Talk:Rolf Furuli

message: The article quotes an article stating that Furuli "is considered an expert in ancient languages". The 'supporting' source is a Norwegian article about the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Can someone provide the relevant part of this article translated, so we can affirm this lecturer in Semitic languages can be considered an expert in ancient languages? Knowing a great deal about some ancient languages (not intended sarcastically) does not make one an expert in ancient languages as a whole. Ancient languages should definitely include Indo-european, Archaic Chinese, Pre-Columbian languages, etc. I wonder if someone called "an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" meets this standard. Bertrand77 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the claim. It was indeed too ambiguous. A quote from the cited source may help, hopefully in English.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert? 

message: A quick tour of the internet reveals that Awatu is, at best, a "consortium" of scholars which Furuli apparently runs. At worst, it's just a personal vanity press. I'm inclined to delete that entire list of publications as spammy: we're not here for posting resumes. If someone has something better than the JSTOR lite which my campus offers, perhaps they can look at http://www.jstor.org/stable/27913850 and tell us about it. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Awatu publishing

message: attempted to claim that it is merely a 'biased' assertion that Furuli is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. Not only has Furuli identified as a Witness, but also as an elder and a member of the JWs' Hospital Liaison Committee (a group within the denomination that engages with doctors to dissuade members of the denomination from receiving blood transfusions). Furuli has stated this here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the category. It's not strictly as simple as whether he is 'disfellowshipped' as the Wikipedia policy allows for self-identification (and such self-identification has to be sourced and also relevant to the subject's notability). Unless there is a more recent source indicating that he still identifies as a JW, he should not be in the category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  JW membership 

message: Amargor or Cchasson owns a sensionalist website dedicated to defaming Jehovah's Witnesses. It can be said that the website he recently added is not another one of his own? --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis? The domain name is registered in Norway, and the site's Contact page has a Norwegian phone number and an email address for Furuli. I haven't been able to identify the supposed website of the other individual you've suggested, who would seem to be Spanish or French rather than Norwegian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It does seem that the site falls into the category of blogs and personal websites though, so should probably be removed on that basis?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be convenient to listen to the user for the purpose of clarifying this situation , .--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any credible basis for your suspicion in this case. The two usernames you have pinged have not made any edits in several years. In any case, the website fails the relevant criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

text: There does seem to be a sufficient pattern of editing between Cchasson and Amargor (but not Amagor) to suggest they may be the same person, but their periods of editing do not overlap by several years so it is not a case of sockpuppetry. Any off-Wiki opinions the editor might hold are not relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your attention. You are absolutely right, it is User:Amargor. I have never made an accusation of sockpuppetry  and let me expose that the only thing that worries me is the website. I totally agree in that "any off-Wiki opinions the editor might hold are not relevant" and if wikis in other languages don't affect English wiki,  I have nothing else to say.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no relevance to the Furuli website, and I’m not sure you should reasonably expect a polite reply from the editor after irrelevantly accusing them of running a defamatory website. If you have other concerns about the editor, they don’t belong at this Talk page.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  You Said "I have never made an accusation of sockpuppetry" and the same day on the polish wikipedia ". W języku angielskim dyskusja ta była jedną z najdłużej trwających, ze względu na różnice poglądów. Za usuwaniem biografii kryje się długa historia, łącznie z użytkownikami, którzy posuwają się tylko do promowania usuwania, nie przekazując żadnych dalszych informacji do wikipedii; a nawet z kilkoma różnymi kontami.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (dyskusja) 02:57, 11 sty 2021 (CET)" that could be translated like "In English, this discussion was one of the longest, due to differences of views. There is a long history behind the deletion of biographies, including users who only go so far as to promote deletion without submitting any further information to wikipedia; and even with several different accounts .-- Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (Discussion) 02:57, Jan 11, 2021 (CET)"--[--Amargor (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this actually has anything to do with the Furuli link. The page falls under the category of blogs or personal web pages, which fails the criteria for external links. Can you two please go to another page to discuss your unrelated dispute. --Jeffro77 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furuli website?