Archives

Archive 1: 2006–April 25, 2008 Archive 2: April 25, 2008–Jan. 3, 2009 Archive 3: Jan. 4, 2008–Feb. 24, 2010 Archive 4: Feb. 25, 2010–May. 4, 2010 Archive 4: May. 4, 2010–Jan. 17, 2018

This is to let you know that the Thomas R. Marshall article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 14, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 14, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William M. Branham, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oneness and Daniel Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to William M. Branham does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be picky with you, but I have been editting on wikipedia for 15 years and have wrote numerous articles, including featured content. I am well aware of wikipedia's requirements. You don't get featured articles without it. I think perhaps you are mistaken in your understanding of wikipedia policies concerning the use of edit summaries. You should perhaps review the featured article writing process to better understand why I am editing in the manner I am. The addition of a see also for original sin is completely valid and was appropriately commented for what it was. Your reversion of my edit was unwarrented. Reveerting an edit for lack of a proper edit summary is not a valid reason to revert an edit. You are not on solid policy ground with what you have done... I am politely asking you to revert what you have done or explain why it is in invalid. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference unexplained changes on William M. Branham. Your edit summary said “Serpent's seed: + see also” which does not explain why you changed the link from Serpent Seed to original sin? Clearly if you were just adding a see also link that would have been fine, but you weren't you were changing it without an explanation. All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhrghh my sincere apologies I misread the edit as a piped link changing the link destination to original sin. As you were! Mea culpa. Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok. I really truly am neutral editor on the William Branham article. I am trying to be fair to both sides. I don't want to water it down or whitewash it. I have expanded the critical elements of the article dramatically and I feel I have given them more value by putting them within context. The context was largely missing before I started working on the article. When I started though, I found the sources had really been selectively used. Most of the negative elements were in the article, but very few of the positive elements were. So from that perspective I have added alot of positive elements. Overall, I think Branham is a really interesting and unusual charachter - which makes for a very interesting article. I like to write articles on interesting people, like Thomas R. Marshall, James Whitcomb Riley, Eli Lilly, Paul Dresser, etc. I like to write articles about interesting people from Indiana. Branham is very colorful. :) I hope maybe you will see my point on the Jim Jones connection though. I will go with consensus of course! Either way, I think this will make a great featured article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Edward: Congratulations fellow Hoosier, on your Thomas R. Marshall, feature article! Great job

"I like to write articles on interesting people."

Thank you for quality biographies of historic people, such as Thomas R. Marshall, Elwood Haynes and William Henry Harrison, following "I like to write articles on interesting people.", for History of slavery in Indiana, for uploading images, - Charles, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Edward: I have the original high-res pics that are currently being used in the William Branham article. Would you like to replace the existing pics, or would you like to have other pics? We've got plenty in our archives. Please advise. DEvans (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer. Copyrights are of course the issue. Any picture was in William Branham: A Man Sent From God or William Branham: A Prophet Visist South Africa are public domain because copyright has expired and could be used. Anything in pre-1963 Voice of Healing magazine could be used too. Anything besides that would have to be proved the copyright has expired, or the copyright holder would have to release it to the public domain. Those things can be a little difficult. But if you have high-res images, I could send you my email address and you could email them to me for upload. Basically, finding a picture that was originally published in a old book is the easiest way to meet the wikipedia guidelines. I normally go onsite to take a few pictures myself which I may do. I am letting the article sit a couple more weeks to meet the featured article criteria for article stability. After that I am going to persue the featured article review. This will only be the second wikipedia featured article on a controversial religious figure, so it might get more scrutiny than usual. If the peer review fails, there is a two month waiting period before I can retry, so I want to try and make sure everything is in line before I begin. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Doug Weaver (author) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 09:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William M. Branham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate your help! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've changed 'charismatic' to 'Charismatic' when referring to the movement and its adherents; this is the name of a movement so should probably be capitalized, but if I'm incorrect please feel free to revert my last few edits. Good luck with your planned FA nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward - thank you for looking over Hoosier cabinet. It seems like any article I work on gets too long, resulting in people not wanting to review them. I appreciate your help. TwoScars (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]