User talk:Joshbuddy/Oct06

Why the Blind Revert

why the revert back from mine? I can easily edit the terminology in order to simplify the jargon, but the current state had incorrect information. Specifically, the second paragraph begins with the second coming and that is totally false according to their teaching. Please read the referenced articles before doing a blind revert.

Protector of the Truth 22:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the JW page

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 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JW 1914 Doctrine

I was reading through the Watchtower of November 1, 1995 on page 17, the articles cites that there has been a change on the doctrine and it is no longer taught. And according the the Awake magazine of November 8, 1995 stated that the whole idea of "generation" in Mt 24:34 being specific individuals is now abandoned as well as the statement was removed from it's masthead. Since these were no longer accurate with what the introduction had in the first sentence, I thought it should not be there. It looks like it would find a more appropriate place if there was a page dedicated to abandoned doctrines. If you feel that it should remain, I would like to discuss. - Protector of the Truth 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JW Intro

Your comments state that 'it seems' indicate an interpretation of which I have a differing viewpoint. How does it get resolved when there are two different viewpoints on this? - Protector of the Truth 21:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image tag

The reason is only that there was a "fairusereplace" tag on the image page. Peter O. (Talk) 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Bot Approvals Group

Your name is on the Bot Approvals Group as an inactive member, however, after looking into your contributions to Wikipedia, it appears that you've never made a contribution to any page of Wikipedia:Bots or its subpages. (See: here and here). Perhaps there is some historical aspect to this that we are missing and we'd like your input on the discussion because I've made a move to remove your name from the list. But perhaps there is a misunderstanding, so feel free to visit the talk page if you have something to add to the discussion. You didn't change user accounts or something did you? -- RM 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comment on my talk page. -- RM 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]