Talk:Revival Fellowship

message: I notice there appears to be a lot of edit warring on this article. I just want to remind both parties of the three-revert rule.↔NMajdan•talk 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: The Revival Fellowship is known as a 'Doomsday Cult" and has been accurately described by many members escaping it brainwashing and harrowing grasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.169.210 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of affiliation, many, many ex-members and experts characterise RF as a cult/cult-like organisation, and it's important that the Wikipedia article reflects all viewpoints. Please read through the policies, particularly that on neutral point of view. Thanks. 81.105.176.121 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read your NPOV... i'll quote you: ""We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.""
References to cults, etc are OPINION.. Not FACT.. How about we state facts then.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.228.246 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is being reported here, in the Wikipedia article, is that some people regard RF as a cult - the references you removed establish this as fact. The other information you removed is also verified - if you disagree with the teachings of RF (or don't know of the details of its establishment) you should discuss your issues with your pastor. Natgoo 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  regard = opinion. Fact is, it is a Christian based demonination. As mentioned before, if I believe an organisation to "suck" or dislike their service, I would not regard them as a "bad customer service organization" when infact, all they do is sell washing machines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.228.246 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Criticism of Christianity. Its a whole article dedicated to information that criticizes the religion. But it is all verifiable. Same thing here.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: regarding some people believing this is a cult.  Some people believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny too.  And reference a blog, or website that has no intellectual standing should not happen and will be deleted.  Commission a white paper, have it peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal and perhaps then you will have something that you can add.  And why waste your time with this.  Isn't the catholic church the largest cult in the world?  Do they have cult references on their article?Revival42 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, but please don't remove others' comments from talk pages. Why do you object to the characterisation of the group as a cult by some people being included in the article? The Wikipedia article doesn't say that the group is a cult, but that some people regard it as one. Regardless of its 'truth', I feel the criticism is valid information about some people's feelings about the group and should be included in a balanced, encyclopaedic article. The first time I heard the RC (and please, don't argue that it doesn't count, the groups have a shared history and identical doctrine and dogma) referred to as a cult was in a Time magazine article in the early 80s - I can't search the Asia-Pacific edition archives from here but I will try and source it when I can. The references provided are valid for the section as it is written. Natgoo 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultweb/cults affiliation 

message: The story of eye gouging is totally irrelevant to the group "The Revival Fellowship". Please refrain from posting stories based on rumour or here-say.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picheriko (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The story is only substantiated by a message board posting, which is not verifiable. Until a decent reference can be established the story should be kept out of the article. Natgoo 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye Gouging 

message: Josh, I may do a bit of an edit on your addition to the community section.  We want to keep the article simple and not overplay it. Revival42 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Community

message: I've added again nontrinitarian to the introduction - it's important RF doctrine that the Holy Spirit is not God is not Jesus Christ, clearly outlined in their teachings. Natgoo 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is noting that the church doesn't believe in the trinity discrediting anybody? The statement of belief states 'Jesus Christ is the son of God' - if you have difficulty accepting that you need to discuss your issues with your pastor. Natgoo 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What on earth does that have to do anything?  Basic reading comprehension demonstrates that the RF follows nontrinitarian doctrine (even described as pre-Nicene by several pastors). Why do you feel that this is negative and an attempt to discredit the RF? Please try to articulate your objection to the inclusion of this information, so that we can all understand your feelings and work towards a consensus in this matter.Natgoo 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do, as the group's statement of belief and teachings contradict your assertion, and should be reviewed if no longer true. As we can only work with verifiable information (are the minutes of the pastors' meetings publicly available? Please provide them if so), and this is a central part of RF doctrine, I feel the information should be included. I agree that the trinity doctrine is complex, but RF's response to it has never been - it has always, and continues, to claim that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are not one with God, which is the central tenet of the trinity. Natgoo 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nontrinitarian]]

message: Can we please work together now to improve this article? It needs work - the grammar is dreadful in places and it lacks a criticism section. If we can't reach consensus between us we can ask for input from other editors. Natgoo 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Revival Fellowship has been heavily criticised, mainly by ex-members, for its theology and doctrine. Theological criticism centres on the requirement for speaking in tongues and the group's strong focus on Acts 2:38http://www.pleaseconsider.info/ ‘Acts 2:38: The Grammatical Structure of Acts 2:38' By Ian Thomason, while doctrinal criticism centres on the Revival Fellowship's dogmatic approach to community and fellowship, in particular the requirement that members minimise their interactions with the 'world' (excluding evangelism) and its practice of disfellowshipping members for minor trangsressions and minor criticism of church leaders, and the extent to which the oversight control the lives of its membershttp://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/r/rci/ Freedom of Mind Resource Centre. An internet messageboard has been established for discussion of the group's practices, and may be found here.
Natgoo 14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please tell me why you feel these are unreliable sources? I disagree. The 'red flag' words are what people are saying. Would you prefer it if direct quotes were used instead? If you don't feel this is suitable, what do you think a criticism section should consist of? Please read through the sources I've provided above, and tell me how you feel the criticism is better summarised? Natgoo 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: Okay, how about something along these lines:
:The Revival Fellowship has been heavily criticised, mainly by ex-members, for its theology and doctrine. Theological criticism centres on the requirement for speaking in tongues and the group's strong focus on Acts 2:38http://www.pleaseconsider.info/ ‘Acts 2:38: The Grammatical Structure of Acts 2:38' By Ian Thomason, while doctrinal criticism centres on the Revival Fellowship's dogmatic approach to community and fellowship, in particular the requirement that members minimise their interactions with the 'world' (excluding evangelism) and its practice of disfellowshipping members for minor trangsressions and minor criticism of church leaders, and the extent to which the oversight control the lives of its membershttp://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/r/rci/ Freedom of Mind Resource Centre. An internet messageboard has been established for discussion of the group's practices, and may be found here.
Natgoo 14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please tell me why you feel these are unreliable sources? I disagree. The 'red flag' words are what people are saying. Would you prefer it if direct quotes were used instead? If you don't feel this is suitable, what do you think a criticism section should consist of? Please read through the sources I've provided above, and tell me how you feel the criticism is better summarised? Natgoo 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: I don't think the aimoo forum is an appropriate link; Wikipedia doesn't normally recognize internet forums as reliable sources, and that a critical forum exists isn't inherently newsworthy, either.  I'm taking the liberty of removing this one source.  Note that I have restored the most recent removal of the entire criticism section. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, I feel it is appropriate - the link is labelled as 'a forum for discussion of the group's practices'. There are other sources, such as  and , but these have proved to be more objectionable to some as the word 'cult' is in the URL. Natgoo 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism section is now under Community where facts are listed.  Links to RCI labeled information is not appropriate.  Thanks for the input FisherQueen.  But the revert of the article has cut both ways and the POV pushing should remain with stating facts and letting others judge. Revival42 21:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you take your own advice and leave the facts in and let others judge? --192.150.20.11 09:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forum

message: Let me draw your attention to the wikipedia policy on puppets Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Quote:
It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible. (See: Wikipedia:Canvassing)
The arrival of multiple newcomers with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints rarely helps achieve neutrality and usually damages it. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.
If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.
So all the brethen that have been called by Revival42 calling to action to revert this article, on the basis of wikipedia policy this is not allowed so please stop. Good faith has come and gone and now all editors who continue to revert without constructive edits are clearly puppets of Revival42 will be treated as vandals and hence the 3RR does not apply when reverting your changes. Revival42 you have been warned multiple times by multiple people that your conduct is not very becoming of wikipedia policy and yet you continue to break it. We tried to work with you in good faith but you continue to refuse and make false accusations. I see you have even tried to complain that I was threatening you but I have not, if I am mistaken please point out where I threatened you.
--192.150.20.11 09:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revival42 and her puppets 

message: Aren't there any better sources for the criticisms of the church than the presented ones?  They don't appear to fit the reliable sources criteria very well, and kind of undermine the credibility of those trying to prevent this article from becoming an advertisement for the church.  If the church really is guilty of abusing its parishioners, hasn't it been written about in a real newspaper somewhere? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (posted after ec with poster below) Ah, there's the thing. It's such a small, far-outfield group, and from my understanding very little of what occurs seems to be actually criminal (and if it is it's quickly swept under the carpet), and (again from my understanding) the interconnectedness and similarities between the groups means that most available information is written about them collectively, rather than referring to each individually (except where personal stories are being recounted). I'll revise the section a bit to clarify. Here is a series of articles run by the Geelong Advertiser detailing some of the emotional abuse occurring in the Geelong Revival Centre - by all accounts (except, perhaps, those of current members) very similar practices occur in all of them. I am aware of two (unconnected) people who claim they are currently writing books, and one a doctoral thesis (as detailed above). Are you including the pleaseconsider.nfo link in your assessment? Short articles of theological criticism of the RF/RCI etc etc are not particularly likely to attract the attention of major media sources. Natgoo 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your lniking to the Geelong Advertiser articles; they work a lot better for me as sources.  Revival42, I was starting a conversation, not declaring the references invalid.  That's how we do things on Wikipedia- we discuss them, and decide together; we don't just make a snap decision and then change the page without consensus.  Please, don't use my question as an excuse to remove this section unless that's what we all decide to do together. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously, though

message: 195 here, finally registered. Can we please restore the page to the balanced POV of where it shows the history and the criticism? It's quite clear that members of the church have biased views and are the ones who have been reverting constantly anything about the church that they don't like. They have broken the rules multiple times, including 3RR's and meat/sock puppetry. They have also been soliciting other church members to come and help them push their POV which is also against policy. If you check the people who keep reverting, their sole contribution to wikipedia consists of reverts to this article. These people were offically warned numerous times to stop their blanking yet all they did was to remove the warnings from the their talk page. IMHO I agree with most of natgoo's content and changes and it appears to be well written and researched (like the image it explains things well), except I agree with FisherQueen that the forum link isn't really appropriate for an encyclopediac entry. It's quite clear from this talk page that the church is quite controversal and has generated criticism about it that is notable enough which should be mentioned. Other wikipedians not from the church also agree a criticism section is needed. Every other religion article, indeed most possibly-controversal articles, all have a criticism section. Without it, it just sounds like a big ad for the church where only good things happen.
And definitly remove/change this statement "It is also documented and widely known that members of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments" for numerous reasons. It's not grammatically correct and most of all it's not verifiable.  Maybe something more along the lines of "Some members of the Revival Fellowship have claimed to be miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments."
--Dalore 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal of "It is also documented and widely known that members of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments."  Support also the restoration of the history section, and the criticism section with the addition of the newspaper source provided by User:Natgoo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think these edits should be made until the RFC below goes through. The page was just protected today because of edit warring. Hopefully, after the RFC, a consensus can be reached and the protection can be lifted. CMummert · talk 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request 

message: 1. The Revival Fellowship is a small, Pentecostal sect that requires submission to the oversight and support of the spirit-filled church. Many ex-members report the manifestation of these requirements as described in the criticism section above. In addition to the refences provided above, these links add some context and history of the organisation: rc.cultweb.net, the caic document archive (which is a fascinating resource),  and the RC discussion boards.
The history and other disputed sections are well-referenced, but are continually reverted, and the claim that "It is also documented and widely known that members  of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments (ref: ") inserted. Please read the rest of this talk page for more lengthy discussions. Natgoo 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: The article is now open to editing, which I think is good. We can get on with improving it!
Firstly: I feel that the article needs improving in general. It makes some fairly inaccurate/questionable statements, and also leaves out lots of information that should probably be included. The quality of writing isn't brilliant either.
Secondly: It currently lacks a Criticisms section. Do we think it needs one? I would say it does, as this is after all an encyclopedia, but we certainly don't want to go too far. It is interesting to note that the Revival Centres International article currently lacks a criticisms section.
Thirdly: This article lacks any history of the Revival Fellowship. What needs saying? How much? Again, it doesn't need to be elaborate. A single mention of the Revival Centres would be relevant. Inclusion of :Image:RCI diagram.JPG would also be relevant.
The big problem is the lack of available sources. An anti-Revival Fellowship site is not a suitable source for citations, but I'm not sure if there is really anything else at all to cite! I suppose such websites could be used as citation for a simple statement that the Revival Fellowship has criticisms.
Before we jump in and make any Criticism or History sections we need a civilised discussion about it, with substantial input from some neutral editors who have nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.
Markdarb 11:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to from here? 

message: This article includes phrases such as, "but they offer no medical or scientific evidence."  This is a religious article so that should be assumed.  These words, while technically true, amount to weasel words, the implication being that the information is dubious.  If someone tried reformatting the Bible or the Qu'ran entries that way, they would probably have been warned for vandalism.  Please, if you wish to ensure the reader knows it's unscientific, include some reminder at the start that this is a religion.  Don't repeatedly insert this kind of text to hammer it home.  It's obnoxious, and more importantly unencyclopedic.  -moritheilTalk 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It is extremely annoying that a few paragraphs describing criticisms of this church keep getting deleted.  Is the church not strong enough to be able to sustain itself if people actually happen to want to make a few criticisms of the church?  I am NOT a member of the church, NOR am I an ex-member.  I have simply come along to several meetings and events held by the church, been "witnessed to" and on reflection I am not all that enamoured by the doings of the church and the attitudes of the members.  Therefore, this probably needs to be noted in a wikipedia article read by people considering whether or not to join up.  To omit the criticisms is simply a sign of the weakness of the Church.  Rather than simply deleting the paragraphs further comments and argument would be far more enlightening.  What about actually ANSWERING some of the criticisms rather than deleting them?  Entering into an edit-war is, may I say, so un-christian.  Anyway, for now I have replaced the paragraphs under the "criticisms" heading and hope  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.80.173.12 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying 

message: It is quite sad that the anti-Revival Fellowship crowds like to take the critism too far. I notice someone took away the list of how they believe all meetings are run, which is good, it was a useless and doesn't reflect the large diverse organisation the Revival Fellowship is. As for the Criticisms section, the are many claims in there which are simply false and need to be removed. I do not disagree that there should be a criticisms section but I disagree with false statements being placed on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.61.142 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equally Annoying 

message: Just came across this--I had no idea the article has been a point of edit warring for years. Pointless, given that the article has virtually no objective sources, nor have the continuously added criticisms included reliable references, but original research with less than reliable sources. It would be best if the article were edited by parties with no interest in the church, either pro or con. Neutral point of view is an essential Wikipedia tenet. 99.168.84.75 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits which list unsourced criticisms appear to be original research, and will not be permitted. Unreferenced assessments or characterizations of the subject, be they positive or negative, aren't acceptable. I agree that the current criticism section, with the page now protected, consists of original research and is supported by sources that are unreliable. If they continue you can always seek administrative help at the noticeboards for vandalism, edit warring, or page protection. Your contributions, I think, are trickier, owing to a possible conflict of interest. My take is that the surest road to improving the article will be the introduction of content from sources other than the church itself. 99.168.84.75 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll say up front that I'm not intending to pursue this, or any matters on Wikipedia any more. To answer your questions: if the references do not refer specifically to this subject, then it's a stretch of original research to use them, in essence, to further your agenda. Likewise the personal blogs are not acceptable, or so I'd come to believe given my reading of Wikipedia's policies (my recent experiences, though, suggest that those policies are no longer adhered to, so write what you will). Your section aside, the article relies far too heavily on the Fellowship's website, which isn't a cardinal sin so long as the content isn't controversial. If parts of it are, then those passages can be scrutinized or removed. My interpretation is that, until supported by reliable sources, your additions are nearly entirely controversial. But to belabor the point, I don't think credible oversight of such issues exists on Wikipedia any more. So both of you can just keep going at it for a few more years, or until someone grows tired of the mishegoss. 99.156.70.163 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

text: OMG. I realize nobody listens here, but the criticism section does not, and apparently never has had reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE....not that that ever stops an editor with an agenda. As for the bulk of the article, its problems also stem from an almost total lack of objective sources. Given the number of people associated with the church it's probably a slim chance, but if Google hits are nearly nil for objective sources , this may be eligible for the AfD process. In short, this is a lengthy argument based on a topic whose notability hasn't even been adequately established--both sides spinning wheels and edit warring without citing reliable sources. The rhetorical question, given that administrators have seen this, is how can that happen for years? Must return to more rewarding real life pursuits.... 99.156.70.163 (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: A Wikipedia article is not the place for such debates to occur--that's what blogs are for. To continue to soapbox contravenes the encyclopedia's purpose. But that's already been said. Bye. 99.156.70.163 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Long term indeed

message: Ridiculous, stupid, crazy, biased.
Firstly:
I am NOT a member of the Revival Fellowship and have NEVER been a member.
I am thus a neutral observer of the processes of the church and after attending a few Sunday meetings and other events I am well-placed to describe the activities of this "church".
I have been witnessed to on a number of occasions by members of this church, who I have observed to cheat, lie and threaten me. Thus I am not very likely to become a member of the church, however at the moment, I am still getting myself along to most Sunday services as I wish to give the church a fair go before coming to a final conclusion on its activities. Initially I am appalled at the carryings-on, however as I say, I am more than willing to give the church a fair go, and this will even include attendance at neighbouring congregations other than my local fellowship.
So: before you blindly delete my Wikipedia entries, bear this in mind: a closed mind is un-Christian. Jesus wants us to treat others as we would treat them. So assuming someone has made a wikipedia entry that is valid it is un-Christian to delete the bloody thing. Please treat me with respect by correcting any details I may have wrong, and arguing for the opposite of what I am claiming, but piss off if you reckon that deletion of something you don't necessarily agreee with is an appropriate response.
I had described several events: a typical Sunday Service described from having attended several, other Church happenings (again described from the POV as an observer), but hell - try to post them in the Wikipedia article and they are deleted again and again, for NO apparent reason.  (Other than the question "Why should they be here?")  Mate: the answer to that question is to DESCRIBE the functions of the church.  Obviously not what you want other people to see.  Conclusion:  geez, you guys must be ashamed of your own religious views that you simply don't want other people to know about the goings-on at a Sunday meeting, or at a "Baptism" or at a House Meeting.
Secret society - ashamed of its own functions, and blindly censored from public view. Shades of Hitler, Stalin, Mao ZeDong, etc, etc, etc.  I give up with this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBustopher (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys obviously are ashamed of your own religious view 

message: Moving on, it is clear we need moderation of this page.
The goal of wikipedia as I understand it to write an encyclopaedic article.  This means we need to stick to verifiable fact and use references that relate to this church.  As the article stands right now, it needs an overall edit, but focus should be on what if any verifiable sources can or should be added to complete the article.
Based on discussion here there are a few people who seem to equate this church with "hitler".  This seems to be at a minimum a gross exaggeration, and very close to slander, or the promotion of hatred.  It appears these contributors are bent on adding unverified sources or information that is not even close to being related to this or any other church.  In previous discussions, it was agreed that these blogs or vanity sites were not valid according to wikipedia rules.
To the addition of a criticism section, the problem lies in presenting any references to support criticism.  As pointed out, it is not proper style to add a paragraph along the lines of "we don't like this church" or "at this one church, we heard they do this".   I suppose people can be critical of christians and hold to their own viewpoints, but this article on this church doesn't seem to be a place to post this.
If this article is to be moved forward, it would be useful to stick with simple factual verified material.
Revival42 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Revival Fellowship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141202120601/http://www.revivalfellowship.org/contacts.asp to http://revivalfellowship.org/contacts.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120410180008/http://www.revivalfellowship.org/What_We_Believe.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/What_We_Believe.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130801034646/http://www.revivalfellowship.org:80/British_Israel.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/British_Israel.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120320200936/http://revivalfellowship.org/Anti_racism_Statement.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/Anti_racism_Statement.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120320115256/http://revivalfellowship.org/Bible_Numerics.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/Bible_Numerics.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Revival Fellowship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927163149/http://www.revivalfellowship.org/Speaking_in_Tongues.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/Speaking_in_Tongues.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903125530/http://www.asa.org.uk:80/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/6/Medway-Revival-Fellowship/TF_ADJ_50621.aspx to http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/6/Medway-Revival-Fellowship/TF_ADJ_50621.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719230733/http://revivalfellowship.org/Raised_from_the_dead.asp to http://revivalfellowship.org/Raised_from_the_dead.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110218033856/http://www.trf.org.au/America_in_the_Bible.asp to http://trf.org.au/America_in_the_Bible.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Revival Fellowship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130801034544/http://www.revivalfellowship.org:80/Water_Baptism.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/Water_Baptism.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120411120136/http://www.revivalfellowship.org/The_Holy_Spirit.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/The_Holy_Spirit.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113022300/http://www.revivalfellowship.org/healing.asp to http://www.revivalfellowship.org/healing.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150304034326/http://trf.org.au/British_Israel.asp to http://trf.org.au/British_Israel.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified