User talk:Stcofire

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Nyttend 12:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the official links that you restored; I guess I wasn't paying enough attention when I deleted them. Nyttend 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Timothy O'Rourke
A tag has been placed on Timothy O'Rourke, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Justpassin (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Abaddon
Using CARM to point out the JW's point of view is like quoting a militant Islamist website as a reference on Buddhist doctrine. No fundamentalist protestant doctrine is provided by that CARM link except for "the JWs are wrong." As for the links supposedly being one sided, fundamentalist protestant view have been provided, (see the links in the line "Some bible scholars believe him to be the antichrist or Satan."). These links are the source material for the fundamentalist protestant view, just like watchtower articles and Charles Taze Russell's writings are the source of the JW beliefs. The link to CARM ultimately does not contribute anything to the article anymore than a link to JW site quoting Matthew Henry and saying "that's wrong." I know darn well I don't own the article but I am not going to allow anyone to allow JWs and fundies to use the article for petty arguing over tertiary adiaphora. If we allow the links with fundies saying "the JWs are wrong," we have to allow JW links saying "the protestants are wrong" to keep the articles from being one sided. It is easier to just all views as advocated by the original sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Joplin Walmart
I can appreciate that you had a personal experiences, but personal experience is not a reliable source on Wikipedia.

Regardless, the point is moot, I have removed the sentences from the article because they go into speculation about whether different roof construction would have led to fewer fatalities, which isn't directly supported by the sources. - Running On Brains (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)