| Revision as of 17:46, 9 January 2006 editDuffer1 (talk | contribs)1,637 edits →Mediation 2← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:05, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,635 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section | ||
| (292 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Vote for JW structure == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 --> | |||
| Please vote '''for''' or '''against''' the adoption of the ] for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the ] and sign your name with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Thanks! --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing ] articles == | |||
| Because of the volatile and tenacious nature of certain editors whose stated or subliminal goal is to detract from Jehovah's Witnesses at any and every opportunity, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review the Misplaced Pages's policies: | |||
| *] - no original research | |||
| *] - verifiability | |||
| *] - Misplaced Pages: neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially) | |||
| *] - Civility | |||
| We do have to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not the proper forum for any form of proselytizing. This is an academic endeavor, and to make it worthwhile for Jehovah's Witnesses to contribute positively, abiding by the rules of the forum and sticking to the facts will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides, but keeps them in perspective. | |||
| It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Misplaced Pages standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - ] 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello CBT. I got my internet back up and running. You have posted some good suggestions, things I know I need to work on. Thank you :) ] 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Debating theological points == | |||
| Matt, it's very easy to get sucked into debating what we believe, but remember that it's not the point of the article to justify or prove anything. This is an academic exercise to attempt to impartially delineate our faith, and issues that are raised by it, to a reasonable extent. If you engage other editors in scriptural debates, it's like arguing with a household in the door-to-door ministry or heck, even trying to shout down an apostate outside a convention. '''We just don't do that sort of thing.''' And you know exactly why, so I don't even need to expand that point at all. | |||
| What we need to do, to be faithful, productive, and consistent, is to make sure what we believe is properly represented and that counterpoints are indentified as exactly that: opposing views. If someone says the Society/GB is duplicitous in fighting legal battles for the rights of the organization but denies them to us as members, we have to refute that. But if they want to say that 1914 is not supported by scholars, that point is a counterpoint, not pertinent in representing our beliefs. It needs to be separated out in whatever manner those things should be represented on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ] and ] WANT to debate what you believe and disrupt your faith. You wouldn't do this in person, or on some other format online; don't give them the satisafaction here. By limiting the extent to which we interact with them, we maintain our safeguards, and let them continue to sit outside and 'weep and gnash their teeth.' - Φιλία, ] 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to have amazing mind-reading abilities for a member of a fringe religion that preaches isolation from the rest of the world to the extent possible short of going Amish. You should contract those amazing powers out for pay.] 09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Check your email, please? - ] 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed guideline for ] == | |||
| I saw that you dispute the validity of the new guideline, so I moved it to a proposed section, and created a talk page for it ]. Please continue the discussion there. Thanks! --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Will do ] 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation Page == | |||
| Hi Duffer, I wondered if I could encourage you to support the rewrite I proposed so that a new subject could be addressed. What I submitted covers the points you are requesting to be covered in a matter of fact fashion. Which is exactly what we are aiming for, no? The other reason is that the opposing camp seems to be ok with it. This way we can bring the current 'argument' to an end. | |||
| ] 20:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually I already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=33214731&oldid=33202495) I like it, but would like to see the implicit made more explicit by adding something like: "however, they do not discount the possibility". What do you think? ] 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Duffer, On the Mediation Cabal page, you posted the following, Central's post "will look bad, you must keep in mind that the large majority of quotes is "good or bad" or "us-or-them" type language, such quotes are not refering to "not-us, but still good". Please clarify this, I am not sure that I understand it. Thanks, ] 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediation 2== | |||
| Hi, your request has been accepted. Thanks :) - ] 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Awesome, that was fast, I havn't even had a chance to post about it on the NWT page hehe. ] 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi please comment on my question on that Talk page: "I suppose that you don't intend to suppress or obscure information but simply disagree with vague, suggestive statements." This was now commented on in the negative by Tommstein, and this apparent misunderstanding may be the cause of your dispute. ] 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Responded, sorry I missed it, or I would have responded sooner. ] 21:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Duffer, on the mediation over Armageddon, you placed this statement: | |||
| ::"Being a faithful Jehovah's Witness ensures the best possible hope for survival, however, we teach that it still does not ensure it. "The only flesh saved" would more accurately read: "only one organization is said to pass through Armageddon." | |||
| So, being a Witness does not ensure survival through Armageddon, so how does survival occur? randomly? being chosen by God (if so, what is the basis of God's choosing)? Thanks, ] 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It ensures the best hope, but it does not guarantee. ] 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions on Armageddon == | |||
| #Duffer, on the mediation over Armageddon, you placed this statement: | |||
| #::"Being a faithful Jehovah's Witness ensures the best possible hope for survival, however, we teach that it still does not ensure it. "The only flesh saved" would more accurately read: "only one organization is said to pass through Armageddon." | |||
| #:So, being a Witness does not ensure survival through Armageddon, so how does survival occur? randomly? being chosen by God (if so, what is the basis of God's choosing)? | |||
| #How many Witness hold the position that tommstein is stating? In other words, how many believe that being a Witness is the only way to survive Armageddon? How strongly does the WTS teach this belief? | |||
| Thanks, ] 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC), added second question ] 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:05, 23 November 2015
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)