User talk:CTR1874/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Jonas Wendell

• Ah, yes, I believe you're right about the copyright. I just checked into it and it looks like USA works early than 1923 have fallen into the public domain. I forgot about that. In any case, since the other article already exists, just do your editing over at Jonas Wendell. You can add a {{db|Request by article author. Content merged to [[Jonas Wendell]]}} tag to the beginning of the incorrectly titled article and an admin will delete it for you.

--Xcali 05:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bible Student movement

Do you have any comments on the Bible Student movement page ?

I'd particularly be interested in the history of the Bible Students in Europe - is it true that in Germany (during WW2), they had no contact with the rest of the JW movement, but stayed affiliated with it, but then broke up when after the war they got wind of the changes in doctrine ? Flammifer 04:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

license

please add a license to Image:Ctrussell.jpg thx - marc

Image Tagging Image:Ctrussell.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ctrussell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your photo "gift"

The photo which you claim is the only photo of WIllian miller, and hence you are justified in replacing a high quality picture with a low quality one, is not acceptable to keep high wikipedia standards for photo quality. Thankyou for doing the research, but please do not replace your low quality photo again. Ansell Review my progress! 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also of concern is the fact that the fair use tag which you have used on the photo is blatantly wrong. Fix it up before posting the image on any pages. MyNameIsNotBob 09:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Now I understand more about the picture. Unfortunately under the situation you described it is not verifiable, and therefore shouldn't be used here. If the photograph was printed or verified by some reputable source, then it would work. You said you gave it to the SDA church... did they do anything with it? Did they write any papers or statements on it? If what you say is true and verifiable, I think it would be very interesting to document it on the page and add the photo. Cuñado - Talk 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I' ve made a big mistake, and accused you for replacing the foto of mr. Russell with the foto of Adolf Hitler. I called you moron. Well, I'm deeply sorry for that.

It was user 152.163.100.69 who made the change. I thought it was you.

I replaced the right foto. Please accept my apologies.

Thank you for apologizing, but as to how you could have thought it was me (who wrote the article) could have put it up is beyond me. Pastorrussell 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your contribution to the subject I have raised in the discussion on Adventism, and on the connection between Adventism & Russell.--Vassilis78 07:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

William Miller

Hi. I'm doing a PhD on William Miller and currently lecture in Church History. I was very excited to see your discovery of a photograph of William Miller. I would be interested in discussing it further with you--I'm particularly interested in obtaining a higher resolution image. You can contact me on crocombej AT hbc DOT ac DOT za Thanks JCrocombe 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Russell's mariage

Dear PastorRussell, I read in your article about Russell's mariage that the couple had promised celibacy. How can this information be documented? Is it something published by the WT or was it mentioned during the trial of the divorce? I would appreciate your help on this.--Vassilis78 11:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CTZ image

Please do not make false accusations of vandalism [1]: this is a breach of WP:CIVIL. The image adapted by User:Rursus, Image:Charles Taze Russell sharp.jpg, is a considerable improvement on Image:Ctr1911.gif, which was clearly not optimally scanned. 86.148.154.23 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "improvement" is subjective. The original image is perfectly fine and has been used by others on other Wikipedia articles, and websites, without complaint. To change it is arbitrary, unnecessary, and a form of vandalism. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the COI tag. If you think it's a misunderstanding, could you explain why at WP:COI/N. If you have some official capacity in relation to this church, COI is a reasonable concern that needs looking at. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Pastorrussell. You are welcome to join the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pastorrussell. I have added a new statement on that thread detailing my concerns about your activities. Any response from you would be welcome. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In view of your concerns that I am not respecting previous consensus, rather than rely on my own thoughts I have instead opened a new COI section to encourage a broader discussion of the concerns I have raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio

Hi, you are listed under Category:Wikipedians in Ohio or one of its subcategories. WikiProject Ohio has been slowing down and we're looking for active Ohioans to turn that around! But first, let us introduce ourselves; we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio and we're sure there's somewhere you'll fit in just fine. The project's departments include article quality assessment: We have over 5,000 articles to assess for class alone, newsletter writing: This has been delayed by a few months, and new page patrolling: Which has also been slowing down. We also have a newly formed taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at WP:OHTWP.

We have 132 members, many of which are not active within the project. If you are listed there and still received this message please accept the auotmated porcess's apologies. If you are interested in joining us please list you name here. If you're not interested please note this is a one time invite and you will never hear from us again.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message at our talkpage or with any member of the project, we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. We look forward to seeing you around!

Delivered by: §hepBot (Disable) 04:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Russell

First off, I really shouldn't have to tell you something that is evident in the article, and I am granting quite a lot of latitude to respond to this at all.

The following sections have no references:

• Early life
• Ministry\Beginnings
• Ministry\Split with Barbour
• Ministry\Publications\Studies in the Scriptures
• Ministry\Publications\Photo Drama of Creation
• Criticisms and Controversies\Accusations by former associates
• Criticisms and Controversies\Marital separation

Additionally, the "Theology and teachings" section is poorly referenced. --Jeffro77 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio

Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bible Student movement

Hi, I wonder if you'd mind looking at the discussion at the Bible Student movement page concerning the definition of the movement and whether Jehovah's Witnesses are included in this movement. Did Russell, indeed, start the movement? You have contributed to Bible Student articles in the past and you may have some sources that are helpful to the article or discussion, because it's reliable, published sources that will be the key to nailing this one down. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what was happening. I just now posted a reply in that discussion section as you encouraged me to do. As for how much I can add perhaps that is a matter of debate. The only points that can be made are those which should already be known to those who question the issue because JW literature is replete with epithets against Bible Students, as well as constant claims that the Bible Students (seemingly as a whole) were renamed Jehovah's Witnesses. They by their own words and actions disavow any connection to the Movement which began under Pastor Russell, but which splintered into many Bible Student fellowships as a direct result of Rutherford's changes, actions, and attitude. The Watchtower Society couldn't leave itself ... therefore they are not part of the Bible Student Movement. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll digest all this later! Incidentally, there are references to the stream of doctrinal changes (including controversies) of Jehovah's Witnesses at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. LTSally (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Wow! There sure is a lot there! There are a few questionable references made about what CTR believed because the wording is taken out of context. It has been a common practice for critics of the JWs to believe that CTR was of the same beliefs and followed the same cultish practices and mind control as do the JWs. This results in many taking things he said out of context in order to make it appear so. He never considered himself a prophet, disavowed any claim to inspiration, criticized those who made too big of a fuss over him and made sure that the emphasis of his ministry was Jesus Christ and nobody else. Regardless of what one may think of the man's beliefs he was most certainly of stellar character, highly respected, and had a good influence upon those who knew him and personally associated with him to any degree. There are printed/published references pointing out that JFR wanted to make himself as equally respected and holy in character as Pastor Russell was, but failed to do so. There is the story (hopefully in print somewhere) that when JFR had one of his official photos taken he was very angry that it didn't come out looking all dignified and grandfatherly as did Russell's photos. The photographer insisted that it wasn't his own fault and that the photo merely shows what a person truly is. The published letters by Moyle verify the stories that many Bible Students are familiar with concerning JFRs practices, alcoholism, etc... One Bible Student elder who died about ten years ago and who was part of the Los Angeles congregation in the early 1920s would share, amongst other things, that when JFR and his entourage had come to the area to serve at their local convention the congregation (who paid for the accommodations) was left with a hotel bill that included - to everyone's shock - several cases of whiskey. Unfortunately, many of those things remain unpublished and lost to history, but Moyle's letters are right on the mark. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rutherford's drinking habits have been covered in a couple of reputable, reliable books. I intend to give the Rutherford article a rework when I get time and I'll include some of that stuff to give a fuller picture. His article at the moment is very one-sided and uncritical. LTSally (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been very friendly. Thanks for that! Let me ask you a question: the user "AuthorityTAM" is claiming that JWs do not consider Bible Students to be the "evil slave class", and characterized my statement that they do as "a persecution complex" on my part. That was unexpected since it is a common diversionary tactic. Have the JWs in fact changed their view? Do they now seek fellowship with all Bible Student factions? If so that would represent a new ecumenical spirit that they've never previously manifested. I'm going to look for a copy of the WT Library on CD and investigate how many times they've referred to the "evil slave class". It's likely been dozens of times over the past seventy-odd years. Surely it has also been referenced in the books written by those who research cults? (or cult-hunters as I've heard them called on a few TV documentaries) Pastorrussell (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any references to the Bible Students in some time -- they've probably dropped off the JW radar. I have certainly seen references in WT publications to the evil slave class referring to those who opposed Rutherford in 1917. I have the WT library CD-rom up to 2005, so I can do a search tonight when I get home, but I wouldn't expect much. In any case I'm not sure it really proves anything. My own feeling is that Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't themselves claim to be part of the Bible Student movement, because they'd consider themselves better than that. I'll pore over the books on the JW history again to find references to the Bible Student movement to see whether anyone has really defined it. That's what I'm looking for to be included in the article!

I have found AuthorityTam to be a very dogmatic and argumentitive user who sees things differently to everyone else (witness the discussion on the JW Beliefs and Practices page on exclusivity of salvation), but in a way it's a pointless exercise arguing whether Witnesses regard Bible Students today as apostates etc. They're as insignificant to them today as the Witnesses are to, say, the Catholic Church. My opinion only. Good luck. LTSally (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right when you say that we are not even on their radar screen, at least in any official capacity. Funny enough though is that amongst all of the several Bible Student websites the one group we have all observed respond the most are JWs! This is shocking considering how they are strongly cautioned against using the internet. Several of the Bible Student websites have a section which addresses that CTR was not the founder of the JWs so it's not likely that they are all missing this. The official website also regularly like clock-work receives dozens of visits from the Brooklyn area every week according to the IP addresses. So, I can't prove it but they may be monitoring, or perhaps there are some Bethelites who visit. The GB are certainly not ignorant of our presence. The official site receives several thousand visits a day and at its peak was listed in the top 100,000 websites in spring 2006 without a single bit of advertising. The modern JW leadership are very good at propaganda and that requires knowing what is going on. But all-in-all your statement is a correct one. As for the BSM article what sort of references were you hoping that I'd have, or would like me to find? In other words, are you seeking references as to what constitutes a Bible Student, or ... ? Pastorrussell (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for references that state categorically when the movement began or coalesced. At first glance it began around 1881 with the ecclesias that studied Russell's writings. At what point did anyone begin using the term "movement" – and apply it when describing the different groups that formed from 1917? According to Penton (page 62) the adoption of the name Jehovah's Witnesses served as a psychological break with the "troublesome" and "independent-minded" Bible Students who refused to kowtow to Rutherford ... one was forced to identify oneself either as one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not, effectively side with those for JFR or those against him. If that's the case, it's hard to argue that the Witnesses still regarded themselves as part of the Bible Student movement, or that anyone else could classify them as part of it. Their subsequent proud references to the early activities of the Bible Students is therefore done with the presumption that the "real" Bible Students became Jehovah's Witnesses, so probably the best wasy of expressing it in the article is to say that Penton claims they broke with the BSM, but they believe the name of the movement simply changed. Er, even though others continued using the term. Troubling. I'll keep reading my books. LTSally (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you are putting into this. We all have lives and other responsibilities, so those who put time and effort into research need to be properly noted (at least a "thank you"). I do have some reference works available that give some of this information. Please give me a couple of days to get it all together to share the information with you (and the others if they will receive it). It is quite likely that there are statements which will provide for you what you are seeking, and if memory serves even some from CTR himself. Although it may seem to be a separate issue, the matter of whether or not the Society has officially considered Bible Students to be the fulfillment of the "evil slave class" is pertinent. That interpretation has a bearing upon what the BSM is all about, and who would claim to be part of it. If the Movement is made up of the "evil slave class" then the JWs would shudder to consider themselves part of it. It's quite puzzling to see that there are well-read individuals who are doubting this long-held view of the Society. It's puzzling to me why Jeffro is siding with AuthorityTAM on this one since he strikes me as someone quite well-read though a bit domineering at times, but we can all of us be sometimes. Any opinion on this? Perhaps I merely missing something, and would never, ever seek to make false assumptions of another person. There does almost seem to be something strange with this discussion as Bbltype put it the other day. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Libel

You continue to falsely state that I have made libelous comments about you. Present the exact statements you believe to be libelous. Additionally, it is unclear why you have made libelous statements about me regarding fictitious e-mails.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The one-time use of the word "emails" was an unintentional misstatement on my part. Some information is forwarded to associated email accounts. For the record I am not claiming you have sent me defamatory emails, although I do claim you have made bold false statements about me and my character on Wikipedia talk pages which are libelous according to the legal definition: "An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community." Pastorrussell (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that you provide what you believe to be false statements about you. I have no personal grudge against you, and I believe you have valuable information for articles related to the Bible Students, as I previously explicitly stated. However, I maintain that the manner in which you originally introduced your website to Wikipedia articles is entirely inappropriate per WP:COI and WP:RS. I won't remove reference to the home page of your site in articles that are directly related to the topic, though may do so from articles where the link seems more tenuous, and per WP:COI, I strongly recommend that you leave the decision of reinstating such links to other editors who regard it to be relevant and notable. If I identify links to pages on your site that present original research, I will remove them per WP:RS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere I did not place all of the original links, though did most of them. This was in the period of 2003+ when I was not fully aware of Wikipedia policies. In time an editor or two would come along and say a link here or there should be removed. We'd debate it, and eventually it would be removed, only to be added again by other editors exactly as you are here stating. I have tried very hard to follow Wikipedia policies, standards, etc... consistently over the past year-and-a-half and believe that I have done so successfully. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource for providing information, and the stated intent by the founder is a wonderful goal to provide all possible information and knowledge to the world from one resource. It is personally frustrating to follow proper procedures only to be challenged yet again. Surely you can understand that. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment via WP:RSN At this point, you both need to be cautious. WP:LEGAL - no legal threats - is a strong policy here, and it's better not to bandy words like "libel" that could be a perceived legal threat.

Pastorrussell: what precisely do you mean by "I am not personally backing away from the true claim of libel which will be dealt with personally and outside of Wikipedia"? [2] That looks like a legal threat to me; and if you actually pursue off-wiki litigation, WP:LEGAL requires you to stop editing until that is resolved. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia policy on that regard. There was no legal threat, I simply meant that it should be dealt with outside of Wikipedia for the very reason you cited, Wikipedia rules. It should be discussed and resolved in ways other than through Wikipedia talk pages where everyone can see what is being discussed. If the problem is between two people the whole world doesn't need to see it or feel the need to get involved. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not an independent dispute between two people apart from the very specific issue of Pastorrussell's introduction of his site into Wikipedia articles, and indeed I patently refuse to engage Pastorrussell independently by email specifically because of the previous "unintentional misstatement" that I have "by email ... continued to abuse and libel" him.

I provided a list of the articles to which Pastorrussell did supply the first links, and after he said he did not supply the first links in those articles, I supplied the diffs indicating the first appearance of the site on those articles. Also, from what I've seen, the tendency for other editors to reinstate links to the site are not as frequent as might be implied, and has been less than Pastorrussell's own instances of reinstating the link. I have to say I struggle to comprehend how my demonstrated indication of facts constitutes 'libel and abuse' whereas the claim that I sent abusive e-mails is merely an "unintentional misstatement".

My preferred aim would be to have a '{{resolved}}' template on a COI page that User:Pastorrussell could refer to when he is "challenged yet again", and I suggested as much back on 31 May: "In answer to your questions about previous consensus, the appropriate course of action would be to specifically cite that consensus, preferably with a link. Then, either that consensus is accepted, or if there are outstanding issues, they should be dealt with to establish a new consensus.") Unfortunately such a resolution has not yet been achieved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories about Rutherford

For the article Joseph Franklin Rutherford, the self-proclaimed User:Pastorrussell insists upon including this statement:

Despite official denials by the Watchtower Society, some have speculated that Rutherford was buried on a plot of land at Beth Sarim.

Most recently, he/she restored the sentence, commenting "Documented history".diff Huh? What sort of "documentation"? The only "documenting" cited was a blog entry which concludes "Judge Rutherford is said to have been illegally buried on the property, though this has frequently been disproven." Wikipedia's intention is not to immortalize every bit of grounded or groundless outrageousness "speculation" that has ever occurred. Such "documented history" as is repeated in that self-mitigating blog is patently unencyclopedic. Over time, a pattern may emerge that reveals something about editors' scholarship and even more about his agenda and ethics. --AuthorityTam (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion warning

Please note warning about impending image deletion at History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Image is File:Ctr08.jpg. LTSally (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is this? Pastorrussell (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Gone, I'm afraid. [3]. LTSally (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Taze Russell

Please review the Talk:Charles Taze Russell page and address disputed content.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#Any_more_comments_before_the_unverified_information_is_removed.3F --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

W H Conley

Do you have any sources regarding William Henry Conley? An anonymous editor at that article seems intent on claiming that neither Conley nor the original 1881 Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society had anything to do with Charles Russell, which to me seems pointedly false. Can you please check over the article, its recent history, and the Talk page? Thanks. (Note that the two primary recent editors of that article, 207.76.105.235 and 24.23.119.82, are either the same person with two Internet connections, or are closely affiliated.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for not having seen your message until now. I've not had the opportunity to sign-in of late. There are some references on Conley in my papers. Let me take a look and hopefully I can back you up here. Hope you have a great New Year!Pastorrussell (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcript

Last November you offered to send me a transcript from one of the individuals who was at the Bethel at the time of CTR's death. I'd be interested to read that if you get the time to email me. If you have email enabled on your WP preferences you should have my address. If not, please let me know and I'll pass it on. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you receive the email? It was sent a few weeks ago, but as no response has been received was wondering if you got it or not. Hope you are well. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just checked and yes, I did receive it. I don't check that account regularly. Many thanks. LTSally (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Restorationist vs Millennialist

Hi. For starters, I am now editing under a new name. I had used the name LTSally.

I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Bible Student movement#Millennialist or Restorationist? Or both? BlackCab (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Why the change? It took me a while before I realized what 'LTSally' meant! :o)

I have left a comment on the Talk page under that section. You haven't said much there - is there some place where you present your view with a little more detail? Pastorrussell (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Associated Bible Students

The article Associated Bible Students has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Comment - Do you have any sources from which the article would benefit? It is being considered for deletion because it is entirely unsourced.

(I was not the person who proposed the article's deletion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this with me. I do not regularly monitor that article. Much of the material in it can be sourced using the same references in both the CTR and the Bible Student Movement articles. To be quite honest, I've occasionally thought that it should be either deleted or merged with the BSM article because they are essentially the same thing. The use of the term "Associated Bible Students" is rather rare among Bible Students. As far as I am aware it is only used by a few. In other words, it is not the same nor even similar to, for example, the Dawn Bible Students or the Layman's Home Missionary Movement groups of Bible Students which are actually represented by a significant number of individuals. "Associated Bible Students" at this point in history is simply a title used casually by a few, and is neither identified by nor connected to a specific group. What do you personally think about deletion or merging? The only thing I can think of to justify its existence would be its historical usage which would be back in the days of CTR where it was basically synonymous with the Watch Tower Society and the Bible Student Movement. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion beyond whether it is distinct enough to warrant its own article. In view of your comments, maybe it can be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

In reference to your query here, I recently requested that AuthorityTam refrain from personal attacks and other unseemly behaviour.[4] On that basis, I'm happy to see how things go for now without taking more formal action at this stage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my query. I've never been very good at communicating with pushy people. True, I can certainly be stubborn at times, as surely we all can be, however this guy really makes me very nervous and uneasy. But perhaps it's not his fault as he doesn't seem to recognize what he does. He may have some kind of illness, or perhaps he gets overly excited and it clouds his judgment. You've probably noticed that he was on the borderline of insulting me on the Talk page of the Bible Student movement. (Sorry - I don't know how to link to it in this). If there is anything that I can do please let me know. Pastorrussell (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to assert that an editor has some kind of illness. But aside from that, there have been a few occasions where things have gone significantly beyond the 'borderline'. However, I won't cite them here because I'm hoping things will progress peacefully from here on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't quite mean it that way. Sometimes words on a computer screen can be read many different ways than they would have been understood when heard face-to-face. I wasn't accusing him of illness, I was simply trying to suggest a line of thought that he might not be able to control what he does. That's a kinder way of looking at the problem. Personal responsibility is always important, but sometimes people aren't able to do what they should. Perhaps thinking in this way is one solution to the problem. Perhaps there's a better way to deal with him (rather than forcing him to change his dealings with others) as it appears that this has been on-going for quite some time, and despite several warnings. But that's just one perspective and indeed let's hope there will be progress from here on, as you say. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bible Students --> JWs

Whilst I understand your concern that "care should be taken to not imply the movement BECAME the JWs", the infobox is not displayed in isolation, and the article quite clearly indicates the development of Jehovah's Witnesses from the Bible Student movement.

Terms such as 'begins' and 'established' in the infobox for the parameter in question are redundant, because the infobox already indicates the "Origin".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree with you on that one. But one thing that I disagree with is your refusal to accept the word "late" for 1870s. I think you're straining the gnat and disregarding the general consensus agreed to. I'm trying to be friendly and understanding with edits that you do which I don't agree with, and would appreciate if you could do the same for me. The "late" may be small to you, but it's important to me simply because it accurately reflects the historical facts and documentation. Neither one of us are the Wikipedia police, and I'm sure both of us have accepted edits from others that we didn't think were entirely necessary because we trusted the editor's judgment when compared to the documentation/references, etc... Pastorrussell (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not 'refuse' to accept the inclusion of 'late'; rather, I initially accepted it. However, '1870s' inherently includes 'late 1870s', and AuthorityTam has provided sources (ignoring the non-independant JW source) which indicate relevant developments in the early 1870s or the 1870s generally. Rather than editors simply getting to cherry-pick the period they like most, consensus must agree with available sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of his sources are not objective, and among them are sources which quote each other which means the number of single, objective sources are smaller. There are in fact sources that point to the early 1870s but just because these sources exist doesn't make them reliable, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration by editors. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We're only talking about the development of the movement in an infobox in article about JWs. I'm not sure that much elaboration is required, and readers can click the link for the Bible Student movement for more information about its history. For the purpose of the infobox in the JW article, '1870s' sufficiently identifies the foundational years of the movement, without requiring excess elaboration at the JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got off on a tangent there. I was inadvertently addressing the issue AuthorityTam raised about the year. Yes, the infobox is tiny, and a kernel is all that is needed. But 1870s is too vague, but this isn't worth a debate and getting hackles raised. I'm just going to drop it like I always do and let others do as they wish. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's only a minor detail in relation to the scope of the JW article, I think it's better/easier to be vague if it's going to avoid an argument.

On a separate note, I think maybe some expansion could be done at the Bible Student movement article in the Foundation section between 1869 and 1876 to clarify how Russell went from attending a Bible study group to publishing his own materials.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar

I give You this barnstar as expose my warm appreciation for your extensive contributing and by adding special flavor to WP:JW community, particularly with civility, racional arguments, useful and productive editing, excellence in cooperation with other editors who sometimes holds an opposing viewpoint. Thanks to doing minor, but many specific acts toward better future and higher quality of articles in English Wikipedia. Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Your GA nomination of Charles Taze Russell

The article Charles Taze Russell you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Charles Taze Russell for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Franklin Rutherford

The article Joseph Franklin Rutherford you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford for things which need to be addressed. GoP_T^C_N 10:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Franklin Rutherford

The article Joseph Franklin Rutherford you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP_T^C_N 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

JW bias

You made an edit at Charles Taze Russell, claiming you "Reverted several erroneous edits which favored JW bias". The number of changes in your edit that related to anything remotely resembling possible JW bias was exactly one—the use of "torture stake". I happen to agree with that one correction; however, it is probably best not to exaggerate the situation. The changes regarding Freemasonry have zero to do with JW bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I understand where you are coming from I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to point this one issue out to me. We've both been on Wikipedia nearing ten years, but we also make mistakes. Unfortunately we've also had a tendency to rub each other the wrong way. My preference is that we at least be kind and civil to one another, and that would include not correcting the other when we make an occasional mistake or an unintentional misstatement because we both do it from time to time. Pastorrussell (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary falsely suggested systematic bias that simply was not present, which is relevant to WP:SOAP. I don't really understand how the edit could be summed up as "several erroneous edits which favored JW bias" by 'mistake' but I'll take your word for it. Because you have a conflict of interest regarding JWs and the Bible Student movement, you should probably keep closer check on your 'misstatements' in regard to JW bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

Proposed deletion of File:Charles Taze Russell (1911).gif

The file File:Charles Taze Russell (1911).gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This file is in a superior file format at File:Charles Taze Russell.jpg. This file is also not used anywhere on Wikipedia and should be deleted as inferior. (Note: not using speedy deletion since file format differs)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Tater tot crop.png

Thank you for uploading File:Tater tot crop.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 15:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tater tot crop.png

Thanks for uploading File:Tater tot crop.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 16:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)