Talk:Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Adultery

No one seems to address the issue of the split really having to do with Bishop Rogers not stepping down after committing adultery (weither or not it was true the man should have stepped down). Of course it was overshadowed with the thought of females in an authoritive role as blasphemy but nevertheless the issue was bigger than that. The Amsterdam wrote on this and people were so quick to hush the issue rather than speak on it. Don’t get me wrong we all have sinned but it is imperative to point out the facts rather than hide them under a rug. 71.255.78.158 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)§ concerned for Bibleway.[reply]

Proposed merger

I created Cornelius Showell as part of an Article For Creation backlog drive. I think the article needs to be merged into here. If it isn't merged, it needs to be vastly improved. Editors should consider merging in bios of other key figures if they do not have strong notability outside the church, especially if their wiki-bios are weak. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge option was forced via redirect without discussion by User:W.marsh. The text that should be merged in can be found here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling back the clock on both article and talk pages

I undid these edits to this talk page by BISHOPN98 (talk · contribs). Whatever he was trying to do, I'm sure he meant his changes for the article, not the talk page.

I undid this edit to the main article by anonymous editor 24.2.203.66 (talk · contribs) and several subsequent edits. I did this because it appeared to be a bad-faith edit that amounted to gutting the article, a form of Wikipedia vandalism. I did not undo this recent removal of large sections of content by Ltwin (talk · contribs) as this appears to be a good-faith effort to "[remove] unsourced material," something that's well within normal editing. If a person familiar with this topic wants to debate the merits of the removal, or revert it on grounds related to content, I won't take a stand on it.

I came to this article because someone else brought it to my attention. I do not plan on making or taking a stand on content-related changes, but I will be happy to offer purely technical assistance. I don't read Wikipedia every day, the best way to reach me is by email. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention editors with ties to this organization

At least two recent editors have usernames that seem to be affiliated with this organization or with another church entity.

If you are or every have been affiliated with this organization, even remotely, or you are affiliated with an organization which actively supports or is in active opposition to this one, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. While there is no prohibition against people with close ties to the subject of an article from editing it, such edits must be made with great care and people with conflicts of interests will have their edits subject to a higher standard of scrutiny. In general, if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid editing disputed or controversial material unless it is to remove provably false information, remove unproven defamatory information, or edits that are purely clerical in nature. You may also make other edits such as to address issues raised in the cleanup templates, but you should be very careful not to make your edits seem like you are supporting one point of view or removing text that supports another point of view. Get someone who is neutral to make such edits.

The bigger your actual or apparent conflict of interest, the more carefully you should edit and the more you should consider not editing this article at all. Editors have been blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly editing in violation of the conflict of interest guideline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]