User talk:Danpeanuts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Danpeanuts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page William M. Branham have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 20:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Danpeanuts, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to William M. Branham have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danpeanuts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I received a notice that I might be blocked if I continued to post documented information on the William Branham page. I would continually put the information there only to have it deleted by Darlig, who has another opinion. When I got the notice from Wikipedia about warring, I quit putting the information there and went to talking with Darlig. He was kind enough to allow a change or two, but wants to remain in control of the site. There are 2 historians who reported on Branham--Harrell[1] stays neutral and tries to be truthful while Weaver[2] is of a different belief and is very bias. Right now, the site has mostly quotes from Weaver's book--some of which are admittedly his own opinion and not facts at all. I don't think I've put anything on the site since your notice and don't believe I should have been blocked since I'm doing what you requested. I am currently trying to reason with Darlig on the talk page.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this account is not and has not ever been blocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

August 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dammitkevin. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at William M. Branham, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dammitkevin (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to William M. Branham. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, I am new to Wikipedia. What do you mean by "Unsourced" material? I have put the correct information in place of an unsourced statement that said the picture was going to be examined. It was examined and the official statement was referenced[3] Also[4] Please tell me what else is required. The sentence I replaced was not verified to be true by anyone as far as I know. Isn't my sentence better than the one it replaced, since it includes the details? danpeanuts (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2017
Lindsay's book is not secondary source, it is primary. It is the same as information from a forum. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darlig, I know it is a primary source and the only reason I listed it is to verify the secondary source on Delphi Forum. As I told Bonadea, I am new to Wikipedia and I want to know what is required to get this fake information replaced by the truth. I want to find someone who will just simply show me the ropes. It's not going to do any good to keep deleting it. I won't go away until the truth is told. I am as determined a person as Bonadea says she is on her site. I was hoping to get some help from her. There must be someone on Wikipedia who is willing to help and not just rubber stamp someones undocumented and unverified opinion. Danpeanuts (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2017
Let me be very clear: Wikipedia will never make any claims that such things as faith healing or the miraculous appearance of a halo in a photography are "true". The encyclopedia can document that some people have claimed it to be true, and that is what the current text says. I would have no problem with removing the sentence "Arrangements were made to have the photograph scientifically examined to ensure that the photograph was authentic.", which you claim is "fake information", but replacing it with a claim of actual authenticity, in Wikipedia's voice, cannot happen unless you should be able to provide extraordinary sources.
What, then, is the issue with the source you wished to use? Well, there are several issues. Firstly, it is a primary source, specifically, a photocopy of a signed statement by one individual examiner. A primary source is not sufficient, nor are two primary sources (if we include Lindsay's book). Secondly, as already mentioned, it is a forum post, which again is reason not to use it as a source. Thirdly, what the statement actually says is that this one individual is of the opinion that the effect was caused by light striking the negative - a far cry from a claim that there was anything supernatural involved. If Wikipedia was to say "an expert said it was authentic" it could give the false impression that Wikipedia states that there was a miraculous event involved, and that would violate some very basic and fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. Before editing further, please read this page which, although it is not itself policy, is a widely accepted interpretation of the policy of verifiability. And the policy of verifiability is not negotiable. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, Are either of these other sites good secondary sources?[5][6][7][8] Then, if some of these are good sources, what should I say? Something like: the photograph was examined by an expert who affirmed that the light struck the negative. Or what else do you suggest that would clear Wikipedia of agreeing with anything supernatural? Danpeanuts (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2017
None of those sources appears to meet Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. The entire statement could probably be removed as it is so poorly sourced, and gives undue weight to the photo. Lacy did not "affirm that the light struck the negative", he stated it as his opinion; it could still be the case that the negative was simply damaged (and of course, that light strikes a negative does not say anything about what the source of the light was. Old photos were often damaged by "light striking the negative" before the photo was developed.) Finally, "an expert [who] affirmed" is not very neutral phrasing: first, "an expert" is vague and gives an impression of a sanctioned or official claim, and "affirmed" again makes a statement about the veracity/genuineness of the photo.
It might be better to take this discussion to the article's talk page, to give all editors with an interest in improving this article a chance to participate. --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:William M. Branham. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ |All Things are Possible|Harrell|1975
  2. ^ Weaver|2000
  3. ^ http://people.delphiforums.com/johnk63/Lacy.jpg |accessed 8/23/2017
  4. ^ Lindsay |William Branham, A Man Sent from God |1950 |p.207
  5. ^ https://iconicphotos.org/tag/george-j-lacy/
  6. ^ http://www.vrijezending.nl/english/branham/stadsklev-photograph
  7. ^ http://torahtreasuretrove.com/rev_william_m_branham-1
  8. ^ http://www.theremnant.com/02-05-05.html

Your signing of edit summaries[edit]

You seem to be enthusiastic signing things, based on one of your edit summaries. Please DO sign comments on talk pages. Do NOT sign anything else. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm trying to learn how to use Wikipedia. I can see that your signature is very complicated with colors, etc. Is this the correct way for me to sign a talk page or any Wikipedia edit? Danpeanuts (talk) 011:05, 31 August 2017
There is certainly no requirement for a colorful signature. The way you have signed yourself above is fine. Maproom (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: Thanks for answering for me, I'm not usually online more than 2 or 3 hours a day and I missed the question. Danpeanuts, sorry I'm late, but it is quite common for editors to use the default signature (as everyone else in this thread does). I just have the colors in mine because I want to. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop signing your edit summaries. In the contexts where edit summaries are displayed, your identity is already clearly called out: revision histories and contribution lists. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Doctorg.

Despite the strongly worded request above, you have been assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, not just on the above user talk page, but on a number of talk pages/user talk pages. Of course other editors (multiple other editors, all saying similar things) are not lying to you, and there is no "zeal to make Branham look bad". Personally, I never heard of him before and I don't care one way or another about him as a person; nothing in the article is intended to "make him look bad". If you are interested in improving a Wikipedia article you come to the article talk page and participate in the discussion there - and then you accept the consensus, just like everybody else has to do even when we do not agree with it. If you had looked at the talk page discussion you would have seen that when I removed the "important relic" sentence I immediately posted an explanation why, and invited discussion. The sentence had to be removed in its current form because it was a copyright violation, so Wikipedia policy would not allow it to remain. Again, you need to assume that other editors act in good faith. bonadea contributions talk 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at William M. Branham, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop going against consensus, and please stop discussing "truth" - this is about verifiability, and what we have is sourced information.

Also, please stop making references to what you believe other editors' motives to be. Please take a moment to actually read WP:AGF. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Branham article help[edit]

I have taken some time to help out with the Branham article, I think we have built some consensus on the halo issue, but took a different direction than you may have hoped. I have also rearranged and thinned out the Jim Jones content to have less prominence. Please come back and continue to help with this one. We need your ideas! I want ot buld a section on the miracles reported in newspapers so if you can get me the info on the onese you have, that would be great. I think we can include it all in one realy good paragraph or section. DoctorG  (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what you've researched out. The reason I was asking for the halo to be mentioned is just to show the supernatural part of it. I knew it was the pillar of fire, but knew no one would stand for that. Danpeanuts (talk) 09:50, 31 September 2017

Reassessment[edit]

William_M._Branham, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  DoctorG  (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment thoughts[edit]

If you have thoughts on the ressessment, you should leave them on the reassement page, and then they will automatically be included on the Branham talk page. Though, in this case, it would be improper for anyone who has been heavily involved in the article to comment on the reassessment so that it remains in the hands of unbiased 3rd party editors. The reassessment page is here:

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William M. Branham/1  DoctorG  (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, DoctorG. I suppose it takes a long time to learn all the ropes of Wikipedia. I only tried to add content because I saw the page was grossly misrepresented. If you wonder why my concern, you may want to hear my testimony on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrFPSwnWuc&t=1s Danpeanuts (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2017

[edit]

You have asked here [1] "Is there a way to find out if there are paid editors working on the William M. Branham article? There seems to be something wrong when someone changes an article and then stays watching it for 3 years to make sure no one changes it back." I have watched the article for about ten years and the only account that looks like a paid account is yours! Other editors have edited many thousands of different articles whilst you have edited just the one. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:William Branham.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:William Branham.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 02:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danpeanuts&oldid=1142956199"