User talk:Kriegerdwm

The Two Witnesses

• You have recently re-created the article The Two Witnesses, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. JuJube 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to The Two Witnesses:

Your recent edit to The Two Witnesses (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 09:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:TWO_WITNESSES.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:TWO_WITNESSES.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Two Witnesses

A few general words of advice that I think will help with editing ... anything that is an internal Wikipedia link should not be linked with a URL. In other words, instead of this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology eschatological]

... do this:

[[Eschatology eschatological]]

I think that's a big part of the formatting issues in there. Also, things like "Additional links/content will be added within 24 hrs." are generally a bad idea - see WP:ASR. Basically, you want to avoid references to Wikipedia itself.

Lastly, see {{cite web}}. This template lets you cite a website and is better than linking everything inline. So what you can do is this:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.somewhere.com/whatever|title=Name of website}}</ref>

Then, at the bottom, add:

<references />

Everything will neatly be displayed at the bottom. --BigDT 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at where I have changed the link to Revelation 11 into a "reference" link. Anything that is actually an external reference should be linked like that. If the article isn't really a reference and is just somewhere that happens to use a word, it probably shouldn't be linked at all. Take a look at Wikipedia:Introduction - you may want to read through some of the editing tips. Also, somewhere good to read is Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This page gives a number of editing tips. Also, one other thing, on one of your edits, you overwrote everything I did. If you are adding a paragraph, it's best to just add that or edit that paragraph, not re-copy the entire article. Please let me know if I can help you in any way. --BigDT 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I have removed your email address - as a general word of advice, it's a bad idea to put your email address on a page because you can get spam as a result of it. But if you have not already done so, you can go to the "my preferences" link at the top of the screen and add your email address - that way, anyone who wants to can contact you using the "E-mail this user" link on the left side of this page. Really, though, it's better to keep everything on Wikipedia when possible. One other suggestion, in general, "role accounts", meaning accounts where multiple people are using the same account, are frowned upon. It is best if all of you create your own account. --BigDT 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Two Witnesses

This is to BigDT - O.K. - it is time, after trying some time, to ask for help from experienced and trusted folks - I need to either REDIRECT or somehow cut the article in at least two parts - it will "hang together" if I can "splice" the entire section of "Exegetical Considerations" along with graphics (as is) on to another page as suggested - it's still a bit too long on both but this would make it 43/43 or so - so, how do I do that? Also, I probably should simply add a "See Also" to reference back and forth on the two articles because of their interconnectivity - is that a simple [[]] situation? Any help will of course be greatly appreciated. Thicked-headed Technician of sorts.

The Two Witnesses - Exegetical Considerations

I appreciate that The Two Witnesses is long and could probably do with splitting. But what is the difficulty about it? First and most important, please use edit summaries to explain what you are doing. When splitting an article, one fork must inevitably lose the edit history, therefore it is vital that you indicate in the edit summary where you have copied the stuff from.

But so far you have merely copied large chunks of it to The Two Witnesses - Exegetical Considerations without removing them from the original article. But in any case, I suggest you propose and discuss the split first at talk:The Two Witnesses. -- RHaworth 09:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth:

The spliting of the article into two parts is simply a consideration on my part to keep the overall piece within some semblance of conformity to Wikipedia's desire to restrict articles to 32Kb, etc. - however, the exegetical considerations do add immediate clarity to the article and it does "hang together" - this topic is so controversial and receives such diverse interpretation (especially in today's explosive Middle East) - that the symbolism and imagery simply cannot be confined to a paragraph or two. Perhaps it should be left as is without delimiting it without the exegetical considerations--considerations which occupy immediate interest in light of the preceeding items. DWK 06:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE:

Peculiar editing of the text has been noted of late wherein "charlies angels" replaced "archangels" at the conclusion of the piece - this nonsense was removed; likewise, an exhaustive Amillenial exposition of Revelation 11 was inserted, adding an exceedingly subjective, though accurate expression of Amillenial commentary, to the piece; however, this was truncated for the sake of brevity of the article, as well as avoidance of other persuasions incorporating their peculiarities into the article (i.e., the commentaries would be endless--there is sufficient commentary from various viewpoints already recorded, giving such a wide space to one was simply too exhaustive fairness is already present) - however, we did keep the Amillenial references for one to examine their point of view more closely. DWK

Image:Image-Revelation 11 THE TWO WITNESSES.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Image-Revelation 11 THE TWO WITNESSES.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Day for a year article

The subject of the article is the 'day for a year' principle. A long digression concerning a Futurist interpretation of the 2,300 days in Daniel 8 which treats them as literal is saying nothing about the 'day for a year' principle, and is completely off topic. The SDA view on Daniel 8 belongs in the article simply because it is an example of the 'day for a year' principle being used. A Futurist interpretation of literal days is not. That's it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I acquiesce only to avoid an embarrassing exposure of your tragic constriction on this subject. The 2300 days are intimately connected to the entire argument between Historicism (Christian eschatology) and various branches of Premillenial thinking. Because the SDA's have consigned the 2300 days to years is an extreme diversion from the context of Daniel 7-12--so it can be argued--we argue that these are literal "days" not "years" and for immense eschatological reason and sensibility. The socio-religious implications of this to the American religious mindset is horrific - to dispense with this input in such a cavalier manner violates the objective editorial digression mandatory for such sensitive subjects which have severe implications as to one's worldview. Either the editor does not perceive the importance of this issue or he is prejudiced in his evaluation of this ingestion into the article. Doug Krieger (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oracle of Damascus

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Oracle of Damascus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

The article doesn't contain useful information. It doesn't indicate why the subject is of notability, it isn't a proper encyclopaedic article, more a collection of utterly random facts garnished with a lot of links to the same site, I.e. blatant advertising. It doesn't contain any reliable sources to cite aforementioned random facts.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Floker (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been expanded and is currently undergoing peer review - give it some time, it's worth it. The criticisms appeared at the commencement of the writing, since its inception much more has been added...it is NOT a miscellaneous or disinterested topic, to say the least. 69.229.122.167 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwm69.229.122.167 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete source

Could you please fill out the details on the source you provided today to the article Abomination of Desolation? So far it says <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thelandofisrael.com/=The Land of Israel}}</ref>

March 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC) You need to read the policies linked in these warnings, and read FAs, and learn how we source things at Wikipedia. Your latest contribution to Antichrist is unacceptable. I've removed virtually all of it. Sites that advertise RS are not RS. You need to get the books, and give a page number-specific citation in which the book says exactly what you are putting in the article. Anything less will be reverted. I've maintained the bit you included about the SDA, because that is at least an admissable source. However, you need to link to a particular page which makes the specific claim you are putting in the article. If you don't do this within 24h, I'm removing that as well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You say that my additions to Antichrist did not cite page numbers - I beg to differ - please carefully review - Ihavelinkedto particular pages which specifically lends credence to the claims of the addition...

The seat of Antichrist as the USA is not a new interpretation among Futurism (Christian eschatology). The United States in Bible Prophecy as the two-horned beast in Revelation 13:11–17 (i.e., the second beast of Revelation 13:1) who supports the Beast (i.e., the Antichrist) was propounded in 1859 by Frances Rolleston who authored a work titled Notes on the Apocalypse, as Explained by the Hebrew Scriptures: The Place in Prophecy of America and Australia Being Pointed Out. Seventh Day Adventist Uriah Smith in 1884 authored a text entitled The United States in the Light of Prophecy; or, An Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17. Smith was insistent that America was the beast of Revelation 13:11–17. However, it was not until 1968 that Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon, Sr. Pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago, Illinois, who suggested that the USA was Babylon the Great. Jack Van Impe in The Great Escape indicts America as the fulfillment of Jeremiah 50–51 and Revelation 18. In one of the more exhaustive indictments against America as the seat of Antichrist, R. A. Coombes, in America, the Babylon: America’s Destiny Foretold in Biblical Prophecy presents thirty-three identifying markers which he claims identify America as the Babylon of the End Times, the seat of Antichrist; also, Coombes lists sixty-six points in another segment of his text (pp. 182-86) in which New York City is the perfect bastion of Babylon the Great. Mark Hitchcock, in his 2009 text, The Late Great United States, What Bible Prophecy Reveals About America's Last Days rejects the eschatologists who suggest that America is “Mystery, Babylon the Great” and claims, instead, that modern-day Iraq is the literal Babylon the Great of the latter days (pp. 17-21). Scores of authors now flood the American apocalyptic marketplace with America’s role in Bible prophecy and most tie in the final Antichrist as the leader of that proposition. Those Evangelicals who dispute America’s role as the Babylon of the Last Days, and as the seat of Antichrist, have been resisted by the likes of John Walvoord of Dallas Seminary and R. L. Hymers, Jr. of the Los Angeles Baptist Tabernacle. NOTE: In the references pages are repeatedly cited.

Your "references" are URLs that advertise the books you're discussing. You mention the page numbers in the text itself. You need to learn how to write for WP. What you've provided is not it, and is indistinguishable from soapboxing. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oracle of Damascus

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Oracle of Damascus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

It is just a random, but verbose collection of irrelevant, decieving or wrong information, written in a style that isn't appropreate for an encyclopaedia. It may be a relevant topic, but the article, as it is, is less than unhelpful with no prospect of improvement via gradual editing.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Floker (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Oracle of Damascus

The article is not a random, verbose, irrelevant, and decieving (sic) source of wrong information written in a style that is not appropreate (sic) for an encyclopedia. There is a keen and growing interest in this subject in "prophetic circles" - circles which if some would frequent, would find interest in abundance. The article can be embellished by whomever desires to enhance its content (futuristic or past significance). Doug Krieger (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)!

Talk:The_Beast_(Bible)#A_Different_Interpretation

I noticed you objected to User:Carl.bunderson removing script on the anti-Christ and the U.S.A. He undid the whole subject I posted. It may be a minority interpretation but it compliments the points you were making. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oracle of Damascus

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Oracle of Damascus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Fundamentally unencyclopedic. Nearly unreadable even before removal of non-RS and crystal balling.[1] Almost entirely a construction of original research; unsalvageable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Durova^Charge! 16:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Prewrath

Hello, Just letting you know that I took out the section on Post-tribulation Pre-wrath because it seems to really deserve a separate article. It differs too much from Prewrath's general timeline, and it also counts as original research when there's only one source. The perspective you're suggesting is interesting, but doesn't seem pertinent to the overall thrust of the Prewrath article. Sugaki (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)