User talk:Stevenjwallace

I have removed your link from "sermon" - since it is clearly promoting your website not informing users about what a sermon is.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! ✤ JonHarder talk 14:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, 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 collection 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, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Andrew c [talk] 13:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Its the Book of Revelation!
So Andrew likes to have links regarding the book of Revelation but if there is a link to professionally researched material that disagrees with his take on the book it is considered spamming? Please show why this link is not an acceptable link for wikipedia. It is instructive regarding the book of Revelation and is not promoting a personal website. The only reason it is not allowed is because there is something about the facts presented in it that Andrew doesn't like?


 * Research Revelation Via PowerPoint Numerology, dating, authorship, early quotations and textual research

Stevenjwallace (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I do not appreciate your tone. Next, I do not own the Book of Revelation article. I am not personally responsible for every link already on the page (but now that you mention it, I have gone through and cleaned up the other links). Now on to your link. Your link is problematic because it is in essence self-published. The format of powerpoint is also of limited use (both because of accessibility issues, and because of the unencyclopedic format). Finally, from what I have seen from the PDFs, the amount of sourcing is left wanting (especially with unattributed, unsourced POV claims like Satan is acting through Islam). Finally, it appears "Steven J. Wallace" is the evangelist in charge of the website (your username wouldn't have anything to do with that person, would it?). Please see WP:COI. It is highly discouraged for individuals to edit wikipedia in a manner that promotes their own webpage. If you still believe your link would be of value to that article, the next step you can take is to make a post on that article's talk page saying that you have created the website and would like to propose including a link to it, and then wait to see if there is consensus for its inclusion (and participate in the ensuing dialog). Hope this helps, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. -Andrew c [talk] 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, thank you for at least cleaning up the others links. Consistency helps understandability! I don't own the site. I don't know how or why that is relevant anyway as the material speaks for itself but I will consent to your assessment. Regardless of who created the material, others have found it very beneficial and you are simply restricting those researchers to not have immediate access to perhaps an alternative view. As long as you can live with that, then fine. Users who type in "revelation" and "powerpoint" will find the link as number one on Google or Yahoo so it really doesn't matter anymore. Your point about PowerPoint makes no sense at all to me. Material formatted in PowerPoint has easy usage because of the free viewer that it comes with. It also allows for notes per slide which users can read for further study. Most people prefer PowerPoint presentations over other media format. As for your personal observation about Satan, accepting he is real as the Revelation letter does, is abundant testimony that he can act through any source that is open for him. Scholarly books, commentaries and periodicals through the ages have published such ideas. Cordially, Stevenjwallace (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)