User talk:Vyselink/Archive 1

Thanks for the message. I will try to point out a few specific newer books. There were two released this summer (brochures) on science, creation, evolution, that are very nicely written, very detailed and accurate science (I teach middle school science and it helped to fill out my knowledge on DNA). This is also new, "Bearing Thorough Witness" About God's Kingdom (2009), commentary on Acts of the Apostles. I'll put a few more up for you. I appreciated your impartial and honest way of making your point, and so, had agreement with you on the point we were discussing. I don't think JW are the perfect religion, but sincere, and so can be open to honest criticism. At the same time, some overdo it and need to be more balanced. Thanks again. Natural (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * Go ahead, as long as you source it!Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did. Also I took your pasting of my original question. I didn't need it lol. Vyselink (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Talk:Dragonlance. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to do that. Will do in the future. Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Raistlin page
Sometimes all that's needed for someone to get some references there is for someone to remove the uncited portions as you did for the Raistlin article. I think I noticed the 'content removed' a lot more than I noticed the fact that the music/comics sections were unsourced for who knows how long - so thanks for getting the ball rolling with that! I really tried to find those comics but there are SO many to go through and no searches I came up with could find anything about the specific ones. Perhaps someone who is a fan of those comics will notice it and remember when they were from. Thanks! Caidh (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the new edits. They are definitely an improvement in my opinion. I just had to change the reference format slightly. You don't need to place the actual quote in the reference, just the page number. What I use for references is the RefTools gadget. You can add it to your own settings by going to "My Preferences", then "Gadgets" then checking RefTools and hitting Save at the bottom of the page. You can then choose when editing articles to add web/book references using the templates.Caidh (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ip 216.73.66.133
This is the IP address of an educational institution. They have had warnings for vandalism. Once they have had a final warning they can be reported to an Administrator, Administrator intervention against vandalism who may block the address. Vrenator (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pagan origins
I'm in two minds about this edit. The celebrations and customs in question do have 'pagan' origins. JWs don't observe those celebrations because of their belief that those 'pagan origins' are therefore 'bad'. Or, rather, they are told not to celebrate them so they appear different in society so people think they're unusual, feeding their persecution complex and feeling of uniqueness. (However, wedding rings and many other JW-sanctioned customs are also pagan.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it really depends on your definition of "pagan". I know obv the classical one for Christians, i.e. anything NOT Christian. I will agree that it could be re-worded, but I still do not believe that "because of" sounds appropriate. It is giving DEFINITIVE creedence to what is/is not "pagan" that I don't like. Just because they believe something is "pagan" doesn't mean it is. It isn't pagan to those who believe in it. Maybe pagan could be placed in ""? Something like "they believe have 'pagan' origins"?Vyselink (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally 'pagan' simply meant 'rural', but that's clearly not the sense in which the word is used, and the sense of 'non-Christian' is fairly clearly intended. Christmas most certainly does have pagan origins and those origins are not altered by the sincere belief in its adoption as a Christian holiday (though many celebrate it as purely secular/commercial).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I do hear what you're saying in regard to the 'superior' tone of the specific wording, 'because of', as if to say JWs are 'good' for avoiding 'pagan' customs which are necessarily 'bad. My concern is simply that nor should the article suggest that the pagan origins of the celebrations are merely JW belief.-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I do agree with what you're saying, there has to be a balance. But I'm wondering what harm there is in saying that they don't do things that they believe are pagan? Wording it like that is neutral, as it is not giving weight to what the JW's themselves believe (i.e. it is not "because of pagan"), but it is also not saying that they are wrong (i.e. it's not "beliefs these idiots think are 'pagan'") and yes, ik that last example is hyperbole, but I meant it that way. It seems to me that the way I worded it is relatively neutral. They do believe that those certain actions are pagan, so I can't think of any other way of saying it than "beliefs that they believe are pagan". Maybe something like "beliefs they claim have pagan origins"? Vyselink (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it as is for now. "Beliefs they claim have pagan origins" would be worse than the current wording, as the 'claims' of pagan origin are not unique to JWs. The many pagan origins and elements of various celebrations and customs are known fairly broadly, beyond what is taught by JWs. It's just that JWs believe those 'pagan' origins are 'bad'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live)
The purpose of the section is to provide a basic concept of the action in the sketch. The charities the caricatures play for are inconsequential and are not needed to describe what happens, and one single exception in 14 appearances of the sketch that has no direct reference to the action within the sketch isn't necessary.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, mentioning that charities were stated in one instance of the sketch is not a necessary component to understand the basic concept of the recurring sketch. There are other jokes that are contained within one instance of the sketch that have not become part of the norm that are not described elsewhere in the article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hello
I actually got interested in them through my mom. I hope you have time. I'll try to cut it short. I was having anxiety attacks, and my mom asked a co-worker (who is a Jeh. Wit.) for advice. The co-worker told her that I might need someone to talk to. So someone came to my house; and I was skeptical at first, but eventually it just clicked. I was just like, "This is what I've been searching for all my life." I was previously involved in the occult, and I had convinced myself that the truth was relative; but at the same time I had a nagging concern that there was something more. And I felt like I found it when I came to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't know too much of the actual history of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I have become very familiar with what they believe in about a year. They say that I've advanced quite a deal, that could also have to do with me being very smart (My dad is smart; I possibly inherited it from him. We are very similar in our mental attitudes.) Well I hope that answers your questions! If you need anything, please let me know. Thanks.

See my talk page if you're wondering why you're getting this message. Thanks!  Lighthead  þ 05:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar - Chinon document pardon and absolved
I have laid out my reasoning to you in detail on the Knights Templar Talk Page. There are numerous websites that use the word "Pardon"  I have not read Barbara Frale's book, and, personally, I do not have a high opinion of her. I think that she perhaps sensationalized the entire Chinon episode for fame and, in doing so, misrepresentated its meaning. Here are other websites that mention the Pope's "Pardon" http://www.knightstemplar.org/KTnews/ia.htm ALSO http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/ ALSO http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Knights_Templar ALSO; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1565252/Vatican-paper-set-to-clear-Knights-Templar.html I think you will agree that it was really a sad farce to perpetrate on the dying Templars. They were so weak from torture they would have said anything. thus, when the Pope is mentioned, the correct term is Pardoned. When the Cardinal at Chinon is mentioned, the correct term is "absolution" or the public sworn documents they signed confessing to their "crimes". I corrected the sentence and kept the word absolved in its proper context. If you read the talk page and the document, and still disagree I will not contest this further with you. What you do with it is up to you.Mugginsx (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My response is on your talk page. Although for someone who claims to be a Catholic I do find it interesting that you accuse someone who not only received a Masters Degree from the Vatican itself but also teaches at the Vatican of being a famemonger. Vyselink (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(Inserted as to above comment only) Why? Mugginsx (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I know this is late in coming (I hope not too late), but I wanted you to know that you were absolutely correct and I was being stubborn, confusing years of Catholic endoctrination with medieval realities. Of course this corrupt pope could do anything he wanted, and, it seems he did. Also responded on article talk pages.  Thanks for you patience.  Love it when I expand my knowledge through others. Mugginsx (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs 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/Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.. BlackCab (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vyselink, I just read your conversation with 72.152.65.231 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted) and I must say that's the most hilarious argument I’ve ever read! I’m literally awestruck at the irrational reasoning of this person, in spite of all your cogent replies. I just wanted to commend your patience and graciousness in trying to reason with that Watchtower follower, that conversation says a lot about the dangers of brainwashing – Kudos! Jadon (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI
I have lodged a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism