Talk:Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ

message: This sentence does not make any sense:  "However, unlike Roman Catholic Inspired Christianity, the Bible Way of Our Lord Jesus Christ does believe that is, that Jesus Christ is God."  I had to research elsewhere to discover that it should say something like it "is non-Trinitarian and believes that there is only one person in God, Jesus Christ, and not a Trinity of persons as defined by the Council of Nicea in 325."    So, I just edited that.  Feel free to improve, but the original clip I quoted is nonsense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13.13.16.1 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrinal explanation 

message: I undid these edits to this talk page by .  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  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  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)
thread_title:  Rolling back the clock on both article and talk pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attention editors with ties to this organization 

message: I made archives out of the material deleted on 21:03, 9 April 2009 and 03:08, 11 April 2009.  Although I personally think this unorthodox use of archive isn't the way to go, it's probably going to be less contentious than the right way, which is to leave off the material deleted on  03:08, 11 April 2009 as it was just a copy of the article with proposed changes, and completely restore the material deleted on 21:03, 9 April 2009 to this main talk page, and not use archives at all.  Archives are intended for long talk pages, not to push unwanted material out of the way.  Note that the material deleted on 9 April was re-deleted in a series of edits on 11 April from 11:25 to 11:27, indicating someone wants it deleted.  Rather than get into an edit war I simply moved it to an archive.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: While this article is cited, the citations are not in-line.  It is difficult or impossible to verify that a particular sentence comes from a reliable source.
If you have access to the cited material or any other reliable source that can verify the information in this article, please provide in-line citations.  Thanks.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for in-line citations 

message: Notice: I asked for further technical assistance from the participants of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.  The project is not very active so they may or may not respond.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance requested 

message: Notice to all editors: This article, as it centers around the split of this church and the 2 men who lead or led the opposing factions, is subject to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Huie L. Rogers, Lawrence Campbell, and Cornelius Showell until otherwise noted are cosidered living. As such the following section of text has been removed from the "Schism" section:
And one other sentence from the same section: "In any event, the "false" and fradulent filings by the Rogers' group were rejected and revoked by the federal government agencies."    Ltwin (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

message: It is obvious that the orgainization has split. What is not obvious from this article is which group is legally the Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ World Wide. Roger's church seems to have kept the name, but Showell's church has changed its name. My question is: is the fact that Roger's church has kept the name indicative of the fact that it is legally entitled to use it?
If this is the case and it has been found either through the courts or through the internal bylaws of the original church that Roger's is the rightful church then this page should be about his church from 1997 onward mentioning the split but saying that Showell's church can be found at its own article.
If not and Showell's church just happened to change its name for what ever reason, and it is in reality the legally recognized church then this article should be moved to Showell's church's new name and this become a redirect with the same course of action taking place above. From 1997 onward it should deal with Showell's church but mention the split and that Roger's church has its own article. 
If niether church has been recognized then there needs to be an explanation of what the legal status is. We may have to make two completely new articles for each church saying that while both originate from this church, there is no clear legal successor. Please give your input. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of the article

message: I removed the proposal for deletion. Yes the article needs work, but if you look at the references the Encyclopedia of American Religions and Handbook of Denominations in the United States are listed. The article could use inline citations, but I think there is enough notability for this to be on Wikipedia. Ltwin (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to judge those sources, as there is no online referencing in the article.  I did find an online version of Handbook of Denominations in the United States, and it seems to be a simple listing, nothing to denote notability.  I'm unable to find any open access to the Encyclopedia of American Religions (closed access is available from some services, though).   So if someone can give some more information to denote notability, that'd be great.  Otherwise, sorry, this should go to Articles for Deletion.       Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)      01:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Prod