User talk:Truth.ceeker

Your edits to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
Hello! I've marked the article with the Unreferenced and worldview tags because while your edits appear to be very helpful and seem to be accurate, we need to have a verifiable resource to reference. Also, "Witness jargon" should be avoided, except for terms which may already have articles or sections of their own, of be already defined within Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOOK HERE. Yes, these messages are for you! Again, welcome! For your edits, you must provide verifiable sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and so forth. I know your edits are good, and that they appear accurate, but we must have original sources listed, or it becomes original research, unverifiable, or otherwise unacceptable according to Wikipedia's policies. Read more in hte green welcome message above. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks' for the reminder but you seem to be quick on the trigger while I am still in the middle of updating the information. When I have finished, I will go back and add the details to the information for reference. Thank you. Protector of the Truth 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll wait, but in the future that much information on this controversial series is likely to get mercilessly chopped out by oppositional editors. This is why it's best to follow Wikipedia's policies (in this case, WP:CITE states to add references when you add material; theoretically, you should have that material on hand as you write). - CobaltBlueTony 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
I noticed you put up the JW article on your user page. This is rather unusual. Most people, if they want to work on an article in a private space, would create a subpage. For instance User:Truth.ceeker/Jehovah's Witnesses.
 * I have since updated and moved this information to a sub-page. Protector of the Truth 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

However, your edits in question seem to suggest that JW's no longer teach that 1914 is held as the date of Jesus enthronement. I assert this is not the case. For instance, the latest KM refers to "the start of "the Lord's day" in 1914". josh buddy, talk 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From about 1995 till about 2005 they did not teach this doctrine. The references to this teaching was minute or absent during this period in their publications. Also, they did not preach this doctrine when evangelizing their faith to others. They did not teach this doctrine at their meetings during this period as well. Protector of the Truth 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim that users have deleted your cited and referenced edits, but the edits you have made to the article that has been placed on your user page are incorrect, and do not accurately represent the current teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The idea of Jesus taking kingdom power was not abandoned in 1995 at all; it was only the belief that the literal generation that saw 1914 would be present when the present 'system of things' would end that was abandoned. Additionally, you should be careful about the way you word things (such as comments about 'New Light') to avoid your edits being classed as point-of-view.--Jeffro77 07:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have cited Watchtower and Awake Magazines, and other publications for the edits I made. The idea was not taught from 1995 to 2005. It had a resurgence in late 2005 as their publications started using the idea once again. Protector of the Truth 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrongedy wrong wrong. Here's just one reference from each year that you claim it wasn't taught. There are many more. w04 1/15 p. 12 par. 13; w03 1/1 p. 6; w02 2/1 p. 12; w01 6/1 p. 17 par. 1; w00 1/1 p. 9 par. 15; w99 1/1 p. 20 par. 22; w98 1/1 p. 6 par. 1; w97 1/1 p. 10 par. 15; w96 2/1 p. 19 par. 11--Jeffro77 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the watchtower studies, the doctrine was briefly noted, but it was no longer a main focal point. Unless you were attending the meeting, you would not have gotten that just by searching for it on the cd-rom. Protector of the Truth 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake... that must be why the Isaiah's Prophecy publications, published 2000-2001, refer to 1914 30 times, and Daniel's Prophecy, published 1999 mentions it 22 times. The Worship God publication (2002) mentions it 11 times. And What Does the Bible Teach? (2005) has a section specifically dealing with it.--Jeffro77 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro77
The second paragraph starts off with saying that the JW's have been focused on the second coming of Christ. They render the greek word 'parousai' as presence. So by using the word 'coming' would be in error with what they believe as Christ's presence and not coming. More to follow... - Protector of the Truth 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... okay. Feel free to correct it. I didn't put it there.--Jeffro77 02:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, just reviewing the edits you have made on your User page to that second paragraph, there are several errors/problems in what you have changed...

1) Jehovah's Witnesses are still focused on the presence of Christ since 1914. That is NOT the belief that was changed in 1995; only the belief that the literal aging generation alive in 1914 would be present at the 'great tribulation' is what was changed. The teaching about 1914 has not been abandoned at all, and is still frequently mentioned in JW publications to the present day. (For example, see Watchtower October 1 2005, page 23; Watchtower December 1, 2005, page 5),
 * Although this doctrine had a resurgence in late 2005, it is no longer stressed or taught as a principle doctrine at their meetings. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no 'resurgence'. The teaching has been maintained continuously for the entire intervening period. See publication references above under previous topic.--Jeffro77 07:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2) "New Light and understanding" is poorly worded. It would be better to leave out "and understanding" and keep the footnote, or leave out "New Light" and the footnote.
 * It would have been better to move 'New Light' to the doctrine section instead of just deleting it beause it does not belong in a particular section. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Discussion about the belief that "Jehovah God has allowed the Faithful and Discreet Slave to better understand" does not belong in the introductory paragraph of the article (which should be a summary), and should be in the part of the article dealing with doctrines.
 * See my comment on #2. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

4) It is redundant to say that a theme (that is one of their teachings) is relevant to their teachings.
 * It would have been better to correct the wording in order to simplify the information such that it easily conveys the message to the reader.

Taking the liberty of just deleting information without using proper etiquette or responsibility is in bad form. Protector of the Truth 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tip
I have not got around to learning about sub-pages yet. - Protector of the Truth 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to the Watchtowerites page
Hello Cobaltbluetony. I wanted to recommend that this page be linked to the main article of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' instead of just deleting the information. The term is still applied today and as I get more sources referenced, it will become apparent that is still the case as well as providing some history of the group. This would be analogous to the terms that appear in the introduction such as 'Millerites', etc. Another option is to include a sentence about this in the introduction itself and then provide the links in the reference section or possibly another sub-page. Protector of the Truth 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Governing Body page
Hello Cobaltbluetony. There has been much information that has been deleted from this page and wanted to get your assistance in getting it in order or better organized. Protector of the Truth 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think that the branch commitees rather should be dealt with in another article. Maybe an in-depth article about the Bethel should be founded? That article is esecially about the GB and should only deal with that. Summer Song 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hello,

I just had a quick question regarding some of your interesting edits on Jehovah's Witnesses--are you actually a Witness yourself? ZackTuren (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Truth.ceeker/Preparing for Child Custody Cases
A tag has been placed on User:Truth.ceeker/Preparing for Child Custody Cases requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Truth.ceeker/What Does the Bible Really Teach?
A tag has been placed on User:Truth.ceeker/What Does the Bible Really Teach? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Subpages
Your restored the subpages that I blanked. User_page specifically states that you may not use subpages to permanently archive your preferred version of an article. You have not edited the articles in your subpage for over a year (and one of the subpages - Watchtowerites - was not of sufficient quality to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia). If you want to contribute to the actual articles, do so. If you continue to restore subpages without valid reason, your actions will be reported.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) -- thanks jeffro for you vigilant monitoring of my sub-pages. if there is a time period that sub-pages needs to be edited on, please let me know so that i can be in compliance. as for my watchtowerites, i find it biased when someone offers their opinion of quality. what seems to intrigue me is the little things that make up a story, thing, or idea. --truth.ceeker Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages. If you find that your user subpage has become as useful as a normal article or project page, consider moving it into the appropriate namespace or merging it with other similar pages already existing there. One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage, nor should a userspace essay be used as the primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or concept.
 * It seems quite evident that you are not actively editing those subpages in a manner consistent with the guidelines for User subpages, so applying mundane edits within some arbitrary period to give the appearance of currency would constitute gaming the system. Specifically, the Wikipedia guidelines states:While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.
 * If you believe the blanking of your subpages to be inappropriate, you may ask an admin for advice.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The assessment of your Watchtowerites article as being unsuitable is not a conclusion I have arrived at on my own, but is the result of a previous discussion regarding its deletion from the article namespace. You should therefore take up your concerns of bias with those editors.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you have partially restored the subpage, User:Truth.ceeker/Jehovah's Witnesses. If you are able to provide source information for the actual Jehovah's Witnesses article, please do so; you can also discuss your thoughts at the article's Talk Page. Your use of the subpage is not appropriate, nor is the "Link to keeping a historical archive" on your User page, which is in direct contravention of the previously mentioned guideline.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would advise when working with people who are collaborating on anything, is to offer criticism constructively and with a bit of a human approach. With that being said, any computer or software can scrape a page, look for violations of protocol and proceed with deletion and cite a reference. As human, we tend to sometimes follow those same procedures and lose touch of helping others. Instead of a callous approach, you should try something like this, "I noticed that you haven't updated your user pages in a while. If you are having difficulty with something, I can be of assistance. Let me know what you are trying to do and I will see how I can help out. Also, pleas be mindful that we should not keep a work in progress indefinitely as this is not what Wikipedia is about and consumes valuable space. Here is some info that will help you better understand how Wikipedia works. User_page". Also, your response about 'gaming the system' seem to imply you knew what I was thinking. I haven't met many mind readers, but if you had asked, then you would have known that different people have different lives, different schedules and what some people do in days, others will take longer. I enjoy Wikipedia, but this is not my life, to some this is and that is all fine. So when I wanted to know if there was some schedule that I should follow so I can put up reminders, that is what I wanted. Your assumption that I wanted to 'work the system' seems and felt out of line and derogatory. I am unsure of why you always seem to be on the attack, but each of your responses have been in a similar 'tone'. I have worked with others here on Wikipedia and have not had the type of difficulty with them as with you. maybe that is just how you work and I will get used to it. A little more human'ness will go a long way in building relationships and friends in this life and on Wikipedia. -- ..truth.ceeker
 * You are most welcome to participate in editing articles in the proper article namespace, and to discuss your ideas for articles in the articles' Talk pages. Your subpages, which have not been substantially modified in a significant period of time are clearly not for any purpose endorsed by the guideliness set forth for user subpages. You should not need "reminders" for you to modify articles in your own user subpages. Either you are currently working on a temporary article in your user subpages with the intention of adding content to an article, or you are attempting to retain your preferred views in your own subpages. Because the content of your subpages has not been modified in quite some time, it is indeed evident that the latter is the case. I'm sorry that you object to the fact that I am not naive.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, "I should not need reminders", I see you are still presuming to know how I work and dictate how I should work to conform to your standards. I am not like you, especially in working on Wikipedia. You appear to have more time to devote to it than I. Your dictatorial style of commenting is still showing 'tones' of attack and not really encouraging. -- truth.ceeker
 * The fact that you should not need reminders is not a reflection of any particular of working style. It pertains to the fact that your subpages have not changed substantially and serve merely as an archive of your preferred content. Your JW article didn't change for over two years - that would reasonably be considered an attempt at archiving a preferred version - until only very recently after you restored the blanked page with content from your other 'Watchtowerites' subpage. The 'Watchtowerites' content has already been indicated at an article deletion discussion as not accurate or notable enough for an article. However, if you do at some point develop content of suitable quality, you can introduce it into the actual JW article. In the meantime however, if you actually believe the Watchtowerite content to be anything more than undue weight of some comments from self-published non-notable sources, it would be worth discussing the issue at the JW article's Talk Page to consider how the information might be merged into the main article, which was suggested in the original deletion discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could word things a little more amiably. Your suggested wording above indicates that you understand my intentions quite well, and also indicates your acknowledgement that your use of subpages to indefinitely archive your preferred content is against protocol. If you believe the information from your subpage to be of actual encyclopedic value, please bring the information to the actual article for discussion with other editors.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of "Perhaps", you "Should". Also, as I learn more and adapt to change, so does my personal page. What was once a thought to archive an article has been updated to better reflect my work on an article and when I feel comfortable with what I have been working on, I will bring it to other editors for a peer review. -- truth.ceeker
 * I'll take your word for that regarding your changed intentions. JW-related pages - including your subpages - are in my watchlist, so if I see anything that I can help with, I will comment on the subpage(s)' talk page. However, if the page doesn't change over a substantial period (e.g. a year) I (or any other user) may again blank the subpage(s), per the previously cited guidelines regarding user sub-pages.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Alexander Thomson nominated for deletion
If you're familiar with the range of Wikipedia articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, you've likely come across the name Alexander Thomson a few times. He wasn't a Witness, but he (very) occasionally had favorable things to write about Watch Tower publications. By no means was he a shill.

Someone (see diff) has moved to delete the article about Thomson, claiming that he is not notable (is not worthy of even a brief encyclopedic article). That seems odd to me, because Thomson is listed among only twelve persons having "played a significant role in the work of the Concordant Publishing Concern", publishers of the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible. He edited and wrote much Bible commentary under his own bylines, some of which is still in print. He contributed and edited articles in Unsearchable Riches (now in its 100th year). Primarily because of having had his scholarship so substantially influence a notable Bible, Thomson is himself notable.

I have no sentimental attachment to Thomson, but I believe he is notable enough to keep from deletion. Feel free to add references to improve the article, or chime at the article's Talk regarding whether or not you'd prefer Wikipedia delete its article about this Alexander Thomson.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey, thanks for this barnstar. I've placed it on my awards wall.

Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)