Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Zengalileo. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! —PaleoNeonate – 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zengalileo. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Paige Connor, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Paige Connor to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, ubiquity (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will let other editors review your latest edits. If they are reverted again, please make sure to first start a related discussion on the article's talk page in order to reach consensus, instead of reinstating again your changes (see WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). Some of your contributions appear to have merit but may need to be refined. This is difficult to do if no discussion takes place. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have our opening sentence now. A couple of things: are you a Jehovahs Witness? I need to know so I can figure out your biases, or perhaps you just don't know the issue. If you dont know the issue, why are you here? If you are a JW, I'm watching you. I'm not going to let any bias slide. Also, if you don't have a college degree, I need to know. I am a professional, educated writer. I know when an apologist is trying to damage control their religion. There are numerous statements in this article that make it seem like there are just some people out there saying there is an issue here. That is dishonest and you know it. There IS an issue here. JWS DO mishandle child abuse cases. It is a fact borne out by serious investigation. And don't think I didn't notice the spare mention of the ARC. It deserves its own subheading. It should be quoted and referred to all over this page. It is THE major event that has settled this matter once and for all. Zengalileo (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know any of those things about me, and if you continue down this path you will end up being reported for personal attacks. An experienced writer would not be using loaded terms like "under fire" unless influenced by their own biases. Please begin to engage collaboratively.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing should not be about people and discussions not about editors, but content. Please consult my user page if you would like to know more about what I accept to disclose. —PaleoNeonate – 00:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear on what basis "I think we have our opening sentence now". I'm the only editor who has suggested a new lead sentence, and it was rejected by the editor. No discussion about the lead sentence has yet taken place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took out "under fire." Why do you remove my whole sentence when you can just change the offending word? I'll just keep putting my changes back up. I dont think you know this topic frankly. Your opening sentence was no good and off topic. Mine is better. Yours would be good on an article that is about whether child abuse occurs or not in JWS. Mine also addresses the scope. This is not just "some people saying" this is whole nations doing high level court procedings. It needs to be stated right off.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that 'just taking out under fire' amounts to discussion at the article's Talk page. It doesn't. The lead sentence I suggested as a starting point for rational discussion was a very quick effort that encompasses a description of the issue including JW handling of child sexual abuse, which is the subject of the article. If you simply keep putting up your sentence, you'll be blocked for edit warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sensationalist tone of your latest attempt is still inappropriate. You should try to discuss changes to the suggested sentence at the article's Talk page. If you continue without attempting to reach consensus, you will be reported to admins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It if OFF TOPIC. Zengalileo (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what manner is it "OFF TOPIC"? You can't just say "it's off topic" and expect everyone to agree with you. The topic of the article is Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse cases. The topic isn't 'exposé of how broadly the issue has been reported' or 'how many courts dealt with the issue'. Those are relevant, but they are not content for the lead sentence. You need to discuss at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest 'scope' effort is definitely less bombastic than your previous efforts, though you still haven't discussed anything at the article's Talk page. Relevant questions would be why do you think it is necessary to specify 'high' courts or 'around the world', though these phrases are implied anyway or how is the suggested sentence 'off topic'. Your changes still seem indicative of wanting the article to be an exposé. You might be right about your preferred wording (I don't think so), but you don't have consensus from anyone. You need to discuss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that was an improvement. I added scope, because its not just a couple of people and courts in Wee Saw, Mississippi that say this. It doesnt get much higher than the Royal Commission and the Charities Commission. Your sentence makes it seem like its just a few locals, local media, local courts and a sprinkling of "individuals." The facts are represented in my last change. It is disrespectful to child abuse victims to downplay the scope. This is happening ALL OVER THE WORLD, not just in some local community. Think of all the victims and make sure they are ALL included, not just some. Zengalileo (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead and the rest of the article already makes it clear that the scope is not 'Wee Saw, Mississippi'. If the article were about one community, it would say so. You're trying to shoehorn too much into the lead sentence, and it comes across as sensationalism, which isn't appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are one edit behind in comments. The ORIGINAL sentence was off topic. Your recent upgrade is not bad, but still doesnt quite justify the existence of the wiki page. Zengalileo (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a subject for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't determined by the quality of the lead sentence, it is determined by coverage in reliable sources. Notability of the subject is not in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt this the talk page? If there is another talk page I dont know where it is. Zengalileo (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your User Talk page. It is for discussing issues with users about issues that do not relate directly to article content, such as user conduct. I already linked the article's Talk page for you (here it is again Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#Lead sentence), but you were too busy speculating about whether I'm an employee of Watch Tower (sigh).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original post I came upon the other day, is worded in an apologistic manner to give the impression that Jehovahs Witnesses do not have a particular problem with the way they handle child abuse, the very first sentence, before I changed it was just a dry statement that JWS have child abuse occur within their ranks. This misses the point of the wiki page even existing in the first place. It exists because victims of crimes have been mistreated by the churchs legalistic policies. No one is saying that JWS dont have child abuse cases occur among their ranks. But JWS have denied that their elders, or the church in general, has a responsibility to physically protect children in their Kingdom Halls. I say, have it your way. Let it be known for parents to not expect any physical security in their Kingdom Halls. Therefore, it can be said, by their own wishes they DEMAND that their Kingdom Halls are unsupervised public places. They do not want, no, they insist, that their places of worship take no responsibility whatsoever for the welfare of people, even children who attend. That is THEIR words, not mine. So, the first sentence in this article only makes sense if it is said that these child abuse cases occur in Kingdom Halls as they would in any unsupervised public place. Parents beware should be placed on these buildings. We expect more responsibility to come from supervised places like schools. JWS do not want that kind of designation as it may result in law suits if they fail to provide supervision pr protection for their members, so theyd rather beg off and claim no responsibility at all, which is fine. They dont have to protect children. Just dont try coming to me saying their Kingdom Halls or the group in general just happens to experience child abuse cases like any school or place where protection of children is implied in a places name or charter. Their group wants none of that, and I say Let em. Then their places are no better than say, an unsupervised playground, or shopping mall, quite unlike other churches who step up and say, we will protect ypur kids here, and if we dont, you can sue us fpr negligence. Zengalileo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement sounds more like a rant than a desire to improve article content. You may like to note that Wikipedia is not a place to 'right great wrongs'. The changes you made were an inappropriate tone for Wikipedia. Your proposed changes to focus on Kingdom Halls as 'a public place' as a location where abuse might occur (rather than Jehvoah's Witnesses as a subculture or segment of society in which abuse occurs) is not supported by the cited sources.. And none of the changes were so dramatic to indicate that it was previously "to give the impression that Jehovahs Witnesses do not have a particular problem with the way they handle child abuse". Additionally, some content you added to the lead was of a level of specificity not suitable for the lead, and has been moved to a relevant section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. The Jehovahs Witness subculture is an unsupervised subculture since elders beg off providing physical protection, not just in the kingdom hall, but wherever their people exist. Per the ARC, elders put all safety on the parents and officially want no part in physical protection. Period. Child abuse therefore occurs in their group in situations where elder protection would have prevented it, as when non reporting led to repeat offending, examples numerous in ARC alone. This proves the culture is an unsupervised one. Pedofiles are allowed to go unreported as they would in a shopping mall, not like a school or church where protection is assumed. And dont try telling me what my goals are. I just want accuracy, and Jehovahs Witness wikipedia editors are not capable of non bias. They are very sneaky and probably paid by Watchtower to troll wikipedia, or are members of wstchtower staff.

Hopefully you are satisfied with the last change. Your lead off sentence is terrible writing form. It shows a lack of art. It is poor comoosition style and does not serve the topic. The topic is jw handling of child abuse, not "does child abuse happen to jws." The opening sentence of any cultured work should provide context, and the reason for the article. Your sentence is just a bald fact not related to HANDLING. Therefore, why is it there? Now I have provided a decent opening line, and a connecting phrase to yours. Your line should really just be taken out as unnecessary and off topic. But with my connecting phrase it could be left in. If you remove my opening line, I'll just remove your whole sentence next and get some non JWS to help me keep it out. You are a JW right? I think in the interest of transparency and conflict of interest you should declare yourself.

Your changes again had to be reverted. It certainly shows a lack of 'art' to begin an article about a complex subject with specific 'testimony' from a specific court case. The article reports the issue, and the lead should begin with a simple statement, and then expand on that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current sentence does simply introduce the subject, but it could better define the controversy by mentioning the reporting. Now that I've done the damage control by reverting your inappropriate change, we can discuss what should be in the lead if it needs to change. This can be done at the article's Talk page. As a guideline, the import of what you think should be there might be phrased as something like, "Various individuals, courts and the media have raised concerns about the manner in which cases of child sexual abuse are handled when they occur in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses." What you should note is that it is a general statement describing the broad issue and doesn't dive straight into specific details of a court case that the reader may know nothing about. Now, please start a section at the article's Talk page and continue there. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the process for you at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#Lead sentence. Please reply there and not here about content of the lead sentence, and just discuss content rather than conspiracy theories about Watch Tower paying editors. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opening line is off topic.

I think before we go any further you need to be transparent about your religion and your level of education. I was trying to preserve your original sentence but then I realized it just has to go. I have constructed one that makes sense now. The original one was just meaningless. And off topic. Zengalileo (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My religious beliefs and level of education are none of your business (though the User boxes on my User page are fairly transparent on the matter). Your changes were again reverted, because phrases like "under fire" are not a tone suitable for an encyclopedic article. Please discuss at the article's Talk page. I started a section there.

There was an edit conflict, but your comments were running very close to a personal attack, and for your benefit I have not restored them here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice: If you start accusing everyone who disagrees with your edits of being a Watch Tower plant, you're going to get blocked for personal attacks fairly soon, and you will achieve nothing. Tone down the rhetoric and discuss article content—not editors— at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am not a Jehovah's Witness and my above thread about consensus is not about this article specifically but is how Wikipedia works. As Jeffro also pointed out, a non-passionate discussion should occur to form consensus. Sensationalist language should also be avoided in articles and that does not imply censorship. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an appropriate place for you to apologise for speculating about and insulting my education level, and for making farcical allegations that I am affiliated with Watch Tower. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. I officially apologise. You ready for the rest of the article now? ; )

You are continuing to make misguided insinuations about me at the article's Talk page. If you continue, you will be reported to admins for personal attacks. Stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding discussion at Talk pages, 'consensus' does not result from someone not receiving a response in a timely fashion. Sometimes people will no longer be at the computer. They might be taking a short break, or they might have gone to work, or gone to bed; not everyone is in the same time zone. You should also wait until additional editors have commented—so far one other editor has, and he also did not support your position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent history of edits here and on the talk page of the article discussed in the section above can be seen as being potentially problematic enough for other editors to bring their concerns to one of the administrator's notice boards for discussion. Believe me when I say, as a former admin, you really do not want that to happen. Your repeatedly expressed opinion that one or more other individuals in the discussion are in some way associated with the JW's is particularly problematic, because as an editor who has, over the years, dealt with the JW content rather regularly, I can honestly say that at no time have I ever had any reservations about Jeffro possibly being affiliated with the JW's. In fact, I think I once said he is probably the most valuable editor we have regarding this material because of his history of neutral editing on the topic.

I strongly suggest that you as a newer editor review some of our policies and conduct guidelines before your conduct does in fact get brought before the attention of others. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are coming to the game way late and dragging up old news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to make friends like that. No one expects you to take the view that Wikipedia is the best thing ever, but continuing to make statements on article Talk pages that individual editors or Wikipedia editors in general are hacks has no relevance to the article in question, and tends to suggest you don't have any respect for Wikipedia's editing procedures. You have been granted a fair amount of latitude thus far, and if you continue making insulting remarks, you will be reported to admins. Stick to article content on article Talk pages rather than discussing editors. In particular, you have been told in specific detail why your preferred wording is not consistent with the relevant guidelines for apparently contradictory statements, and it has nothing to do with 'bad writing', which is merely your editorial opinion (and your initial changes to the article were definitely not 'good writing' or suitable tone in the context of an encyclopedia). It's not helpful that you finally stated at article Talk that you actually meant an entirely different person as the proposed source of the statement in question (and that was in a similar vein to your earlier statement at this page that I was somehow an edit behind because you were apparently talking about an earlier version of the lead sentence). Other editors are not responsible for your errors. Also, please sign your posts on Talk pages by typing --~~~~ at the end; it gets replaced with your username and timestamp of your comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:Elizium23 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only response I will give you regarding your inappropriate comments at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses handling of child sex abuse. The fact that you are not as memorable or significant to me as you hope is entirely your problem and of no consequence to me whatsoever. Your personal familiarity with any particular denomination does not make you a suitable source for Wikipedia articles. I am under no obligation whatsoever to explain, justify or 'prove' anything to you, especially given your combative tone. You are welcome to question any edits to article content on their merits. If you continue to make any insinuations about my supposed motives, you will be reported to admins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit _(blether) 16:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are proponents of mgtow allowed to define themselves and who they are and what they believe? Sure. That doesn't mean they're entitled to use Wikipedia as a platform for their beliefs. Also, is the choice between being spat on and made an eternal friend especially difficult? Cheerio! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So why does the article say mgtow is misogynist when mgtow does not define themselves that way. It is just name calling. In fact it's racist to call mgtow misogynist. Zengalileo (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As your attorney, I advise you to remove the claim of racism, because it makes you look like you don't know the meaning of any of those words. Jorm (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just evade the point. So far you have not addressed any of my actual arguments. And you obviously don't understand figures of speech. You're not taking the discussion seriously. Zengalileo (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Your hyperbole prevents it. Jorm (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]