Misplaced Pages

User talk:Seddon/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Seddon Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:13, 8 February 2008 editMarvin Shilmer (talk | contribs)2,253 edits →Regarding Shilmer's Remarks tagged 20:45, 7 February 2008: for Cfrito, a WARNING and comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:09, 26 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,011,897 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] 
(320 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WMUK}}
{{USRD-news-subscription}}
{{archive box|
*]


*]
==]==


*]}}
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable ]. If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to the page and leave a note on ] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.


== Attachment theory ==
Please read the ] (specifically, article #7) and ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Nn-warn --> --] 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Seddon. I hope everything's good with you, and you come back fully some time soon. I know this mediation case has closed, but the participants still want some kind of resolution. I've spent a few hours reading through everything, and the only solution I can come up with is to block KingsleyMiller - his conduct seems to be causing all this, and he really isn't adding much of value to articles. This is a bit extreme, so I was wondering if you, as someone who has been involved in the mediation from a neutral perspective, could let me know what you think. ] ] 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove ] tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{]}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. <!-- Template:Drmspeedy --> --] 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


== Re: Hey == == Drosophila eye image edit ==


Temporary version ]. I'll leave the rest to you. Thanks a lot, and all the best with it. ] (]) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, welcome to Misplaced Pages. First, I see you added the template to your user page, but you should to the list of WPTC participants. Next, the WPTC has its own IRC channel, in which a lot of the WPTC members meet to talk about storms and other topics. If you have Chatzilla, you can use that, but the easiest way is to use - put your name as your name, irc.freenode.net as the server, and #wiki-hurricanes as the server. They'll be able to give you help right away. Alright, the thing about articles is that the first one might be a bit difficult, but once you start the rest get easier. Adding to existing articles is one way to make things easier, as is an article on something you're interested in. For example, do you prefer older articles? Newer? Typhoons? Cyclones in the Indian Ocean? Pacific storms? If you like newer storms in the NHC basin (which a lot of people do), what about working on ]? Regardless which one you pick, I'll give you some hints to get you along. The first is references; everything you add to the article needs to be cited by a reliable source. The official agency for the warning basin is the best source, but for things like impact and preparations, news sources are fine.


== Various featured picture candidacies ==
The first major part of the article is the storm history. Storms from last year and before have tropical cyclone reports back to 1995 in html, with older scanned reports back to 1958 (). For storms from this year without a report, you'd use National Hurricane Center discussions (linked above in Hurricane Season Tropical Cyclone Advisory Archive section), and for the history prior to its first advisory, you'd use tropical weather outlooks (). The storm history should provide an entire meteorological history of the storm. Not every single detail needs to be listed, but be sure to include its track (what factors determined the track), its intensity (what factors caused it to strengthen or weaken), and landfalls. Extreme examples of good storm histories are ] and ].


<!-- comment to force linebreak -->
Next is preparations. These include tropical cyclone watches and warnings (which can be found in the NHC archive link), evacuations, and any other preparedness actions. Next is impact, which is just a collection of impact the storm caused (damage, deaths, people affected, injuries, damage totals, etc.) Last is aftermath (including monetary aid to people affected, disaster declarations, ect.), but typically that section is only included for more impacting storms (meaning most storm articles will only have storm history, preparations, and impact).
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
|-
|]
|{{center|1='''Your ] has been promoted'''}} Your nomination for ] status, ''']''', gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at ]. ] 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
|}
<!-- comment to force linebreak -->
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
|-
|]
|{{center|1='''Your ] has been promoted'''}} Your nomination for ] status, ''']''', gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at ]. ] 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
|}


== ] ==
If there's any more questions, give me a post. See you around! ] (<small>]</small>) 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


<!-- comment to force linebreak -->
Hey, I see you started working on Henriette. One little thing, though - you should use the - they're easier to use than the discussions, although the discussions are more in depth. Keep it up. ] (<small>]</small>) 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
:Well, it depends how interesting the storm history was. A good storm history tells the reader what was going on throughout the storm's lifetime. What circumstances lead to its formation? What conditions allowed the depression to strengthen into a tropical storm? Why did it take the path that it took? Did it slowly becoming better organized, or did low shear and warm waters allow an eyewall to quickly form? Unfortunately, every storm is different, but why don't you use ] as an example? It's a featured article for a Pacific hurricane that hit Mexico, and aside from the strength, they were two similar storms. One more thing I should mention is that there are no deadlines for Misplaced Pages. The project could feasibly last for centuries, and while it is useful to have a storm article ready while there is a great interest in it, after it is done the article is there for historical purposes, I guess. --] (<small>]</small>) 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
|-
|]
|{{center|1='''Your ] has been promoted'''}} Your nomination for ] status, ''']''', gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at ]. ] 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
|}
==Image tagging for Image:NAS montage 3.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.


To add this information, click on ], then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on ].
::Well, you can work on whatever article you want at any time. You don't have to do Henriette if you don't want to. To that, I have two opposing viewpoints. One is that the article can always be finished later on - there is no time limit to get it done. On the other hand, there are hundreds of start articles like Henriette, many of which are never finished, and so when someone has one of them as a project and they drop it, it's a shame. Sandboxes are made by adding a link to them; that may sound confusing, but all you would have to do is add content to ] to consider it a sandbox. Regarding Cosme, you can do that if you want. I'd like to note, however, that it did very little, and that it might be a little difficult to make a full article. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. ] (<small>]</small>) 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


For more information on using images, see the following pages:
== Warning vandals ==
* ]
* ]


Thank you for your cooperation. --] (]) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an official and more efficient way of warning vandals. You can see all about them and how to use them ]. Thanks. ---]<sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
==Image tagging for Image:NAS montage 2.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.


To add this information, click on ], then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on ].
== Re: 2000 NIO ==


For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hey. One thing is that articles should be fairly ready by the time they are published. Given that the sandbox has little more than what is in the 2000-2004 season article, I don't see too much of a need to publish it as it is. I recommend you expand the storm sections. A full paragraph on storm history for each of them, as well as a paragraph of impact (if available) would be nice. Be sure, when you look at it, that it looks like other season articles do. ] (<small>]</small>) 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
* ]
* ]


Thank you for your cooperation. --] (]) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
==NY CRs==
==Image tagging for Image:NAS1.jpg==
Could you go through and redirect the talk pages as well? Otherwise it throws off our assessment stats. Thanks, ''']''' (] ]) 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.


To add this information, click on ], then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on ].
== Wikiproject: Climate Change - solutions ==


For more information on using images, see the following pages:
New article about the global climate crisis solutions. (Cars, sun, wind vehicles like Toyota Prius)--] 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
* ]
* ]


Thank you for your cooperation. --] (]) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
== Re: Infobox ==


== RE:Apollo 13 FSC ==
I think the distinction between the storm category and the main text of the infobox is the distinction between body and header text. When you made that edit the labels of the various parts of the body: formed, dissipated and so on were bouncing around; it looks better to have those aligned IMO. I think you got mixed up with the season infobox which is central (I'm trying to figure out how).


Thanks Seddon, I do not have time to properly review it right now, but I will later this evening. Cheers, <span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span> 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the other edit that looks ''good'' as it centralises the various category info. The edits are actually different. Oh, and the reason the storm name is not left aligned ''in the markup'' is that it is technically a ]. That is handled by the site CSS, which produces a centrally aligned text.--]] (]) 09:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


== Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18 ==
== Wellington Street (Ottawa) ==


I thought you might be interested in this. The ] of the ] newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the newsletter, please add your username to the appropriate section on the ]. ♬♩ ] (<small>]</small>) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to drop a friendly note to you. I understand recently you deleted a clickable map from this article. I would be best if next time you add your reasoning to your edit summary or to the talk page. That way, no one thinks it is vandalism by blanking a section of a page. Thanks and happy editing! ] 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free media (Image:A NAS question.jpg)==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
== Merging WikiProjects ==


== Technical Genius ==
Hi, there is ] to merge inactive WikiProject (] and ]) into ]. Please voice your opinions. ]] 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I declare myself to be one! - check out ] - and ] - to my eternal surprise, my version of iTunes now checks NotTheWikipediaWeekly for updates, and downloads the podcasts automatically!
==WP:NYSR notification ==


I've dropped a note into ] as someone who might be able to help get the RSS feed up to date - but it won't be too much work once its done to keep it current... hooray!
Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of ]. Comments are at ]. Regards.<sup>]</sup><b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


cheers, ] (]) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
==Decommissioned==
Thanks for asking. I still feel like it was "too easy"; the devil will certainly be in the details. I don't like how I've gotten almost no input on ] about whether is fine, especially from the people that started out wanting to use the term when I proposed avoiding it. --] 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


== re: not much point in this ==


True the edit summary's look rediculous, and 1 out of every 20 of my AWB edits are nothing more than a space added before / after == on section headings. But why I'm using AWB on the Hurricane articles is to do the following:
* Fix numerous spelling and formating errors
* Update the refrences template
* Replace ] With ] - > Eliminate redirect
* Replace ] With ] - > Eliminate double redirect
* Replace ] With ] - > Eliminate double redirect
** Repair multiple variants of the above to units of measure causing redirects or misdirects
*Replace ] with ] - > Eliminate Redirects


== ] ==
The addition of spaces within the section headings is meerly a work around for a bug within AWB Currently, and oddly about the only thing showing up in the edit summary.


Could you please clarify which version of the three you prefer? I'd like to promote this, but it's not clear which to promote. ] (]) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So you see there is much of a point for it and AWB is the usefull tool I choose to use as it's making multiple usefull edits. Only issue remaining is the stupid summary :( ] | ] 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
:: Regarding your additional comments,
:: Actually A quick look at ] says that the spaces are optional ] | ] 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Your ] gained a ] of support, and has been ]. If you know of any other sounds worthy of featured status, please ].
==Re:Tropical cyclone IRC==
I tried, but it says that there is no channel. ] (]) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


::What are those? ] (]) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I have made sure the featured sound version is in the relevant articles. ] (]) 12:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


== POTD notification ==
:::Still not sure how that IRC works. Does there have to be other users on it? ] (]) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


]]]
::::I will download it later. Have you gotten any feedback on the 1988 FAC? ] (]) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Seddon,


Just to let you know that the Featured Picture ] is due to make an appearance as ] on July 18, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I use my parents computer...I don't know if they want me downloading all sorts of stuff into it. ] (]) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
{{-}}


== Helping out with Wikimania ==
::::::i got in, and I see you and a couple other users, and a whole bunch of code. What do I do from here? ] (]) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I see you signed up to help out with Wikimania. The best thing to do is to join this mailing list:
:::::::Hey, I can see your messages on the IRC. Can you see me on it? I can't. ] (]) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::i don't have firewall. ] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Yea, I saw it. Thanks! ] (]) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


== Al Gore + climate solutions ==


--] (]) 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"I was just wondering whether you think this project can be salvaged and new life put into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seddon69 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)"


== RFM ==
: I think we have to write some article about the solutions with a lot of details. We should edit the ] article, to develope , to finish to '''Feature article'''. (Bali conference)--] (]) 10:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the reminder, I've asked a question to make sure I understand the proposal correctly. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
==User:Juliancolotn/List of Atlantic-Pacific corssover hurricanes==
HEy, sorry I didn't notice your post on ]. Anyway, is the name good enough? I think ''crossover hurricane'' is a good name, but i don't know if ''changeover'' would be better. ] (]) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


==Thank you== == Many thanks! ==
Thank you for fixing the vandalism to Widor. A look into this IP's history will reveal a consistent pattern of similarly nonsensical inserts - does this count as vandalism and should it be reported?


{| align=center style="{{Round corners}}; font-family:Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; border: 3px solid #3AAB67; padding: 6px; background: #B8F9CF;"
Incidentally I see you are on the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject. Being an aficionado of hurricane info and trivia, I'd be interested in joining - how do I go about doing that? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|]
|<font color=#297447 size=4>'''Thank you...'''</font>


<font color=#297447>...for participating in ], which closed with '''119''' in support, '''4''' neutral and '''5''' opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up ] for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, ''''']]''''' 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)</font>
====
|}
*'''Seddon69:''' Thank you for taking on the task of mediating the dispute going on regarding the article . It has been a very frustrating experience. Your input is most welcome.--] (]) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


==]==
:'''Seddon69:''' Which source is it that you seek? If the material is in my personal library I am happy to email a copy to you for your personal review but not for distribution. If the material is a library item then we will have to work out something else. You ask for page numbers. I have provided page numbers in all my citations, except for the one of Fred Franz’s university transcript. Is this the only source material you need?--] (]) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello,
::'''Seddon69:''' I sent you two emails. The second one provides an email address. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:::'''Seddon69:''' I sent the document you requested. Please verify receipt.--] (]) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Would you care to review the current situation at this article, and comment on whether or not the outcome of mediation has been properly applied? ] (]) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


==]==
::::'''Seddon69:''' If you are asking about Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience, you can find this in almost any large library. If you are unable to find this work then let me know and I’ll scan and email the appropriate pages sometime tomorrow.
I've been in the long process of converting articles I'd improved over the years to GA class. I guess FAC would be the ultimate goal for all the articles, but work priorities are currently sidelining much wikipedia editing on my part during the past month, and likely will continue to sideline significant wikipedia editing through October. After I get back from a work trip, I could send it through FAC. That would be in a couple weeks. If you feel up to it, you could submit it sooner. =) ] (]) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


== Rawat & formal mediation ==
::::If you are asking about Cetnar’s statement quoted in the book We Left Jehovah's Witnesses by Ed Gruss, this book will be harder to find, but without a doubt your library can retrieve one for your review. Unfortunately I do not have this particular book in my own collection, though I have read it. If you are unable to get your hands on a copy I will see what I can do. Optionally, you can take a look at the following to online articles where both Cetnar and Franz are both cited. I do not suggest these online article authenticate the material, but you may find them helpful in your deliberations:


Re. your question, see ]. --] (]) 07:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::::http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/jw/jwnwt.htm


== Mediation Committee ==
::::http://www.ukapologetics.net/newworld.html


It is my pleasure to announce that your ] to become a member of the ] has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and ] on your watchlist, as well as ], which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's ]; <s>please ] so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.</s> If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!
::::Regarding Cetnar, I do have a leaflet he published in letter form wherein he names individuals who worked within the NWT Committee. I have this as a pdf file and can share it if you want. But this document is difficult to cite because it is undated, and originality is disputable because all I have for authentication is William Cetnar’s widow’s word that the document was of her deceased husband. But, if you want me to send this, I will. Your considered approach to this whole episode is very much appreciated, not to mention refreshing.--] (]) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:''For the Mediation Committee'', ] (]) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::By the way, I subscribed your @googlemail address for you. I think you just need to confirm it now. Cheers, ] (]) 15:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::Welcome aboard! ] 15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


==Congratulations :-D==
:::::'''Seddon69:''' I have emailed two documents that should take care of your requests. Please confirm receipt. If you need something more please inform.--] (]) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Whee!! :-D ] (]) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::'''Seddon69:''' There is no foul. I just wanted to make sure Vassalis78 understood clearly that you had the same document he inquired of. Saying the document had a "watchtower" watermark suggests something about the document's authenticity in terms of the Watchtower organization. The watermark is "watchthetower". Not "watchtower". I was just clarifying things for sake of readers and editors.--] (]) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


== Sound conversion ==
:::::::'''Seddon69:''' It has been over a week. You have requested information from editors. May I ask what in the world is taking so long for you to review the relatively small of amount of source data at issue in this matter, and why by now you have not contributed substantially to remedial action? --] (]) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


*'''Seddon69:''' Welcome. We all look forward to your input. -- ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Hey, I was going to try my hand with Featured Sounds. What conversion program do you use to get the files into .ogg format? Thanks, ''']''' '']'' 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
:'''Seddon69:''' I have been tied up responding yet again to an interrogatory by Shilmer for the benefit of the other editors


<!-- comment to force linebreak -->
:To answer at least partly, I made several edits, mostly removing unqualified statements like "F Franz failed to earn a post-graduate degree or doctorate" since the reference provided by Shilmer did not actually say that (I don't know of a college transcript that predicts the future like that), and the word "failed" suggests that he tried but could not make the grade, which is completely misleading and false. Beyond this the fact that he personally sought this transcript and then provided an analysis of its contents and editorialized on its meaning in the Article constitutes Original Research.
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
|-
|]
|{{center|1='''Your ] has been promoted'''}} Your nomination for ] status, ''']''', gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at ]. ] 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
|}


== RE: Nagle's talk page, New antisemitism mediation, LexisNexis ==
:I have also repeatedly deleted the hearsay testimony of anti-JW's such as W Cetnar and R Franz on the basis that these are recollections from memoirs and cannot be corroborated. Shilmer has repeatedly built a circumstantial cases for their ''probabilistic'' truth, but cannot supply documentation beyond R Franz's memoir and personal testimonials of another former JW. The two lists are not identical, and even Shilmer agrees that the list is not comprehensive. Thus such a list can never address the question about the technical skill of the translation team, and is merely a point of trivia pushed by some ex-JW's with questionable ethics (R Franz had taken an explicit oath of confidentiality which he felt no longer applied when he began disliking his former colleagues). It cannot be determined whether the list is accurate and given the nature of the source memoirs a reasonable doubt exists as to their veracity in general. And since the NWT has included many other still-unnamed translators and editors and researchers, any partial list, true or not, cannot possibly be used a basis of criticism which is the very premise for its inclusion.


Hey there. My name is Aharon42. I saw on Nagle's talk page that back in May you were looking for someone with access to NexisLExis. I have access because I am doing Medical research with a proffesor at Emory University in Atlanta and I would be happy to to look things up for you. If you want to also just point the way to some articles that could be improved by doing literature searches just let me know. Im a new editor so any guidance or instruction you want to send my way would be greatly appreciated. Cheers] (]) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I have tried to add balance to the sweeping criticisms by theologians such as Rowley and Ankerberg by referencing the famous debate between Sir Thomas More and William Tyndale and Martin Luther, where More gives the same criticisms of Tyndale's and Luther's works (including the references to More's ''Heresies'' and Tyndale's ''Reply''). While this is not directly addressing the NWT itself, it did address the sense that the NWT was somehow unique in garnering hyper-negative criticism from the established clergy of the day. This is relevant since the bulk of the references are from competing theologians who simply refer to the same handful of linguists, most of whom are theologians themselves. This recursion has the effect of adding undue weight to both the underlying scholars' comments and confers authority in linguistics to theologians who lack them otherwise. When I added an edit stating that it is difficult indeed to divorce theology from Bible translations and the criticisms of Bible translations I cited Dr. Furuli's "Role of Bias and Theology in Bible Translations". Shilmer summarily deleted it because, 'critics don't translate, they criticize.' Of course critics do translate or they would have no basis for their critique and so they are subject to the influences. When I moved historical facts to the History section, Shilmer added critics comments there too,as if their comments were somehow relevant to the history of the work simply by virtue of the critics having said those things in the past.


== PR Hwy 124 ==
:I hope this is what you were looking for. There are other edits and references, but hopefully this will be enough to get the Editors back on track and hopefully get the Article's rating improved from the "B" it is today. -- ] (]) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Eh - it was pretty darn close to an A1. If anyone objects to it, I'll treat it as a PROD and restore it - same deal if the author recreates it. But yeah, do be careful with Twinkle, because it assumes you click the correct option the first time. I screwed up more than one nomination before I was allowed to just delete them. Thanks for letting me know. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
----


===Exception Taken!=== ==My RfA==
{|style="background-color: #E6E6FA; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #888;"
|]
|style="background-color: #def; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #888;"|Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. &ndash;] ] ] 18:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
|}


== WMUK election - ETA? ==
'''Seddon69:''' I take exception to your warning. If you check the talk page you will see where I <u>restrained</u> from further edits pending an explanation from editor Cfrito. This is my standard method. I have just about had it with the means and methods applied to this NWT article among editors. Academic rigor and common decency have been caste to the wayside replaced with idiosyncratic methods of rank bias and schoolboy standards of presentation. If you do not have the time or wherewithal to deal with this then I ask that you recuse yourself and let someone else work in your stead. <u>Objective editing is testable</u>. I suggest you begin <u>testing the veracity</u> of edits by myself and Cfrito, and <u>speak up about it</u>.--] (]) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


--] (]) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Hi there, any ETA on the election results? --] (]) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully later tonight. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::Excellent. Apparently Gini and Andrew have already compared results and they match, so if you'll be done soon (assuming you agree with them), that should be it. Great news! --] (]) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::What's the hold up? Did your maths not agree with Gini and Andrew's? --] (]) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


== Hmm? ==
:I would like to excise myself from this case. I think you and Addhoc are equipped to handle it, and then I would feel more comfortable moving on to another case. Let me know that this is fine with you. Thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


How could you have POSSIBLY known what I did so fast? Are you really a bot in disguise? Cuz if you are, thats grounds for ] in some countries. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== ] ==


:Still no answer, hmm? In the words of that person from that show, "How rude!" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I noticed you are attempting to mediate this case. Has it been closed? The ip has been blocked for a month because of disruption there. I also note that you co-mediator has been indef blocked as a sock. Is there anything I can do to help to wind this up? -]<sub>]</sub> 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


== revised ] ==
==Offer of assistance==
If you need any help with , it has spilled over into my normal domain of ] and ], and I'd be available to assist in mediating as well, having recently joined the Cabal (*eerie music*)] (]) 10:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


I have removed the {{tl|prod}} tag from ], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{tl|prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at ]. Thanks! <!-- ] -->
== 1988 AHS FA ==
] (]) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


==MfD nomination of ]==
Congrats on your promotion. Have you selected an article, as part of the contest? ♬♩ ] (<small>]</small>) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hi. Thanks for your response. I originally saw the three user subpages of this article listed at a few days ago. User page articles shouldn't be referenced as articles. I left a comment on the Talk page of each of the users' articles, e.g. ] (which you didn't respond to) on 28 September. Because Cfrito has not been actively editing for several months, I place a PROD tag on his subpage, and was subsequently advised by an admin that it should have had an MfD instead. Because I did not want to be accused of favouritism (because all three are in breach of the guideline), I placed an MfD for all three.--] (]) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


== Request for clarification ==
==Thank you!==


You wrote:
Hey Seddon, thanks for the help on how to join WP:TROP. I think for now, since I don't have a lot of time to devote to Misplaced Pages, I'm going to focus my energies on another project that I'm currently involved in. I'm saving your note, though, and will join the project at some future date - hopefully not too long! I'm most interested in Atlantic hurricanes of the 20th century and have accumulated a considerable knowledge of them and statistics relating to them - Australian cyclones are fascinating too. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
''"I suggest putting in a request for clarification. Seddσn talk Editor Review 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"''


What is a "request for clarification", and to whom does one put it in? ] (]) 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
==WP:NTROP newsletter==
Hi. As you may know, the ] was started. If you would like to receive the newsletter, place you name ]. Also, we need editors for the newsletter. So, sign up at the nesletter HQ to be an editor, and to help out with the next issue, go to ]. Thanks. ] (]) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


== MEDCAB medical degree ==
====


Hi, thanks for taking the case. I did the ] DR which worked for a while, but then fell apart later on. I do MEDCAB myself, but thought it'd be better to let someone else have a go. For background, the 3O discussion is . If I can be of any help, do let me know. Thanks! :) ''''']] ]''''' 14:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
'''Seddon69:''' Creating your NWT sandbox is a good idea. I created one earlier today to continue working on the article. You can view it at the link above.


Hi- I and another editor have been involved in a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the "medical degree" entry. We seem to be going over the same issues repeatedly, and I thought you might be able to lend a helpful third-party voice. Thanks! ] (]) 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spending time on this. I know some of my responses have probably sounded harsh, and I apologize if any feelings are hurt. This was not my intent. The fact is you are spending your time (little or great, quick or slow) trying to help. We should be grateful. I am grateful and do not want to leave it unsaid. Thanks for your help. If you need more in the way of reference material, let me know.


==Worldnetdaily==
By the way, I never heard back from you regarding whether you received the secondary source documents about the identity of NWT translators. Did you get this information? --] (]) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


This site is very poorly sourced and extremely biased. I've placed recommended changes on the talk page, no one objected and I was proceeding with the changes. Where did I go wrong? ] (]) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
'''Seddon69:''' On the matter of your sandbox reference, ''http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html'', do you believe this to be an accurate, fact-checked source? In short do you believe that this source is a ]? If so, why? -- ] (]) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


== audio file ==
'''Seddon69:''' I understand your position and I do greatly appreciate your stepping in to help add perspective to this situation. But regarding the references you added to your sandbox NWT Article, I must make a few points (please don't misunderstand, I am not seeking to "shred" for shredding's sake). Very little care was taken by the editors to ensure the writings and references were accurate on these websites. For example, in an attempt to add extreme undue weight, the http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html web page author writes, ''"But former <u>members</u> of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization <u>have identified</u> the members of the committee as..."'' This is inexcusable to use the plural for R Franz. And interestingly, this site also shows, by R Franz's own hand that R Franz consulted on specific renderings and lexical matters regarding the NWT. That R Franz should leave himself off the list as having worked on the translation is equally inexcusable and deliberately dishonest. And the same website quotes Penton as saying that, ''"to all intents and purposes <u>the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz.</u>"'' But the second website you reference includes this statement, ''"Although Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, <u>he was not able, when pressed, to translate</u> from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student."''. So if this writer is being intellectually honest and Fred Franz was ''unable'' to translate even a simple Hebrew sentence, then how could Penton be correct in saying that it was virtually exclusively Fred Franz's work? Cetnar's list includes Henschel, and he's supposedly credible too. Cetnar interviewed Goodspeed specifically with respect to the NWT. No one disputes that Goodspeed was impressed with the work for he wrote in late 1950, ''""I am interested in the mission work of your people, and in its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."'' The freeminds.org editor reports that D r Goodspeed, 4 years before the Scottish trial involving Fred Franz, says the work is pleasing but then also reports Franz is simply not capable of even the simplest translating task. But Penton says it was virtually all Fred Franz's work. So, is Penton correct? Is R Franz correct? Is Cetnar correct? Should R Franz be included? Do any of them really know? The other information has some serious flaws too, but I don't want to give the impression that I am just "shredding" here. My interest is to not mislead NWT Article readers. As frustrating as it may be, we <u>cannot</u> know who actually worked on what and to what extent without clarification from those who did the work or from the publisher. With such conflicts and misstatements, and internal to each individual author's own websites, can they truly be relied upon to give opinions? Can the factual statements truly be trusted? Should anyone's opinions even matter in an instance where it is a factual issue involved? So what happens to the quality of the Article if these names are left out? I argue that its value and integrity are vastly improved because it will eliminate trivia and innuendo. -- ] (]) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


geez I know how to pester, huh?! - drop me a line when the audio file is online, and I'll get it polished up and published :-) cheers, ] (]) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:For '''Cfrito''' and the sake of '''Seddon69''': Cfrito, each and every question you relate has simple answers. '''1)''' Because a person is unable or unwilling to translate a single Hebrew text on a witness stand is not evidence they are unable to translate the text at their own pace and with the aid of translation tools. '''2)''' Penton expresses that Franz brought to bear his formal education in Greek together with his self-taught command of Hebrew as the chief translator of the NWT. '''3)''' Ray Franz has not suggested he worked on the NWT, and the article published online by Bible Research (edited by Michael Marlowe) does not suggest otherwise. '''4)''' I agree the article published by Bible Research erred with the plural "members" of the Governing Body. Likely the editor had in mind two sources (Ray Franz and William Cetnar) but mistook the high position held by Cetnar. '''5)''' Cetnar's inclusion of Henschel was his observation from the early 1950s. Ray Franz made his observations in the 1970s. Hence there is no contradiction by Cetnar including Henschel and Ray Franz not including Henschel. Both men simply related their own observations of who was working on the NWT translation committee during their respective tenure at Watchtower. If you need more please inform. '''6)''' No one sugggests the names of NWT translators should be presented in the article as fact/truth. Information should be presented by the source or sources.--] (]) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


==Mediation Cabal: ]==
:'''Seddon69:''' Shilmer agrees that the information is based on recollection, is error-prone, opinions rather than facts, and the two websites include careless errors. They are unsuitable for inclusion because they do not meet the ] criteria. Since Fred Franz seems to be the key figure at any rate, and we have positive confirmation, we should just stick to the facts and leave the speculations of others out of it. Shilmer will continue with his tantrums only because he can't add all the anti-writing references he so desperately needs to add to feel good about himself. Just look at how hard he is working to include pure suspicion masquerading as fact, and compare that to how hard he works to make sure that only''externally sourced'' strictly-double-checked factual information about Fred Franz be let in, even though it is more relevant than any whodunit suspects. He won't even allow Fred's own words in from his autobiographical account about his very own background, but would abuse and harass anyone disallowing R Franz's recollections about matters he only observed from afar, who according to Shilmer did not work on the NWT (but according to the excerpt on the website quoting from RF's self-promoting book did actually work on it). So who do we believe? What's the point? How will anyone reading this encyclopedic article benefit? Shilmer can rationalize all he wants but the defects in these sources are too careless, too misleading, too complete, to pervasive, to simply hand-wave away. -- ] (]) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Seddon, Here is a link to more background information which may be helpful: -> ]
Myself and a couple of other editors have performed a cleanup of the article over the past couple of days, so hopefully the article is at least somewhat more compliant with Wiki NPOV policy.
Thanks for your help with this issue! ] (]) 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


==Posted==
::'''Cfrito''' and for the '''sake of Seddon69:''' Demonstrably you misperceive information.
Your email is posted here as you requested: ] <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


== An invite for you ==
::'''1)''' <u>It is false</u> that the article edited by Michael Marlowe suggests that Ray Franz ‘worked on’ the NWT. Ray Franz ‘worked on’ a Bible dictionary later titled Aid to Bible Understanding.


{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: "white";"
::'''2)''' <u>It is false</u> that I “won’t even allow Fred’s own words in from his autobiographical account”. If you check you will find this source quoted. What I have objected to is making assertions of this source that the source does not support.
|align="center"|]
|align="left" width="100%"|<big><b>The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly</big></b>
Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! <FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(])</sup> 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
|}


==Poll==
::'''3)''' <u>It is false</u> that I have agreed that the information of NWT translators is “error-prone” or not factual. This information is published as firsthand testimony and this is how it has been presented; no more and no less.
:]<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


== Eh? ==
::The benefit for including the information of NWT translators is the same benefit for including all other information in an encyclopedic entry: to expose readers and researchers to the world’s knowledge base on a subject basis. We find the information of NWT translators presented and used by secondary source after secondary source when these address the production and history of the NWT. These present the information as reliable and, accordingly, synthesize various conclusions from it in conjunction with other pieces of information. All these sources accept the information as reliable and coming from reliable sources. '''Can you name even a single solitary published source that disputes the reliability of this information?''' <u>Can you?</u>


<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
::The misconception of information by you is ''so profound'' that I fear communication may be impossible. --] (]) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
'''] would like to nominate you to become an administrator.''' Please visit ] to see what this process entails, and then ] to accept or decline the nomination. A page {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Seddon|has been created|will then be created}} for your nomination at ''']'''. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.</div>


What do you think? :) &ndash;] ] ] 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::'''Seddon69:''' A point-for-point rebuttal showing Shilmer's arrogance and misdirection:


==Wikivoices==
:::'''1.''' Marlowe doesn't say that R Franz worked on the NWT, R Franz does. The fact that Marlowe ''doesn't'' say it is a mystery. The quote from R Franz's book from Marlowe's page, ''"When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase..."'' R Franz was actively advising and influencing the NWT.


Hi Seddon. Thanks for the kind invitiation, but I don't use Skype, nor do I expect to in the forseeable future. ]&amp;] 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''2.''' If anyone cares to read the NWT Talk Page and the Edit History reversals by Shilmer, it's clear Shilmer exerted great effort in eliminating important details about Fred Franz such as his statement that he indeed studied Biblical Greek, that he was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship, and that he left University because a change in theology much to the disappointment of the school faculty. Shilmer subsequently added them to his sandbox page, showing that he now fundamentally agrees with me, but needs to position it as though it were originally his ideas and bury the material fact that a large reason for Mediation has been his truculence and arrogance. Indeed his sandbox version is now not much different from the version publicly available, which Shilmer has characterized as "evil".


Thanks from me as well for the invitation. I don't use Skype either, for various reasons, and in any case much prefer to use written text as a medium to communicate in, as opposed to oral communication. Hope the podcasts go well. If transcripts will be available afterwards, I'd be interested in reading them. ] (]) 00:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''3.''' Shilmer, in his 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) address above, admits that Cetnar's and R Franz's lists were based on "observations" and not on any particular documented evidence. One lists Henschel, the other does not. Henschel was a contemporary of R Franz, so it isn't as though they were unknown to each other. Could it be that Henschel only made minor contributions? Perhaps, but R Franz did at least that too, so R Franz should be listed as a translator. Shilmer references Penton who says that the NWT work was principally Fred Franz's, i.e., that everyone else was inconsequential. So why are the others listed at all? And according to Seddon69's reference, under the subheading "Are they Bible Scholars?" the editor writes, ''"Although Franz claimed under oath to be able to read both Hebrew and Greek, <u>he was not able,</u> when pressed, to translate from the Hebrew a passage which scholars stated should give no difficulty to a second year Hebrew student."'' Clearly this writing says that Fred Franz perjured himself. He 'claimed but was unable', even to a second-year student. So either Penton is right or this editor is correct, but not both. No one seriously doubts that Fred Franz became a master of these languages, but this editor clearly is smearing Fred Franz. This is a basic inaccuracy and demonstrates even in the most obvious and easy-to-test areas, it is unreliable. The sources for these names still comes down to R Franz and Cetnar, of who Shilmer deliberately writes twice that both <u>merely observed</u> and that their <u>observations</u> were limited and error-prone. All the other sources who parrot these two do not make the lists more reliable, just more widespread. I am on no crusade to stop the perpetuating of these lists, but Misplaced Pages should not perpetuate unreliable information that is factually wrong and that cannot be proven at all.The article should remain silent on speculations, and list Fred Franz, not as a translator but as its <u>first</u> chief editor.


Thank you for the offer, however I have no access to a microphone system, so I am uncertain if I will be able to participate in this. Should I be able to do so, however, I would greatly appreciate knowing who is responsible for running the cast sessions; I have previously had some poor experiences with this program that have led me to be highly distrustful of certain users responsible for its operation. As mentioned on my candidate talk page, I also will not be very available over the course of the next week due to real life obligations. Sorry. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
::As to the disputes of reliability of the information: Penton says it was all Fred Franz. R Franz says Henschel ''wasn't'' involved. Cetnar says Henschel ''was'' involved. Both worked with Henschel and was "observable" to both (and personally known to both). The Watchtower says that no one will ever know. R Franz says he consulted on passages and that his input was incorporated and thus he worked on it too. Penton argues that incidental input is irrelevant, that there is one name behind the NWT, Fred Franz, and so R Franz shouldn't be listed. But R Franz listed others that according to Penton were insignificant, and so R Franz should have listed himself (it was his admission that he influences certain verses). And why is it relevant? Purportedly to understand better why certain verses were rendered in a particular way so we must know ''who'' rendered them. But we cannot. The lists are disputed even among those who publish them..And the issue at hand is not experts examining facts and drawing reasonable conclusions, it is ''pure gossip, a coffee klatsch, book-selling, idle speculation.'' Of all these publishers of various lists containing their guesses, only the Watchtower emerges as reliable: <u> No one knows and the ones who did the work aren't talking</u>. I have argued from the beginning that tis is the approach the NWT Article should take: List Fred Franz, his established credentials, relevant parts from his autobiographical account, and the Watchtower's position that the true translators will never be exactly known, and that it is irrelevant. All the language scholars that comment on the NWT texts did so, and continue to do so, without requiring individual references to the translators and as such the Watchtower and the NWT Committee have been proved correct and the names of those doing the work are irrelevant. -- ] (]) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


== MedCab invitation ==
:::'''Cfrito''' and for '''sake of Seddon69:''' You presume so much I hardly know how to respond, or where to begin!


I am stepping down as a MedCab coordinator. I would like to invite you to become a MedCab coordinator. Are you willing to take the position? ] (]) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''1.''' Because some change occurred in the NWT after a discussion between Ray and Fred Franz about the same detail does not mean Ray’s question and the resulting discussion was the proximate cause of the change or that the Ray was ‘working on’ the NWT. What you write on this point is one large assumption.


== Sticking down the red tape ==
:::'''2.''' I have never resisted using Fred Franz’s autobiographical material. Furthermore, were you to actually research the history page you find that in the May 1987 Watchtower journal. You are the editor who I am also the first editor who from his autobiographical account. What I have resisted is making assertions of this source that the source does not support. In your immediate reply above you again make such an assertion when you write Fred Franz “was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship.” This is not what F Franz’s autobiography supports. His autobiography supports an assertion that Fred Franz says he was told he had been selected to receive a Rhodes scholarship. You presume on this point of proper use of information, and you falsely allege I somehow resist use of Fred Franz’s autobiographical account. (By the way, the “evil” comment was quoted from Misplaced Pages with a link provided. Apparently you are unable to understand Misplaced Pages humor as well as proper information presentation. Go back and check the link and the quotation marks.)


<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
:::'''3.''' I have always maintained that Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s statements were their own firsthand knowledge. So what? This is also <u>how I have presented</u> what both had to say. This is Misplaced Pages policy, not to mention proper use of information. Furthermore, because a person shares information as their firsthand observation does not make the information unreliable. It just makes their statement their testimony. You do not seem to understand this though multiple editors (including Seddon69) have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions.
'''] would like to nominate you to become an administrator.''' Please visit ] to see what this process entails, and then ] to accept or decline the nomination. A page {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|has been created|will then be created}} for your nomination at ''']'''. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.</div>


Further to our conversation, I serve you with the official notification. ;)<br />Please respond to the questions and sign off on the RfA at your leisure. I will then ].<br />] 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''4.''' Because Fred Franz is stated as the principal translator does not mean he was the only member of the NWT translation committee.
:Oh, and you might want to archive your talk page.
:Messy talk pages don't look great—and you're about to go on RfA. ;-)
:] 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::Good luck, Seddon! :-) &ndash;] ] ] 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
==Your RFA==
Best wishes for your RFA -- ] ] - 05:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


== Got it :-) ==
:::'''5.''' Reading Hebrew and translating <s>Hebrew to English</s> English to Hebrew are two relevantly dissimilar tasks and abilities. Apparently you do not understand this, and you make assumptive assertions accordingly. There is no inconsistency between Penton’s statement and that from Seddon69’s source.


* Where is the dispute taking place?
:::'''Edited to add:''' Author Ian Croft helps readers and researchers understand how the NWT could be “the work of one man” (Penton) yet that one man (Fred Franz) declines to attempt translation of a passage from English to Hebrew.


* Briefly, what's the problem?
:::Croft suggests this is due “to an unquestionably high standard of research into the various translational tools available.” (Croft I, ''The New World Translation and Its Critics'', Bethel Ministries Newsletter, Sept/Oct 1988) If it is the case that a translator accomplishes his or her work by means of meticulous research and use of “translation tools” then it is understandable why the same translator would opt not to attempt to translate on the fly during a courtroom cross examination without those translation tools. Though we should expect a fully trained expert in Hebrew and English translation to attempt translation under such circumstances, we should not expect someone that is less-than-expert to make the attempt, particularly if, as Croft theorizes, the translator is dependant on “translation tools”. --] (]) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


* ...What's keeping it from being solved?
:::'''6.''' You assert that “No one seriously doubts that Fred Franz became a master of these languages” when published secondary source after published secondary source expresses just such a doubt. You just quoted one yourself!


* ...What do you want fixed?
:::'''7.''' That information was already on the street about who was actually performing translation work on the NWT prior to Cetnar or Ray Franz writing a word on the subject is demonstrated (proved) by author Tony Wills in his book ''A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation, Second Edition''. Wills writes, “ Franz is a language scholar of no mean ability—he supervised the translation of the Bible from the original languages into the New World Translation, completed in 1961.” (Wills T, M.A., ''A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation'', Second Edition, Lulu, 2006: 253, Originally published in 1967 by Vantage Press) Wills does not provide a source for this information, but he asserts it authoritatively in his work. Hence, prior to Cetnar and Ray Franz publishing anything word was already getting around. It is was Walter Martin says in Kingdom of the Cults, “''many'' Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were.”
<nowiki><!-- optional --></nowiki>
*How about a limerick or haiku? Code? Drawing?
<nowiki><!-- You can remove the above --></nowiki>


I rather like it :-) ] (]) 05:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''8.''' You assert “R Franz says Henschel wasn't involved.” I do not think you understand the assertion of that statement made by you. Where exactly has Ray Franz said that Henschel <u>was not</u> involved? Where? Or, is this just another misguided assertion?


== arbcom interview ==
:::'''9.''' You have yet to provide a '''single source that agrees with you''' that Raymond Franz and/or William Cetnar are unreliable sources, not to mention all the secondary sources! Why should editors accept your opinion over the conclusion of reliability demonstrated in all the secondary sources cited in this instance when you cannot offer even '''a single published secondary source''' in support of your view?


here it is :-)
:::'''10.''' The rest of what you write needs no response. Abundant published information already expressed shows how misguided is your extremely loose use of information and poor argument form. I really fear your misconceptions and assumptions will prevent communication, and mediation depends on good communication. In the meantime the NWT article is held hostage. --] (]) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


I'll probably put it on my candidate page at some point too - and look forward to hearing the others :-) ] (]) 06:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::'''Editors:''' Okay well I must have come pretty close to the mark to get old Shilmer this worked up. As for the source that agrees with me, that the list that has no documentation, we have the Watchtower organization. They say they've never released the names. As for a second source that says R Franz and Cetnar are wrong, well that's Shimer's boy Penton: He says it's the work of principally one man, not five or six. And R Franz was working on renderings from the original languages into English and was concerned that the original meaning was altered with the existing phrasing. His version was accepted, according to his very own words. -- ] (]) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


]
:::'''Cfrito''' and '''for sake of Seddon69:''' Worked up and working the problem are different things. I am working the problem, and I am doing it what published sources of information, and with published and well-known forms of logical construction and refutation, not to mention Misplaced Pages policy.


== interview ==
:::'''1.''' I asked that you provide a source that agrees with you that the information of NWT translators’ names is unreliable. You offer the Watchtower organization as a source that agrees with you. Guess what? <u>Nowhere</u> does the Watchtower organization even remotely suggest that the names offered by Cetnar and Ray Franz is unreliable information. Not even once. For that matter, the Watchtower organization has at no time suggested that as sources of information either Ray Franz or Cetnar are unreliable. Hence this offering of published evidence from you is worthless as support for your opinion. If you disagree then please offer an <u>actual reference</u> from Watchtower literature that editors can review to see if anywhere the Watchtower organization suggests that the names offered by Ray and Cetnar is unreliable, or that as sources either of these are unreliable. Go ahead. Show us.


Thankyou for the offer, but I don't possess a computer reliable enough to hold a meaningful skype conversation. Please do post any questions that occur to you on my questions page. ] (]) 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::2. You assert that Penton “''says R Franz and Cetnar are wrong''”. Actually what Penton writes is taken right from these sources, and he agrees with them. When Penton states that NWT translation work was principally the work of one man he agrees with Cetnar and Ray Franz:


== Your RfA ==
:::'''Cetnar states:''' “Aside from Vice-President Franz (and his training was limited), none of the committee members had adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators.” (Gruss E, We Left The Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1974, p. 68)


Hey Seddon, just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the remaining questions at your RfA. Best of luck, &ndash;] ] ] 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:::'''Ray Franz states:''' “Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind.” (Franz R, Crisis of Conscience Third Edition, Commentary Press, 2000: 54)


== Your RFA was successful ==
:::'''Penton states:''' “From page 50 of Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz states that the members of it were his uncle, Frederick Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas. Then he notes: ‘Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati, but was only self taught in Hebrew.’ So to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man—Frederick Franz.” (Penton J, Apocalypse Delayed Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 1999, p. 173-4)


Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the ] channel. Good luck! --] <small>]</small> 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Your opinion on this point demonstrates either a severe lack of analytical skill or else outright dishonesty. I have given you the benefit of a doubt in the past by expressing the opinion that it is your analytical skill that is the problem. But your relentless pushing of nonsense, such as this about Penton somehow disagreeing with Cetnar and Ray Franz, will soon push you beyond the pale of a benefit of doubt.--] (]) 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:Congrats! Well deserved! &ndash;] ] ] 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
::'Grats! :) ]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Adulations! Well done. ;-) ] 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


:Congratulations! --''']''' (] ]) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
'''Seddon69:''' It is time that you stepped up to the plate as a mediator and offer something substantive about Misplaced Pages policy in view of the large volume of sources and discussion you have had exposure to.


:Congrats! ]]] 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages cannot function as it is designed to function if articles are held hostage to personal opinion rather than letting the body of published world knowledge speak for itself. Editors are not here to write their own research, by inclusion <u>or omission</u>. Editors are here to express what we find in the world base of published knowledge that is reliable. In this case, secondary source upon secondary source uses Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s published information as reliable. Additionally, not a single solitary published source has been provided disputing the reliability of these sources! Not even the Watchtower organization with its huge publishing capability has challenged the veracity of information provided by Ray Franz or William Cetnar. '''What are we waiting for, a sign from God?''' --] (]) 15:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yippee! ] (]) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Congrats, indeed! ] (]) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::::<nowiki>*and there was much rejoicing*</nowiki> Yay! ] (]) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 14-Cinco de Mayo ==
:'''Seddon69:''' The Watchtower organization states that the true translators are being kept anonymous. That agrees with the position that the names given R Franz and Cetnar are speculative. There is no certainty to what these two betrayers offer, especially in view of their personal ambitions and profit motives. Penton, also a betrayer with a profit motive, stated that there is really only one translator of any consequence, and that was Fred Franz. R Franz and Cetnar wrote in agreement. The other names are likely shills. Now, Fred admitted that he was the NWT's editor (current as of 1954 but uncertain beyond). R Franz is clearly shown by his own writing that he was examining original language texts and translating them into English on his own and was involved in the NWT revision work and directly influencing what was later published, plain and simple. Let Shilmer stomp his feet and flail uncontrollably, but that is <u>exactly</u> what R Franz wrote that he did. So R Franz is the only other one, who by his own admission, worked on the NWT besides Fred Franz. He should be listed too and you can use your source for that. Cetnar exited before R Franz's self-admitted involvement as a translator, so we can understand why he left out R Franz. But both Cetnar and R Franz served with Henschel, so why does one include Henschel but the other omits him? Shilmer admitted their assertions were based on their personal observations which are clearly not in full agreement (even though Henschel should have been within all reasonable assessments). This underscores the unreliability issues with both Cetnar's and R Franz's assertions. And all sources agree on Fred Franz. What Shilmer writes above completely agrees with my position: ''The only one universally agreed to and is in no serious dispute is Fred Franz, and that's it.'' It is what I have been maintaining the entire time (except that I have asserted that Fred be listed as Editor and not as a translator, because that is what he admitted to, but I also agree it's a narrow distinction). '''Ironically, the only two that have ever directly admitted to being involved in assessing and influencing renderings from the original languages to English are Fred Franz and R Franz. Period.''' I am 100% supportive of listing R Franz as a translator based on his position, responsibility and personal testimony. Oh yes, and Fred Franz too. But no one else (supported by the Watchtower and Penton). Hey Hey! Double-Trouble: now Shilmer can get a <u>legitimate</u> book plugs for both Penton and R Franz. Unless, of course, Shilmer begins arguing that R Franz's testimony should used on account of his unreliability...


Did you record this ]? Do you know where to find it or should this be declared lost and removed from the archives?
:The NWT Article is not being held hostage. It is awaiting a break in the deadlock. I do not believe it is the function of the Mediation Cabal to "judge" matters, but rather to provide an avenue for convergence among Editors that have a dispute. Shilmer refuses to accept that Misplaced Pages is not a collection of muck he rakes up and is furious that he is being so thoroughly challenged on solid grounds (the Mediators have said that we both have good points and we both understand the Misplaced Pages policies well enough).. On all other JW pages, Shilmer and his ilk have free reign because no JW will edit them regarding matters of beliefs or practices, as those are made public by the Watchtower organization itself, and apart from that would represent personal opinion. Some have tried to correct factual matters but not doctrinal ones -- for example challenging Shilmer's insistence that "Christianity" is a term owned by Trinitarians and should not be applied to those whose plain focus is following the teachings of The Christ, Jesus -- quite apart from Misplaced Pages's guideline on this foul practice of word ownership. Shilmer is doubly mad because I inferred from R Franz's position responsibility and timing that he likely worked on the translation but would never read R Franz's book and lacked necessary source references to push the point. And then Lo and Behold! Seddon69 supplied the second-source excerpt proving it, and now R Franz is trapped as a self-identified translator of the NWT or we have to admit that R Franz and the second source is unreliable.


Congrats on adminship. ]]] 2008-12-01T22:45Z (])
:Anyway, I would suggest the following addition to the translator's section: "Raymond Franz directly stated that he was involved in reviewing original language texts and offering judgments on NWT renderings, and specifically cited his work on Acts 13:23 as an example." This is supported by R Franz's "Crisis" book and by Marlowe's website article. -- ] (]) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


== Time to get the ball rolling... ==
::'''Cfrito''' and '''for sake of Seddon69:'''


Skype me when you can :-) ] (]) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::'''1.''' Silence from the Watchtower by refraining from verifying or publishing names of NWT translators is not an assertion that Ray Franz’s statement of NWT translators is speculation on his part. Your premise on this point is an equivocation fallacy.


== Re: Rollback ==
::'''2.''' Your attempts to have editors/mediators dismiss statements from Ray Franz, William Cetnar and Jim Penton on the basis that these men are “betrayers” and/or “betrayer with a profit motive” is nothing less than ad hominem. More fallacy from you.


Hi Seddon. I have removed your rollback flag since all administrators have rollback. Regards, ] <small>]</small> 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::'''3.''' Your attempt to emphasize Fred Franz in an attempt to suggest other names of NWT Translation Committee members are “shills” is a classic red herring because no published source (not one!) has remotely suggested that membership on the NWT Translation Committee required equal skills or translation abilities from each member. For example, Knorr could have been on the NWT Translation Committee purely as a shaker and mover whereas Fred Franz could have been a member of the same committee primarily for the actual task of translation work. Asserting a red herring into a dispute is fallacy.


== re: rollback ==
::'''4.''' Why on earth you feel you can assert that Ray Franz was a proximate causer or active participant with the NWT Translation Committee is, apparently, for you to know and everyone else to wonder. There is no evidence that Ray Franz was part of the NWT Translation Committee, as that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about ancillary influences that probably came from hundreds if not thousands of sources. Your statements on this point are just another red herring. It is fallacy.


Hi Seddon. I have removed your rollback flag since all administrators have rollback. Regards, ] (]) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::'''5.''' You asked why Cetnar would include Henschel’s name but Ray Franz would omit Henschel’s name. There are several reasons to explain this other than your preferred explanation that the difference amounts to proof of speculation. 1) Since both Cetner and Ray Franz offered their statements as their own firsthand observations and since Cetnar and Ray Franz were at Watchtower headquarters at different times, then it is unavoidable that Cetnar made observations that Ray Franz did not. Hence one explanation is that during Cetnar’s tenure Henschel was actively working with the NWT Translation Committee whereas during Ray Franz’s tenure Henschel was not actively working with the NWT Translation Committee. 2) Another explanation could be that Henschel was active with the NWT Translation Committee the whole time but Ray Franz was unaware of this. Recall that neither Cetnar nor Ray Franz has suggested their lists of NWT committee members is comprehensive. 3) Another explanation is that Henschel was part of the NWT Translation Committee in the 1950s but was not on the NWT Translation Committee from 1965 onward when Ray Franz was at Watchtower headquarters. These and other alternative explanations demonstrate that your premise on this point is nothing less than a false bifurcation. It is fallacy.
:Hrm. …
:, anybody? ;-)
:] 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


== POTD notification ==
::'''6.''' That you would support including Ray Franz as a NWT translator in the Misplaced Pages article on the NWT demonstrates an extremely poor academic standard. It is ironic that you would <u>take Ray Franz’s word</u> and use it as a source for this strained conclusion of yours yet you so vehemently <u>reject using what Ray Franz word</u> for what he states explicitly! Not only is your conclusion strained beyond the pale of reason, your use of this source screams extreme bias.


]]]
::'''7.''' There is no deadlock when it comes to what sources have to say, and Misplaced Pages policy would have articles express what is published rather than the opinions of editors. The article is being held hostage by an editor’s opinion that he has yet to substantiate with published sources. You have yet to name a single third-party (or biased!) published source in support of your opinions expressed throughout this dispute. Surely even you should be able to realize which between us has been diligent to offer source material.
Hi Seddon,


Just to let you know that the Featured Picture ] is due to make an appearance as ] on December 24, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::'''8.''' Mediating is inappropriate if it results in a compromise where information is asserted (or omitted) without appropriate source substantiation (or contrary to source substantiation/presentation). Mediators here have no choice but to offer recommendations with a result that Misplaced Pages policies are maintained. These policies do not accept article presentation if that presentation is not as sources assert it. Hence the dilemma of your opinion is that you have yet to offer one shred of published support whereas I have offered layer upon layer of published support.
{{-}}


== I'm ''really'' fucking sorry ==
::'''9.''' I invite any and all editors to review my continued work on the NWT article (). This should reveal my proclivity for including what sources have to say regarding the NWT regardless of whether the view expressed is perceptible as positive or negative by a biased reader. I am not interested in including anything into any Misplaced Pages article that is other than what editors can substantiate from reliable sources.--] (]) 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


I had no clue this would affect you. I should've talked to you first. I meant no harm to you whatsoever, and I apologize from the bottom of my heart. You know I mean it. ] (]) 04:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
'''Comment by Seddon''' Apologies for my slow response. I have several concerns and points that i would like to raise varying from policies to statements made above. Ill start off by going through the most recent comments. These are not to be taken as arguments against or for, or that i am taking sides. I am simply going through points which i feel need to be addressed.
:I suppose. I'm one of those people that needs an absolute restart: I clear out my watchlist, I archive my discussions, I close my cases, and I'm just Xavexgoem again if you get me. Occasionally, I'll do something rash like hand in my bit. I've brought World of Warcraft characters up to pretty high levels and just deleted them. I like to start over, sometimes. FWIW, Durova has a pool running on how long it will take me to run back begging for the tools ;-) ] (]) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


== POTD notification ==
'''1)''' ''Cfrito'' You state "The Watchtower organization states that the true translators are being kept anonymous. That agrees with the position that the names given R Franz and Cetnar are speculative." You then go on to describe them as "betrayers". I request you refrain from this and try to maintain a ]. What problem is there against using the sources that refer to these two. Your view that they made these suggestions for "personal ambitions and profit motives" need to be backed up by sources. In this case it should then be mentioned that JW's feel that it was for that reasoning. I have no problems with stating that if there is proof that that is what is felt. This would then comply with ].


]]]
'''2)''' ''Cfrito'' You state "R Franz is clearly shown by his own writing that he was examining original language texts and translating them into English on his own and was involved in the NWT revision work and directly influencing what was later published, plain and simple." I have no problem with stating that R Franz contributed to the revision work so long as it is clear he wasn't on the committee unless a source can be found to support that. You later go on to say "Let Shilmer stomp his feet and flail uncontrollably". Please refrain from personal attacks per ].
Hi Seddon,


Just to let you know that the Featured Picture ] is due to make an appearance as ] on January 2, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
'''3)''' ''Cfrito'' If "both Cetnar and R Franz served with Henschel, so why does one include Henschel but the other omits him?" then state this in the article. This would comply with "Let the facts speak for themselves" see] as with the two statements before.
{{-}}


== Rollback ==
'''4)''' ''Marvin & Cfrito'' "The only one universally agreed to and is in no serious dispute is Fred Franz, and that's it." This can be stated as fact. As I have stated from the day i took this case anything that cant be proven as fact must clearly be stated as being the beliefs of a certain person and this includes the list. This would comply with WP:OR in that you are not stating assumptions as perceived facts.


Hey, thanks for the chance. I'll try not to piss it away this time. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
'''5)''' ''Cfrito'' The way Marvin edits on other pages is not at this moment part of this case. I would suggest that if you feel this really is a problem then i would suggest you take that to the Mediation committee as i feel that its a little too big for me to deal with by myself.


== Help! ==
'''6)''' ''Marvin'' Even if there was a statement issued by the watchtower then it would not prevent R Franz statements being included per ].


Please see this discussion ]


There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. ] (]) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is a more thorough response as requested. If i do not reply tonight i will respond as soon as possible. ] (]) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::If you want a CU done, you need evidence, not "fairly certain". <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


== Mediation Cabal ==
:'''Seddon69:''' Thanks for your questions and remarks. In order of your response,


I submitted a case to the mediation Cabal and for whatever reason it has been several weeks with no response thi is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family_Foundation_School if you can facilitate the process it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic
:'''1)''' Well said. I have expressed this myself scores of times.


==Mediation Request==
:'''2)''' I suggest you take another look with your own eyes at what the referenced source actually says. Contrary to what Cfrito asserts, Ray Franz does not suggest he had any responsibility or influence over revisions made to the NWT. Here is to the source. When you open it search for the phrase “When I pointed out” and it will take you to the opening sentence Cfrito is basing his claim upon. It will only take a few seconds to review Ray Franz’s remark.
Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of ]. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --] (]) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


:If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in ''The New York Times.'' The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.<br>
:'''3)''' Well said. I have expressed this myself scores of times.
:I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is .<br>
:Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.<br>
:] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


== File:Arrrrghh jimbo.jpg ==
:'''4)''' It is fact that Fred Franz testified that he was editor of the NWT, and specifically that he was charged to check it for accuracy. Hence, <u>the fact</u> is that Fred <u>testified</u> to this end. Whether his testimony is/was <u>factual</u> is another question. The <u>same</u> can be said of what Ray Franz has said of NWT translators. That is, it is <u>fact</u> that Ray Franz <u>testifies/writes<u> that Knorr, Gangas, Shroeder and Fred Franz were members of the NWT translation committee. (Note regarding Fred Franz: Fred Franz has never testified that he was a member of the NWT translation committee) Otherwise, it is well said that Misplaced Pages articles should present information as the sources present the information.


I tagged this image as unsourced, there is a source of Jumbo's face, but the pirate photo it's pasted into remains unsourced. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:'''5)''' N/A


== Bid page ==
:'''6)''' Well said, and I have not contended otherwise.
:--] (]) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I'd be delighted to help however I can. What sort of contributions are you hoping for? I'm a Balliolite myself, and Balliol is probably the perfect location for Wikimedia residents and I can perhaps surmise they would be very willing to take the Wikipedian visitors as residents as part of their Conference scheme. The college is always looking for ways to make money. How can I help. specifically?~]<sup>]</sup> 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::'''2)''' Yes i see the passage, with the wording that is there i would be more inclined to omit it based on the fact that there is no direct correlation between what R Franz said and the removal of the 2 words. If there was i would be willing to include some sort of statement that changes came from outside the committee but seen as that is not the case then any such statement would be ]


== RFA coaching ==
::'''4)''' Then a change needs to be made to the wording so that it is en keeping with this testimony, changing what is currently fact to fact that has not been contradicted if that makes any sense.


Hey,
::Any messages i shall respond to tomorrow. ] (]) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I saw you listed over at ] as not having any students right now. Not sure how busy you are, but if you have the time would you be willing to help me gear up for an eventual RFA? If you can't right now, I completely understand, but any thoughts on my editing would be greatly appreciated!
:::'''Seddon69:'''


Thanks! ''']&trade;''' (] - ]) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::'''2)''' Well said. Thanks for reviewing the source material with your own eyes.


==Thank You! ==
:::'''4)''' I am not sure what you are trying to say. Fred Franz’s testimony is that he was <u>editor</u> of the NWT. He did not testify that he was a <u>member of the NWT translation committee</u>. When asked under cross examination if he was a member of the NWT translation committee Fred Franz declined answer. Hence it is verifiable to say that Fred Franz admitted he was <u>editor</u> of the NWT. It is also verifiable to say that <u>Ray Franz (and other sources) names</u> Fred Franz (and other individuals) as a member of the NWT translation committee. '''Edited to add:''' Looking again at what you write, in other words it occurs you may being saying it is more accurate to say of Fred Franz something to the effect that “Fred Franz stated he was editor of the NWT,” or perhaps even “Fred Franz was editor of the NWT” and then just leave it at that. (This is what I have done in ) However, saying his statement “has not been contradicted” is a perilous assertion because we do not know if this is the case. All we know is that no editor here has produced a published statement at odds with Fred Franz’s testimony of himself, and I am not suggesting that there is such a source. I believe it is generally accepted that Fred Franz was editor of the NWT, but this is purely a conclusion of mine from my own research which has no place on Misplaced Pages. On the subject of primary source statements, as you have pointed out yourself, if it is acceptable to use Fred Franz’s statements as his testimony then it is equally acceptable to use Ray Franz’s statements as his testimony, just as it is acceptable to use the Watchtower organization’s statements as its testimony. --] (]) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 3px solid #63D1F4; background-color: #F0F8FF; -moz-border-radius: 20px; -webkit-border-radius: 20px;"
'''Seeddon69:'''
|align="left"|]
|align="center"|<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS; font-size:medium;">Thank you for voting in ], which '''passed''' with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral</span>
<span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: Trebuchet MS; font-size:medium;">I appreciate your oppose support! Cheers. </span>]<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
|}


== Comments needed ==
As a general comment, I am happy to see that Shilmer has taken my advice and broken the Critical Review section on his sandbox page into linguistic and theological subsections. As you are well aware I have made exactly those comments to you on several occasion and even to Jeffro77 even before the mediation was requested. I am truly flattered. The general restructuring seems a positive change. However, what is disturbing is the reference section itself.


You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active participant in ], ], and/or ]. I have made a proposal to start an official assessment page for these three projects, under the ] banner. Since this would need significant participation to work properly, I'd like input from as many interested parties as possible (even those who may not watch the project pages), so please visit ] and leave your thoughts/opinions. Thanks! -<b>]]]</b> 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:'''1.''' "''Betrayer'' is given in one dictionary as, "to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.". That is what both of these men have done when they represented their lists as factual. Had they not, there would not be a discussion here. While it is not a pleasant term, it is perfectly accurate and NPOV, much like referring to Ted Bundy as a murderer. As to objecting to the sources themselves, it is a matter of relevance and of undue weight. These names are only relevant if we know who for sure who the <u>translators</u> are. Equating the members of the NWT committee with the entire body of actual translators seems weak. Moreover, to add source after source that simply repeat R Franz and Cetnar adds undue weight, especially when these sources mislead explicitly (like Marlowe) or implicitly (like W Martin) and particularly when we as editors know that they are from the same two sources which have already been used. There is far too much emphasis being placed on this and far too many references being gratuitously cited (both specifically in this regard, and in general).


== POTD notification ==
:'''2.''' Here is what is written by R Franz in a single paragraph: ''"When the subjects of "Older Man " and "Overseer" were assigned to me, research into the Scriptures themselves..."'' and then a few sentences later R Franz writes, ''"When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase."'' The impetus for the latter remark, the subsequent change in the NWT text and follow-on conversations was the assignment given in the opening sentence. These subjects were assigned to R Franz and he looked into the current NWT rendering, commented on it, and it was changed, <u>as a direct outworking and consequence of R Franz's assignment to look into the matter.</u> He was advised to examine other translations only after he gave his review on the NWT. Is there any other admission anywhere that comes as close to identifying translation actions and its originator than this?


]]]
:As to personal attacks, I was merely highlighting Shilmer's demonstrated behavior immediately preceding. Let me point out that Shilmer wrote in his remarks: ''"articles are held hostage to personal opinion."'' Hostage? Really? By Whom? Then he wrote, ''"Editors are not here to write their own research."'' The only one in my experience on this Article that has ever been directly identified as adding OR to the Article is Shilmer, and this was judged in an Arbitration. Talk Page contents are not held to encyclopedic standards, but Shilmer puts his own OR on the Article page.Shilmer then wrote, ''"Not even the Watchtower organization with its huge publishing capability has challenged the veracity of information provided by Ray Franz or William Cetnar."'' I addressed this and so did the Watchtower organization. By engaging in active refutation of any strawman list, they would ultimately disclose, by process of elimination, who the translators and committee members were, and they are not permitted do that. So Shilmer is just promoting an equivocation fallacy. Then he wrote, '''What are we waiting for, a sign from God?''' (emphasis Shilmer's) Clearly, he was shouting in print. This is a written form of a temper tantrum. So I was not attacking him, just calling attention to behavior he himself exhibited in an ad hominem demanding that you pay him the attention he feels he is due and on his time line. Please point out any time I have ever treated you with contempt or disrespect, here and now.
Hi Seddon,


Just to let you know that the Featured Picture ] is due to make an appearance as ] on March 30, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:'''3.''' I agree, fundamentally. However, the NWT Article is about the NWT not a debate on who were the committee members. The reason I made the Henschel issue an example is to show that these two sources are simply speculating. If they truly knew, definitively, and it was as common knowledge as everyone seems to think, the two lists would be identical. And Shilmer argued that the discrepancy could be explained temporally -- that Henschel was, and then later wasn't, and R Franz would have been unaware. But that is inconsistent with the view that R Franz had exceptional access to solid information. It just proves that these men were not as well known as those publishing these names would like everyone to think.
{{-}}


== List of empires ==
:'''4.''' Funny, but I believe Shilmer took me to task for making the distinction between Fred Franz as a committee member and Fred Franz as a translator and Fred Franz as an editor and what is factually correct in terms of what happened with regard to the NWT. Glad to see he's now agreeing with me that these things are different. As to universal agreement, I meant specifically among the three sources that Shilmer loves the most: Cetnar, R Franz, and Penton.


No worries. If you think it needs protection, go ahead. --] <small>(])</small> 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''5.''' If you have the time, please go back and re-read the original request for mediation. You will see that I did cite exactly this matter in exactly this way. So, I have not tried to expand the current mediation with the above, but I chose to accept its initial scope narrowing from you in the beginning out of respect for your valuable time, so that we could all work to achieve consensus. I wrote the above knowing the history.
:I see the number of 4RR violations is shooting up! I guess you're right about full protection. --] <small>(])</small> 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


:'''6.''' I agree too. But I would still question relevance. If the owner of a painting said, "I own this painting," and no one disputed it, then there would be no reason to add several other sources who say, "yes, he owns the painting." In fact, a specific reference for statement not in dispute is not even required. So adding R Franz in such a situation would be gratuitous and would not neutralize a point of view. For example, when Shilmer states in his sandbox version, ''"The New World Bible Translation Committee requested the publisher, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, never to publish names of its members,"'' he cites only one of four Watchtower source references. Each gives a different amount of detail but they do reveal a consistent policy. But adding all of them is probably unnecessary. But then, oddly, he adds the reference from Fred's cross-examination as support to the very same sentence. In the first issue, he should add all the Watchtower references since they all add important clarifications. And he should drop the reference to Walsh since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower's stated position.


:As another example of Shilmer's poor and POV editing, let's look at this statement on his sandbox page: ''"However a number of former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators."'' First off, we know the number and the number is <u>two</u>. So a NPOV version on this point would say, ''"Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators."'' But we still have a problem. This suggests that the names they disclosed are undisputed fact, which they are not -- Cetnar, R Franz and Penton all have different lists of translators. So further repairing the poor editing, it should better read, ''"Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed who they believe were the names of translators but those lists are not identical."'' But we may still have a problem. The NWT Committee members are being equated with the translators, but I don't recall that being what the sources ever actually stated. If they haven't then the statement should be more like: ''"Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed who they believe are the names of New World Translation Committee but those lists are not identical. It is unknown what if any translating they themselves did, or if there were others with greater or lesser skill involved. Further, these lists are well out of date, and the NWT continues to be revised by others who have never been revealed."'' Finally, "insiders" is a strongly loaded term. A more neutral term would be, "members". Or perhaps, "One former Governing Body member and one former senior staff member". And then, of course, we have the undue weight added by Shilmer addressing the same point twice in his sandbox Article, once in the History section and again, redundantly, twice, over and over, in the Criticism section. Once suffices.


:But Shilmer will not accept any comments I make or let any edits I make stand -- although he does eventually adopt most of them and then claim to be the originator (e.g., the Fred Franz/Rhodes reference, moving Fred to the History section, changing Criticism to Critical Review, breaking the Critical Review section into Linguistic and Theological parts, etc.). He writes repeatedly, ''"The misconception of information by you is so profound that I fear communication may be impossible. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"'' I think perhaps, this may need to be addressed. Perhaps Shilmer does get to dictate Misplaced Pages Articles and who can contribute. -- ] (]) 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


===Regarding Cfrito's Remarks tagged 20:17, 7 February 2008===
'''Cfrito''' and '''sake of Seddon69:''' I will leave it to Seddon69 to remark as he will to each of your responses above. But among the more glaring errors readily identifiable are these:


I put up a request to get the list of largest empires fully protected but you have fully protected it with the wrong info. I have given sources, images and i have explained to people why they are wrong. And even more so the information on he page actually contradicts with another wikipedia page! the info is wrong please let me change it bck to correct info and then you may lock it again. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''Cfrito writes,'''


:I suggest you set up an RfC or follow some DR. No matter what version I protect it will always be the . ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
<blockquote>
“As another example of Shilmer's poor and POV editing, let's look at this statement on his sandbox page: "However a number of former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators." First off, we know the number and the number is two. So a NPOV version on this point would say, "Two former Watchtower insiders have disclosed names of translators."”
</blockquote>


== File:Trop logo copy.png listed for deletion ==
The referenced secondary source accompanying the statement you take issue with states, “<u>many</u> Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were.” (Martin W, Kingdom of the Cults) Martin provides a reference to Ray Franz's book Crisis of Conscience, but Martin's list of names goes beyond what is found in Ray Franz's book; hence Martin was using information for some source beyond Ray Franz. Since Martin does not cite Cetnar for this information then it is pure assumption to assert that his statement comes from Cetnar as one of the "many Witnesses" he attributes this information. In addition to Martin's statement we have the statement from author Tony Wills (one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, by the way) who explicitly names Fred Franz as supervising the translation work, and Wills originally published this statement in 1967. In 1967 Wills' statement was years ahead of both Cetnar or Ray Franz publishing anything. Yet with his statement Wills places Fred Franz squarely in the middle of the NWT translation committee, which committee was responsible for the NWT. Hence, it is not only true that ‘many Witnesses were fully aware of NWT translation committee members,’ but it is also true that a number of sources leaked this information.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Idw --> ] (]) 05:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


== Your comment at the Date Linking poll talk page ==
'''Cfrito writes,'''


concerned me—it's disappointing to hear about substandard conduct at FAC. I hope you didn't experience anything over the top. The people there are usually very courteous. ] (]) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
<blockquote>
:By the way, would <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • )</span><!-- {{ip|86.132.128.230}} --> happen to be you? ] (]) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
“The NWT Committee members are being equated with the translators, but I don't recall that being what the sources ever actually stated.”
:: Indeed it is :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
</blockquote>


== My editor review ==
If you take a look at the NWT forward you will see that the NWT translation committee attributes the translation (the NWT) to itself. Hence, the responsibility for the actual translation work lay in the lap of the NWT translation committee.


{{User:Dylan620/Talkback/otherpage|Page=Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Dylan620 (2)|Section=Questions from Seddon|3=<font face="comic sans ms">''']]''' <sub>] · ]</sub></font>|4=00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)}} (I've answered your questions.)
'''Finally,''' and to add some levity to this dispute, '''Cfrito writes the following two sentences in the same response:'''


== Topics from the AGM ==
<blockquote>
“I am happy to see that Shilmer <u>has taken</u> my advice and broken the Critical Review section” and “Shilmer <u>will not accept '''any'''</u> comments I make”. (Emphasis added)
</blockquote>
--] (]) 20:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello Mr. Seddon! James Humphreys from the AGM here, how goes things? We were talking at the board meeting about a couple of topics, and I thought it best to leave a note about them. First up was the ongoing RFC on the ] article, which is at ], which you suggested could possibly got for Mediation? Second was my lack of ability to join the IRC chats and get Huggle, etc., to work due to uni firewall restrictions, which you said I could possibly get around through ports, and finally was your suggestion that I get involved in Med Com?
===Regarding Shilmer's Remarks tagged 20:45, 7 February 2008===


Many thanks for your advice today, looking forward to working with you! ] (]) 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
'''On the subject of levity,''' Shilmer is "funny". Using long and wearisome and condescending diatribes, Shilmer rejects everything I write on its face ''when I write it''. But later on, after sufficient time passes, he adopts it and casts it as his own work. That is pretty "funny" actually. It is not the first time I have specifically - and with incontrovertible references - called attention to his plagiarisms. If he gave proper credit and was more willing to see others as his peers rather than his inferiors, this Mediation would be unnecessary.


== SOTD notification ==
Now on to the other points. The "sources" I was referring to were Cetnar and R Franz. As to the NWTC, they do not say that the Committee itself is synonymous with the translators. The New World Translation Committee writes in its dedication that they were responsible for "''producing'' the work" but not "''translating'' the work." A movie producer is not necessarily its writer nor its star but he is responsible for its realization in usable form. Regarding the NWT Foreword itself, nowhere does it say that the translators were limited to the Committee. Indeed, the Committee refers to the translators as ''"The translators of this work...''They'' also feel..."'' Importantly, it does not say ''"...''We'' also feel..."'' So Shilmer may ''conclude'' they are one in the same but the NWT Committee does not say this explicitly, and the phrasing seems specifically chosen to lead a reader ''away'' from that conclusion. My phrasing above was specifically chosen to remain open and flexible. Shilmer used it as a basis for yet another attack.


Hi, I don't have a "Sound of the Day" notification template because we don't really have that on the Main Page, but this is just to let you know that ] will be bundled with ] for a day in the sun. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 03:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And regarding <u>Shilmer's equivocation fallacy</u> above, we have W Martin's comment, ''"many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were."'' W Martin does not say that he was informed by many, just that many knew. And this W Martin guy is certainly not free from ] himself, and not just about his policies and agreements, but about his dubious "doctorate", his ancestry, his fact-checking, his research (and by Penton, no less). Moreover, I was completely unaware that W Martin's list expanded on those names given already by R Franz and Cetnar. I am always willing to learn, so maybe we can review his additions. But given the controversies with this particular "Ph.D" (rofl), we would be prudent to check his reference material regarding these "many" Shilmer represents he interviewed, in case one of them is a descendant of Brigham Young, or that he used same source as when he scooped that the Mormon E. LaMar Buckner was president of Standard Oil Company. -- ] (]) 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


==Teachings of Prem Rawat==
:'''Cfrito:''' You '''have accused me of plagiarism for the last time.''' Once more and your accusations of my person will be addressed to administrators with a request to have you banned from editing for a period to be detemined by them!
Seddon, I have posted a 'split and merge' proposal on the talk page I think that this will address some of the underlying issues that have prompted the latest edit warring that required your intervention. Obviously involved editors should first have the opportunity to engage in discussion of the proposal but I wanted to check with you regarding the appropriateness of posting the proposal for RfC, while the article is still under protection. The recent arbcom case identified the need for previously univolved editors to become engaged with improving the Rawat connected articles - an RfC would be one way to encourage that, however I would welcome your comments before I go ahead. Thanks, --] (]) 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


:Seddon, I appreciate your efforts to achieve a compromise over the former followers section of the teachings of PR article. However, Ted Patrick is a convicted criminal - kidnapping, assault, rape - who attempts to justify his criminality within the book you list as a source. By any objective measure his views are extremist, and widely regarded as such. The book and its author are questionable sources], therefore, not acceptable as sources for that article. Moreover, there are only two "scholars" ( Conway and Siegelman, populist writers actually) who endorse his methods, possibly three if you count Singer - not "several scholars" and their theories have been debunked by numerous researchers who subsequently investigated their claims.
I doubt you even know the meaning of the term! I have not and will not take credit for anyone else’s work. I have not plagiarized your ideas in any way whatsoever. You seem to think when an editor here <u>listens</u> to others and <u>responds accordingly</u> that this is, somehow, plagiarism. I got news for you: that is not plagiarism—it is compromise, if not simple cooperation.


:I am not a member of any religious group or cult. This is a civil liberties issue, perhaps only marginally related to the Rawat teachings. Please remove the material you have added. Its inclusion is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.Zanthorp 13:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Above you talk abusively of my NWT sandbox article for various reasons, one of which speaks disparagingly of why I divided the critical review section into different subjects of criticism. <u>Apparently you think this is an act of plagiarism</u>. It is not. At no time have I even remotely made an attempt to take credit for this (as though it is one editor's original idea in the first place!). The same goes for all your other rambling accusations of me. The reason I split the section up as I did is because I recalled that someone somewhere thought it a good idea and upon further review I felt the same and began drafting the section accordingly. That’s it. There is nothing sinister or plagiaristic about it. That you think this editing by me is, somehow, plagiarism only demonstrates you have no idea how the term is used in academic circles, or how serious is the charge. '''I will not warn you again''' about this sort of accusation coming from you. Once more and that is it!


:The problem with your remark of sources is that secondary sources demonstrate the published statements of Cetnar and Ray Franz were not the only sources of information about who was translating the NWT. Furthermore your remark of sources assumes author Walter Martin got his information from Ray Franz <u>and</u> Cetnar when he <u>only</u> cites Ray Franz, yet the information he shares goes <u>beyond</u> what Ray Franz had to say. Specifically, Walter Martin includes the name ''Henschel'' as a member of the NWT translation committee yet he is <u>silent</u> on where specifically he obtained this piece of information. (I.e., Martin cites only Ray Franz as a source for information on names of NWT translators)


Thanks for your advice, and also the humorous note :)
:Regarding the NWT Translation Committee and translating: “It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that over the course of many years this committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. The entire work was originally released in six volumes, from 1950 to 1960. From the start it was the desire of the translators to have all these volumes brought together into one book, inasmuch as the Holy Scriptures are in actuality one book by the One Author.” (Forward, NWT) If this sentence does not demonstrate a direct correlation between the NWT Translation Committee and “the translators” then please tell everyone what the NWT’s Forward is suggesting to its readers.


Please see questionable sources]
A producer does not <u>call</u> himself a writer or a director. I producer <u>calls</u> himself a producer. In the case of those responsible for the NWT, they <u>call themselves</u> the New World <u>Bible Translation</u> Committee. Note that the term “Bible Translation Committee” is roundly assertive in its own right, not to mention what the source says of itself in the Forward. I recommended that you read the NWT Forward yourself. I see you decided otherwise.
"publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" are questionable sources.


Patrick] is a questionable source because his views are widely acknowledged as extremist and they rely largely on personal opinions. As a questionable source, its use as a source in the TofPR article contravenes policy. Patrick is a convicted criminal whose 'professional' activities included kidnapping, assault and rape. He has been condemned by scholars (sociologists mostly), civil libitarians, and various religious writers.
:Of source Walter Martin, I have not suggested that “he was informed by many”. I have asserted that he got his information from a source <u>beyond</u> Ray Franz though he <u>only cites Ray Franz</u> for his list of NWT translators. This means Walter Martin got his information from at least one additional source, but <u>he does not say who</u>. Hence it is assumption on your part to assert his additional source was Cetnar. An argument from silence is fallacious.


Here's an example, "Numerous testimonies by those who were subjected to a deprogramming describe how they were threatened with a gun, beaten, denied sleep and food and/or sexually assaulted (Barker 1989; Kilbourne and Richardson 1982). But one does not have to rely on the victims for stories of violence: Ted Patrick, one of the most notorious deprogrammers used by CAGs (who has spent several terms in prison for his exploits) openly boasts about some of the violence he employed (Patrick 1976)"
:Since apparently you have not even personally reviewed what Walter Martin had to say on this point it is monstrous that you would begin to offer criticism based on what Walter Martin did or did not say.


:Here are some more examples.
:If you dislike Walter Martin’s published work as a source then take your pick of all the other published secondary sources that say the same thing he does. You act like Walter Martin is the only secondary source that speaks to the issue of NWT translators. --] (]) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
: :
: : :


Material from Patrick's book is contentious to say the least. I advocate that editors discuss it '''before''' including material from it in the article and include it only if consensus has been reached. --] (]) 03:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
== Post-credits scene ==


==RFM==
Thanks - yeah, I've got my eye on the IP and if they insert anything again I will block. <b>]</b> 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've taken over from Steve on the corrib gas mediation. Any idea of a schedule on it? thanks ] ] <sub> ]</sub> 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


== From Cfrito == == NagasakibombEdit.jpg ==


Just so you know, there's a ]. ''']]''' 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A Request For Decision Regarding the "Suspected Translator" Lists


==]==
Mediators: I have maintained that the list of suspected translator names is neither reliable nor relevant for the NWT Article. These lists of names are rooted in two sources, Cetnar and R Franz. Neither have ever offered any documentary evidence of their claims. The secondary source writers that have included these lists cannot have fact-checked the information, for the only source of reliable information is upholding its agreement to keep the actual translators anonymous perpetually. R Franz is assumed reliable because he was a member of the "Governing Body" of JW's and therefore allowed broad access to all documents. In 1974, when Cetnar (via Gruss) published his list, R Franz, as a member of the GB and of the writing department clarified the WTB&TS's commitment to the confidentiality agreement -- he opposed Cetnar. Years later, when R Franz also forsook his JW faith, he also published a list, but it wasn't identical to Cetnar's. When Cetnar's list was published, a certain trust was put in it because of his apparent exposure and the "common knowledge" nature of his claim. However, R Franz published his list excluding one key name. While many see this as a minor difference, the trust is based on both men having high rank and special access and reliable inside information.
May I ask why you felt it necessary to protect this page? As far as I can tell, there have only been 2 blp violations in the past 2 months, and the most recent one was nearly 24 hours ago; they were both also relatively isolated incidents and were reverted quickly. I see no need for the page to be protected. <b class="Unicode">]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Ah, ok, that makes sense. I have the page on my watchlist, and I think another admin does as well, so I think we should be ok...but if the vandalism does get back I'll keep that in mind and see that it gets protected. Best, <b class="Unicode">]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
The Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and examples are clear on this matter. While generally allowing sources that are published, it cautions against using data that misleads, data that is superfluous, data that cannot be fact-checked, secondary sources that use known non-verifiable primary source data, data that is recalled, sources with questionable motives, data that is used in original research. These two lists of names fits all these categories. Based on the recollections of but two former JW's who for profit began anti-writing, threw out a list of names that represented only the "highest ranking" members of the JW organization. To trust these lists, arguments have been presented that, "everyone knew," "common knowledge," "special access," "no motive for misrepresenting," and so on. So dubious is the "information" that supporting editors have to bring the Reader to the conclusion that these lists are reliable (when they are not). This is original research. I have shown how both lists surfaced only after the sources began fighting against the JW organization. And in the stream of time, R Franz originally took up position against Cetnar. Indeed, one name that could have been left off R Franz's list is R Franz himself. He was GB member and a member of the writing committee, and exposing himself as having worked on the NWT would be rather inconvenient for him in his new role as Chief Anti-JW.


Can you explain to me how ] and its ] are different? Are you talking about the "®"? I can add it back just so you can say they are the same file but I will only revert it once the file here is deleted. --] <sub><span class="signature-talk">]</span></sub> 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Then there is the question of relevance. One prolific NWT Article editor suggests that we include it because "it's information," and the Reader can decide its relevance. But Misplaced Pages's guidelines are clear that not all information should be included simply because 'it's out there.' At issue is the reliability of the underlying data -- the names themselves. Critics of the NWT argue that they can't analyze the NWT properly without knowing, although those same critics have done so and continue to do so. Since the translators cannot be known with certainty publishing a "suspected translator list" adds no clarity or insight for the Misplaced Pages reader. I remain unconvinced that anyone can know any more or less of the NWT, it's trustworthiness, its accuracy, its features, its weaknesses, its strengths, from adding this list of suspects. Add to this that the "sources" including these lists are books on cultism, books on opposing theology, and sensationalized exposés on JW's. Indeed, the list of references for the Article is itself a rambling mess of expansions constituting original research. Websites of opposing theologians, anti-writing books, you name it. Most of these are included because they quote the same three or four language scholars, adding udue weight to the anti-writers by redundantly referencing each other.


:Nevermind, I changed it for you. Can you please delete the local version now? --] <sub><span class="signature-talk">]</span></sub> 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The NWT is a Bible Translation. One can read the NWT and decide whether they respect or like the NWT prose. One can examine the texts and decide whether the translations are done accurately or whether theology was used to make a particular rendering. Its features can be made known. Its weaknesses can also be made known. Its source manuscripts can be made known. Its revisions can be made known. These are verifiable, and the sources themselves tend to be neutral and it yields a more neutral Article while still presenting all facets -- positive and negative. I seriously doubt the entire issue about translator anonymity is even relevant itself, but the publisher's and translators' positions are explained quite thoroughly and should be referenced as directly relevant. There are several reputable language scholars that make plain the names of the translators are indeed unnecessary to test that veracity of the NWT work. Long-winded theological debates are unnecessary and even misplaced. JW theology and its theological competitors' views are thoroughly explained elsewhere in specific pages dealing with those controversies. I have worked editorially to separate the theological issues from the linguistic issues but have met fierce opposition by one editor in particular. One need only read the references section and the comments therein to get a gist of the issue. Outside of a few references to the Watchtower organizations' statements about policy and the translative work itself, and a handful of linguistic criticisms, the rest are theological diatribes, promotional websites, circular references, televangelists, and so on. This Article does little to inform on the NWT, and mostly to presents opposing theologies, and to spread suspicion as verified information (at least in the case of the alleged translators lists). Someone apart from the embattled editors must bring resolution to this matter. -- cfrito (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


::Hehe I had your talk/user page watched for a second and I saw you block yourself lol nice. --] <sub><span class="signature-talk">]</span></sub> 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
'''Seddon69:''' I am sorry to weary you with such long replies (defenses). I have posted another one to ]. I welcome any private counsel you wish to give me via email. -- ] (]) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==] AFD==

Heya. I noted you did a '''keep''' on the above AFD. Not contesting it, but what was your rationale for keeping the article? Curious, --] (] and ]) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

==Toy block award==
]
You're in good company. ]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
: I no longer feel guilty for spoiling your block log . ;-) ] 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== Close of ] ==

Hi Seddon. I noticed you've put the closing tag on the AFD. Do you realize it's been less than six and a half days, and it was just closed early and reverted by Daniel a few hours ago, with several editors expressing on his talk page and in the AFD that this discussion should run the full seven days? ]] 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
*I shouldn't be surprised that someone read that muddled, no consensus AfD and deleted it anyway, but I am. Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, but I thought that any reasonable person reading that AfD would admit that there was no consensus to be found there. I guess I was wrong. ] 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*Oh wait, I just noticed that Seddon is from the UK, so this must have been a delete-then-go-to-bed close. What a way to for me to be initiated into AfD. ] 00:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
: I rarely go to bed at 2 in the morning. Add a few more hours on and youll about right. ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup></sup> 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*I'd go with a delete on this one too, but the seven days period should be respected, ''especially'' in this situation. ''Two'' admins have already closed this and self-reverted, btw. I personally don't bother for a dozen of hours, but we'll be lucky if it doesn't go to DRV, and this argument could have been avoided. Oh, and as I noticed this, per ], signatures shouldn't contain external links. Regards, ] (]) 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I know you'll probably get flack for this close, but I just wanted to say that I agree with your closing rationale. And I think you're pretty gutsy to be the closing admin. Best, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">] <sup>]</sup>'''/'''<sub>]</sub></font> 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

*'''Endorse'''. I know from experience that the extra few hours aren't likely to make a difference. I think your closure was perfectly reasonably, though I am biased as I voted in the discussion. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 01:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*I guess when an admin makes a controversial close you agree with, it's "gutsy" or "perfectly reasonable." I still don't understand how anyone could divine anything remotely RESEMBLING "consensus" from that quagmire, though. But now that it's deleted -- if I understand DRV right -- you all have successfully shifted the burden of proof to those arguing that the article should exist. This seems patently unfair, but I won't be participating there, as this whole thing has left a very sour taste about the whole AfD process in particular, and Misplaced Pages in general. ] 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. --] (]) 01:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. ''']]''' 01:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

* I don't know quite how to respond to this close. On the one hand, closing early was a fantastically bad idea (the fact that people who favored deletion are saying so above should make that all the more clear). Moreover, your close rational makes very little sense given that BLP1E rules out articles on people, not articles on subjects (indeed, BLP1E is precisely what favors this sort of article rather than an article about the individual). On the other hand, you are correct that the general consensus favored deletion and that a few more hours would not change the result. I'm therefore not going to take this to DRV. I would however urge you to replace your closing rational with reasoning closer to or identical with Daniel's earlier close which is much more well thought out. ] (]) 01:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::I'm with Joshua on this one. ''Clearly'' the consensus was to delete. However, as noted in the AFD, BLP1E does not and cannot apply to this article. NOT#NEWS is more applicable and, as Joshua points out, something along the lines of what Daniel wrote to help explain how consensus works for those who can't seem to grasp it. ]] 04:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I have linked to daniel's close, and clarified the close. It was a misread on my part. Hopefully this will alleviate any concerns. ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup></sup> 06:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

: Thanks. That's a much better close. Thank you also for taking the effort to close a very controversial discussion. ] (]) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::Looks good, Seddon. Thanks for clarifying. ]] 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Titan Globe ==

] has ]. Please consider updating your !vote. ''']]''' 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== FPC of Hawaii bathymetry ==

You commented on my nomination at ], I have made changes to the image and would appreciate a revisit as the nomination is closing soon. Thanks. --<span style="background:darkgreen;color:white;font-family:Verdana">]•]•]</span> 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Why do you care about salt lakes anyway? ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

NuclearWarfare has given you a ]! Cookies promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! <br />

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{tls|Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}!
{{clear}}
</div><!-- Template:Cookie -->

== Just a quick note ==

In the ] you only use the self-endorse if you open the case yourself. In this case you would just type endorse in the template. Thanks! <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 02:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:He added the request for checkuser template himself, though he did not file the case. So in that situation he should use the "self" parameter. — ] ] 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
::Whoops my mistake! :) I skipped over the edit where you added it. D'oh! :p <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

==Dror Soref Deletion==
Dear Seddon,

I do not know if your personal beliefs fall towards inclusionist or deletionist but I know I wouldn't write an article if I felt it was even bordering on notability issues because I wouldn't want to volunteer several days of my time researching and writing if it was going to evaporate. As you know 90+ percent of articles here on living people like media professionals, singers, atheletes, etc. can also be called into question and easily be picked apart in afd. And I definitely like the subject material, I wouldn't be on here editing differential equations.

I met the director once at UT and felt he was wikipedia notable and being an editor wanted to write one and expand knowledge on the subject to other film lovers. He told our class about all the superbowl ads he shot and working with weird al and peter o'toole and all these guys so I just had to write an article about him. A lot of these influential guys tend to stay under the radar so I had to go to imdb at first to write his bio but google scholar also helped and I'm definitely working on finding newer and better sources. If you'll help me by taking off the deletion tag, I will look for more bullet proof sources using all the University of Texas databases when I get some free time from summer work. It would really sadden me if all my work researching and writing went down the drain when I never even thought notability would come into question.

Per ]

*The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

::He has directed two feature length theatrically released films. I've always seen any director that has managed to get theatrical distribution on million dollar films with real working actors like simon baker as notable.

*The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

::All the wierd al videos, superbowl ads, and two feature films plus producing a major release like Basic.

*The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

::C - His newest film was the closing night film at slamdance, he has a bunch of industry awards for his commercials plus there is all of this golani brigade Israeli stuff from when he was young before he became a director.

] (]) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== your sig ==

:) –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== Appeal of sanction at AE ==

Hi, I've filed an appeal against an editing restriction I recently received over at . I consider the restriction extremely harsh given the minor nature of the infractions I may have committed. I would welcome any comments or other input.] (]) 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Unless you are taking mediation, consider this a warning. Stay off my talk page. ]<sub> ] ]</sub> 11:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

==Apteva RfA==
Hi. I noticed that you closed this RfA early, but I would like to cast my opinion please, and would be grateful if you could re-open it. Thanks. ] (]) 04:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
:I personally don't think there was a problem with closing it (yes, it meets ]). But I do think to may have closed it incorrectly. You should have talked to the candidate before closing it, partly per ], and partly to give them a chance to withdraw it themselves. I can't find you doing this (although I may have overlooked something), in future please keep this in mind. Cheers :) - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 09:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
::Good good, that's fine, closing like that is always to keep the user out of harms way, and closing that there was a good idea. Bu yeah, checking is a good idea. Happy editing :) - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== Your IRC quit message ==

That's very nice of you to appreciate my on-wiki comments. I'm not sure if it's your auto-quit message, but would you mind removing it if it is? ;) ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== Corrib Gas Mediation ==
Hi, Mediation here seems to be coming along very slowly or is even stalled at this point. There hasn't been huge input from parties involved and User:Lapsed Pacifist hasn't even been active in the last 3 weeks . Meanwhile problem articles remain "locked". With your permission I would like to seek input from the community on these articles starting with ]. This article is based on indymedia articles that were written by members of the camp. At the very least it doesn't meet standards set by ] and is also possibly ]. I think an AFD nomination on this would allow the community to decide on what should be done with it. Cheers ] ] <sub> ]</sub> 11:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:09, 26 November 2024

I'm a member of Wikimedia UK
We are a group of local Wikimedians helping to create
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
Love Wikimedia? Live in the UK? Donate, Volunteer, and Get Involved!

Archives

Attachment theory

Hi Seddon. I hope everything's good with you, and you come back fully some time soon. I know this mediation case has closed, but the participants still want some kind of resolution. I've spent a few hours reading through everything, and the only solution I can come up with is to block KingsleyMiller - his conduct seems to be causing all this, and he really isn't adding much of value to articles. This is a bit extreme, so I was wondering if you, as someone who has been involved in the mediation from a neutral perspective, could let me know what you think. Neıl 龱 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drosophila eye image edit

Temporary version here. I'll leave the rest to you. Thanks a lot, and all the best with it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Various featured picture candidacies

 Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Olympus Mons alt.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:C-17 aircraft over over the Blue Ridge Mountains 2005.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/STEREO lunar transit of sun

 Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Moon transit of sun large.ogv, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:NAS montage 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NAS montage 3.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:NAS montage 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NAS montage 2.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:NAS1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NAS1.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Apollo 13 FSC

Thanks Seddon, I do not have time to properly review it right now, but I will later this evening. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18

I thought you might be interested in this. The June issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the newsletter, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A NAS question.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:A NAS question.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical Genius

I declare myself to be one! - check out this page - and WT:NTWW - to my eternal surprise, my version of iTunes now checks NotTheWikipediaWeekly for updates, and downloads the podcasts automatically!

I've dropped a note into User:Addshore as someone who might be able to help get the RSS feed up to date - but it won't be too much work once its done to keep it current... hooray!

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Featured_sound_candidates/Apollo_13_message_to_Houston

Could you please clarify which version of the three you prefer? I'd like to promote this, but it's not clear which to promote. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_sound_candidates/Apollo_13_message_to_Houston

Your featured sound candidate gained a WP:CONSENSUS of support, and has been promoted. If you know of any other sounds worthy of featured status, please nominate them.

I have made sure the featured sound version is in the relevant articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Seddon,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Felix from ISS 03 sept 2007 1138Z.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 18, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-07-18. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Helping out with Wikimania

I see you signed up to help out with Wikimania. The best thing to do is to join this mailing list:

--cfp (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFM

Thanks for the reminder, I've asked a question to make sure I understand the proposal correctly. Jayjg 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you...

...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

Hello,

Would you care to review the current situation at this article, and comment on whether or not the outcome of mediation has been properly applied? CJCurrie (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

United States rainfall climatology

I've been in the long process of converting articles I'd improved over the years to GA class. I guess FAC would be the ultimate goal for all the articles, but work priorities are currently sidelining much wikipedia editing on my part during the past month, and likely will continue to sideline significant wikipedia editing through October. After I get back from a work trip, I could send it through FAC. That would be in a couple weeks. If you feel up to it, you could submit it sooner. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rawat & formal mediation

Re. your question, see Talk:Prem Rawat#Formal mediation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to announce that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I subscribed your @googlemail address for you. I think you just need to confirm it now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome aboard! Anthøny 15:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations :-D

Whee!! :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sound conversion

Hey, I was going to try my hand with Featured Sounds. What conversion program do you use to get the files into .ogg format? Thanks, Enigma 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Sheep club

 Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sheep club2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nagle's talk page, New antisemitism mediation, LexisNexis

Hey there. My name is Aharon42. I saw on Nagle's talk page that back in May you were looking for someone with access to NexisLExis. I have access because I am doing Medical research with a proffesor at Emory University in Atlanta and I would be happy to to look things up for you. If you want to also just point the way to some articles that could be improved by doing literature searches just let me know. Im a new editor so any guidance or instruction you want to send my way would be greatly appreciated. Cheersaharon42 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

PR Hwy 124

Eh - it was pretty darn close to an A1. If anyone objects to it, I'll treat it as a PROD and restore it - same deal if the author recreates it. But yeah, do be careful with Twinkle, because it assumes you click the correct option the first time. I screwed up more than one nomination before I was allowed to just delete them. Thanks for letting me know. Hersfold 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton 18:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WMUK election - ETA?

Hi there, any ETA on the election results? --Tango (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully later tonight. Seddσn 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Apparently Gini and Andrew have already compared results and they match, so if you'll be done soon (assuming you agree with them), that should be it. Great news! --Tango (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the hold up? Did your maths not agree with Gini and Andrew's? --Tango (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm?

How could you have POSSIBLY known what I did so fast? Are you really a bot in disguise? Cuz if you are, thats grounds for execution by firing squad in some countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.191.130 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still no answer, hmm? In the words of that person from that show, "How rude!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.191.130 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

revised PKIDs

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from ], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Joshriedel (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Seddon/SandboxNWT

User:Seddon/SandboxNWT, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Seddon/SandboxNWT and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Seddon/SandboxNWT during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jeffro77 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your response. I originally saw the three user subpages of this article listed at Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature a few days ago. User page articles shouldn't be referenced as articles. I left a comment on the Talk page of each of the users' articles, e.g. User_talk:Seddon/SandboxNWT (which you didn't respond to) on 28 September. Because Cfrito has not been actively editing for several months, I place a PROD tag on his subpage, and was subsequently advised by an admin that it should have had an MfD instead. Because I did not want to be accused of favouritism (because all three are in breach of the guideline), I placed an MfD for all three.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

You wrote: "I suggest putting in a request for clarification. Seddσn talk Editor Review 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"

What is a "request for clarification", and to whom does one put it in? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB medical degree

Hi, thanks for taking the case. I did the WP:3O DR which worked for a while, but then fell apart later on. I do MEDCAB myself, but thought it'd be better to let someone else have a go. For background, the 3O discussion is here. If I can be of any help, do let me know. Thanks! :) fr33kman -s- 14:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi- I and another editor have been involved in a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the "medical degree" entry. We seem to be going over the same issues repeatedly, and I thought you might be able to lend a helpful third-party voice. Thanks! Lamaybe (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Worldnetdaily

This site is very poorly sourced and extremely biased. I've placed recommended changes on the talk page, no one objected and I was proceeding with the changes. Where did I go wrong? 32.179.31.110 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

audio file

geez I know how to pester, huh?! - drop me a line when the audio file is online, and I'll get it polished up and published :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Medical degree

Seddon, Here is a link to more background information which may be helpful: -> Misplaced Pages:FTN#Medical_degree Myself and a couple of other editors have performed a cleanup of the article over the past couple of days, so hopefully the article is at least somewhat more compliant with Wiki NPOV policy. Thanks for your help with this issue! Jwri7474 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Posted

Your email is posted here as you requested: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An invite for you

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#Workshop — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

Juliancolton would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Juliancolton to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Seddon . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

What do you think? :) –Juliancolton 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikivoices

Hi Seddon. Thanks for the kind invitiation, but I don't use Skype, nor do I expect to in the forseeable future. fish&karate 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well for the invitation. I don't use Skype either, for various reasons, and in any case much prefer to use written text as a medium to communicate in, as opposed to oral communication. Hope the podcasts go well. If transcripts will be available afterwards, I'd be interested in reading them. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, however I have no access to a microphone system, so I am uncertain if I will be able to participate in this. Should I be able to do so, however, I would greatly appreciate knowing who is responsible for running the cast sessions; I have previously had some poor experiences with this program that have led me to be highly distrustful of certain users responsible for its operation. As mentioned on my candidate talk page, I also will not be very available over the course of the next week due to real life obligations. Sorry. Hersfold 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MedCab invitation

I am stepping down as a MedCab coordinator. I would like to invite you to become a MedCab coordinator. Are you willing to take the position? Vassyana (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sticking down the red tape

AGK would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact AGK to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Seddon . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Further to our conversation, I serve you with the official notification. ;)
Please respond to the questions and sign off on the RfA at your leisure. I will then put it live.
AGK 17:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to archive your talk page.
Messy talk pages don't look great—and you're about to go on RfA. ;-)
AGK 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Good luck, Seddon! :-) –Juliancolton 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it :-)

  • Where is the dispute taking place?
  • Briefly, what's the problem?
  • ...What's keeping it from being solved?
  • ...What do you want fixed?

<!-- optional -->

  • How about a limerick or haiku? Code? Drawing?

<!-- You can remove the above -->

I rather like it :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

arbcom interview

here it is :-)

I'll probably put it on my candidate page at some point too - and look forward to hearing the others :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

interview

Thankyou for the offer, but I don't possess a computer reliable enough to hold a meaningful skype conversation. Please do post any questions that occur to you on my questions page. BillMasen (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hey Seddon, just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the remaining questions at your RfA. Best of luck, –Juliancolton 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved! –Juliancolton 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
'Grats! :) Durova 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Adulations! Well done. ;-) AGK 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! The Helpful One 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yippee! PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
*and there was much rejoicing* Yay! Daniel (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 14-Cinco de Mayo

Did you record this Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 14? Do you know where to find it or should this be declared lost and removed from the archives?

Congrats on adminship. Zginder 2008-12-01T22:45Z (UTC)

Time to get the ball rolling...

Skype me when you can :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi Seddon. I have removed your rollback flag since all administrators have rollback. Regards, Deskana (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

re: rollback

Hi Seddon. I have removed your rollback flag since all administrators have rollback. Regards, Xavexgoem (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. …
Needless user flags, anybody? ;-)
AGK 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Seddon,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:C-17 aircraft over over the Blue Ridge Mountains 2005.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 24, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-24. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really fucking sorry

I had no clue this would affect you. I should've talked to you first. I meant no harm to you whatsoever, and I apologize from the bottom of my heart. You know I mean it. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. I'm one of those people that needs an absolute restart: I clear out my watchlist, I archive my discussions, I close my cases, and I'm just Xavexgoem again if you get me. Occasionally, I'll do something rash like hand in my bit. I've brought World of Warcraft characters up to pretty high levels and just deleted them. I like to start over, sometimes. FWIW, Durova has a pool running on how long it will take me to run back begging for the tools ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Seddon,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Moon transit of sun large.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 2, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-02. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey, thanks for the chance. I'll try not to piss it away this time. Sceptre 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Final_Fantasy_Legend_name_translation_woes.2C_mk._II

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want a CU done, you need evidence, not "fairly certain". — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I submitted a case to the mediation Cabal and for whatever reason it has been several weeks with no response thi is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family_Foundation_School if you can facilitate the process it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!CoreEpic (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Mediation Request

Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.
I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Arrrrghh jimbo.jpg

I tagged this image as unsourced, there is a source of Jumbo's face, but the pirate photo it's pasted into remains unsourced. --Sherool (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bid page

I'd be delighted to help however I can. What sort of contributions are you hoping for? I'm a Balliolite myself, and Balliol is probably the perfect location for Wikimedia residents and I can perhaps surmise they would be very willing to take the Wikipedian visitors as residents as part of their Conference scheme. The college is always looking for ways to make money. How can I help. specifically?~Zythe 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA coaching

Hey,

I saw you listed over at Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Status as not having any students right now. Not sure how busy you are, but if you have the time would you be willing to help me gear up for an eventual RFA? If you can't right now, I completely understand, but any thoughts on my editing would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral

I appreciate your oppose support! Cheers. Nja 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active participant in WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Severe weather, and/or WikiProject Non-tropical storms. I have made a proposal to start an official assessment page for these three projects, under the WP:METEO banner. Since this would need significant participation to work properly, I'd like input from as many interested parties as possible (even those who may not watch the project pages), so please visit the discussion here and leave your thoughts/opinions. Thanks! -RunningOnBrains 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Seddon,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sheep club2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 30, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-30. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

List of empires

No worries. If you think it needs protection, go ahead. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the number of 4RR violations is shooting up! I guess you're right about full protection. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)



I put up a request to get the list of largest empires fully protected but you have fully protected it with the wrong info. I have given sources, images and i have explained to people why they are wrong. And even more so the information on he page actually contradicts with another wikipedia page! the info is wrong please let me change it bck to correct info and then you may lock it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbobbob12345 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you set up an RfC or follow some DR. No matter what version I protect it will always be the Wrong Version. Seddσn 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Trop logo copy.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trop logo copy.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at the Date Linking poll talk page

This comment concerned me—it's disappointing to hear about substandard conduct at FAC. I hope you didn't experience anything over the top. The people there are usually very courteous. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, would 86.132.128.230 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) happen to be you? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it is :) Seddσn 23:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My editor review

Hello, Seddon. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Dylan620 (2). Cheers, and happy editing! Sincerely, Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox.

This message was sent to you at 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC). (I've answered your questions.)

Topics from the AGM

Hello Mr. Seddon! James Humphreys from the AGM here, how goes things? We were talking at the board meeting about a couple of topics, and I thought it best to leave a note about them. First up was the ongoing RFC on the International Space Station article, which is at Talk:International Space Station#RfC: British English versus American English for this Article, which you suggested could possibly got for Mediation? Second was my lack of ability to join the IRC chats and get Huggle, etc., to work due to uni firewall restrictions, which you said I could possibly get around through ports, and finally was your suggestion that I get involved in Med Com?

Many thanks for your advice today, looking forward to working with you! Colds7ream (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SOTD notification

Hi, I don't have a "Sound of the Day" notification template because we don't really have that on the Main Page, but this is just to let you know that File:Marching in.ogg will be bundled with Template:POTD/2009-05-09 for a day in the sun. howcheng {chat} 03:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Teachings of Prem Rawat

Seddon, I have posted a 'split and merge' proposal on the talk page I think that this will address some of the underlying issues that have prompted the latest edit warring that required your intervention. Obviously involved editors should first have the opportunity to engage in discussion of the proposal but I wanted to check with you regarding the appropriateness of posting the proposal for RfC, while the article is still under protection. The recent arbcom case identified the need for previously univolved editors to become engaged with improving the Rawat connected articles - an RfC would be one way to encourage that, however I would welcome your comments before I go ahead. Thanks, --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Seddon, I appreciate your efforts to achieve a compromise over the former followers section of the teachings of PR article. However, Ted Patrick is a convicted criminal - kidnapping, assault, rape - who attempts to justify his criminality within the book you list as a source. By any objective measure his views are extremist, and widely regarded as such. The book and its author are questionable sources], therefore, not acceptable as sources for that article. Moreover, there are only two "scholars" ( Conway and Siegelman, populist writers actually) who endorse his methods, possibly three if you count Singer - not "several scholars" and their theories have been debunked by numerous researchers who subsequently investigated their claims.
I am not a member of any religious group or cult. This is a civil liberties issue, perhaps only marginally related to the Rawat teachings. Please remove the material you have added. Its inclusion is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.Zanthorp 13:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)


Thanks for your advice, and also the humorous note :)

Please see questionable sources] "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" are questionable sources.

Patrick] is a questionable source because his views are widely acknowledged as extremist and they rely largely on personal opinions. As a questionable source, its use as a source in the TofPR article contravenes policy. Patrick is a convicted criminal whose 'professional' activities included kidnapping, assault and rape. He has been condemned by scholars (sociologists mostly), civil libitarians, and various religious writers.

Here's an example, "Numerous testimonies by those who were subjected to a deprogramming describe how they were threatened with a gun, beaten, denied sleep and food and/or sexually assaulted (Barker 1989; Kilbourne and Richardson 1982). But one does not have to rely on the victims for stories of violence: Ted Patrick, one of the most notorious deprogrammers used by CAGs (who has spent several terms in prison for his exploits) openly boasts about some of the violence he employed (Patrick 1976)"

Here are some more examples.
 :
 : :

Material from Patrick's book is contentious to say the least. I advocate that editors discuss it before including material from it in the article and include it only if consensus has been reached. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RFM

Hi, I see you've taken over from Steve on the corrib gas mediation. Any idea of a schedule on it? thanks GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NagasakibombEdit.jpg

Just so you know, there's a proposed replacement. wadester16 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeph Jacques

May I ask why you felt it necessary to protect this page? As far as I can tell, there have only been 2 blp violations in the past 2 months, and the most recent one was nearly 24 hours ago; they were both also relatively isolated incidents and were reverted quickly. I see no need for the page to be protected. rʨanaɢ /contribs 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that makes sense. I have the page on my watchlist, and I think another admin does as well, so I think we should be ok...but if the vandalism does get back I'll keep that in mind and see that it gets protected. Best, rʨanaɢ /contribs 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Energizer logo.svg

Can you explain to me how File:Energizer logo.svg and its Commons' version are different? Are you talking about the "®"? I can add it back just so you can say they are the same file but I will only revert it once the file here is deleted. --Yarnalgo talk to me 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed it for you. Can you please delete the local version now? --Yarnalgo talk to me 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehe I had your talk/user page watched for a second and I saw you block yourself lol nice. --Yarnalgo talk to me 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bacon, Egg and Cheese sandwich AFD

Heya. I noted you did a keep on the above AFD. Not contesting it, but what was your rationale for keeping the article? Curious, --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Toy block award

Seddon is awarded the toy block for blocking himself.

You're in good company. Durova 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I no longer feel guilty for spoiling your block log so long ago. ;-) AGK 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy

Hi Seddon. I noticed you've put the closing tag on the AFD. Do you realize it's been less than six and a half days, and it was just closed early and reverted by Daniel a few hours ago, with several editors expressing on his talk page and in the AFD that this discussion should run the full seven days? لennavecia 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I shouldn't be surprised that someone read that muddled, no consensus AfD and deleted it anyway, but I am. Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, but I thought that any reasonable person reading that AfD would admit that there was no consensus to be found there. I guess I was wrong. Unitanode 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh wait, I just noticed that Seddon is from the UK, so this must have been a delete-then-go-to-bed close. What a way to for me to be initiated into AfD. Unitanode 00:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I rarely go to bed at 2 in the morning. Add a few more hours on and youll about right. Seddσn | 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd go with a delete on this one too, but the seven days period should be respected, especially in this situation. Two admins have already closed this and self-reverted, btw. I personally don't bother for a dozen of hours, but we'll be lucky if it doesn't go to DRV, and this argument could have been avoided. Oh, and as I noticed this, per WP:SIG, signatures shouldn't contain external links. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I know you'll probably get flack for this close, but I just wanted to say that I agree with your closing rationale. And I think you're pretty gutsy to be the closing admin. Best, Steve Crossin /Help us mediate! 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I know from experience that the extra few hours aren't likely to make a difference. I think your closure was perfectly reasonably, though I am biased as I voted in the discussion. –Juliancolton |  01:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess when an admin makes a controversial close you agree with, it's "gutsy" or "perfectly reasonable." I still don't understand how anyone could divine anything remotely RESEMBLING "consensus" from that quagmire, though. But now that it's deleted -- if I understand DRV right -- you all have successfully shifted the burden of proof to those arguing that the article should exist. This seems patently unfair, but I won't be participating there, as this whole thing has left a very sour taste about the whole AfD process in particular, and Misplaced Pages in general. Unitanode 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. JN466 01:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know quite how to respond to this close. On the one hand, closing early was a fantastically bad idea (the fact that people who favored deletion are saying so above should make that all the more clear). Moreover, your close rational makes very little sense given that BLP1E rules out articles on people, not articles on subjects (indeed, BLP1E is precisely what favors this sort of article rather than an article about the individual). On the other hand, you are correct that the general consensus favored deletion and that a few more hours would not change the result. I'm therefore not going to take this to DRV. I would however urge you to replace your closing rational with reasoning closer to or identical with Daniel's earlier close which is much more well thought out. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Joshua on this one. Clearly the consensus was to delete. However, as noted in the AFD, BLP1E does not and cannot apply to this article. NOT#NEWS is more applicable and, as Joshua points out, something along the lines of what Daniel wrote to help explain how consensus works for those who can't seem to grasp it. لennavecia 04:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I have linked to daniel's close, and clarified the close. It was a misread on my part. Hopefully this will alleviate any concerns. Seddσn | 06:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a much better close. Thank you also for taking the effort to close a very controversial discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, Seddon. Thanks for clarifying. لennavecia 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FPC of Hawaii bathymetry

You commented on my nomination at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii Bathymetry, I have made changes to the image and would appreciate a revisit as the nomination is closing soon. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you care about salt lakes anyway?

NuclearWarfare has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just a quick note

In the case you endorsed you only use the self-endorse if you open the case yourself. In this case you would just type endorse in the template. Thanks! Icestorm815 • Talk 02:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He added the request for checkuser template himself, though he did not file the case. So in that situation he should use the "self" parameter. — Jake Wartenberg 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops my mistake! :) I skipped over the edit where you added it. D'oh! :p Icestorm815 • Talk 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dror Soref Deletion

Dear Seddon,

I do not know if your personal beliefs fall towards inclusionist or deletionist but I know I wouldn't write an article if I felt it was even bordering on notability issues because I wouldn't want to volunteer several days of my time researching and writing if it was going to evaporate. As you know 90+ percent of articles here on living people like media professionals, singers, atheletes, etc. can also be called into question and easily be picked apart in afd. And I definitely like the subject material, I wouldn't be on here editing differential equations.

I met the director once at UT and felt he was wikipedia notable and being an editor wanted to write one and expand knowledge on the subject to other film lovers. He told our class about all the superbowl ads he shot and working with weird al and peter o'toole and all these guys so I just had to write an article about him. A lot of these influential guys tend to stay under the radar so I had to go to imdb at first to write his bio but google scholar also helped and I'm definitely working on finding newer and better sources. If you'll help me by taking off the deletion tag, I will look for more bullet proof sources using all the University of Texas databases when I get some free time from summer work. It would really sadden me if all my work researching and writing went down the drain when I never even thought notability would come into question.

Per WP:CREATIVE

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
He has directed two feature length theatrically released films. I've always seen any director that has managed to get theatrical distribution on million dollar films with real working actors like simon baker as notable.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
All the wierd al videos, superbowl ads, and two feature films plus producing a major release like Basic.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
C - His newest film was the closing night film at slamdance, he has a bunch of industry awards for his commercials plus there is all of this golani brigade Israeli stuff from when he was young before he became a director.

Andman8 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

your sig

you're doing it wrong. :) –Juliancolton |  17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeal of sanction at AE

Hi, I've filed an appeal against an editing restriction I recently received over at AE. I consider the restriction extremely harsh given the minor nature of the infractions I may have committed. I would welcome any comments or other input.radek (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Abbywinters.com

Unless you are taking mediation, consider this a warning. Stay off my talk page. Law type! snype? 11:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apteva RfA

Hi. I noticed that you closed this RfA early, but I would like to cast my opinion please, and would be grateful if you could re-open it. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think there was a problem with closing it (yes, it meets WP:NOTNOW). But I do think to may have closed it incorrectly. You should have talked to the candidate before closing it, partly per WP:NOTNOW, and partly to give them a chance to withdraw it themselves. I can't find you doing this (although I may have overlooked something), in future please keep this in mind. Cheers :) - Kingpin (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Good good, that's fine, closing like that is always to keep the user out of harms way, and closing that there was a good idea. Bu yeah, checking is a good idea. Happy editing :) - Kingpin (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your IRC quit message

That's very nice of you to appreciate my on-wiki comments. I'm not sure if it's your auto-quit message, but would you mind removing it if it is? ;) iMatthew  at 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Mediation

Hi, Mediation here seems to be coming along very slowly or is even stalled at this point. There hasn't been huge input from parties involved and User:Lapsed Pacifist hasn't even been active in the last 3 weeks . Meanwhile problem articles remain "locked". With your permission I would like to seek input from the community on these articles starting with Rossport Solidarity Camp. This article is based on indymedia articles that were written by members of the camp. At the very least it doesn't meet standards set by WP:SPS and is also possibly WP:SOAP. I think an AFD nomination on this would allow the community to decide on what should be done with it. Cheers GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)