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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see 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:

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:

Then, at the bottom, add:

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 Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. 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 Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. 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

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 (i.e., the second beast of ) 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. 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 and. 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&#32; 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  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)
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&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fundamentally unencyclopedic. Nearly unreadable even before removal of non-RS and crystal balling.  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  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!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)