hope that clears up your error, Jeffro. The revert has nothing to do with the list of 2007 entries, but with his wholesale removal of an entire swath of notable entries in addition to it. The amount of time and energy you are putting into trying to distort my words and actions is quite incredible, and I've never seen anyone make up as much stuff as you have. Really, I thought I had seen it all when you claimed above to have previously read the talk page discussion in full, while at the same time, going to the AfD to claim that I had "nominally agreed" to a merge, after I had originally proposed it. Seriously, Jeffro, is there a single thing you've written here that can safely be considered true or factual? Just one? Amazing. I've never seen anything like this before. Keep it coming, I've got the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you nominally - in name - agree to merge the article. But in practice, you are preventing every attempt to trim the article of the non-notable material in preparation for merging, and you are complaining about the AfD which recommends the merge. You have made no attempt to remove any of the entries that you allegedly agree are "not-notable data points", and when another editor tried to, you restored all those edits including those you agreed were not notable.

So since you won't let anyone else trim the article, how about you at least remove the entries that you purportedly acknowledge are not needed, and then discuss from there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another false statement. Newsflash for you, Jeffro: I prepped the proposed merger at 09:29, 10 November 2010 on the Burrito article,[24] just minutes before I proposed the merge on the timeline talk page at 09:31.[25] Since that time, I've merged content from the timeline article to the burrito at least six times.[26] If this is making sense to you, Jeffro, then you will notice that instead of trimming the article and removing entries, I have only merged the most notable, significant, and important. Although this task is incomplete (and I've made it clear that others are welcome to help) the fact that the unimportant entries have not been merged should tell you something. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that some or many of the remaining entries are not notable, you can either delete those entries, or stop preventing other editors from deleting them. Whilst you have indeed added some information into the other article, your actions suggest that you are copying information there (which is good) but trying to retain this existing article (which is against consensus). This is also supported by your initial objection to merge the article to the main burrito article a week after the article was first created. The point is that this article simply is not notable beyond what should be in the history section of the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Award

		The Christianity Barnstar
		I'm giving you this because you tend to have a level head about the JW page, and your arguments are always based on reason. Vyselink (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) As an athiest, I'm not sure the Christianity barnstar is the best choice, but it's nice to receive acknowledgment that I try to edit fairly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As an agnostic, I can see the humor lol. But the description doesn't say "For Christians who edit Christianity pages", it says for people that "contributes or posts helpful information about the religion of Christianity.", which on the JW pages you do, in what I believe to be a good, fair way.Vyselink (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Just thought it was funny. Thanks again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning re edit wars over JWs.

Thanks for your note re edit wars. I have to agree with you. The malicious reversions by the editor "Good Ol'factory" were getting to be annoying. Even when I requested that he stop his reversions and take it to the talk page, he refused. I was quite happy to debate the issues with him but he seemed to be determined to have his way. I have had some level of engagement with him on the discussion page for Unification Church. However, he is being obstinate there also. Can you advise what to do next please? What is the appropriate place to complain about him? What is the appropriate forum to start a more wide ranging discussion on the merits of the case? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that the category for Non Chalcedonianism should be too liberally applied without any specific verifiable source. However, you could raise an RFC (about the article; a user RFC is not required at this point) at one of the articles in question to get a broader perspective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna's Taqueria

I noticed that you asked about a withdrawal of your nomintion over at User talk:Dream Focus#AfD question and that he tried to close it. It appears to still be open. One of the better ways to request a close of something in such cases is to <s>strikethrough</s> your comment, and state at the AFD that you wish to withdraw your nomination, and why. If that is done, and there are no outstanding delete votes, it will be quickly speedy closed by a passing admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind for future. Dream Focus' action seems sufficient at this point to indicate my intention and the result is clearly to keep, so I think I'll just let it run its course rather than treading on Dream Focus' toes. Also, I don't really want to strike out the advertorial concerns as if to imply that such concerns were mistaken.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

weeping angels

I see your point that it is not stop action movement - but they are shown moving in strobe like fashion - how would you describe it? There should be an accurate qualification. I'll watch here for your answer. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, it's sufficient already, and I'm not even sure that it is necessary to state in the 'list' article that they were seen moving at all in any particular episode. Things like that are better placed in the main article. I therefore don't think it is worthy of special elaboration, given that it is clear from the context that they did indeed move in Blink.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that elaboration is not necessary in the list, so I am just going to remove the last sentence since in that context it raises more questions than it answers. I don't expect you'll disagree - revert me if you do. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I tried to create the talk page but it wouldn't save a blank screen, so the obvious "Don't blink" occurred to me. Feel free to add a template or whatever you like. There's no call for assigning yourself censor. Mine was no personal attack or violation of copyright. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments and lay off other people's benign comments.

μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed who had made the edit and there was nothing personal about it. The page about 'others' comments' refers to not modifying text that is otherwise suitable for Talk pages, not content that simply is not related to discussion at all. (It states: "Refactoring for relevance: ... It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above." Your edit fits somewhere between gibberish and test edits.) Unless there is actually some discussion about an article, there is no reason to create a Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you originally tried to create the empty page (for reasons that are unclear in the absence of a topic), why did you object to it being made empty?? I have now added the relevant template rather than clearing the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right with "It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish" and I apologise for the last reversion. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

recent edits to Governing Body of JW

Not too sure if I agree with the "past tense" changes that Glenn L made on the Governing Body page. It seems to me to sound too much like Franz and the others retracted the statements. Was just wondering your thoughts. Thanks. Vyselink (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I might be a bit more concerned if it were changed to "had claimed", but I'm not too worried about this change. If it becomes clear that there is a general perception that it means the statements were retracted, then I will support changing it back.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I thought I'd ask before really saying anything about it. Thanks again. Vyselink (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that's just my opinion. You're welcome to either change it or start a section at the article Talk page to get a broader view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

In case you're interested .... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians?. BlackCab (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed discussion

John Carter has proposed holding an open discussion in January among editors of articles in Religion and its sub-projects. The purpose would be to produce some guidelines for editors who are creating new articles (to give them an idea of what material should be included in the article, how to avoid pitfalls, etc.), to exchange tips on how to move forward past edit warring, and to generally get more articles to GA/FA quality. S/he thinks that this might well become an annual event to keep any guidelines up to date and to continue to improve articles that fall under Religion's sub-projects. I think your experience might be useful to other editors and just wanted to encourage you to consider participating. • Astynax ^talk 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Apostate

I just love that term. I don't know why, but whenever I hear JW's use it I want to start laughing. I know, completely random, but some of the recent edits by IP addresses who are obv JW's (which of course have been reverted) use it and I thought it was funny.Vyselink (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

JWs use the term 'apostate' as a thought-terminating cliché to minimise exposure to flaws in their doctrines rather than honestly analysing their beliefs. They imagine that 'apostates' are outspoken former JWs with very specific motives of harming JWs in some way. Back in reality, anyone who leaves any religion is an 'apostate', including many JWs who converted from other religions. The wilful ignorance employed in the distortion of the word's broader meaning as a protection mechanism for their group-think is mildly amusing in a dark kind of way.

The attitude JWs have toward people converting from another religion to their religion is that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." (Awake!, "Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?", 9 July 2009 p. 29) But, their attitude toward those who leave their own religion is that "rifts are caused by the position taken by unbelieving family members. They may choose to reject or oppose Christianity, bringing about divisions in the family." (The Watchtower, "Highlights From the Book of Matthew", 15 January 2008, p. 29)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that may be my favorite quote "rifts are caused by the position taken by unbelieving family memebrs. They may choose to reject or oppose Christianity, bringing about divisions in the family." So, opposing JW's to convert to say, idk, Catholocism, would be opposing Christianity...........good to know lol.

But you are absolutely right. The thought terminating cliche they use, that of "apostate", is basically the same as a parent telling a child "because I said so". It offers no reason, just "ends" the argument with the enforcement of power. Vyselink (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Note about (semi-)formal discussions

Hi. I've been working in Requested moves, and I noticed your input at Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Requested move. I'm going to close the request as unsuccessful, but I thought I'd point something out to you. You posted the word oppose (or some variation) in boldface text three times in the discussion. It doesn't bother me, but I've noticed that a lot of Wikipedians read boldface words as votes (or "!votes"), and might consider you to be voting 3 times. I think that some people scan the section and count the number of boldface words to get a feel for the numbers of editors holding different positions.

Personally, I read the discussion with some care, and don't care much about little formalities, but for future reference, you might want to limit your boldface statements of position to one per discussion.

Anyway, I hope you're having a great end of December. Cheers! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am aware that it isn't a voting system (with the mildly amusing programming notation for 'not'), and it was not my intention that bolding the word might count as extra votes. Anyone who would be qualified to make a decision about a deletion or move debate would likely also be aware that it is not a vote. In this instance, another editor was attempting to twist my argumentation, so it seemed entirely appropriate to re-assert my position clearly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. It's just part of the culture here: one boldface position declaration per person per discussion. Maybe that's not ideal, but it's what we've got. I just don't want to see you run afoul of someone's notion of protocol, if it's easy enough to avoid. None of us are trying to get bogged down in arguments over that, you know? Anyway, take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Thanks for zapping the Barr link. I thought I had made a mistake and put the link back. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)