User talk:Johanneum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Johanneum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  joshbuddytalk 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for referencing your changes[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for referencing your changes. It really helps everyone out when we put in verifiable content! joshbuddytalk 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent JW changes[edit]

I've noticed you've been making some changes to the JW page with regards to Central's recent changes. I would much rather critical views go into the critical section. Is that possible you think? If not, I will make the needed changes later. joshbuddytalk 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 12:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JW's & creation[edit]

really like you wording in the sentence George 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Topics in JW's[edit]

I understand you've been having some struggles there lately. I noticed you recent edit summary "this is a referenced point. It should not be changed!". This is not an appropriate comment per se on wikipedia. No one owns an article, and everyone is free to edit any article. When people edit articles, we are to assume good faith. This comment both discounts good faith, and could potentially intimidate new users. I just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Happy editing! joshbuddytalk 14:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Reverting JW Controversy Article[edit]

I noticed that the Controversy Article is begining to receive a lot of attention again. I wanted to make sure that you are aware of the Three Revert Rule. Recently after reverting the Controversy article one of the editors was blocked because he inadvertently reverted the article more than three times in one day.

Please be aware that if you have already reverted the article three times during a 24 hour period, you may have to ask another editor to revert the vandalism or face a possible block. Just thought I might let you know before there was any trouble. Lucy 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and User:Klava76[edit]

Please inform User:Klava76 why his edit is wrong. I don't want to violate WP:3RR. - CobaltBlueTony 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

I like your edit, but I can see how someone could attack it. It does resemble original research. If you can find a source for it, or reference the principle in some other article so it can be stated definitively, I think you'll reaffirm this point much more solidly. - CobaltBlueTony 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

In response to your question "did we really need this reference?" on The Watchtower , I would say, "yea". Most JW's would know where to find this quote, but quoting things without citing the source is ... well, I wouldn't even quote the preamble to the U.S. Constitution without a citation even though most Americans should know what I'm quoting.

I think your edit is fine, if you want to remove the [citation needed] tag. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vap0rtranz (talkcontribs) 04:45, 25 June 2006

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Need help with User:Truthwanted avoiding WP:3RR by logging out to revert. - CobaltBlueTony 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

editsummary Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

As annoying as Truthwanted (talk · contribs) edits might be to you, his edits technically do not constitute vandalizm in its strictest sense. In the interrest of civility it would be wise if you were to refrain from using that expression in an editsummary in this case. Agathoclea 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaack. - CobaltBlueTony 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

JW Controversies[edit]

Johanneum, you have made some recent changes to the above article. In it, you have changed a number of statements and left the references the same. Please be aware that this can be misleading, and if you are going to change anything an appropriate reference should be supplied.

Also, it would be appreciated if you could make your changes all at once, rather than having a dozen or more edits in a row which tends to clog up the history page and make changes more difficult to compare. Especially when you make several minor changes to the same sentence. Thanks. BenC7 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Witnesses Believe in Deity of Christ?[edit]

Your last edit was unclear. I've known Witnesses to say they believe in the "divinity" of Christ before but not the "Deity" of Christ. I didn't understand your edit summary. Could you explain more? Thanks. Dtbrown 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement[edit]

I really don't like inundating the articles with all that information like that, but I don't see how to get around it. If these common criticisms against Witnesses are to find a home at Wikipedia then I feel the WTS viewpoint, and scholarly supporters, needs to be represented as well. Basically I just provided the information and if the more active editors choose to keep the criticisms/controversies then hopefully the information I have provided will be integrated into the article as well. I usually don't have the time anymore for Wikipedia, but tonight I really didn't like what I was reading, I couldn't let it go uncontested. Duffer 13:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Good work! George 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. - CobaltBlueTony 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JW's#blood[edit]

Might need some help with this Ben doesn't like my addition.George 01:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-addiction[edit]

Johanneum, your wikiaddiction is seen by your editing from a pocket PC! I am aghast! - CobaltBlueTony 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

to add crtitics/controversy to template box or not[edit]

Please read carefully the dialog at Template talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and weigh in. It would be very much appreciated.

There is an odd trend I see, too, with BenC7's proposals to delete some of the article initailly set up to pull much of the critical articles out of body of the the main/related article(s). Thoughts on my talk page at your leisure would be most welcome. - CobaltBlueTony 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

You should references the literature the scripture is used in, in context to the idea preferrably, and not the scripture directly, as it is open to interpretation by other users/readers. - CobaltBlueTony 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

October 13, 2006[edit]

Don't we have a policy/practice/habit of NOT using e-watchman for links? Check Timothy Kline's edit. - CobaltBlueTony 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to the JW page[edit]

You seem to be deleting validly cited and referenced work on this page. I would suggest that when you make an edit, to not blindly deleted information that has been researched and reference, but to edit or update the information and place other's work where it may be more of a proper fit in relation to the article. Your example of just deleting information demonstrates a lack of respect for others' work and does not lend credibility to your own. - Protector of the Truth 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The World Almanac and Book of Fact[edit]

The reference has no page number, no information on which edition. I just don't know what use that reference serves. joshbuddy, talk 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your feeling on the offered compromise?[edit]

What is your thoughts on the offered compromise regarding footnoting "Christisn" with the Almanac reference and "using self-identification"? Dtbrown 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation from "Great Pyramid Passages"[edit]

I wanted to link the citation you gave from Great Pyramid Passages to the online source [1] but could not find it. I have both volumes and could not find it in my copy. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. It most likely does. Could you check your sources again to verify the exact page references? Once you have it, I'd like to link it to the online source. Thanks! Dtbrown 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JW are not Christians.[edit]

JW are not Christians. Christians believe Jesus Christ is Son of God and actually God. After my research I did not find we can include JW to Category:Christian denominations.--RIH-V 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for this user to take this lying down is that it is a sockpuppet made specifically to do just that. This type of tactic seems to be from rabid anti-Jehovah's-witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses call themseleves Christians, they believe in Jesus just as other Christians do, but they don't consider Jesus to be God, with valid reason, as many other "Christian" denominations do as well:(copied from discussion)
Jesus prays to God, John 17: 1-3
has faith in God, Hebrews 2:17, 18,Hebrews 3:2
is a Servant of God, Acts 3:13; 4:27,30
does not know things God knows, Mark 13:32; Rev1:1
holy spirit does not know either is taught by the Father, John 8:27
worships God, John 4:22
calls God his God Rev 3:12
is in subjection to God, 1 Cor 15: 28
has God for his head, 1 Cor 11:1
is exalted by God, Acts 5:31; Phil 2:9
is given authority by God, John 17:2,3
is given life by the Father, John 6:57; John 5:26
is given kingship by God, Luke 1:32,33
is given judgment by the Father, John 5:27; Acts 10:42
is given lordship by God, Acts 2:36
has reverent submission, fear, of God Hebrews 5:7-10
was spoken to directly by God with others present, John 12:29
and is made high priest by God Hebrews 5:10.
Trinitarians base their beliefs on the scizophrenic (talking to himself?) lies others have spoon fed them:
If you look at the original greek rendition of John 1:1 you will see that Ho Theon and theos are what is really there,
but are deceptively translated God for both.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jehovah-jireh[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Jehovah-jireh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DearPrudence (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses persecution under nazis[edit]

The translation of the 'Declaration' is a great addition. However, I think it should be moved to the Nazi Era or Concentration Camp sections. --Editor2020 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas of Cusa[edit]

Greetings!

On 04:27, 26 April 2006 you made a major update to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians (now under a revised title), including the claim that Nicholas of Cusa predicted the end of the world in 1700. Some time ago this was removed for lack of citation, whoever did it left the introductory sentence describing Nicholas. Can you restore the claim with a citation? If not maybe delete the other sentence which now serves no purpose. PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

JW Controversies[edit]

Hi. You deleted a sourced statement from the article, with the edit summary: "deleted commonly misreprested facts on case- he was asked to translate the". This incomplete summary is a bit unconvincing, and without further clarification, the previous text should most likely be restored. Please clarify.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jerry Bergman[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jerry Bergman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

JW blood transfusion newspaper report[edit]

Hi Johanneum, I notice you changed the web link for the Vancouver Sun article on tranfusion, and then changed it back again. The article at the WWRN website is an abridged version, so the one at Rick Ross is preferable. I haven't spent a lot of time at the Rick Ross website, so I don't know if it's biased as you say; certainly it's an anticult website that has Witnesses in its sights, but in this case it is simply being used for Wikipedia's purpose as a host for that newspaper article. I don't see a pareticular problem with it. LTSally (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

JW child sex abuse[edit]

Regarding this edit, I would prefer if you did not ascribe comments to me about edits I have not directly commented about. If you agree with the principle of edits I have made, simply state the principle involved. Your edit summary made it look like I somewhere mentioned the non-word "prevalentce".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do agree with your deletion of the cases. The removed material falls within the scope of WP:SOAP. Feel free to be bold - the worst that can happen is edits get undone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood transfusions[edit]

Regarding this edit on JWs rejecting blood transfusions... the JW policy isn't 'JWs refuse blood transfusions because blood transfusions don't save lives anyway' or 'JWs refuse blood transfusions because there are other therapies available.' The policy is 'JW refuse blood transfusions because of their interpretations of the bible.' In a hypothetical situation where only a blood transfusion would save a person's life, the JW policy would still be to reject a transfusion, regardless of how implausible that hypothetical situation might be considered to be. Additionally, the article only says "if death may result", not "will result".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited John 1:1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Dixon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Selective quoting[edit]

I have reverted your rather selective quoting at Rolf Furuli and instead provided a brief excerpt in the body and provided the full paragraph in the citation. Please don't quote parts of sentences in a way that alters the intended meaning. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Web site languages[edit]

Please note the following:

  1. Though it may be true, there is no indication that Wikipedia has "more languages than any other site". It only indicates that Wikipedia has articles in a lot of languages.
  2. There is no indication that the JW site has the second highest number of languages.
  3. Per the Manual of Style, section headings shouldn't use capital letters for mundane words.

Your edits have therefore been reverted. Please do not restore unless you can cite a reliable source indicating that these are the highest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(I have indicated these issues at the article's Talk page.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And I have removed it again. For the same reasons as last time. The only thing that has changed is the alleged order, still with no source indicating that either is the highest or second highest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Aaron[edit]

Concerning your change, my revert, your revert, and now my change back to the original. The general rules on Wikipedia concerning difference of opinions in trivial things such as whether to call Jehovah, the Lord, or any other honorific, comes down to what the exisiting style is and was. Your original changes, for no reason other than your opinion (including "your" as a bigger group as in your religion if that is the reason that you did said change) changed a long-standing style. It wouold be like you going and changing all the dates to another style or all the English spelled words to American or vice versa. Wheras, I am not saying whether your way is right or wrong, as it is clearly the correct way for many many people, the original way is also correct for many many people, and thusly, you, I, or anyone else for that matter wasting time on arguing this trivial point is doing the article and the Wiki, in whole, a disservice. If you feel that a style change is needed and there are definitely times when they are, such as if, for example, an article about an English topic is using American words and spellings then, if you run into resistance, the best course of action is to start a discussion on the talk page of the topic, in this case Aaron. I do not mean any disrespect to you or any group, only trying to maintain a long agreed upon standard. speednat (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)