User talk:Konrad West

Archives: To 31 August 2005

Devadasi NPOV?

Dear Konrad,

I am willing to do some work on the Devadasi page, but there was a revert war a few weeks ago and I was waiting for everything to settle before doing any work in what was a lot of effort by the writer involved, and which did actually stop the revert war. Would you be willing to help guide me through the MOS clean up?

I can work on a NPOV but it would be good if you could help ensure that any NPOV edits are genuinely NPOV as I am not without some bias, but I do think I can address some of the issues if I have some support.

Regards Kama

Kama 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Article

Konrad, check out the discussion page regarding Mormons being Christian before reverting. The deletion was the result of discussion. The statement casued problems because it caused others to feel it necessary to introduce the beliefs of others in the introductory paragraphs. However, those comments would then require a rebuttal. They were unwilling to accept a "positive" statment and suggested if one could not be there the other also could not be there. I accepted their porposal. It is assumed that the article is about a Christian church; the name of the chruch fairly well screams it affiliation with Jesus Christ. So for me to delete it did not harm the article and allowed me to the critical comments at the end of the article where they belong. Please read the discussion page becuase it would be far too easy to get into a revert war about this issue. Storm Rider 06:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleted by DannyMuse

DannyMuse deleted a comment I made for you on his Talk page. I have put it on my Talk page in case you hadn't seen it. It's not a world-changing comment or anything, but it was still a statement from me to you that was deleted.Tommstein 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

Konrad, I see you also left a similar message to Tommstein. When he get's his facts straight, I won't revert them. --DannyMuse 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Stub

I'd say go ahead, but with {{JehovahsWitnesses-stub}}. There were quite a few complaints about RC-stub when it came out because it was an abbreviation (they're not generally liked at WP:WSS becaus they can be ambiguous). Follow the same pattern as any of the other religious stub templates and categories (and remember to add the stub type to WP:WSS/ST!) Grutness...wha? 06:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's_Witnesses: Two or three rule

I will have to go research this, but I thought the "two or three witnesses" to an incident rule came from the Mosaic Law; the scripture also says "do not admit an accusation," which to me suggests not acknowledging it without witnesses. It should be dismissed. Does this mean that an accusation against a non-elder without witnesses is addresssed by assigned elders even when there are not enough witneses?

Also, "older man" does not ALWAYS indicate someone in the office of overseer, but could refer to more general "spiritual maturity."

I do need to look up JW literature on this, but my first thought is that there are differnet ways to view this Scripture, and only the interpretation from your perspective supports the idea that only elders are subject to this "rule."

- CobaltBlueTony 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Perhaps it was User:Evident...? SOMEone said it, but it's only in the history now... Let me search again. - CobaltBlueTony 13:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with DannyMuse

Do you have any advice for dealing with this 'tard? I'm basically tired of banging my head against the wall trying to discuss crap with him when his standard response to any and everything is to revert anything he doesn't like, say you're just wrong and he's right, period, and not even bother showing from any publications why he's right, just declare that all yours don't count, no matter how much research you do. I've tried to be cordial, defer to him in making changes, explain in detail everything I do both in edit summaries and on the Talk page, and he responds by basically acting like a three year old that fires first and BS's you later with his fingers in his ears. I saw your recommendation to just leave the page alone and see what happens, but do you really think that he's not going to continue the same old crap the second he sees that things have been changed again, be it in a week or whenever? Note his response a little up on your Talk page, that he'll quit reverting when I get my facts straight (i.e., he gets his way), nevermind that I'm the only one that generally bothers to even have any facts, as opposed to just ranting about how no one else knows what they're talking about and must accept how I declare things are with zero proof.

Does Wikipedia have a (good) way to deal with religious zealots like this that think they own the whole fricking joint, or are we basically stuck trying to pick up after his shenanigans?Tommstein 10:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tommstein your name calling shows your true colors. May I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on No personal attacks If I am guilty of "revert anything he doesn't like" how do you describe your behavior? How is it different? --DannyMuse 02:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was talking to you. I'm pretty sure I just described above what I do. I would briefly summarize my behavior as presenting verifiable, documented facts, and then inserting them into the article. As opposed to what you do, which is tell everyone how you declare the article has to be and then change the article, and actually expect your word to be golden or something with a sum total of about zero references.Tommstein 04:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please biff each other on your own pages. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what he does to you, copy this and paste it on his page, and erase it from yours. Not that he won't put it right back here....Tommstein 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia has a few different ways to resolve disputes, but really the best way is to avoid in the first place. I'm staying out of this one because I think the article will be largely rewritten once a new structure is approved.

But for the mean time, I'd say conduct an informal survey. Probably a straw poll would be sufficient. In my experience, this has made a big difference. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2nd request to stop reverting

Please DannyMuse, do not continue to revert Tommstein's edits of Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. Come to an agreement on the Talk page, or consider letting the section alone for a period for other editors to work on. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, have you READ the discussion? Tommstein insists on inserting references that are irrelevant. Maybe HE should be asking himself why HE thinks he "owns the joint!" --DannyMuse 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMuse, please take the time to read Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies.

Konrad, thanks for the suggestion. I've read them. If you read my Talk page you'd know that. --DannyMuse 02:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have links to the policies, but it quite clearly says not to revert, but you are doing it. So I have to assume that it's been awhile! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Konrad, although you and I disagree on a number of subjects and I am disappointed by your inappropriate personal comments regarding myself and other JWs on your and Tommstein's Talk page, I will at least acknowledge that you mirror your requests to end the reverting to Tommstein as well. Good for you! --DannyMuse 03:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever saying anything inappropriate on my own talk page, but with regard to Tommstein's, I assume you're referring to my use of the terms "theocratic warfare" and "standard cult brainwashing". The comment was made in jest, and ex-witnesses usually find it funny. No offense was intended! :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check Work

Since I am new to Wikipedia, I am unsure whether my concept of how an article should flow/read is accurate or in keeping with the general Wiki concept. Please check my work on Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations and offer critique. Respectfully, Evident 15:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident, thanks for your work on this article and Faithful and Discreet Slave too. I have some comments about how to write the article:

Make sure the article would make sense to someone who isn't familiar with JWs or any of their teaching, or even the Bible. I'd encourage quoting in full important texts like Matthew 24:15.
Backup every statement with a footnote reference, preferably in the format mentioned on here the JW Project page.
Be careful to be neutral. Statements such as "it is somewhat shocking for Jehovah's Witnesses to learn..." are POV and not necessary. Let the facts speak for themselves.

As for the structure, I'd say it after the intro it probably should start with the League of Nations, and then the history of the teachings about the UN, with the NGO-status thing at the end.

Other than that, great job and keep at it! Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, Konrad. I'll read up more on Wiki citations (I don't even remember whether I put any on the UN page, oops) and re-examine both articles for readability from the perspective of a non-JW. I will try to get some non-JWs to review them and let me know what, if anything, left them scratching their heads. I hadn't considered needing to quote key Bible verses, but that makes perfect sense. I hope I'll be more useful the more experience I get. Just now cutting my baby teeth. Who knows, I might be crawling soon! Respectfully, Evident 03:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Keep up the good work! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages WatchListed

I have watchlisted the pages that you requested. Robert McClenon 14:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NWT Citation Guide

Konrad, the NWT is available online. I have created a citation guide for it on my user page. We can use it to link directly to the cited verses to aid flow of the articles since no interrupting text has to be posted in the body of the article. If you have a recommendation of a way to keep this available for everyone working on the project, please let me know. Respectfully, Evident 16:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evident, I'm working on a template that will create automatic links to the NWT online, saving a lot of time and errors in the process. I'll post it on the JW project page when I've got it working. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rating

Thanks for your nice comments at Template talk:Rating. Tom Haws 04:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with revert war

K, The 'IIPM' was started 3-4 months ago as part of a slander campaign against the institute. Wikipedia was used to put malicious and unproven allegations by students of competing institutions on the net. This has been going on since then. I found out about this and got a wiki id, and started cleaning it up. But now I find, that alothugh I am going exactly by Wiki guidelines, and citing everything, these guys are not accepting the truth! Since they are all bloggers, and the IIPM 'controversy' came about because IIPM sued a blogger (who was also a competing institute alumni) they are biased and irrational.

please help.

You can reach me on my talk page. --Iipmstudent9 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K,

Saw your comment on IIPM's talk page - thanks for dropping in.

I agree completely with your analysis - thats what I thought as well - that they cannot cite blogs etc.

And the controversy was only around the 'IIPM sues blogger' story in the media - in fact, the blogger lost his job at IBM as a result of his allegations on the blog. All this is irrelevant to Wiki as an encyclopedia.

So, what is the next step, K? Do you review the article and point out issues that are not upto wiki standards?

Best,

--Iipmstudent9 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so, whats the next step on iipm, k?

First, make sure you're logged in when making comments and changes to articles. This helps people recognise who you are. Second, don't make any changes to the article that others will revert immediately. Try improving statements that you feel are POV. Third, don't revert! Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K, i've understood your feedback. i've made this comment on the IIPM talk page. Deepakshenoy, I think thats a great first step! :) I'll second that - I've asked that no one from our group revert this IIPM page for the next three days - we'll only make edits. Further, I request K., to edit the IIPM article and remove references to the controversy, except for a link to the controversy page, which should be appropriately framed (not inflammatory). However, if stravinsky, PEasEa, or Ravikiran do not agree with this, and continue reverting, we're back to square one. I hope this step forward by DeepakShenoy, combined with my gesture, result in a positive spiral upwards towards getting these 2 Wiki articles right!--Iipmstudent9 04:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K, as a logical next step, I've removed mentions of the controversy from the IIPM article. Need you to check on it for me and see if thechanges seem fair and logicla, and in line with Wiki policy. Thanks! --Iipmstudent9 05:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K, hi there, I've created a seperate ID for myself. So now IIPM Student9 abd me use seperate accounts, and whenever the others go online on WIki they will make thier own ID's. Thanks for the note on IIPMStudent9's page - he's got tests this month and told me he is pulling an all nighter. I'll fill in! :) --Iipmalum 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K, thanks for the welcome note. How do we proceed with the IIPM page? Do we contnue discussing contentious issues and have your opinion on them? Because your opinio is notbeing accepted by those guys - does that mean we go to arbitration?--Iipmalum 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from materials published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Watchtower explicitly has stated (reference OKM 9/02) that any reproducting and distributing of any portion of their publications via electronic document is a violation of copyright. This published notice would supercede any fair use principals. --Retcon

Retcon, the principle in fair use is enshrined in US law (where WP servers are hosted), and cannot be superceded by directives of the copyright owners. However, I think you'll find that the KM is referring to "reproduction", which is not the same as use of a sentence as a reference. If you want more info, try asking about the case at the WP Reference Desk. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay you have a point there as to it not technically being a reproduction. Fair enough. Retcon 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not to say that companies like WTB&TS haven't tried to stop even one sentence quotes when done so in an embarrasing way. For example, the WT sueing quotes.watchtower.ca. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please educate yourself on fair use rights before continuing to waste everyone's time. When that statement is found in the United States Legal Code instead of Our Kingdom Ministry it will cease to be a lie.Tommstein 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "lie" and why the persistent hostility? It would at least benefit your side if you displayed a cordial disposition. I've seen some of your history with other users sir and that along with your name calling I find distasteful. It is simply a different point of view, I do not see a "lie" as you profess. I will not stoop to your level of name calling and finger pointing, sir. Retcon 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lie is the Watch Tower Society claiming, and I quote, "that any reproducting and distributing of any portion of their publications via electronic document is a violation of copyright." If you didn't see the lie you didn't read your own statement. As to my dealings with the Witnesses here, you come over here and try dealing with their bullshit from this side for a while and tell me what you think.Tommstein 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Tomm you are taking a decidedly POV tactic, but at least you've told me where you sit before telling me where you stand (a favorite line of talk show host Mike Rosen). Why not contribute to an endeavor that you feel positive towards rather than one that aggravates you so? If you don't like it, why persist? Is it to provide a fair and balanced presentation, or to wax a POV bent on the matter? Retcon 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RetCon, different POVs are important to achieving a "fair and balanced presentation". If only JWs and supporters wrote the pages, do you think there would be articles about JWs and child sex abuse, the UN, etc? Tomm does get a bit worked up, (Tomm, yes you need to chill ;) ) but you should understand that as much as there are those (perhaps including yourself) that think the WTS is the most loving, wonderful, insert-appropriate-superlative organisation, there are also those that think it is a terribly evil, controlling and destructive cult. Detractors are needed to ensure articles don't become glowing reports without any of the not-so-good/embarrassing/contradictory stuff --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad, I think using terminology such as "evil" and "destructive" are as subjective for such a NPOV article as would be "loving". In journalism school, one of the prime guidelines our professor taught was "do not insert you own feelings into reporting the facts" although to a certain extent each of our natural biases tend to effect how we deliver such facts. That being said, most media is sadly either "mainstream" (liberal) or "fair and balanced" (conservative), and it would seem that these articles are trying to go towards the other extreme away from official WT sites. Not dramatically, it does seem like it isn't terribly slanted, however just reading the history over the previous view months it does seem that JWs are treated as ignorant fools and bullied off the articles by the critics such as Tomm who use strong arm tactics and are on the computer 24/7. That being said, I would seriously advocate that each person (as the radio commentator above whom I quoted says on his program): "Tell us where they sit before they tell us where they stand". I.E. each of the contributors towards this project should state whether they are an outside observer, a former practicer, a current practicer, etc. There seems to be too much ambiguity here, and I'm guessing yourself and Tomm both were at one time JWs but are no longer...and really that does matter as to how we view your contributions...same with myself and others. Just some thoughts, no offense intended. Retcon 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon, no offense taken. :) Terms such as "loving" and "evil" are indeed subjective, but my point wasn't that they should be in the article, my point was that you seem to indicate to Tomm that he should only contribute to articles he feels positive about, which isn't logical. Journalists are required to report about child molesters objectively, even though they find them evil, etc.

I'm not sure how JWs are being treated as "ignorant fools" nor "bullied" with "strong arm tactics", but I think you'll find that the articles have become a little more balanced recently due to the input of those who aren't JWs.

I don't think that Wikipedians should be required or even encouraged to state their religious views; I think it would just create more prejudice toward the validity of their edits. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where in the Jehovah's Witnesses article either the word "evil" or "destructive" is used, because my browser seems to be unable to find either (except for one instance of the word "evil" in describing what's not supposed to be around after Armageddon). When you're done with that, explain to me in detail how you have figured that judging edits in an ad hominem manner is not in fact illogical, but is what we should be doing. By the way, for someone that can't seem to post without crying about personal attacks, I'd say you have the art down.Tommstein 06:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you propose keep the Jehovah's Witnesses here from turning everything Jehovah's Witness-related into the latest issue of the Watchtower? Someone's gotta do it. By the way, since you like accusing people of crap, what's my POV tactic? Returning the Jehovah's Witness articles from fantasyland? Please be specific. Oh yeah, and I am also interested in how it is possible that you don't have a point of view (surely you knew that's what POV stood for, right?).Tommstein 03:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! Not the most polite of responses, but had me cacking myself! ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Tommstein, I thought you were talking to me. I went WTF?!?, then realised you were talking to RetCon. I least I think you were. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your edit summary, I figured 'crap, I've probably got some explaining to do.' But yes, I was talking to him. I wish there were a more convenient way to finger who we're talking to besides indentation.Tommstein 07:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, every now and then someone brings up at the Village Pump about having forum-style talk pages, but it always gets shot down as being non-wiki. Personally, I think it's a good idea; I don't care if the talk pages aren't freely editable, I want to be able to follow conversations better, which is hard atm. Oh well. ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think there'd be a way to make conversations easier to follow while still allowing all kinds of editability.Tommstein 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]