User talk:Goodnews1

Welcome!

Hello, Goodnews1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flex 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jesussaidfollowme.org

Greetings. I've seen that you links to articles from jesussaidfollowme.org to several articles related to Calvinism and the Bible. Please be sure to read WP:EL about what is appropriate as an external link. I'm not sure if it applies to you, but I would specifically mention that #3 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided indicates that you may not add a link to "[a] website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to." Also, I would suggest that the articles are not "tasteful" (another general desideratum) because of the formatting (particularly the "highlighting"), and they lack of references to works other than the Bible (see WP:RS). --Flex 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. CRCulver 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Crculver, JesusSaidFollowMe.org is a non-commercial site that is not advertising anything. 124.106.180.239 11:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Goodnews1[reply]

Hi Flex,

You shared 3 concerns about my links. I'll try to answer them here in order.

1. Thank you for informing me of the rule against adding links to my own site. I missed that one when I first read the Wikipedia rules.

2. Obviously, the rule that external links must be tasteful refers to their content (message,) not their formatting. Wikipedia has no rules defining good vs. bad formatting for external links.

3. The rule about references directly addresses articles, not necessarily links. This is clear from the fact that most of the other external links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism have NO references (in addition to the Bible.)

http://www.truecovenanter.com/supralapsarian/Calvinism.html - 0 extra-Biblical references
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html - 0 references extra-Biblical references
http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html - 0 references extra-Biblical references
http://www.indeathorlife.org/soteriology/calvinism.htm - 0 extra-Biblical references

Another of your links http://www.monergism.com/ featured my article http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/CalvinismArminianism.htm on their home page, before adding it to their directory.

Besides, some of my articles do include references:

http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/HyperCalvinism.htm - 4 references:
Gospel Standard Articles of Faith
New Dictionary of Theology
God-Centered Sanctification, Jude 1, by Don Fortner, grace-for-today.com/430.htm
The Bible (126 references)

http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/CalvinismArminianism.htm 2 references:
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, The Sixth Session: Justification
The Bible (136 references)

Flex, since I'm not allowed to add my own external links, may I respectfully ask you to consider adding my 2 above links based on the quality of their content? (BTW, Theopedia has added them here: http://www.theopedia.com/Calvinism, http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism)

Thank you,

Goodnews1 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this when I have a moment. --Flex 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flex, I decided to delete the yellow highlighting after receiving advice from a friend. So, please ignore #2 above. Thank you Goodnews1 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond. I had dropped my watch on this page. I think the one on Hyper-Calvinism looks much better, and I will add it to Hyper-Calvinism and possibly Calvinism. The one on Arminianism, on the other hand, seems a bit too much aimed at proselytizing and has too many bold/italicized parts for my taste. I'd like a second opinion on that one, so let me ask around. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]