User talk:Bradsp

Hi, Bradsp, Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place and want to stick around. Feel free to contribute in any way you can. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make silly mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful, and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

Good luck! -Chairman S. ^Talk 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Conley

Regarding your claim that "The Conley house memorials or passovers are not CTR events as you are claiming", Russell wrote in the April 1880 Zion's Watch Tower that their Memorial was held at the Conley's residence. (Specifically, Russell wrote, "We met on the night of March 24th, as usual, at the house of Brother and Sister Conley (it being the most commodious);") Your belief that the passover events at the Conley's are not related to CTR is simply incorrect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Russell was a participant of the memorial at the Conleys. In nothing you reference does it directly say or even imply this was nothing more than a Conley event attended by Russell. It Really amazes me how everythign ends up glorifying Russell - no matter how rediculous or far fetched. This seems to be what Russell passed on to the flock. Maybe you can figure out what Conley passed on to the flock.BradSp (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about with regard to 'glorifying Russell'. The current wording says nothing about Russell being a 'leader'. The 1880 Watch Tower says the adherents of that journal's audience met at the Conley's home for their Memorial celebration. That audience was the Allegheny Bible students. If you have sources that provide additional or contrary information, please present them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You should know that there are two different types of assessment - quality and importance. Quality refers to the relative objective quality of an article (length, number of sources and source citations, variety of sources, etc.), and those ratings are fairly standard across wikipedia. The importance rating is more about the relative importance of a given article to that specific project. Those individual importance ratings can be and often are extremely varied among projects. Their primary function is, effectively, to just serve as an indication to the members of that specific project which articles are in effect considered more "central" to the topic. Russell, as the founder of the group from which the JWs derived, is in a sense as important to those groups as Jesus is to Christianity or Mohammed is to Islam. He did, after all, do a good deal to define the theological stances of the various groups, and provide a good deal of the start-up money. To the JWs themselves, or any group with an attached denomination, the single leaders of the groups tend to all get higher than "Low", because if if they didn't really do much, that lack of action probably had at least a somewhat significant effect on the group they head.

And the single rating of a given project only relates to that project's topic itself. Various Catholic saints get remarkably different importance ratings for Theology, Saints, the denomination or denominations which include them in their liturgical calendars, and the like. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Russell was not the founder of the Jehova Witnesses as you state above nor did he finance the group in the beginning as you state. There is no reference that I am aware of that proves otherwise. BACnet (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

JWs did not exist in Russell's time, so he didn't found that specific group, though he co-founded (and later, led) the Bible Student movement that formed its foundation. I've seen nothing ironclad about who specifically financed the Watch Tower Society, though I have seen credible suggestion that it was funded by both Russell and Conley.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

George Nathanial Henry Peters

Exact quote was copied.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of George Nathaniel Henry Peters

I have nominated George Nathaniel Henry Peters, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I know why. You are stalking down articles which do not fall inline with your Jehovah’s Witnesses Charles Russell point of view. You have been doing it for some time. You are not going to delete this or manipulate this page. I am contacted the alumni and university for assistance with this article in hopes it will be protected from you.

BradSp (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. I was of course aware of the article when you created it because you first discussed it at the Conley article. A request for expansion was placed at the article almost immediately, and the article has not since improved. You were advised by another editor at the creation of the article that it would be a candidate for deletion.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that the one-line article says absolutely nothing at all about JWs, Russell, or much of anything else, it's difficult to imagine how you think deleting it might be because of some imagined "point of view". In any case, I only raised the discussion for its deletion and ultimately won't be the one who decides.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I realized a limitation about someone today. I will be giggling about how he compensates for this limitation/fault for days. :) BradSp (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A mildly amusing breach of policy, but hardly clever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about on my talk page now Jeffro? BradSp (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The decision of the AfD was 'keep'. This is an opportunity to provide additional information and sources about Peters. If the article remains in its current form for an extended time, it may eventually again be submitted for deletion in the future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Over a month later, and the 'article' is still the same two sentences that it was then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

After repeated attempts thankfully Jeffro failed to delete the Peters article. The quiet and goodly man was not forgotten and conveniently buried by JW editors.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Please see WP:WQA#User:Bradsp. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of George Nathaniel Henry Peters

I have nominated George Nathaniel Henry Peters, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of George Nathaniel Henry Peters for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article George Nathaniel Henry Peters, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)