Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 11 December 2005

Welcome!

Welcome Tommstien! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's Tommstein. Get it right. I kid, I kid. Thanks for the welcome. I'm currently finishing an explanation for why I'm about to reinsert a paragraph in an article, and then I have to join that WikiProject thing.Tommstein 05:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops. The result of trying to do too many things at the same time. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To Konrad West: Comment Deleted by DannyMuse

I had responded to you on DannyMuse's Talk page, but, being a Jehovah's Witness that refuses to hear any inconvenient facts he doesn't want to hear, he deleted it. It's not the most important thing in the world, but here it is, since I refuse to let ignorant bozos silence me:

"That's exactly right. In fact, the first time he removed my paragraph, he claimed it was because it "does not reflect current Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses." Now, he wants to claim "that it doesn't say anything any different that what the article states." That's the Jehovah's Witness game, play every side of the fence and point you to whichever statement is useful at any particular time. If you look at his latest revert(s), he's currently playing on the 'we don't do that' side of the fence. Your characterization is clearly correct per direct quotes.Tommstein 06:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)"

You can look at his Talk page's history to see it. You probably already saw it, but just making sure.Tommstein 21:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it. I don't really understand his reaction to your post-- is it "theocratic warfare" or just standard cult brainwashing? ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Your guess about what his problem is is as good as mine, seeing as he never responded to anything we said on the Talk page and just continued reverting with dumbass edit summaries (and has now moved on to not even providing summaries beyond "rv"). Maybe he's not used to non-Jehovah's Witnesses whipping out quotes from his own literature demonstrating him to be full of crap, or even doing research and busting him fudging his own quotes, which in their unfudged state show the opposite of what he wants. He learns from the best; the Watchtower Society is (in)famous for screwing around with quotations, to the point that I think some authors have protested to them for quoting them so wildly out of context. Considering that they don't actually cite the vast majority of their sources, one would not doubt for an instant that they just make up a lot of stuff. The modus operandi of Jehovah's Witnesses is 'our way or the highway,' so it probably aggravates him greatly to not be able to either kick me out and/or go off like a peacock pretending to himself that I'm not actually here. In their own little world, anyone that thinks differently from the latest thing that the Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass to be ignored or, if they're lucky, convinced of the approved "rightthink." He undoubtedly considers me an "apostate" and thus the lowest form of scum on the earth, and would refuse to speak a word to the 'living dead' while convinced of his superiority if he could, but here I am regardless, and I ain't going anywhere (until he buys the Internet and can kick people out like they do in their little religion). Most people that track the Jehovah's Witness articles here are probably Jehovah's Witnesses, so he's undoubtedly not used to being shot down while trying to use Misplaced Pages for "theocratic warfare," or just spreading the standard BS, whatever the case may be. You know, there have been studies done about Jehovah's Witnesses and mental health (sponsored by Satan to discredit them, undoubtedly), which, from skimming through, aren't exactly good news for them. He's probably waiting for God to kill us two evil "opposers" and tools of Satan, not that he would ever tell us publicly. He's gonna be waiting for a long time.Tommstein 06:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

Please don't continue to revert User:DannyMuse. It clogs up the edit history and isn't productive. Please discuss the issue on the Talk page and come to an agreement on what to do before further edits. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

JW Project

Just wanted to say thanks for helping with putting the {{JWProject}} tag on the talk pages. I'm working on fixing stub articles and categories and it's nice to have some help. Strange that most of the active JWs aren't that active on the project! Thanks again. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No sweat. Most actual Jehovah's Witnesses probably aren't that active at least in part because of the fact that being in that religion is like being in a well-greased hamster wheel, or on a treadmill jammed on level 20 out of 20, in addition to all the other non-religious things they do. At least the devout ones, since if you have much spare time at all you're supposed to be using it on 'spiritual' things. Not to mention that spending much time around us "bad associations" that "spoil useful habits" is almost certainly considered not only a waste of time, but otherwise harmful and a show of disregard for Bible counsel. Heck, I can guarantee you that if any of them started spending a lot of time here, and their elders found out about it, they would be having a little meeting with the elders about it.

I should also mention, I didn't put the tag on a handful or so of pages that I figured weren't necessarily only about Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, I left it off of Charles Taze Russell's page, since there are a lot of other religions and groups that trace their roots back to him, and Jehovah's Witnesses are just one of many; his beliefs were so different from the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses today that if he were alive they would consider him a fruity apostate anyway. I didn't put it on the pages of former Witnesses, like Raymond Franz, since they're not Jehovah's Witnesses, although, in hindsight, I'm not so sure that that reason is valid (it's not like those people are there because they're just some random bozo whose dealings with Jehovah's Witnesses had nothing to do with anything, they're there because their history with Jehovah's Witnesses was/is presumably important). But in any case, I tagged the vast majority of the articles listed on the project page.Tommstein 09:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Impartial people on JW

Hello and thanks for your contributions. Just to clarify, by "impartial people" I meant to say that I, as a Jehovah's witness, am not impartial. And former JWs can be considered biased too. So the impartial people to me are those who are neither. Of course, nobody here is obliged to say who he or she is. I guess I could have put it more accurately as "I will leave the decision to others, as I am a JW". In the end, it is probably the best to put aside who is who and decide just by the facts. So, this is my explanation, I did not want to clutter the talk page anymore. Take care! Soukie 11:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting JW pages

Hey Tommstein! Regardless of whether DannyMuse and his anonymous supporter are right or not, please don't revert the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses pages anymore. Both of those will largely be rewritten to remove the unsourced statements once the proposed structure is approved, so even if it's wrong, it won't stay that way for long. In the mean time, it doesn't help the situation, and will look bad on you if this situation goes any further as per Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution policies. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool, sounds reasonable.Tommstein 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What say you about the new anonymous guy who, among his 15,000 changes to the article, many of which Evident had to fix, was included the deletion of the two paragraphs talking about this disfellowshipping stuff? Not a reversion to DannyMuse's story, just flat out deletion of unflattering paragraphs along with all the other changes that had to be reverted. Should I add them back, or do we officially not care any more how anyone from anywhere screws this article up until it's rewritten?Tommstein 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely don't mean to let people run free with the articles; the process of getting the new structure up and running could take a while, and we want people reading the articles to be as best informed as we can. It's just not worth fighting over some minor details.

If the changes are wrong or go against the consensus of editors on the page, then they should be reverted. However, if it goes on, a Request for Comment can be done, which asks outsiders to have a look at what is happening. It often helps stop things going further. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The wrong changes/going against consensus part sounds exactly like what DannyMuse was doing, incidentally. But back on topic, I'll reinsert the two deleted paragraphs then. Thanks for the advice.Tommstein 11:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You really need to hold back on the sarcasm in your posts and edit summaries. Out of context it looks bad, as seen in DannyMuse's RfC, and you will get less respect on Misplaced Pages if you use it. Part of why Brandon39's response was moderately in favour of DannyMuse is that your comments can be construed as personal attacks. Try easing up on it, and then the matter of DannyMuse going against consensus will be more apparent. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The sarcasm usually comes out when I've said something 100 times and I don't know how to say it yet again. But I see what you mean, and I'll start trying to provide dry statements that say the exact same thing as the previous 99 (no, that wasn't sarcasm there, just an accurate description of what's left).Tommstein 02:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is the appropriate place to jot this message. Hi, Tommstein. I hope you will forgive me for archiving your comment at my user talk page. I do my very best to keep the atmosphere at my user pages uplifting and positve, with the very best of language. That aside, I do wish for you to find a hospitable environment at Misplaced Pages. Is there anything I might do to help you achieve better understanding of your concerns? Tom Haws 03:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Archiving the stuff from your Talk page is nothing. My main intention was to give you the other side of DannyMuse's victim story, lest you only hear him say everyone else was messing the pages up and believe him, but that's done now. A secondary purpose was so that, if he continues trying to make himself look like a poor victim in the dispute resolution process, and people actually go back and see him lamenting that everyone else was messing the pages up, that they would also see the other side of the story right there. The last time he made a request for comment, he saw that as an opportunity for a wildly-out-of-context quote festival, so I'd prefer to have everything documented and out there, and posting that rebuttal, including mentions of his various behaviors, right after his victim story helped serve that purpose.

Things have been going pretty well on Misplaced Pages otherwise though. There's no real problem going on at the moment. I've taken an interest in helping with some quality control all over the place, reverting vandalism and copyediting a little and all that, in addition to the Jehovah's Witness stuff. I've got 550 edits since I joined last month, but on 202 different articles, so I've been all over the place. I see the wildest stuff pop up on my watchlist all the time, because I once reverted some vandalism or fixed a typo or something and I don't have the heart to remove it from my watchlist.Tommstein 05:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, enjoy yourself. I hope resolution wins over dispute. Tom Haws 20:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

"This is indeed 'the correct way to embed quotes' within quotes, as you suspected." -- uberpenguin 14:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, kind sir. I actually gathered that theory from seeing how the New World Translation handles quoting what, say, Jeremiah said that Jehovah said that Assyria said that the king said that Satan said that .... You end up with like 10 levels of quotes sometimes it seems (and '"'"'"'"'" action sometimes at the ends of paragraphs when all the quotes end at the same time).Tommstein 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Signature on warnings...

Thanks for the great work on reverting vandalism and warning vandals. Please remember, though, to sign your warnings with ~~~~ so others can tell what's going on. Thanks. --Nlu 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just figured that it might be more of a deterrent to see a nameless warning from 'Misplaced Pages' than a warning from User:Tommstein, but I'll start signing those.Tommstein 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

It would be advisable to not label individuals "degenerate" or label items as "spam". The former is a personal attack, the latter is a misrepresentation. Retcon 22:38, 07 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't go around spamming Misplaced Pages like some kind of a degenerate and there's nothing to worry about.Tommstein 09:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The link in question apparently wasn't working, must have been cookie enabled on my end. Fair enough. It isn't spam however, as you'll note by informing yourself on what precisely "spam" denotes. In addition, personal attacks are against Misplaced Pages policy and yet you persist simply because that webpage didn't meet your criteria. So at least be cordial enough to apologize for the verbal labeling. Even if two parties do not agree, there can still be some civility maintained. Retcon 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already told you that I'm not going to sit here and argue over the definition of spam with you. Spammers aren't a part of the Misplaced Pages community, they're an undesired pimple on Misplaced Pages's rear end. There's no agreement to be achieved regarding spam, it doesn't belong here, period.Tommstein 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So then who defines what is irrelevant or inappropriate, according to the above definition of the term spam? However I do know the policy here onno personal attacks specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Yet when you use terms labeling myself as "spammer" and "degenerate" you in fact violate this policy. You request I not spam...which was not an intent in that link whatsoever...yet you hold yourself above the community practices relating to attacks. A simple apology would rectify this matter. Retcon 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, no one determines what is spam and what isn't, Misplaced Pages is now open for anyone to insert anything they want, lest we hurt anyone's feelings by telling them that they're adding crap. Calling something spam is a comment on the content, not the contributor. By definition, someone that is spamming is a spammer. Not that I called you a spammer anyway, I just made a comment about them. Although if you're taking generic statements about spammers personally, that tells us something. About your "degenerate" whining, again, don't spam Misplaced Pages and there's nothing to worry about. Not that I called you "degenerate" either, I simply stated a rhetorical question about whether they've all found Misplaced Pages, without naming anyone or anything. Now, if you're again deciding that that's about you personally, that tells us something too. Although you weren't even logged in when you were spamming the article, so if you want to present yourself as an anonymous hit-and-run vandalizing spammer, you'll be treated like anonymous hit-and-run vandalizing spammers. Yes, vandalizing too, because the link presented no evidence of having absolutely anything to do with the subject of the article, unlike normal spam, which would at least have something to do with the subject of the article. There's still no certainty that it was even you spamming the article (although it would be an interesting argument to hear someone demand credit for spamming a Misplaced Pages article).Tommstein 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Incredible the circular logic employed above to try and support your contention. Your two personal attacks were direct responses to an action which only you support as being "spam". An anoyomous individual adding the link, sorry you are getting your facts wrong once more. And the party whining is the one who tries to spin articles in a POV perspective wherein there is extreme obsession against all things JW. Still no answer to the query of why exactly you devote so much time to this pursuit rather towards a cause you advocate that will enrich lives. You've clouded your biases though it appears they are becoming more evident day by day. Retcon 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, as fun as it is wasting my time arguing with someone that can't/doesn't want to read and has now branched out into blatant lying that I'm apparently supposed to waste yet more time responding to, I'm done with you.Tommstein 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you promise ;) I mean really, it has been such a joy having you call me names and such...so reminiscent of school age hijinks and all. It might be advantageous to focus on something positive rather than commisserating over a belief system that you personally dislike. It makes me wonder why apostates can never move on when they say they've been held in an "oppressive" system? Isn't there something better for them to fill their lives with than simply tearing down with irroneous facts and suppositions based on taking quotations out of context. Retcon 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Future idiotic, factless, rambling personal attack stupidity on my Talk page will be deleted. Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something, because it ain't happening here.Tommstein 22:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the above wasn't according to your own definition a "personal attack". If you feel from the above description that you fit the profile, then what does that tell all of us? Deleting talk from your talk page despite your previously stating it should remain. How about some consistency in applying principals to self and others? Retcon 22:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to all future posterity: In checking up on stuff, it seems that Retcon was in fact logged in when he made the above changes, but they were his first edits to the page since I've been on Misplaced Pages. So he was technically logged in, but still as anonymous to me as someone that wasn't (which is probably why I remember him as anonymous, since, to me, he was). Doesn't change any of the facts regarding the edits, but I just felt compelled to clarify this irrelevant detail now for when I'm reminiscing over my Talk page in 50 years.Tommstein 08:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical gratification

Thanks for your comments about my edits. I wasn't really sure whether I should add such comments within articles, but the only people who have complained are those who don't know how to write, so I think I'll continue.--Jeffro77 11:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've enjoyed them from the beginning. I'm not exactly an English professor, so at worst, they confirm that something that I do is an actual grammar rule and not just my invention, and at best, I learn something new.Tommstein 12:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:JW participants

I wonder if you would consider undoing your alphabetization of the list. I think there is a certain flavor of order that was nice. Tom Haws 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't have to be alphabetized. I think that when I joined, it was alphabetized (which is unlikely to occur at random), so I assumed that was the way it was supposed to be. Do you want me to go back and put names in order of joining (as far as I can), or just start leaving new ones wherever they are put (or moving them to the end)? Or continue alphabetizing?Tommstein 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)