User talk:BlackCab/Archive 1

Child abuse comment deletion

I have reverted your deletion of the recent comment addition on child abuse to the talk page. The user's point is entirely valid and should be allowed to discuss it. It is not as if he/she has edited the main page, he/she is attempting to generate discussion to gain consensus. There is no need at all to delete this information! Jamie (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CT Russell entry

I'm very concerned with your addition of the statement that Russell claimed to be "God's mouthpiece" as it is an incorrect attribution, taking the statement entirely out of context. What is your motivation here? I encourage you to read the actual quote. To take an item out of context is against Wikipedia standards. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you nicely to please remove the quote because you are attempting to imply that Russell claimed to be the sole representative and spokesman of God which is completely false, and gives the wrong impression to readers of this Wikipedia entry. Russell referred to all who serve the Lord to be "God's mouthpiece" - he did not use that term exclusively for himself. I've added references at the link given previously to establish this point - Click Here. The references there given are from What Pastor Russell Wrote for the Overland Monthly pages 160, 368, and the Convention Report Sermons pages 124, 162, 163, 309, 327, 383, and 434. There you will see the term "God's mouthpiece" specifically applied to all faithful followers of the Lord who have received the Holy spirit. There are dozens more references that could be added to the page, but it isn't my attempt to give an exhaustive listing, simply to show a representative number of quotes. Your attempt to make it appear that Russell was claiming exclusively that he represented God is false and misleading. So, please, kindly remove it. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear LTSally,

First, It's not proper to erase a source, especially when it is a third party view of an academic person. Erasing a proper source or citation is a kind of vandalism. Second, you could correct the spelling mistakes without reverting. And third, as PastorRussell has already told you, you put the word "mouthpiece" out of its context, and that could be quite misleading. The word mouthpiece could be interpreted in many ways, and only the context gives the clues for its understanding.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) "Academic person" or not, it is not vandalism to remove an overlong quote that simply repeats what is already in the article. If you think the professor belongs there, I suggest you add a footnote at that point to say that he agreed with Russell. (2) The spelling mistakes simply disappeared with judicious editing of redundant material. You chose to revert. (3) The "mouthpiece" reference now has its context and I agree that it's fair to include more of Russell's statement to provide an accurate reflection of his view of his role. But it doesn't require every word of the quote, including salutations, to provide that context. LTSally (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference in new JW page intro

I think it was you who wrote this intro. I like it. I just have a problem with the addition of the website to the reference about the Scottish court case. I'm not in favour of using websites that aren't the official source of the information due to copyright and accuracy issues. There's one sentence in particular that says it all. Could that be included as a quote from the source instead of the link to it online? Besides that, I think that Scotland in the 1950s (and I've never heard of Covington) should go further down in the article or on the controversies page.

Mandmelon (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the website cited isn't an official source, however it is one of a number of websites reproducing part of the testimony. A much more comprehensive coverage of the testimony -- indeed, a photocopy of the transcript -- is in Franz's book, cited, but the website I've used is helpful for at least allowing readers to read (part of) the words spoken themselves. The message from the representative of the WT Society is clear and unambiguous. LTSally (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of comments

Hi LTSally. Sorry for the confusion. I find it easier to collect my thoughts when writing, as well as for later review, if I place my comments directly under each paragraph rather than entire sections. However, I'll try to keep in mind to offset them in some manner that makes them more obvious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism

I'm in two minds about it. There were some past teachings that were clearly racist, but there certainly is not a current major controversy. I won't push for removing the section completely, but I won't object to its removal. Assess what other (unbiased) editors think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of JW History section

I see you have expanded the section under Russell on the main JW article. If anything, the history section should be condensed rather than expanded. Optimally, additional information should be added to articles relating to the specific individuals, e.g. Charles Taze Russell, and to History of Jehovah's Witnesses, with only the most significant points being retained in the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, that section is getting pretty long – and I was intending adding more material on the next subsection on major doctrinal changes under Rutherford. Look, I'll shift some material to the History split-off page and condense the History section in the main JW article to one smaller section. I can see how that would work. What puts me off working with the History article is that it's already very long and is a bit of a turn-off for that reason. Any more information in there is just going to get swamped! Still, I'll have a crack at it. LTSally (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Α professor of no great repute"

And the web-pages in Google search are?

Anyone Googling Jehovah's Witnesses will be struck with the number of anti-Witness sites dealing with blood transfusions, doctrines, paedophilia and mind control.

A professor of religion is always a professor of religion. You, detractors of Jehovah's Witnesses, are hasty to add in the articles about JWs every negative comment from personal web-pages or from non-academic or non-journalistic books, you are hasty to give global application of every personal complaint, to generalize a local or a personal problem, and you don't like a positive statement by an expert in the field, that is, a professor of religion.--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is true, there are books which are only books that are designed with misquotes and quotes taken out of context, where the words and quotes are deliberately presented in a misleading or negative, rather than factual light, written by persons who have written the book set out to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than to present the facts, and other oppossers quote these books to make the same point, and to paint Jehovah's Witnesses as being extremist. In the United States this might simply be a matter of polemics, but in Russia, Belarus, and similar countries, it is a matter of religious freedom, jail, concentration camps, etc. So it does matter what is written in Encyclopedia's and reputable sources about Jehovah's Witnesses.Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

An interesting comment, but patently false. My recent contributions to the Jehovah's Witnesses page are drawn from sources that include a medical journal, an anthropologist and professor of English who wrote a book published by the University of Toronto Press, a professor emeritus of history at University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, who wrote a book published by the University of Toronto Press, and a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. All these are reputable, credible sources. My contributions have included facts that are favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses. I have also contributed facts that are critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are many vile, vicious, specious and false accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses to be found on the internet and I have no interest in including these in the article, because I'm interested in contributing to an article that is fair, balanced and accurate. You seem more intent on removing all material critical of the religion, which appears to mirror the very behavior that's claimed of the religion. Your dramatic, flouncing comment about "you detractors of Jehovah's Witnesses" pretty well says it all. LTSally (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What speaks of myself is the history of my contributions in Wikipedia. I am one of the few people in the Wikipedia network who support with academic bibliography what they write. By the way, when you say, "All these are reputable," what do you mean with the word "reputable," and why a professor of religion is not "reputable?"--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: "You seem more intent on removing all material critical." Again my history of contributions in Wikipedia proves you false. I deeply respect the Wikipedia policy. Can you prove the opposite? See my contributions.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Woops!

Sorry if I offended with the "Apostasy" link to the "former adherents" reference in the JW main article. I was not thinking of the pejorative sense of the word when I edited it. As you know, technically and from a sociological standpoint, an apostate is anyone who de-converts from a religion, and that is how I meant it. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work! Sungmanitu (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Your contributions have always been constructive, so I was rather baffled at why you did it. On with the show! LTSally (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite template

If you have included named parameters in a template that it doesn't use, they'll just be ignored, so it won't do any harm. Note that I only removed the extra whitespace; I didn't check the names of the parameters used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

'Argue'

Hi. I've left your altered wording in place, but the intended use of the word 'argued' was in the sense of 'to present an argument', where an 'argument' is 'a series of statements supporting an idea', rather than in the sense of a 'debate'. Just in case there was any confusion. I would prefer to avoid the word 'claim' though, as it may imply bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

Sally, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [1] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thanks! carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch Tower Incorporation

I made the corrections.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

JW doctrine

You removed the statement about fornication etc from the JW doctrine article. These aspects are significant with regard to JW doctrine, including their in-depth attempts at providing specific definitions and disciplinary measures for terms such as 'porneia'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The key to their inclusion in this section is finding a reference and I haven't been able to find one in early WT publications specifically about fornication etc. Without one, it would be like claiming they had a doctrine about theft or a doctrine about killing someone. To be honest, my first instinct when I saw this article was to suggest a merger with Beliefs & Practices, but I figured it can actually be quite useful in demonstrating and identifying the changes in doctrines over the years. I'm working my way through the list to find the references and it's actually quite fascinating. I have no objection to restoring the fornication thing, but it may be more appropriate in the later sections of the article if it was in later decades that the WT began setting up their elaborate definitions for pornia. LTSally (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses - constructive advice for a vandal

Greetings, LTSally! I visited the Jehovah's Witnesses page yesterday and noted the vandalism by User:Iancoley. I took the time to revert them (mistakenly typing NPOV in my edit summary; the N of course was in error), but not to paste a warning on the perp's page as I see you subsequently did. I'm all for these warnings and have done so in other instances in the past (and signed them, for form's sake, though obviously the poster's name is available in the page's Edit History). Even so, you may find instructive the constructive message I wrote to that user at my first opportunity just now. While we may have reason to suspect the intentions of that editor, it is Wikipedia policy to Assume Good Faith—and in that spirit I posted as I did. I invite you to do likewise or similar in the future. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The edits in question were clearly not in good faith (e.g. changing a JW website link to disney.com is clearly vandalism).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dignifying User:Iancoley with a polite invitation to join the discussion page of the article is clearly unnecessary and inappropriate given the fact that in the space of eight minutes he did six destructive edits that were clearly, unambiguously acts of pure vandalism. The level one warning I gave him was treating him with more leniency than he deserved. LTSally (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that substituting bogus links is sheer vandalism. I was referring to the crudely inserted content which did relate to the page topic, rather than being mindless vandalism of the pointless-pornographic-graffiti sort. I seriously doubt the offender will go to the effort to comply with proper editing but felt it was worth my while to give a serious response (which you term "excessive leniency"). With my sincere hopes that only good will come of it... Deborahjay (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I have changed the tense 'correction' you made from 'were' back to 'are'. When something (considered to be) absolute (ongoing) is determined in the past, it is still correct to use a present verb, because the subject is always in the present. e.g. Scientists discovered that the universe is big, rather than was. In the specific instance, they decided that anthems and saluting are (always) idolatry, not just that it was idolatry at the time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses project

I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Comments regarding template and project. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

'Plausible'

Use of the word 'plausibility' in the context of its specific current usage in the JW beliefs article is POV. The other user removed it from the article for the opposite reason that I did previously, which clearly demonstrates the implication that it can be construed in different ways, neither of which are neutral. (Specifically, I removed it because suggesting that the beliefs are reinforced as more plausible implies that they are plausible at all, whereas the anonymous IP editor believes that the inclusion of 'plausibility' suggests that without reinforcement, their beliefs are implausible.) Leaving out the word does not diminish the significance of the statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, and I'll move this thread to the article talk page. LTSally (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was looking at other religions on this web site and every single one of them seem to be written by their own followers, but when I got to "Jehovah's Wittnesses" it seems to be written by someone who hates the wittnesses. I feel sorry for someone with so much hatred in them that they have to go around slandering other people and their beliefs.(Thismeanseverlastinglife (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

RTSally, indeed, hates Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be apparent from his comments on his talk page. His goal is to get people to leave the Jehovah's Witness religion. His secondary goal is to put negative propaganda on the front page of Wikipedia to cause people to hvae the wrong impression of Jehovah's Witnesses, what they teach, and to try to use quotes from others and from Jehovah's Witness' literature, to get them to look like extremists. How can someone who so hates Jehovah's Witnesses, be allowed to be the main contributor to the Jehovah's Witnesses page on an encyclopedia that everyone reads???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of comments

I inserted my remarks as everyone else did; immediately after what the remarks are intended to respond to. Are you suggesting I relegate my responses somewhere else?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you add your comments at the end of that particular section, after others have added theirs. When returning to the conversation it's natural to look for a continuation of the discussion at the end without having to scan the entire conversation and check the timing of comments. LTSally (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me know if my future responses are contrary to your preference.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the sarcasm? I'd just like to make to easier to follow conversations.LTSally (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No sarcasm.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaaarghh

Just had three edit conflicts in a row, all on separate edits to the JW doctrines article. I think you've covered the point though, so I gave up. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And you just know that once Tweedledum has started squealing "POV", Tweedledee will join in. Such a tragedy, I suppose that the stubborn, let's see, 99.5 per cent of the world's population just refuse to see things their way. LTSally (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You think that's painful? See here. It's even more 'amusing' if you check the edit history.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Kettle, meet black.

Per User_talk:AuthorityTam#Personal_attacks, you posted something to which I respond...

Personal attacks

Among the list of Wikipedia policies on your talk page is one dealing with personal attacks. I have removed comments from Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford and I suggest you be more careful in future. LTSally (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To put things in context, LTSally has accused me of having rabies(diff) and wanting to burn books and authors.(diff).

Those are personal attacks.

By contrast, this is my sentence, which the metaphoric "kettle" pretends to be "black"(diff)...

"Over time, a pattern may emerge that reveals something about editors' scholarship and even more about his agenda and ethics."

Revealing? Yes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Per User_talk:AuthorityTam#Your_offensive_behavior, you posted more to which I respond...

Kingdom Hall

Hi. Can you please give your thoughts at Talk:Kingdom_Hall_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Schools?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

I consider your words in my talk page a personal attack and disgraceful. I have reported the incident to the administrators’ board.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As you should be aware, Wikipedia has a policy on civility and you are not to attack other editors. You should comment on the contributions, and not the contributors. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment in this case needed to be addressed to the contributor, who accused me on a talk page of making edits so destructive they warranted a complaint to administrators. I made a strong defence of my position. He has still not identified my "destructive" edits on any article. LTSally (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. LTSally, please. Please remember to follow the guidelines on Wikipedia to be polite in your comments. Thank you. Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

To Mr. LTSally. Please, again, in your comments, be polite. You comment today, again is on the rude site towards me personally. Personal comments or criticisms are not the purpose of the discussion sections of the wikipedia pages. Please try to address me respectfully. Thank you again. 69.115.169.139 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

2008

I have an older version. I had the new version but the disc was dead. You can e-mail me using the 'E-mail this user' link on my user page (under 'User contributions' on the left).--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've enabled email. Go to [2] and download it there. I copied it all to a disc as backup, but this one can stay on your HD, so no more disc needed when you need to search. Please note the stern warning at the outset that the disc is not for the public! LTSally (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I triple-checked that I have e-mail enabled in my Wikipedia userspace. I think it may not work through Wikipedia if the sender does not also have e-mail enabled. (I've since gotten an updated CD though, thanks.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Profile

I read your new biography, can I comment? Thanks.

This is in no way an attack on you (before any accusations fly my way), i would like to offer a viewpoint that's all. FWIW I am a Jehovah's Witness.

As much as your beliefs about Jehovah's Witnesses are your own feelings, passionate you are and in that sense I do not see you as a bad person. You are "anti-jehovah's witness", the exact opposite of a witness some may say. Interms of editing this article -

I wholely accept the inclusion of information, that I would, and you once would, consider negative towards Jehovah's Witnesses. I understand that an encyclopaedia is neutral and needs to address every angle of a subject matter. The impression I get is that those who wish to add information that portray witnesses badly (you in this case), do so in a way that is not only unbalanced but a lot of the time clearly driven by bad experiences (please refer to your biog). A retribution if you wish.

On the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses (and other similar subject matters that have an "ex" movement) the distiction between neutral, peer-reviewed, entries in other encyclopedias and Wikipedia are massive. The writing style is devoid of negative bias and, as I may of said before, edits that clearly show a motivation of "showing hidden truths".

I read your experience and it is a shame that your experience is so foreign to me, or at least your viewpoint is. I realistically understanding that the WTS is run by imperfect humans, and I (without going into specifics) do have misgivings about certain beliefs and practices, BUT I wholeheartedly believe that core beliefs override any concern I have about (when put into perspective) minor concerns. You biography clearly shows that the contempt you hold the society in grew as you dwelled on your thoughts, and I imagine the literature you were reading. I have always read any source presented to me objectively, thus removing an emotional reaction.

(final point) - The one thing I do not understand about those who do leave the congregation is why their negative feelings that originally caused them to leave then spiral into subject matters that were never a concern or considered. Could this also be termed as "brainwashing"?

Thanks for listening. Jamie (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your thoughts. I have added much to many Witness-related articles and not all of it is, as you describe it, negative. I simply like to present facts.

You ask a valid question about the intensity of feelings held by many of us who have left the religion. In my own case I feel cheated by the Watch Tower Society's lack of candor and, in some cases, outright lies, that helped create a cocoon around me, preventing me from seeing the truth about many aspects of the organization and its teachings. Because of that, I allowed the society to control so much of my life for so long. Even now I hear my Witness friends speak about the organization as if it is somehow controlled by, or represents, God. Now that I'm out of that cocoon, I can see how shallow that claim is and by looking at the organization's past, including the writings of Russell and Rutherford, I can also see just how arbitrarily they arrived at certain "core" doctrines, including Bible chronology and eschatology, that are today accepted by almost all Witnesses as indisputable fact. Because of the study I've done since leaving the religion, I know much more about the religion than I ever did while I was a member, and much more than most current Witnesses.

As to whether I've been brainwashed, I'll ask you this. Which of these two scenarios are most likely to result in brainwashing: (1) Reading a book or (2) Being required to attend hours of meetings a week, as well as assemblies of two and three days to be subjected to hours of talks; being required to "study" written material by repeating in your own words answers that have already been provided by those who have written the questions; being required to go from door to door to encourage members of the public to accept the doctrines with which you are constantly indoctrinated; being warned of the "dangers" and "poison" lurking in books and on websites that discuss your religion; being urged to limit social contact with all those who are not part of your religion; being prohibited from speaking to individuals who left your religion because they disagreed with its teachings; and being repeatedly urged to be completely, unquestioningly obedient to the faceless individuals who control the religion because you're told your life depends on it? LTSally (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "required". When you baptise yourself as a Jehovah's Witness you agree to abide by a set of guidelines and way of life. This decision is in no way forced upon you, infact you will have had a bible study for some months prior to your baptism. You would of see the ongoings of congregation life. There are no surprises, nothing is sprung on you after your baptism. That is why baptism is such a serious decision, you are effectively choosing a course of life that is far different from the norm. Freewill is a wonderful thing, and you have used to enter and exit a religion. I will always have a problem with those who leave the religion and then attempt to discredit and deface it's reputation. The unbalanced nature in which those who do this is unacceptable.

i imagine that your spiralling hatred towards the organisation sprouted from a very minor incident. It's funny because you say the religion is fanatical but your thoughts and the views of those who leave the congregation to "set minds free" are the definition of fanatical. Sure you can disagree with some tenets of a religion but when every negative press or avenue to discredit the religion is pursued, in a blatant attack on the religion, you lose credibility. Your views are no longer objective, they are fuelled by escalating emotion. And that is why those type of editors are a danger to an online encyclopaedia. Jamie (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact there are many surprises. Newcomers are accorded extra attention, which dissipates rapidly after baptism. And I discovered much more about the religion, its past and its predominant attitude much, much later, which helped shape my attitude towards it. So one tends to enter the religion with inadequate knowledge, and assisted with the "love bomb" that's common to many cults. Knowledge grows with experience. You're correct that entry to this religion is free. Exit, however, comes at great cost. As someone commented, there is no dignified way out of this religion. And that is a condemnation on its own. I'm not terribly interested in whether you think I have credibility, nor whether you think I am being "fuelled by escalating emotion". (I'm kind of baffled by what makes you say that. I spend most of my time reverting vandalism on the JW articles.) Nor do I care that you think I am a danger. I do what I can to improve these articles, to keep them accurate and informative. Still, you're part of a religion that sees grave "danger" in the slightest criticism of its double standards and scriptural acrobatics. Truth, Jamie, can be painful. On that basis, I guess I am very dangerous. LTSally (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, if it is not you reverting it someone else will. I still am interested to find out why some of those who leave the religion entertain almost every anti-jw propoganda and look to disregard almost every tenet of the religion? Can you honestly say there is nothing you learnt when you were a witness that holds true?

Unfortunately the exit from being a Jehovah's Witness is hard, but when you consider that the overall goal of being a witness is not life on earth today but life in a new world that is devoid of things that are in opposition to Jehovah. Are you surprised? It is hard for both sides also, the difference is unfortunately their beliefs are more important than a single friendship. It is purely a matter of self-preservation. Jamie (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I feel that your open opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses and statements about disfellowshipping, that you would in all likelihood be disfellowshipped, and also slanderous remarks against Jehovah's Witnesses is in conflict of interest with your contributing information to any pages on Wikipedia concerning Jehovah's Witnesses.

Also, you are basically controlling the Jehovah's Witness webpage and not allowing anything but your postings and changes, for the most part.

Both of these are unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 09:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What an extraordinary statement. If I have a conflict of interest because of my negative experiences with that religion, then you have one because of your continuing involvement with it. In fact there is no conflict of interest. We are both interested in the article because of our interest in the religion, albeit for quite different reasons.

I am not controlling the article. We are all free to contribute to it so long as we adhere to Wikipedia policies regarding reliable, verifiable sources and editorial neutrality. Where edits fail to follow those policies, I remove them. LTSally (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL (at Naturalpsychology). Though it may be unethical to hold a conflict of interest and not declare such, it is not unethical to have opinions that conflict with the opinions of others. The particular ritualistic opinions of JWs regarding disfellowshipping have no standing or relevance whatsoever outside of that group. As to any alleged "slanderous remarks" or other unfactual comments, please raise those on the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that statements such as these amount to slander: claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community - Of, involving, or suggestive of incest. Having committed incest. are the two main definitions of incestuous. There are other statements on your page that could be considered to be slander also. I have posted a post on the page which is conflict interest. I feel that they way your page is here, it does not reflect the wikipedia requirement of neurtrality, your comments, the type material you post, this page, is the opposite of expressing a neutral viewpoint. I feel that the material you and others have posted on the Jehovah's Witness page is deliberatly misleading and takes things out of context, inclduing quotes, and quite honestly, I've read some of Ray Franz's comments, some of his statements are designed to take quotes out of context in order to slander some members of the Governing Body as well. So, you are relying heavily on quotes from books which also slander members of the Governing Body personally and Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole. Naturalpsychology (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.68.16 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of "incestuous" includes: "(of relations between two persons or esp. amongst a group of people etc) unwholesomely close; operating within an excessively restricted circle and resistant to wider influence." That seems pretty accurate to me. I'm not sure how you can make an accurate assessment of the worth of Franz as a reliable source after having read only bits of his books. And I'll have to ask you now to stop making personal attacks on me, accusing me of adding propaganda and "deliberately misleading" information to the article. Rather than attacking me, please deal with any information you think is wrong on the article and talk pages. LTSally (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have only just discovered complaints you made about me on both the NPOV and COI noticeboards. The page instructs those making complaints: "If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them." Your failure to do that was underhanded and sneaky and denied me the opportunity to defend myself. In future if making complaints, please show the courtesy of informing me. LTSally (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

JFR article

There seem to be several negative comments and accusations on your personal talk page, so allow me to take the opportunity to say how much I appreciate your efforts on the JFR article. Although there are some issues which remain in my mind (things that could be seen to make him appear nearly blameless in the 1917 schism) overall the article is well-written and well researched. One unfortunate consequence of Wikipedia standards is that there are numerous individuals that worked at the Bethel who recorded what JFR did, but which were never published. This is unfortunate because it supports the research of the scholars you cited. There is in my possession a short transcript from one of the individuals who was at the Bethel at the time of CTR's death which can be emailed to you if you're interested. It probably cannot be used on Wikipedia, but you personally might find it interesting. If you need any help on your research on the CTR article let me know. Thanks! Pastorrussell (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

I have removed your response and the original comment at the Talk page. The very specific information provided in the original comment is an obvious attempt at soapboxing and is inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Would you happen to have a scan of the article mentioned in this edit?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a scan, though the text is here. I think one of the XJW forums had a scan, if you want to Google it or search through them. All up, an article of breathtaking hypocrisy. LTSally (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehovahs Witness.

As a person raised in a witness household I can understand what you posted on your userpage. Many former or "inactive" witnesses feel similar. I was never DF'd but I do find it to be counter-productive to the message of brotherly love that is preached. That being said, be careful of what you post on your userpage. It comes off as a soapbox rant. Again I have been there so I understand what you are saying but others who see that won't as evidenced by your user page. Might it help avoid the conflicts by shortening it? I usered to do the whole thing myself, I gave examples at Assemblies and gave talks at the Kingdom hall too, very fimiliar with the ins and outs. Neways, that's my 4 or 5 cents, take it or leave it just a hoinest non attacking opinion....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Might it help avoid the conflicts by shortening it?" Ditto. Note that WP:UP#NOT discourages lengthy discussions not related directly to WP on your userpage, and WP:SOAP also discourages being soapboxy on your userpage. Also, do keep in mind that User:Naturalpsychology is still relatively new, try not to scare him away. We need some people with a pro-JW view to see JW articles in a way that the rest of us can't. All this being said, do understand that your work here is greatly appreciated and I, for one, look forward to working with you in the future. Cheers. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The "conflicts" appear to be with one user whose feverish and sometimes incoherent outbursts suggest problems I'd best not speculate about, at the risk of appearing uncivil. He has accused me of adding misleading and slanderous information to the JW articles, although he has never challenged any of my edits. His problems seem to be not so much my contributions to JW articles, but the opinions I hold about the religion I left and of which he remains a member. The content guideline at WP:UP suggests users may provide some information to help others understand why they're here and on my user page I express my opinions on Jehovah's Witnesses in the context of explaining my interest in contributing to articles about them. It becomes rather subjective to decide what is a "lengthy discussion". I've simply provided some background to my discussion about my motives.

As to biting newcomers, I have offered some suggestions to that particular editor, mainly about writing overlong comments on article talk pages including vast cut-and-paste excerpts from Watch Tower literature, but also about properly sourcing his edits. My patience is wearing a bit thin when he continues to bombard me with his emotional accusations of apostasy. LTSally (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Extreme POV

I appreciate the comments by Hell In a Bucket, they are balanced comments and good advice. Please know, I'm really waiting a little bit to see what your plans are as to the page in question, that is, the JTSally talk page. If it is going to remain pretty much as it is, my plan was to post a POV in the appropriate section of Wikipedia concerning these issues. Really, an encyclopedia would not be the approriate place to post that type of thing. That is a personal thing, that would be aired, perhaps on a personal blog, but not on something like Wikipedia. In any case, I'm going to wait on that until towards the end of this week. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you make a complaint, please show some courtesy and follow the clear instructions to advise me, so I have the chance to join the discussion and defend myself. Your last round of complaints against me were sneaky and underhanded. LTSally (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article as is possible candidate for deletion or speedy deletion

In the previous posting from me which was deleted from this talk page, it mentioned some specific wording that I feel might be considered to be slanderous or libelous, that it is possible that the LTSally personal page might be a candidate for deletion or even speedy deletion if the wording remained as it is. So, before doing anything else, I am going through the proper process first.

Politeness: I have not removed your comments, but if please you might refrain from using impolite speech on personal talk pages. Thank you. Natural (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

LTSally clearly explains the motive for the page's content, being that his motives were specifically questioned by another editor, so the user is declaring their possible conflict of interest, which is appropriate and even commendable. I agree that certain comments on LTSally's user page would be more suited to a personal webpage or discussion forum, and much could be removed while still making the point. The page addresses actions of people known to the editor and gives their own opinions about their own experiences, without naming any other specific individual, and does not constitute either slander or libel; additionally Wikipedia editors should avoid making legal threats.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification on the specifics. I guess that libel wouldn't be the appropriate word, whereas slander might more closely fit the definition. That is, statements of opinion (or fact) which are raised to damage the reputation of another person or (for the most part in this case, organization, although sometimes specific individuals within the organization are implied in this attack). Thanks again for the help with understanding the Wikipedia system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC) 209.212.20.5 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, when mentioning slander, it is not meant in any type of legal threat at all. It is just stating that when you make statements to damage another's reputation, it fits the definition of slander. It has no legal implications in terms of any type of legal action, simply in terms of what is here in this Wikipedia page. 209.212.20.5 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

Regardless of your intent, please note that you should not make perceived legal threats. Additionally, your legal opinion of what constitutes slander is incorrect. Something expressly stated as the opinion of a person is explicitly not slander. Statements made in good faith that those statements are true (even if they are untrue) also do not constitute slander. Additionally, 'slander' is verbal, and 'libel' is the equivalent term when slander is in writing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard

FYI: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_talk:LTSally.28talk.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments of others

I don't entirely disagree with your reasoning but you should be very careful about removing the talk page comments of an editor you're in direct disagreement with [3]. You could to ask them to strike them out or to bring the matter up at WP:BLPN. Editors may challenge the reliabilty of sources so it's best if someone uninvolved decides if it's a WP:BLP matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered raising it at WP:BLPN, but chose to follow instead the advice at WP:BLP to remove the content immediately. Describing a living person in the way he did was clearly defamatory. It was unsourced, derogatory and malicious. My decision to remove the content had nothing to do with my disagreements with User:Naturalpsychology. LTSally (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LT. It is a biased view of Franz. I am almost pro-JW myself, but NPOV is NPOV...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, but my decision was based on issues of defamation, damaging an individual's reputation in a public posting on Wikipedia, rather than neutrality. LTSally (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you were doing. But I was pointing out it is not NPOV....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

LTSally Page Miscellaneous Page for Deletion Post

This was to request that the LTSally page be deleted from the Wikipedia website. I had posted notice about a week ago, that I might request that the page be deleted. I hope that I am following the correct procedure here. LTSally deleted the notices from his talk page twice. If anyone didn't see it, that is why. I had asked him kindly to please take off the quasi-hate speech, in my thoughts, actual hate speech, from his page. I feel that the LTSally page violates a number of Wikipedia guidelines. I will post the specific violations shortly:

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (to air personal grievances). 2. It is not a place of recruitment (or anti-recruitment propaganda). 3. It is not a place to air one's "pet point of view". 4. Writing should not attack the reputation of living persons (LTSally's Jehovah's Witness congregation where his "publisher record card" is located, or to call the persons in his congregation names, which damage their reputation, even though they are not specifically named. It is also not a place to hurl accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses. He is editing an article on Jehovah's Witnesses, it is incongruent to have strong adjectives such as "But such is the power — an intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." and many similar comments. This damages the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses, is untrue and might be construed as slanderous.

So for those reasons, I feel that the majority of this page falls under the 4 points mentioned above, and is not in harmony with Wikipedia's policy or purposes, and needs to be removed. If LTSally wants to have his own blog or website and air those type of views, it is still borderline slander against the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, in my opinion, perhaps not in the legal definition of the word, but in the dictionary definition, but that is his perogative. --Natural (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting irony, Natural, when your own talk page ia a soapbox declaring holy jijad on "apostate" Wikipedia editors. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:LTSally

User:LTSally, 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 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LTSally and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:LTSally during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Natural (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post the name of the city where I live on the wiki pages any more. Thanks.

I don't know how you found out where I live, but please don't post where I live on the Internet anymore. I didn't know such a thing was possible. That is why I deleted the word Newark. from the Talk page. I don't think that anyone really wants their address posted on a public page without their permission. Thanks.Natural (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Natural

I learned your location from your user page, the first sentence of which reads, "This page/user is by a Newark, NJ public school educator who writes on psychology and children's issues." If you don't want that information disclosed, don't write it. LTSally (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm editing it out of my user page, thanks. The Wikipedia discussions get too intense.--Natural (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is everything resolved with this current issue?

The sockpuppet issue--Thanks. Would like to take the comments off of the talk page, if possible, as it distracts from the editing process. Thanks. --Natural (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you make these edits and what comments are you referring to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:69.116.69.75. User:Naturalpsychology says he made those edits. LTSally (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

Thank you for taking out some of the more inflammatory comments. I can live with the version you have now. I will be making a note of this on the MFD page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket again beats me to the punch. Ditto that. Note that my vote on the mfd changed from "rewrite" to "keep cautiously". ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 05:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are still some sentences and adjectives that are offensive to us as Jehovah's Witnesses and that violate Wikipedia policies for user pages:

1. "What other organization punishes members in perpetuity just for departing?" This is a smearing of the policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not what is done and it brings reproach on Jehovah's Witnesses, this type of talk.

2. "So much of it I now realise was arrant nonsense." This is still soapbox. Wikipedia is not the place to namecall the article one is editing.

3. "That quote, from the May 1, 1984 Watchtower, tells Witnesses, effectively, to listen only to what the organization tells them. In Watch Tower World, loyalty to the organization comes before truth and conscience."

Also, this other line: "the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive..."

This is the type of stuff that leads to fights and arguments, division, in any editing, puts people on the defensive.

I'll just ask kindly, please, if these specific comments might be edited out of the page, that's all, the rest explains why you are there, but the other, tends to put a Jehovah's Witness on the defensive and lead to fights. It will go better without the accusations, name calling type of thing and lead to more good will, as it says, "assume good faith" in the editing, and a good exercise in tactfully stating one's opinion on a delicate subject with several different viewpoints, more professional. It would be Wikipedia:POLITE then, which is one of the Wikipedia rules. Thanks. (Don't know how to code the word POLITE in the proper way, but it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. --Natural (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all, thanks for editing the page thus far. If these 3 can be edited out, then I'll withdraw the complaint on this user page. Thanks again.--Natural (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well technically he can get by with the version he has now. it falls under accepted wiki policies. I understand if this is personally offensive but we can't whitewash his view totally. it is now much more within policies. Note that while you are free to complain, the ultimate view will be consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Natural's three contested points:

1. The first point is expressing the editor's opinion using a rhetorical question, and relates to a well-documented concern about the religion.
2. The second statement could be removed without detracting from the page's import.
3. Watchtower publications tell people of other religions that they should examine their own religion, so a statement that JWs are told to only trust JW publications is reasonable, though the second sentence could probably be worded more tactfully.

However, per Hell In A Bucket, it doesn't seem that there is a requirement to make the suggested changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that you would refer to Jehovah's Witnesses personal decision to avoid contact with those who have been disfellowshipped or disassociated as a punishment. If you determined, of your own free will, that you no longer wanted to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, how is it a punishment for those who do remain in the organization to no longer associate with you. Like most organizations, there are rules and guidelines for you to remain a member in good standing. If you choose to break these rules your membership is revoked. That being said, however, if you were an elder, as you imply in your writings, then you would know that every effort is made to keep those who appear to be repentant in the organization. Those who leave and, after being given the opportunity to speak with the "older men" in the local congregation, continue in their course of abandoning their worship cannot expect those who stay to understand or sympathize with such a decision. Those who choose to leave and still want to maintain their relationships with those in the organization want, to put it simply, to have their cake and eat it too. They do not want to live according to the standards that Jehovah's Witnesses voluntarily live under, yet they want those who do to leave their standards and associate with those that they feel could be detrimental to their spirituality. In addition, the suggestion that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society wields an inappropriate amount of authority over its members is disingenous, at best. The rules and guidelines that are set out as requirements for continued membership are not imposed upon its membership. Each person, individually, chooses whether or not they want to live by those guidelines. It appears as if your complaint is not with the rules, as much as it is with the results of not living by them. Jehovah's Witness, as an organization, are not MADE to do anything that they do not want to do. You are using your supposed* history as a "model publisher" ,for an organization you admit be dissatisfied with, as a pulpit from which you can share your feelings as verifiable fact. That is not really in the best interest of sharing an unbiased and accurate view of a religious organization.

• I say "supposed" because your qualifications are not easily verified and you offer no evidence to support your statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devitax (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Shunning by JWs of people who have been disfellowshipped or have disassociated is not merely a "personal decision" as you claim, but is frequently stated in JW publications as a requirement. Members who associate with a former member may also be shunned. JW literature also specifically refers to disfellowshipping as a "punishment". Plenty of people of other religions have friends who are not members of their religion, and may remain friends with people who may no longer share their own religious beliefs, so your implication that members of a person's former religion should automatically avoid them is a fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is strongly implied you should not associate with those members that are DF'd. The extent of it is left to the person, some families (mine included) will not even eat with members that are disfellowshipped, some families do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. Your denial that disfellowshipping is a punishment is disingenuous and, I politely suggest, the result of Watch Tower Society thought-shaping. If I was a member of any other organization — Rotary, my local soccer club, a school committee, a political party, the Catholic Church — and decided I no longer wanted to be a member because, having investigated the body more deeply I disagreed with their beliefs and practices — I would simply leave. The remaining members and I would wish each other good luck and be happy to chat if we bumped into one another at the supermarket, because we bear one another no personal animosity.

By contrast the Watch Tower Society, as with the Moonies, Church of Scientology and some fundamentalist Mormons, chooses to command all members to never speak to the departing member again. Family members not living with the DFd person are similarly prohibited from all but necessary family contact. That prohibition is backed up by the threat of disfellowshipping for any who disobey the command. Am I moral threat to the congregation? Am I pursuing an evil or illegal course of life that would offend God or warrant me unworthy of the term "Christian"? Nope. My lifestyle hasn't changed a bit since I left. I just don't accept that the Watch Tower Society represents God, I reject many of their doctrines and I choose not to be under the control.

Clearly a policy to shun me if I disassociated myself is vindictive. More importantly, it serves as a threat to anyone else who would consider leaving, because even though they too might no longer believe that the Governing Body has a hotline to God, dire WTS warnings about "bad asociation" mean they live inside a closed religious community and probably have few friends outside the organization. Therefore if they quit, they lose their entire social network and possibly their family as well. The English sociologist Andrew Holden, in chapter 8 of his study of the religion (cited in the JW article), makes repeated comment about Witnesses who are disillusioned, but remain as a members for fear of losing their friends and family. The threat of shunning is a powerful and coercive one. In my case, I'd rather fade from view than write a letter disassociating myself. The effect is the same, but the consequences are vastly different.

As to your final point that "Jehovah's Witness, as an organization, are not MADE to do anything that they do not want to do": that's correct in a technical sense only. Witnesses are not forced to do, or abstain from, anything. However those who choose to act contrary to the commands of the Governing Body are subject to WTS disciplinary proceedings. In March 1998 the WTS and the Bulgarian government made an agreement at the European Commission of Human Rights in which the WTS declared its members have "free choice" to receive blood transfusions "without any control or sanction on the part of the association". Sounds good. But as a paper by Osamu Muramoto, "Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses (part 3)" reported, a WTS spokesman interviewed on the BBC said that "unrepentant" Witness patients who accept blood transfusions are DFd ... not because they had the blood, but because they had abandoned the WTS doctrines. Bottom line: any Witness can have a blood transfusion, and the WTS won't stop them. They'll just punish them afterwards. Thanks for your thoughts. LTSally (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are working for the Watchtower, you won't let me show the other points of view. I'm not talking to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automyte (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It's all becoming clear now. LTSally's strong statements of distaste for this particular religion and its policies are clearly a smokescreen designed purely to prevent Automyte (who wasn't an editor at the time) from adding poor quality anti-JW websites to articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are working for the Watchtower

It is obvious that you work for the Watchtower. You won't let me show the opposite point of view. I'll report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automyte (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have sent me an email that reads: "There will be consequences for what you have done to me." Was that meant as a threat? The decision to block you from editing was a natural consequence of your disruptive editing. But your suggestion that I work for the Watchtower was priceless. LTSally (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a laugh at that too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's especially great that Automyte posted this just a minute after they said "I'm not talking to you." LOL--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow accused for working for the Watchtower? I guess he hasn't paid attention to the talkpage or the edits. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should be offended by that! Oddly enough, I did once have an article published in Awake, and I still have the letter in which they asked me to write another one. I declined. God's truth! LTSally (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cards on the table. You have a bone to pick with the Watchtower. However I see a concerted effort towards nuetraility given the situation. I also see you attempting to follow and enforce the policies for wiki. In truth the J.W. organization has imperfections because like all religions it's ran by men. We can't gloss over the imperfections. But being accused to be censoring for them was great. No offense was intended it's just like saying Al Gore decided to start criticising global warming. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No offence taken -- my comment was about the dope who made the suggestion in the first place. LTSally (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What article did you write for the Awake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And why would you be interested? LTSally (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"independent" sociologist

It would seem fairly obvious to me that an "independent sociologist" would be a sociologist who is independent, as opposed to one is a JW or former JW. But I'm happy to leave it out unless people start whining about his affiliations--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely unnecessary to identify Holden as "independent". Jehovah's Witnesses who might write a book are identified as members of the religion and former Witnesses who might also write a book can also be identified for clarity, and that's where the declaration of an interest ends. But a scientist who conducts a study is simply a scientist, applying scientific disciplines to the subject of his choice. Only when one editor becomes obsessed with identifying bias, in his endless hunt for apostates, does it become of any significance. He finds in this case that Holden is not a former Witness, so he adds the nonsensical descriptor of "independent". Holden is a sociologist. Full stop. LTSally (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the word, so I really don't care.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias in editing, violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Will post complaint on this issue

You repeatedly make efforts to remove any information on the Wikipedia webpage that balances out the biased and sharped criticism that dominates the article on Jehovah's Witnesses. I feel that your editing style, is sharply biased, that the Wikipedia article violates the NPOV policy, and am going to post a complaint on the appropriate Wikipedia page. If you wish to discuss it, please do so now. Thanks. I removed, only one sharply critical and biased sentence from the article. All the other edits were adding to the article, to balance out the sharp criticisms from Jehovah's Witness apostate sources that you have placed on the Wikipedia page, with no opportunity to give a defense, or give the other side of the issue. Natural (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural I'll place the statements on this page. Thanks again. WP:NPOVNNatural (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, after this, if we can't come to a resolution, I'm planning to get official arbitration, through the appropriate Wikipedia channels. I believe there is an edit war section, whatever channels are open. All of our time is limited, so we need to do things fairly. There is more than one view on this issue, and it seems that it is difficult for us to come to a neutral or middle ground on these sharp criticisms and apostate bias on the article. Natural (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Natural

Website link

You are a pain in the neck. You won't accept any site that opposes the Watchtower, you just give any kind of poor arguments to remove site links added against the Watchtower. Things have changed. I know the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automyte (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not what I accept that counts. Unlike you, I learn Wikpedia policies and abide by them. LTSally (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I've recently seen a few of your edits. I'd like to identify myself as one of Jehovah's witnesses. I'd like to let you know, from the outset that I value all manner of people and all those that are now, once were, and never will be witnesses of Jehovah. I've been in WMF-land for a long time now and just wanted to say hello. I have nothing to say about your edits, nor about other peoples edits for or against Jehovah's Witnesses. I merely wanted to say hello. So, hello! :) Feel free to respond or not. Regards, fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing

It's you the culprit, not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automyte (talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

six screens of the Watchtower

Well then, I dare you to find a site that would be showing the other side of the coin, and add it.--Automyte (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Automyte

Sweetpoet

I noticed you reverted the push-button telephone article. I think it would be best if you didn't, as the editor already imagines their being 'attacked', and already imagines I'm 'in league' with you. Instead, I have raised an RFC at the telephone article's talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have raised a 'Wikiquette' alert regarding User:Automyte at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Automyte.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GB

Regarding this edit. I don't have access to 'Franz page 163'. As indicated in the comment I added, the wording used seems quite 'flowery'. If using this wording, please supply the actual quoted text, otherwise it seems pretentious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

CTR and Allegheny links

You aren't familiar with the references both made by Russell himself, and the WT society in the years after his death, that the Allegheny Bible study group of which he was elder worked together in developing his doctrinal views? Pastorrussell (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Do you have sources you can cite? As you know, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than prior knowledge. LTSally (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment (eschatology article)

I typically bring up diffs for several pages on my watchlist at once. Your edit must have been made between getting the diff for that article and subsequently editing the (prior) latest version of the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Page ownership

If you have objections to my sourced and neutral modifications to the article, raise them on the talk page, and leave them be for a few days, to see what comment they attract from others. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No. See archives 41 to 46 of the talk page see the extent of discussion before consensus was reached on the current wording. Your own suggestion is way off beam. LTSally (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When did consensus become a reliable source, when last I checked it wasn't.

Which Christian projects had representatives in the "consensus"?

Loosen up, no article is ever finished, certainly not while it hasn't gone through FA.

Even then, the invitation is there for people to boldly make improvements. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just read your user page.

I've been too busy dealing with being "shunned" by you three editors at the JW article.

Give me a break, please, I've no agenda for or against JWs, current or past.

I do have an agenda for neutrality, though, it leads to harmony, if not agreement.

For goodness sake, look at the sources I found when as, merely a reader, I wondered how much work had been done on sourcing reference to Christianity. Had the references been more substantial, although I'd have disagreed, I'd have moved on.

My feedback is a gift, not a criticism.

The rest of the article is so full of well sourced good stuff, I've already learned heaps from it.

And it's a masterpiece of neutrality ... overall.

See you tomorrow, bye for now. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines RfAr 2

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alastair Haines 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

At Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, you've repeatedly reverted quotes from a cited source.... I've opened a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --AuthorityTam (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the result of the 3RR case at WP:AN3#User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned). If reverts on this point continue before consensus is reached on Talk, blocks are possible. See the comment I left at User talk:AuthorityTam#Your 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Millenialist vs. Restorationist

I'm not sure I can agree with this edit[4]. The two terms are not mutually exclusive, and the Bible Student movement is restorationist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They are certainly Millennialist and there are sources to suppport this. How do you know it is restorationist? What sources would you use? You should probably start this thread on the article talk page. BlackCab (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming they are not restorationist? The Bible Students developed as a result of the Second Great Awakening, which specifically instigated restorationism. Russell's early teachings clearly demonstrate that he believed Christianity had deviated in a 'Great Apostacy', and that his bible study group was returning to original Christianity. I'm not going on a wild goose chase for sources right now, but it is absurd to claim Bible Students and JWs are not Restorationist. Perhaps you can ask User:Pastorrussell if you're desperate for a specific source. It is also irrelevant whether any restorationist group successfully imitates first-century Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being antagonistic or provocative. The adjective is there and I see little support for it. I'm just asking the question. I've read much of Russell's early writings and, though I didin't look specifically for articles on the subject, I don't recall seeing much reference to it. I think it was of little more interest to him than, say the trinity: he dismissed trinitarianism, but spent little time writing about it. Only later did WTS publications focus on it. But I'll post Pastrrussell a message asking him the question. The books I've read recently spent much more time discussing the development of WTS beliefs on chronology, which is directly and strongly connected with the millenialist views that started it all, than they did on restoration.

In a way, and at risk of opening up another can of worms, it's connected with the fuss over their self-description of Christianity versus some external views that they are not Christian. The recent debate has obviously been about who decides. You seem to accept the view that if the JWs call themselves restorationist, that settles it. BlackCab (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the above to Talk:Bible Student movement. We'll continue there if necessary. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I've made some comments on this section's Talk Page, but only one other person has opined, namely AuthorityTam. If you and Jeffro could add your views it would be most appreciated. We really can't come to a consensus with only two people there (him and me). Your opinions and thoughts are appreciated. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning about WP:AGF

You should know that here at wikipedia we assume good faith. Your comments on Natural's page is baiting and assumes bad faith. Can you take it easier on this and let someone else comment on his behavior, you definitely have a COI in this and Natural should be given the benefit of the doubt that you are accorded as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What comments are you referring to? I have asked him to stop using Wikipedia as a chat forum and asked him a simple question about whether he counts his edits as witnessing time. I have no conflict of interest with him and I have every right to ask him to desist filling talk pages with his random views. Perhaps he should start a blog. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thia is a bating question [[5]]. thisis a way to completely discredit the edits and also a means to block as a soapbox or promotion only account. Anyone that's been here for a while can see the lead-up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of following it up in that way. My question was motivated by the fact that he adds veeeeerrrrry long postings on the talk page that are more of a general discussion with other editors about his views on life and religion when the pages are meant to be restricted to discussion on improving the article. I wonder whether the need to "report time" may be a contributing factor. BlackCab (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So in essence you assume because Natural has verbose responses he is reporting this time as time witnessed? How doesn't this count as a lead up to trying to discredit his edits? Can you explain what this information would net you? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An understanding of his motives in engaging in long, tedious, one-sided and inappropriate discussions on talk pages. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What you like to do with that information? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've answered that question. BlackCab (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did answer the question of why you want this info, you however refuse to say what you will do with this info. This is why I'm saying you are baiting and assuming bad faith. I really hopw you can answer the question and I am wrong though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this, the Nuremburg trials? I don't see that I've refused anything. I asked him a question because I want to know the answer and that's about the end of it. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? BlackCab (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather interesting response. I note the refusal to answer what your motives are. If they were as simple as you claim there wouldn't be the defensiveness and lack of transparency we see. I'm going to drop this as I think that you have condemned yourself in your own words. I would again however urge you to let other less biased editors chastise Natural. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a drama queen. If I feel Mr Natural needs "chastising" I will do it. BlackCab (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cough Warning numero dos for WP:NPA. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BlackCab. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep playing your games.

A said on my talkpage, either you are incompetant or you are trolling. Maybe you can point out the personal attack I made or grow the fuck up? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about being a little combative in this editing process. I apologize and will try to be more Christlike in my dealings here. It is a little frustrating this process. Again, I'm sorry about that and am going to try to change my style of communication with you. Matthew 5:45-48. Thanks. Natural (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Natural

Appreciate the sentiment, Scott. We are approaching the subject from opposite ends of the spectrum and there are going to be disagreements and almost certainly further frustration, but I aim to be fair. Mutual respect is the key. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)