Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 16 February 2011

Status: Unknown

User talk:Jeffro77/tabs

Re: Intellectual Honesty

I would advise that you take this up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as that would be the more appropriate venue to deal with this guy's constant reverting of your redirect. I will certainly offer an opinion in that discussion if you open it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if it comes up. The editor appears not to have been active since August, but has had lengthy periods of inactivity before.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservopedia

Please god tell me you've read some of the stuff on Conservopedia.....I was crying I was laughing so hard at the idiocy of the whole site. I even created (using a simple user-box creator) a special userbox for my user page. Wow.

Vyselink (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Just looking at the home page—their 'article of the month' claims links between atheism and obesity—the degree of bias and ad hominem would drive me crazy if I looked much further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Founding date of Bible Student Movement

Hello! Hoping you are well. AuthorityTam has initiated a discussion on the date for the founding of the Bible Student movement. It is located on the Talk page of said article. It came about as a result of my changing the date on the JW infobox from 1876 to 1879. AuthorityTam disputes the change. I would greatly appreciate your take on this matter. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wondering

I was just wondering if you'd take a look at this discussion and give your opinion on it. It is my belief that this information is important to the history of the sketch. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Celebrity_Jeopardy!_(Saturday_Night_Live)#Recent_Edits Vyselink (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hey, i have just cleaned up the David Wood (Christian apologist) article which you voted for deletion. Do you still maintain your original position? Someone65 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My position has not changed. Most of the refs are still personal websites, along with some news articles about Wood's arrest along with other anti-Islamic protesters. I therefore do not believe that the person is sufficiently notable to warrant an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Working With Each Other

I would really like to work with you rather than against you. We seem to have had a few tussles here and there and frankly they aren't necessary. It would be great if we could try to respect each other as knowledgeable and respect the others edits. It really frustrates me when you completely refactor my edits, and you seem to do it so frequently that it makes me feel my edits have no value "because Jeffro is just going to delete it or change it." I'll make an edit, add a reference and can often predict how it will be changed even though I've tried to be careful and precise in the wording. It puts you in a position over me (authority) rather than beside me (equal). I know JW and Bible Student history like the back of my hand, and perhaps you do too. But we've both been on Misplaced Pages for many years (2004 for me) and should by now know how to work together. It's possible that the conflict comes from similar personalities. But I'm trying to be a peace-maker here and hopefully it will be taken in that spirit. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There have always been specific reasons for my edits, and you are always welcome to discuss any particular edit. Concern about your inherent conflict of interest has been raised in the past, and your recognition of "how will be changed" suggests you know at some level where your edits contain or imply an element of bias. However, when I check my Watchlist, I edit what I consider to be specific problems with regard to either style, presentation or content. I don't simply make changes simply on the basis that they were made by any particular editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

• After User:Bidgee was warned about the 3 revert rule, he retributively posted a similar warning and incorrectly claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region. See also Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Cairns, Queensland. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cairns, Queensland. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cease the retributive editing. I reverted twice, and then posted the warning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I've just noticed that you tried to get Bidgee to remove the attacks on you on his page. His/her last edit summary was... Yeah. So that's not going to achieve anything. I'm not all that bothered by his/her linking to the rank stupidity that s/he showed, just by the language.

That being said, I suggest that the issue be taken to WP:ANI. -danjel (talk to me) 12:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. So now I'm taking the issue to WP:ANI. -danjel (talk to me) 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I have named you as an involved party in regards to (a) Bidgee's shrine to you and I; (b) Bidgee removing edits to his/her talkpage that s/he didn't like; (c) uncivil conduct by Bidgee. The thread is User:Bidgee.The discussion is about the topic WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:USETEMP. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 13:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:ArchiveNotDelete

• User_talk:Nyttend#G6

You didn't answer the question — Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't list redirects in page histories. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking for their opinions

Jeffro77, sorry to bother you, but am I allowed to get a few users to take a look at the page? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

where they can voice there opinions...you know where they can endorse it??? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the Talk page don't require endorsement by other editors, though they can comment there. There is a section on the main User RFC page for endorsing the original statements. It's entirely up to you whether you invite other editors to comment at either page, though it may be seen as canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Collusion?

Hi Jeffro. I'm going to ask you to think very seriously about allegations of collusion. I watch both Pdfpdf's and danjel's pages based on difficulties they had with each other last month. Those very difficulties are likely to be brought up in an RfC which involves danjel, assuming it goes ahead. Bilby and myself both recommended he step back for the time being, which he agreed to. Mattinbgn, who mentioned the difficulties in his statement at the RfC, was keeping him informed and offering alternative advice. Either way, Pdfpdf is likely to have an opinion in the matter. Collusion is a very serious allegation and I hope you consider retracting it. Please also be aware that I have not yet offered my opinion on the dispute, just how it is being handled. Worm 12:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, "collusion" was perhaps too strong a word, and I've stricken it. However, it's still relevant discussion of the RFC discussed privately by related parties on one side of the dispute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I don't disagree, it's relevent to the RfC and have no doubt it will be brought up there should the RfC go forward. Worm 13:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think you could have your conversation with Mattinbgn somewhere other than my talk page please? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)