User talk:Seventhcroak

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during December 24 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. John Lake 06:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: link on Christmas

I have removed your external link on the Christmas article. This is the same link that you have been requested to not add to wikipedia, and which you agreed to not add. If you feel that it is adds value to the article, please take to the article talk page and see if others agree with you. Pastordavid 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:LINK for more info. Pastordavid 07:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie

And I put it back. And will continue to do so until you remove every other link that also meets the same criteria you are hiding your real agenda behind.

And I too have removed it as it has non-notable content. Please use talk on Christmas page. Ttiotsw 10:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What 3RR means - why I feel it keeps Wikipedia stable

You are not a new user so no need to warn you of this rule - WP:3RR - but your edit [1] indicates a desire to want to start an edit war in Christmas. This is not good for the stability of Wikipedia. Edits rely on consensus and it is with consensus that articles are kept more or less stable and representative of what people are able to verify (not what they feel they know - there is a big difference). Less than 3RR can get you blocked but it's Christmas so I feel kind and not arguing that your reverts are not in good faith. Use the article talk page to build up your case for inclusion. Ttiotsw 12:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fivefold ministry

Thanks for inserting some references into the article. That helps. I may have given you the impression that my objections are because I disagree with what you have to say. If so, I apologize, that is not at all the case. I think there is some very interesting content in the article, that certainly desereves to be in the article. However, you seem very passionate about the topic, and it is very easy to move from facts to opinions when writing passionately about a topic. Wikipedia is not about our opinions, it is about verifiable facts. That some people hold the same views as you - and that they hold them for documentable reasons - are facts. Whether those views are right or wrong would be harder to prove in a verifiable manner. One note, it is generally considered better to have sources/references outside of wikipedia. Thanks, Pastordavid 10:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)