Talk:Timothy Training Institute

This is a work in progress. Please do not delete this page, until we have had enough time to gather more information about this large organization. There are many organizations based in the USA, which claims to "own" this organization and we would like to set the record straight on wikipedia. This organization is worth being mentioned on wikipedia, as it is a very large organization that has ploughed heart-and-soul into the lives of millions over many years.
 * You will have some time, but not more then 48 hours. Ruslik (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Declined SPeedy
This article clearly makes several claims to importance/significance which protects it from speedy deletion under A7. It is close to an ad, but not enough so to be speedily deleted as such. It really reads like a copy vio, but I couldn't find a source if it were. Just because it doesn't qualify for speedy does not mean that this can't be deleted via other avenues. I strongly suggest trying to provide some independent sources providing the groups importance/significance, or it will likely get nommed for deletion.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Updates
Hi friends. I have done a lot of updates on the page, after doing a great deal of research. You can verify all of the info, I presented, by visiting any of the listed "References". There are however many more references to "Timothy Training Institute" on Google (if you'd like to follow-up on this). It appears that this organization hasn't done much "online" work, but rather, it's name and articles about the organization are mentioned quite frequently in "off-line" (media) productions in South Africa and in the rest of Africa. I, however, couldn't find any of these articles in time.

I am sure that I was successful in presenting the facts, why this organization is of importance/significance - that it is not an ad, but that it is a reputable organization in Africa, with a proven track record. Would you please consider these facts and "accept" this entry into wikipedia? In the meantime, I will continue to "edit" and improve- both the quality and information of this entry. Thanks to Spartacus and other wikipedia admins for your assistance. - 10:01 am - 6 April 2009 (GMT +2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincarldavis (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Put the updates back together, but DO NOT remove the WP:Prod tag from your own article. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody, including the author can remove a PROD tag. It's a CSD and AFD tag that they can't remove.  PROD is useful on articles that are created and ignored, but if a user works on an article, they can remove the PROD.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi R3ap3R - which updates should I put back together? My apologies for deleting the "tag"-the message said something about "delete this tag, should you feel that enough updates have been done" (or something like that). My mistake - I apologise. What else do I need to do, in order for the entry to remain on wikipedia? I mean, without someone opting for it to be deleted? Because it seems that no matter how much time, effort and info I put onto the page, someone is always trying to delete it... I do not know much about wikipedia - I am learning a lot during this process, so please forgive me for all the questions, which might seem obvious to an established user, such as yourself. Thanks for you support. 02:04 pm - 06 April 2009 (GMT +2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincarldavis (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi R3ap3R - I see that my entry has been "trimmed" down - so I figured you referred to the "updates" (which I should put back) was the previous info I added...? If so, I have put back the updates again. Hope this helps you guys. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincarldavis (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. A quick note: My editing is done for the day. I hope that you will find it in order. Please provide additional info, should I need to make further updates and tips on what to do, to avoid deletion, or further notices of any kind. Thanks a mil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincarldavis (talk • contribs) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

COI
Author uploads had the following metadata:


 * 16:10, 5 April 2009 N File:Ttilogo 2006.jpg ‎


 * logo fur |Article = Timothy Training Institute |Use = Org -- HIGHLY RECOMMENDED -


 * Source = The logo may be obtained from Timothy Training Institute (Head Office) -- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --)
 * 16:10, 5 April 2009 N File:Ttilogo 2001.jpg ‎


 * logo fur |Article = Timothy Training Institute |Use = Org -- HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - |Source = The logo may be obtained from Timothy Training Institute (Head Office)


 * Highly recommended eh? Only contribs from the main author revolve around this "organization", both this instance and the previously deleted one.R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, the highly recommended is part of the template that he was using. It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you include the that piece of optional information!--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I never included the "Highly Recommended" tag - R3ap3R: I am not going to continue to persue this "battle" against the admin's, who are not in favour of this page. I don't appreciate being accused of things, which I didn't do and things I wasn't aware of. You are welcome to take the page down, as I no longer wish to have any page on wikipedia. Nothing seems to be acceptable - I feel that if Wikipedia articles where to be judged by your standards (private interpretation), then Wikipedia would decrease by 90% at least - if my page, which contains references, is not even considered, then what will... I will be removing my profile from Wikipedia at the end of this week, as I no longer wish to be treated in this matter. It almost feels like a personal vendetta... Kevincarldavis (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in your history, and I am not an admin... I am just a common user. My main concern is more that this is your only contrib to wiki, and that you pursued it after it was deleted with your principal arguement referencing another article that is also up for deletion. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of new users will only have one or two articles that they work on... this is a normal means of getting involved with WP. If you look at my first few months at WP, almost everything I did was related around one article/subject.  People generally don't get involved in writing articles unless they have an interest in the subject or they get hooked in some other way.  COI is only an issue if it clouds the editors ability to contribute to the article---they can't separate themself from the subject and end up writing a biased piece of garbage.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)  EDIT: See note above, the HIGHLY RECOMMENDED was part of a template that was captured in the edit summary when the page was created without an edit summary.  It is not something Kevin added.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spartacus - what can I do in order to resolve these matters hanging around my page? It seems that some users simply wish to delete, delete, delete...and delete some more...because I never knew that publishing an article on wikipedia would be such a headache. My intention was pure, but R3ap3R is giving me a bad taste about what Wikipedia is all about. I am new to wikipedia and I'm still figuring out how it works. If someone feels offended by my page or by something I did - I apologise, but I am not going to sit in the middle, while some user is trying to make a point on my expense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincarldavis (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know where my history is - I registered my profile a year or 2 ago and finally got internet at home and I decided last week to play-around with wikipedia and to start including pages daily (as I have time to spare), but I never knew that this would happen...The reason I stuck to only 1 entry thus far, is because I wanted to see what the outcome would be of my first page - that's not too hard to understand. My argument was with pointing to another page (which is now scheduled for deletion) - although at that time, it wasn't yet scheduled for deletion - it was only after I referred to it. But what's the use in explaining myself, when you have your own opinion about my page and myself?! Im not going to discuss this matter further. Please take the page down - as I no longer wish to be invloved with wikipedia. Could someone please tell me how to delete my profile or how to remove everything and keep my username? - whichever is possible... Thanks. Kevincarldavis (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
Dear friends. Could any admin please indicate how much more editing must be done, in order to remove the "cleanup" tag? Then also, could someone also indicate how big the update and contribution must be from someone else, in order to move the "COI" tag? Is the COI really relevant in this case, seeing that answers were provided for R3ap3R.inc's "ideas". Please advise, what I can do? Is there any way in which to request other "wikipedians"to get involved in this page? I thank you for your support, for a newbie, such as myself. Kevincarldavis (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try asking these people: Article Rescue Squadron. If they can't clean it up, they'll be able to point you to someone who can.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested way forwards
Usually I'd suggest writing the lead last, but for an article in its early stages of development like this one I'd suggest concentrating on that first. Right now, the lead gives me no idea what the institute actually is or does, although I get the imnpression from elsewhere that it delivers, in some way, decentralised theological training, leading to diplomas, and that it has trained over 20,000 students. How does it do that?

How is the institute organised? Where does its funding come from? If we can get a few of these basic facts organised and cited in the lead then the rest of the article's development will follow on naturally, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus and thanks to Spartacus and the other users giving advice. I deeply appreciate it. I will make the necessary changes during the week (as soon as I have time to spare). You have all be really helpful. :-) Kevincarldavis (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)