User talk:George m

I'm sorry for my poor English, because I'm not a native English speaker. I moved your comment on my user page to my talk page. Please comment your idea in talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Thank you. Rantaro 03:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks and no hard feelings, george.

George, sure I'd be happy to contribute to the God's Kingdom page. Great idea. So you're giving your first public talk today. Congratulations!!! Do well. What's the theme? Coincidentally I'm also giving a talk today in the Oak Knolls congregation in Simi, California. Where are you located? --DannyMuse 17:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion
George m, Wikipedia requires civil discussion and academic excellence from editors, particularly when disputes arise. Though your objections on the subject are clear, you have yet to engage the academics of whether your objections have merit. Please use the subject's discussion page according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions) I am always open to whatever can be proven. Regards,Marvin Shilmer 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of God
I looked at the Kingdom of God article, and I can't see anything I can contribute at the moment. We are doing our best with the JW articles, but as you know, these things go slowly. Thanks for thinking of me, and best wishes in your ministry.

I suppose I could contribute a Latter Day Saint perspective to the Kingdom of God article. LDS have a definite and distinct belief on the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, which might be interesting to include. Tom - Talk 22:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Kingdom of God, word usage
Heiko, I found your edit on the "kingdom of God" article to be somewhat uninformed and a little rude. JW's did not invent the phrases you deleted. The term "JW speak" seems like a discriminatory statement. I am not going to "edit war" with you, I just wanted to privately express my thoughts. regards user:george m

PS feel free to delete this message after you have read it.


 * Hi George,


 * For Hebrew Scriptures in English I am not absolutely sure, whether anyone else apart from JW uses this term, but I do not know anyone who does. The Christian Greek Scriptures is an exclusively JW term. Just google for "Christian greek Scriptures" - Jehovah. Noone else uses this phrase. So I disagree with naming this "uninformed". Sorry if you consider this a little rude. I am not sure, whether you refer to "JW speak", or to the edit in general. I did not intend "JW speak" to be offensive. Maybe it is not the right expression. (I am quite fluent in English, but I am not a native speaker and so it might be the wrong word. "JW slang" might have been better.)

For the time being, I have given up editing the JW article (main + doctrine). I noticed that over time critical facts that that I add (and that I consider to be important to have a balanced POV) get edited out. (The only thing that remained is the info about the baptisms.) I am very much disappointed about that and for the time being, have other things to do. I do not have the time to check permanently for these things and press for these facts in the discussions. And besides, I do not want to fight about articles. I still consider quite a number of points in the article to be unbalanced, but at the moment I do not see a way to change that.
 * I think you noticed that there are some things about JWs where I am very much convinced that they teach things contrary to the Bible and I think that an article about JWs doctrines in the Wikipedia should also point at the problems other people see with their teachings. But at present the main information under "opposition to JW" is hostility from the authorities and hostility from fundamentalists. From my POC this is missing the point why other Christian groups consider JW teaching to be a deviation from the Bible. But I think that this user talk page is not the right point to go in the details of doctrine. If you like, you can mail me privately under heiko dot evermann at gmx dot de, and we could discuss some of the doctrinal matters in private. Kind regards, Heiko

Heiko, sorry to be so long in replying. I did a google search for the terms "Christain Greek Scriptures" and "Hebrew Scriptures" I apparently found different results than you did. Did you search in English? You should not feel bad about your edits being changed or deleted. That is the process. Keep in mind that your opinions are not the end of discussions. Those terms are not "JW-slang" or "JW-speak" and yes they are offensive. I think that since you assumed that these were specific to JW's and that a simple internet search would have shown you different, perhaps you should do some deeper research before you return to the editing process invoving JW related pages. I know somw basics about SDA, but not enough to assume I should be editing their articles. george 16:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JW Discussion Posts Here
George, I got your message regarding the Bible Students. Why do you think it's them? Is it because of the PastorRussell links? (I removed one myself from the Legal Instruments page that was inserted somewhat randomly.) It's kind of weird the way they want to focus on CTR and yet fail to see the importance the work he started in modern times! BTW, I hope you don't mind, but I revised your link notation to match a similar comment on the JW main page. Cheers!! --DannyMuse 17:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks George for showing up at the w page and inviting Tom along. Your edits and tone are much appreciated. cairoi 21:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * George, really good work cleaning up the recent edits to the Publishers section of the Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses article. That must've taken some time and obviously a lot of careful thought!! My compliments. --DannyMuse 17:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George, thx for the help! I am obviously new to wiki, but I think you have done a great job helping with this page (JW). I am a JW in Sacramento, 30 yr bap. Have some time lately, so I will check in from time to time. Dan w 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

George, had some time today and added a number of links to the JW page. Mostly internal wiki links. I am trying to add references as requested in the talk page:) This is my first start, will do more later.  Added a link on brotherhood that I would like to get you input on.  Also fixed the link to the statistics page at wt.org Dan w 05:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks George, I appreciate what you have to say, however this RickK person is very un-wiki in his spirit and very unpleasant. I do now understand the point about c&p and will absolutely avoid in the furtue. The question is then how do I cite sources, what is the preferred menthod? Since that seems to be a bone of contention on the JW pages, and one I am interested in helping with, what is the best way to do that?Dan w 04:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the start of your article [], and will try to follow your lead in content of description of this and other publications.Dan w 21:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dan for the encouragement, I would like to see your input, I'll take all the help I can get!
 * george 23:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Truth Seeker Profile
I really don't like you removing my description of him as a unpleasently smelling male genitalia. He really is, look at his biased, nutcase-work at the Modern Geocentrism article, people are sick of him.

Best regards, Kristian

Thanks for the repair work
George,

Thanks for fixing the page today that was wiped out by that anoymous user. I tried to restore it in its entirety, however the edits didn't format correct.

netkinetic

Christian greek scriptures
Hi George,

I would like to respond to your text on my user discussion page.

You wrote
 * I think that since you assumed that these were specific to JW's and that a simple internet search would have shown you different, perhaps you should do some deeper research before you return to the editing process invoving JW related pages. I know somw basics about SDA, but not enough to assume I should be editing their articles.

First of all, I would like to mention that for a non-JW, I do know the teachings of JWs very well. I have been interested in the topic for several years, and I do know quite a number of your societies books and quite a number of books from ex-JWs. So it might be true, that you are not familiar enough with SDA theology to write wikipedia articles about the Adventists, but I certainly think that I am well informed enough to contribute in articles about the JWs.

I did not just "assume" that the term "Christian Greek Scriptures" is a very JW-specific term. For the German language it certainly is. "christliche griechische Schriften" is used in JW publications (watchtower, awake, books) and in internet forums where JWs take part (by JWs). Concerning the German language use among Christians I think that I am competent to give my judgement. German is my mother language.

Concerning the English language, I do have to admit that there are SOME instances where you can find this term at google.

878 for "christian greek scriptures" 518 for "christian greek scriptures" -Jehovah 457 for "christian greek scriptures" -Jehovah -Watchtower 403 for "christian greek scriptures" -Jehovah -Watchtower -Witness Of these 403 quite a number are from discussions with JWs taking part. But you are right, there ARE non-JWs, who sometimes use this phrase.

But please compare that to 3.850.000 for "New Testament"

This is a ratio of about 1:10000.

To me this means the usual term in the English language for what JWs call "Christan Greek Scriptures" is "New Testament".


 * Reply - While it is true that the phrase is used on "JW" realted sites more than anywhere else, perhaps you whould not that most of thse sites are not actually JW but anti-JW. The other individuals using the phrase, if you notice are scholars. So, the use of this phrase is a scholarly way to refer to the "New Testament" To be certain JW's did not invent the phrase but borrowed it from scholarly sources. This is in our literature. That is why I said you should do some better research. Sorry for the tone of my last comment. -- george 13:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But please accept my apologies, if you find "slang" or "speak" offensive. What word would you prefer to describe the difference in word use between JWs and non-JWs in this case?

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann

danglick
George, just so you're aware, i have been told from a reliable source that danglick may be disassociated. I at one time personally knew of him when he was an active Witness.


 * I figured as much. A hazard of this hobby. Thanks.
 * george 13:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought your name sounded familiar, Netkinetic! You were you on JWZone, weren't you?

Yes, I am considered disassociated. I never actually wrote a letter of disassociation, but that's a story for another day. In any case, it's true that I am an ex-Witness.

I am not interested in getting into a tug of war. If you read my posts on the ex-Witness sites, you'll find that I often step forward to defend the Watchtower Society when I feel that it's being unfairly maligned. (There are people out there who believe some pretty wacky stuff about the WTS.) However, a lot of the material currently in the JW articles sounds an awful lot like the 'JWs and the 20th Century' brochure. That doesn't sound like NPOV to me.

BTW, I assume that you guys are counting time for this, right? Way to go! It's certainly a lot more useful than knocking on doors.

--Danglick 18:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I rarely count any time on the computer because I am usually not witnessing. Especially here, this is a hobby, not a proselytising effort. If I were using this forum as a means of counting time it would make my work here seem possibly less professional.
 * george 00:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well props to you for that! --Danglick 01:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'll be responding to you over on my talk page as well. My deepest apologies for editing without consulting.

Personal Note
George, I really appreciate your work around here lately. Your editing style and discussion is really maturing. You are coming across as both more open and sensitive, yet at the same time less timid. It seems even your detractors respect you. Keep up the good work. --DannyMuse 21:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uploading an image
Hello George. Uploading pictures to Wikipedia is easy to do. First, put the picture somewhere on your computer where you can find it easily. Then on the left side of any page on Wikipedia, you'll see the Wikipedia logo, then under it is a navigation box, and then a search box, and finally a toolbox. In the toolbox is a link that says "Upload File". Click on it, and it should take you to this page.

Read the instructions, and then click the "browse" button beside the Filename box. Select your picture that you want to upload. In the Summary box, say who took the picture and when. Add to the summary as well; this just lets us know you allow Wikipedia to use the image under the Wikipedia copyright. Check the little checkbox and click "Upload" file. The file will upload, and you'll see a new page that tells you how to add the picture to an article.

If you have any trouble, just ask, and I'll help if I can. – Quadell (talk) (help) 03:27, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

JW Project
Don't post unencylopedic articles and they won't need to be listed on VfD. Just because you're in a "project" doesn't make your article sacrosanct. Sermons don't belong on Wikipedia. Neither do copyright violations. And dan w's attempt to claim that any copyright violation he posts is fair use is incorrect. RickK 23:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your constructive criticism. I know that dan made some mistakes. Since all of us are in a learning situation, I am asking that you be helpful to us by telling us what we need to delete. I think this conversation might make for a good discussion in the deletion policy. Wp is still fairly new and how we handle these things is still a work in progress as much as the content. george 00:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you really claim that the Aid to Bible Understanding is an encyclopedia article? The juge majority of the article is a copyvio quote which is more in the manner of a religious sermon than an article about the title. And is a defunct publicaiton of encyclopedic interest, anyway? RickK 00:23, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Related to the above - I realize that the VfD process may seem harsh to you, but it is very unlikely to change just because of your disagreeing with it. It is about the only mechanism we have to keep Wikipedia leaning towards quality rather than quantity. Many articles get nominated within days or even minutes of being created; we even have a New Page Patrol for that.
 * Bear in mind that a nominated article does not necessarily get deleted. You can explain on the VfD page why your article should be kept, and see if that persuades the rest of us (also, you have been civil so far on VfD, which certainly helps, as many people are not so friendly when their articles get nominated).
 * As a side point, if you need to quote substantial sections from books (including the Bible) or JW flyers, you should not do so in Wikipedia, but in WikiSource.
 * Radiant! 17:08, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Started Mediterannean History
Hello George, I took your advise and started the page History of the Mediterannean, thanks for the suggestion. If you and anybody else wants to see the article, and add more to it, don't hesitate to visit and edit that page, and again thanks.--Gramaic 00:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to delete section in question
I have reviewed your statements regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses article. I agree that the information does not belong on the page. I suggested a separate "Those Critical of Jehovah's Witnesses" page for the matter. --Anon 04:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
I enjoyed your edit summary. Wikipedia is a great place to practice Christianity, isn't it? :-D Tom Haws 22:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Proper channel of spiritual dissemination
At last evening's service meeting (for the week commencing April 18, 2005), it was brought to our attention that web articles concerning the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, including reproductions of any material published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, should be limited to the official web site (ref 1). For further information, see the September 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry, page 8, paragraphs 1-7, and the November 1999 Our Kingdom Ministry, page 5, paragraphs 24-26, and page 6, paragraphs 35-36.


 * 1. Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site

Charles Taze Russell
You expressed your concern about the neutrality of this article before, so can you lend your support to a vote to put a NPOV disputed tag on this article? Just make a comment on the talk page. Thanks! --K. 02:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Watchtower
I'd like to invite you to have another look at the Watchtower page. Your help was much appreciated some months ago cairoi 04:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for JW structure
Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Call for a vote
Please register your vote on the topic at Mediator is damaged? Thanks, SteveMc 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Johanneum 11:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, George m! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

UN JW article
You can certainly prod the article if you want. I think thats your best recourse. josh buddy talk 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hey, just a couple of quick notes.

The phrase "house-to-house" is not the greatest occurance between all three verses. The chart in his book makes it pretty clear. I can scan it in and include if you want further documentation.

The journal is peer-reviewed. It means that article published are reviewed by a panel of lawyers.

Hope that helps. josh buddy talk 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

House to house
I haven't heard anything from you. What are your thoughts around the whole house to house thing? josh buddy talk 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you're fundamentally misunderstanding franz (and wikipedia at some level too) How is the article poorer for having his statements in it? Thats the part I don't understand.


 * As for what franz is saying .. i don't believe he is focusing so much on "house-to-house" and legitimacy of the translation. But certainly by comparing you get the sense of what is meant by the phrase used there.


 * His stronger argument is in enumerating all of the different "preaching" examples in the NT. According to him, there are about 150 incidents. 34 of them have some references to a "house" or "home" in them. Among them 4 are used by the Watch Tower to support house-to-house work. They are the two instances of Jesus instructing the disciples on evangelizing. The other two are the two in Acts (5 and 20).


 * In all of the 150 cases though, there is no example of Jesus or the disciples actually preaching from door-to-door.


 * According to Franz, in the governing body discussion, they focused mainly on the phrase "house-to-house" instead of discussing the list of ways preaching is actually done. Lloyd Barry argued for tradition, that the door-to-door work is how this the org has always done it. Greenless stressed the need to systematically cover the territory. There appears to be a general feeling that if these texts aren't used to justify house-to-house ministry, the publishers will slack off. Klein stressesed the obligation to use the best possible means of preaching.


 * But franz's argument is a scriptural one. That the use of kata is not in a distributive sense. Fred Franz apparently understood that. He goes on to argue that Jesus didn't set a house-to-house example. That "house-to-house" and "door-to-door" are equated with each other.That the July 15 1979 article that talks about it stressed how the apostles would need to search out those deserving, so this would necessitate going from door-to-door. He says they leave out the other biblical phrases "stay there until you leave" and "do not be transferring from house to house". He mentions how lodging was part of those instructions too, showing the purpose of their initial visits.


 * There is more to the chapter. seems to deal with most of the points.  josh  buddy talk 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You said " Naturally some may have different opinions. I prefer business or street territory, as these produce more contacts. However one must study the bible in a comfortable setting and home is the most comfortable place. " I think this is precisely what franz is saying. He is saying that initial contact of people in the Biblical text is always done in public places, not their homes. This seems to me to be exactly what Acts 5:42 is saying where Paul preached "publicly and from house to house". I too didn't really think a whole lot of the door-to-door work for just talking to people. It was slow, and didn't really produce many results. The street work was pretty much superior.


 * I'm still unclear about what you find objectionable that Franz is saying, or in the article itself. josh  buddy talk 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my page
I don't want Jehovah's Witnesses to be vandalised, of course, but permanently protected? That would be utterly against the protection policy. Also, it would mean the article shouldn't be on FAC, as it currently is, as it would signally fail FAC criterion 2e ("stable"). Two weeks is already a long time for an article to be protected. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Penton's Book
I think you must be thinking of a different book. I left a comment in JW talk. I was wondering if I could see what your source was on that. Thanks! josh buddy talk 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I find some of your conclusions to be false. The comparision wasn't directly between Nazi's and JWs. It was a broad statement about groups who have claimed prophetic importance (of which the current US administration would also fit). Also, his comparision to the Russian political developments was not a broad comparision, rather, comparing it to a specific political development, and not at all, unfair.


 * I would still maintain that you haven't read the book, of which I'm sure you would readily agree, and therefore doesn't put you in a position to pass judgements about it. After all, could I pass judgements about a book published by the JWs if I haven't read it? By reading the introduction only, it provides you no context.


 * I really hope you're not taking this personally. (Its certainly not meant personally) But I really do believe this book is as close as we're going to get to a "netural" resource, and its an incredibly valuable resource. I would ask that you re-add it, and put it under critical books for now (and get rid of the about.com reference) We'll figure out a better scheme later, but for now, this book is too valuable to lose. josh  buddy talk 05:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Franz and 1975
Thanks for your comment. I hope you don't mind but I moved the discussion to the Eschatology of JWs talk page. Dtbrown 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
Need help with User:Truthwanted circumventing WP:3RR. - CobaltBlueTony 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He's baaaaaaaaaack. - CobaltBlueTony 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He's baaaaaaaaaack. Again. - CobaltBlueTony 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses
Very well done! - CobaltBlueTony 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aw gee thanks! - George 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)'
 * You're welcome! - CobaltBlueTony 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is nice to see the reference that was added in the main article on JW in ref. to blood. Nice Job!Johanneum 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements of the WBTS
A week or two ago you said that there were "glaring POV issues" with regards to the section I posted on the Controversies talk page, and that you would let someone else address them. No-one else has made any comments about the section containing POV. As I am about to make a revision of this section, perhaps you would like to comment on what you see to be POV issues. BenC7 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict
No worries; I just edited it again. - CobaltBlueTony 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Peoria, Illinois
I'm not even close to being done. There doesn't seem to be a detailed template for U.S. Cities, so I'm following the Chicago example. :-) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JWs Can be Labelled As Christian
Your are right George, JWs can be labelled as 'Christians' regardless. Revelation 2 makes reference to a 'Christian Church' that teaches 'Balaam'. So even the bible uses the term 'Christian' loosely regardless of whether that church has wrong doctrines or will not go to heaven (which JWs don't believe anymore anyway as the quota for heaven is already full). Bastian

New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division
Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment request
George, I'll continue the thread you started on my talk page, and wave for you here to get your attention. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been busy. I actually did start to take a look. I need a bit more time before I comment, though. It's complex, and I don't want to steer anyone wrong. I'm not allowed to make mistakes, because I'm on the Mediation Committee. --Uncle Ed 23:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

JW Eschatology
What I labelled as POV was the statement that the Bible says the exile was a 70 year period. There are other interpretations of those passages which attempt to harmonize them with the standard chronology. That would be like saying the Bible says Jesus is God and then cite John 20:28. There are, of course, other interpretations of John 20:28.

Is the standard chronology termed the "Parkinson....[I can't remember the exact names you used]" chronology? I've never seen that before and that is why I removed the name. My understanding is that the standard chronology was developed based on classical historians citing Ptolomey's canon and the discovery of the Babylonian business documents is seen by non-Witness scholars as supporting the classical chronology. I'm open to seeing more information that non-Witness scholars refer to the generally accepted chronology like you mentioned. Dtbrown 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem mentioning Parker and Dubenstein. You used the term "Parker and Dubenstein chronology" in your first edit. I don't believe the standard chronology is labelled that way. The standard chronology existed long before Parker and Dubenstein. You may believe the Bible says the length of the exile was 70 years. Your first edits made it appear that was the only interpretation of the biblical evidence and I did not think that was NPOV. Dtbrown 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of another intepretation of the 70 years. The authors would characterize their interpretation as literal also. I think the current edit contrasting the JW view as literal versus other views as symbolic is still POV. Dtbrown 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a Christian?
I wanted to clarify the comment I made a couple weeks ago on Talk:Christianity. What I said is, I don't think anyone calling themselves Christian would say that their faith is in disagreement; we all proclaim that our faith is in God. You seemed to interpret that to mean that I agree JW's are Christian. That's not entirely true. My personal opinion is that JW's claim to be Christians, but are espousing doctrine that is frankly heretical and dangerous. When we disagree significantly about the Trinity, and about who exactly Jesus is, we are proclaiming fundamentally different beliefs. If a Hindu says that he also trusts in Jesus for his salvation, believing that Jesus is yet another incarnation of Krishna, that would not suddenly make him a Christian either, even if claimed the name. Gandhi said something like "I am a Christian, and a Muslim, and a Hindu." But I try not to push my POV too hard in the articles, and certainly from a sociological/academic perspective, it's probably fair to say JW's are closer to being Christians than anything else. Wesley 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Clifton Gunderson LLP
A tag has been placed on Clifton Gunderson LLP, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vgranucci 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites ( in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Coren 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Message posted on Monday, April 30, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

—  irides cent   (talk to me!)  21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

L.R. Nelson Corporation
I have added a "" template to the article L.R. Nelson Corporation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- KirinX 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007
Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did to L.R. Nelson Corporation. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. KirinX 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JW page
You said you agree with the reverted edit, "Jehovah's Witnesses RULE! :)". Sounds like excessive pride and attention given to humans to me. Tsk tsk tsk. Don't take this seriously.--Jeffro77 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer
I don't know if this is of any use to you? But after a little search on the internet - shows that the pseudonym Marvin Shilmer is commonly associated with apostate views and beliefs. With this in mind it may be prudent to keep an eye on this editors motive's in editing the Jehovah's Witness article. Jamie 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Brother
Nice to meet you to, brother. I'm happy to meet someone sharing my religious views on the predominantly atheist web. I stole your userbox, by the way :) Abbott75 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

About Marvin Shilmer
I beg you to keep an eye to the latest claims from Marvin Shilmer in the main discussion right now. Wikipedia is not meant for preaching, and not meant for attacking. I hope that the neutrality and quality of Wikipedia can be defended. Summer Song 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census
IvoShandor 11:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois Post Census Report
IvoShandor 06:10, 11 October 2007 (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. 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) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice
I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Watch Tower Society publications for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Watch Tower Society publications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Watch Tower Society publications until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Watch Tower Society publications for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Watch Tower Society publications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Watch Tower Society publications& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)