User talk:Danpeanuts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danpeanuts (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 26 August 2017 (→‎August 2017: Asked Bonadea about other sources and how to word the statement.~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

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]

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

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]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[6][7] 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?
  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://torahtreasuretrove.com/rev_william_m_branham-1
  7. ^ http://www.theremnant.com/02-05-05.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danpeanuts&oldid=797348488"