| Revision as of 10:36, 11 February 2011 editBidgee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,546 edits Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cairns, Queensland. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:37, 11 February 2011 edit undoBidgee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,546 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Cairns, Queensland. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| == February 2011 == | == February 2011 == | ||
| ] Please '''do not add or change content without ] it by citing ]''', as you did to ]. Before making any potentially controversial ], it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please '''review the guidelines at ]''' and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> ] (]) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | ] Please '''do not add or change content without ] it by citing ]''', as you did to ]. Before making any potentially controversial ], it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please '''review the guidelines at ]''' and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> ] (]) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users who ] or refuse to ] with others may be blocked if they continue.<br> | |||
| In particular, the ] states that: | |||
| # '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block'''. | |||
| # '''Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right'''. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If edit warring continues, '''you may be ] from editing without further notice.''' <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 10:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:37, 11 February 2011
Status: Unknown 
|
|
Re: Intellectual Honesty
I would advise that you take this up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as that would be the more appropriate venue to deal with this guy's constant reverting of your redirect. I will certainly offer an opinion in that discussion if you open it. -- RoninBK T C 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll let you know if it comes up. The editor appears not to have been active since August, but has had lengthy periods of inactivity before.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Conservopedia
Please god tell me you've read some of the stuff on Conservopedia.....I was crying I was laughing so hard at the idiocy of the whole site. I even created (using a simple user-box creator) a special userbox for my user page. Wow.
| Conservopedia is Insane | This user believes that Conservopedia is Insane, with a capital "I". |
Vyselink (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Never heard of it. Just looking at the home page—their 'article of the month' claims links between atheism and obesity—the degree of bias and ad hominem would drive me crazy if I looked much further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Founding date of Bible Student Movement
Hello! Hoping you are well. AuthorityTam has initiated a discussion on the date for the founding of the Bible Student movement. It is located on the Talk page of said article. It came about as a result of my changing the date on the JW infobox from 1876 to 1879. AuthorityTam disputes the change. I would greatly appreciate your take on this matter. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Wondering
I was just wondering if you'd take a look at this discussion and give your opinion on it. It is my belief that this information is important to the history of the sketch. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Celebrity_Jeopardy!_(Saturday_Night_Live)#Recent_Edits Vyselink (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion invite
Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Review
Hey, i have just cleaned up the David Wood (Christian apologist) article which you voted for deletion. Do you still maintain your original position? Someone65 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- My position has not changed. Most of the refs are still personal websites, along with some news articles about Wood's arrest along with other anti-Islamic protesters. I therefore do not believe that the person is sufficiently notable to warrant an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Working With Each Other
I would really like to work with you rather than against you. We seem to have had a few tussles here and there and frankly they aren't necessary. It would be great if we could try to respect each other as knowledgeable and respect the others edits. It really frustrates me when you completely refactor my edits, and you seem to do it so frequently that it makes me feel my edits have no value "because Jeffro is just going to delete it or change it." I'll make an edit, add a reference and can often predict how it will be changed even though I've tried to be careful and precise in the wording. It puts you in a position over me (authority) rather than beside me (equal). I know JW and Bible Student history like the back of my hand, and perhaps you do too. But we've both been on Misplaced Pages for many years (2004 for me) and should by now know how to work together. It's possible that the conflict comes from similar personalities. But I'm trying to be a peace-maker here and hopefully it will be taken in that spirit. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- There have always been specific reasons for my edits, and you are always welcome to discuss any particular edit. Concern about your inherent conflict of interest has been raised in the past, and your recognition of "how will be changed" suggests you know at some level where your edits contain or imply an element of bias. However, when I check my Watchlist, I edit what I consider to be specific problems with regard to either style, presentation or content. I don't simply make changes simply on the basis that they were made by any particular editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Cairns, Queensland. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cairns, Queensland. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)