User talk:Nswinton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Newsletter
Done. We should get some people to start working on the second one. --Wikihermit(Speak) £ 03:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Most other WikiProjects usually do it monthly. I think this would be good for WP:X too. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Breaking the rules at WP:X (^_^) I created the work group Outreach. I think we will be able to organize and run everything from there. I was taking a look at some other WikiProjects, and a lot of them have this. They also have welcome templates included in "Outreach" (see WP:WPBIO), so we could move the template user:Wikihermit/Christ into the mainspace area. The whole project has loss momentum, and we need to get it up and running again. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Will do. The only thing I probably need help with is drumming up some interest in getting the outreach task force going. We probably need about 3-5 Wikipedians to get the next newsletter out. --Wikihermit(Speak) £ 03:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Breaking the rules at WP:X (^_^) I created the work group Outreach. I think we will be able to organize and run everything from there. I was taking a look at some other WikiProjects, and a lot of them have this. They also have welcome templates included in "Outreach" (see WP:WPBIO), so we could move the template user:Wikihermit/Christ into the mainspace area. The whole project has loss momentum, and we need to get it up and running again. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Azusa Street Revival
i'll be review another chunk for you later today, sorry for the delay... its a veryyyy longgggggg articleeeeeee. but well written :P. MatthewYeager 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cloudinid GA review
Hi there,
Just a quick note to say thanks for your review of the Cloudina article - much appreciated!
All the best,
Verisimilus T 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Review Part 2
previously i mentioned much punctuation and overall structure, which should be applied to the whole article. for the rest, i'll try to focus more on readability, style and the sections as they relate to the topic\article.
quotes should be quoted: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks.
-
- I believe this if fixed now, please specify if not.
There was prayer for, and in, tongues, for the sick, for missionaries, and whatever requests were given by attenders or mailed in. <--awkward
i see you added an image to the William J. Seymour page, but i think that, that needs to be re-written as well. Much information can be put into that article, from this one and then reference to his main article for more information. I think at times sections almost turn into things strictly related to Seymour and not as much on this topic.
titled "Weird Babel of Tongues,"[18] a Los Angeles Times reporter a should be titled "Weird Babel of Tongues",[18] a Los Angeles Times reporter a or titled "Weird Babel of Tongues"[18], a Los Angeles Times reporter a or titled "Weird Babel of Tongues", a Los Angeles Times reporter a with the reference at the end of the sentence.
I do not believe that the use of ... in the quotes was properly used... i'll have to look into that further. but it is very inconsistent how you use "" here but not above.
-
- The "..." is part of the direct quote from the source.
transitions from one quote or idea to another need to be strengthen and binded more efficiently.
It contained a letter from Charles Parham, an article on Pentecost from Acts, and a series of anecdotes of people's experience within the revival.[1] not properly referenced
the same years are linked multiple times
* Today a Christian group that plays pop-punk, from Cd. Juarez, Mexico is named "Asuza St." after this revival.
no offense, but is that seriously a section ?
i think the article can still use a second overhaul. weaving ideas together, reducing redundancy and fixing punctuation and style. i think finding a second editor to come through and give it a second set of eyes is prolly best, as well i can image you getting burned out from working on this page so much :P
good luck buddy, let me know if there is anything else i can do. MatthewYeager 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:X
Hey how are you doing? I was thinking about WikiProject Christianity, and I think we should do a major revamp of the entire project. On a small note, we need to work on the next newsletter for the project. Drop me a link at my talk page. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] cleanup involution task
Hi,
myles324a here. I’ve had a bit of time, so I’m going thru the cleanup list, and seeing what I can do. I’ve had a fair bit of experience proofreading and editing, and I thought to bring it to bear on some of these entries. I’m basically a newbie, so maybe you can point me in the right direction. I have an amateur interest in philosophical / metaphysical and scientific topics, and I agree with your assessment that involution entry is just about done. It pretty much is what it is, anyway? How far can you go with this sort of stuff anyway? And it would be good to see some of these articles OFF the cleanup list. I’m going to give it a once-over and then put it in for decertification. (How do you do that?) There are a couple of awkward and confusing sentence constructions, and I don’t hold with e.g.s and i.e’s in formal text of this kind. What is the policy there? I will post my queries on the discussion page and here, if you want me to. Myles325a 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, myles back here. I've now finished work on Involution:Philosopy. I think it can be taken off Cleanup. Myles325a 06:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Azusa Street Revival GA review
You're welcome - you've done a fantastic job on the article so far. I'll look forward to re-reviewing in a few days or so ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA review extension almost up
The 'hold' period for Azusa Street Revival is almost up, and although you have significantly improved the article, not all points raised in the review have yet been addressed. I will check back again tomorrow for the final assessment. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Pass
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have re-reviewed Azusa Street Revival, and have no hesitation in passing it as a Good Article. It is now listed on the Good Articles page under Philosophy and religion > Religion, mysticism, and mythology > Religious movements, traditions and organizations. You may like to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|Azusa Street Revival}} and paste it to your user page or somewhere suitable. This will produce
This user helped promote the article Azusa Street Revival to good article status. |
and add you to the category "Good Article contributors". Great work - well done! EyeSereneTALK 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great Commission Association
(Copied from my talk, Said: Rursus ☻ 10:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
I noticed your name on the WP:X membership page, and saw that you had been casually working with a few denomination pages already. I would really appreciate it if you would drop by Great Commission Association and give us any suggestions you can on how we can improve the article. Some fresh eyes and NPOV edits would be greatly appreciated. Nswinton\talk 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your confidence in me! I wager, since your needing some fresh eyes, that the topic is interesting, despite me not knowing about it. I'll try to make my best by reading myself into the Great Commission Association. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cloud Article
Please consider creating an article on this "Cloud of Mystery" A boom, then this thing appeared over the sky February 28th 1963
http://www.williambranham.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=47
There are a few crack-pots that claim it was the second coming, along with a few Branham haters who claim a rocket did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Nswinton's Talk Page
|
Archives |
02/04/2007 - 06/04/2007 |
[edit] William M. Branham
I have a particular interest in this subject and I've been responsible for adding most of the references. I have noted your latest changes and would like to ask your advice about specific improvements that can be made. I am aware that some of those who hold strong beliefs have added personal viewpoints, not appreciating encyclopedic style, but where possible I am interested in locating references to support the claims that have been made. Rev107 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to confess that I am not exactly "neutral" about this topic - I have studied the life and ministry of William Branham very extensively and I am convinced that he is the real thing. Of course that does not mean I agree entirely with what everyone else says though. My main interest is in locating references that can substantiate, not the beliefs but rather the events of this man's life, including witnesses of what I believe to be supernatural occurrences. I realize that verifying the supernatural is very difficult to reconcile with an encyclopedic style!
I will take a look at the 'Great commission church movement' and give you my personal response. Rev107
I am having difficulty following all the recent changes back and forth. Do you really think it is necessary to provide citations for the numerous factual details of William Branham's life that are not controversial and are agreed upon by all major biographers, both the pro and and con (Harrell; Weaver; Lindsay; Jorgensen).
It is unfortunate that some people get a bit heated when things they hold dear are disputed. My original request was that you give me a personal response to the article, with your suggestions. I would like to see the article improved by adding references where appropriate, but not to excess by referencing every minor detail, especially when they are not in dispute.
I have added a comment on the dicussion page under "vandalism".
PS...sorry about transgressing your 'bottom of the page' instruction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev107 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Rev107 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev107 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Nate, I appreciate the time you've taken to help with the article on William M. Branham. I can see why you've changed the citation formatting - the way I've done it, there is a spaces in the references/footnotes next to each number when I have more than one reference. You've successfully removed that space but there is now a star rather than a little blue block, which I'm not really satisfied with either (Eg, see ref #1) Any suggestions? BTW, do you think I can remove the "additional references or sources" tag yet? Ken Rev107 03:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about the "hate group" - as far as I can tell it is only one person (63.111.163.13 ) and because of his/her involvement in Star Wars and other topics, I have doubts about his/her maturity and commitment. "Strawberry Island" (in "discussion") and myself are more representative of those who see God in the ministry of William Branham I think.
My personal preference for referencing is that all multiple references appear the same in the list at the end (blue block) because I like uniformity, and some might wonder why one reference appears different to the others.
There are further improvements I would like to make to the article but I'm reluctant to make great changes as it was not originally my project - I have limited myself pretty much to referencing, additions, and minor rewording.
BTW have you seen my "vandalism " of the Azusa Street Revival article? :)
Ken
Rev107 02:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Branham_in_study.png
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Branham_in_study.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Armored Core (video game)
You tagged Armored Core (video game) as 'tooshort'. Can you tell me what needs to be added? RJFJR 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
reply to your reply:
- I added some of the material you mentioned and removed the tooshort tag for the intro. There really isn't that much to say about this game in the intro (to me it's just another game, I haven't even played it). It looks like a nice concise intro to me now. Thank you for the response. RJFJR 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
ay, hows it going buddy ? long time no see. hows everything going for you on wiki ? i imagine just fine, as you were a great editor to start : ) let me know if you have any questions,need any help or just a second set of eyes to look things over. how did those article nominations go ? well i hope to hear from you soon, take care! MatthewYeager 08:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GCC Logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:GCC Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello!
Just a check-in: I hope everything is going much better for you and the wifey.== Infinitelink (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It has been proposed that an article that you once editted be deleted
[edit] Timothy Paul Baymon
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Timothy Paul Baymon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}}
to the top of Timothy Paul Baymon. Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|