Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to nitpick and I mean no disrespect, but the word is "grammar," not "grammer."
Redirects
Greetings. When you try to make redirects to other articles, you have to make sure capitalization matches the destination article, or it won't work.
Here are some links to help you sort through that sort of thing:
Your recent edits seem to indicate that you have some local knowledge of Louisville, Kentucky. If so, perhaps you would like to join WikiProject Louisville, a project for the creation, expansion and improvement of articles related to metropolitan Louisville. Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Louisville!
I would love to. I am going through and adding everything I can think of to the Harrison county articles. I am referencing as much as possible, some things I am unable to find an online source, they are just things I remember from school, and tours, and books i've read.Cool10191 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of historical sources that discuss the rumor or speculate that Posey was the Washington's illegitimate son (the rumor was rampant during Posey’s time), but since there is no record that either Posey or Washington ever admitted that this was true, stating the claim as true (i.e., "George Washington's son") is not accurate. The only reasonable references that could support such a claim would be 1) a primary source in which one of the parties confirms the relationship (e.g., legal document, will, personal correspondence, etc.) or 2) DNA evidence (e.g., like the Sally Hemmings descendants.) It would be appropriate to add that he was rumored to be Washington’s son, but that would need to be supported by an impeccable source (WP:RS and WP:V). As it stood, the claim in the Corydon article did not have any reference supporting it. Thanks. 76.248.69.230 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. — DIEGOtalk22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. You might want to check out his own article. It is said he may be the son of Washington there with no references sited. In corydon it is widely beleived that he was probably washington's son, it is one of the reasons his residence there is preservedCool10191 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, i will merge my article with it, the existing article does not have very much info on the history of the site. What I added is details about the constructions and it's uses.Cool10191 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
William M Branham
I am wondering if you have come across a source to support your edit about Branham Tabernacle? I feel the article should indicate that "Branham Tabernacle" was given that name by the congregation and not by William Branham himself. Rev107 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my source would be the name on the building when it was constructed. The sign said "The Tabernacle". It came to be known as the Branham Tabernacle over the years, it was after his death that it really became the 'official' name. There is a brick carving on the building now that says "The Branham Tabernacle" but it was added several years after the initial construction. I think to be more accurate on the article, if you want to call add it to say something like, "Originally called The Tabernacle, it came to be known as "The Branham Tabernacle" because it was the seat of Branham's early ministry." Or something like that. It should also perhaps be noted that Branham never claimed ownership or pastoral oversight of the church, ussually differing to other people like Rev. Neville. I am just looking at accuracy, not trying to be legalistic. Thanks --Cool10191 (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose i could take a picture of the name on the building? I drive by it regularly. I also have a photo of it after it's construction showing the name as simply "the tabernacle". As far as Branham never claiming pastoral oversight, i'd have to go look into some of his sermons to get exact quotes, but they are there also. I can do that. :) But I don't have a problem with saying it was named "The Branham Tabernacle" by its members, that is perfectly accurate. Charles Edward03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go [1] in this sermons branham calls it several times "The Tabernacle" and explains how it became called "The Branham Tabernacle" because his name was on the deed and thats what people starting calling it. He also says it could just as well be called the "Neville Tabernacle" in reference to rev. neville's oversight of the church.
And here [2] branham is preaching in the tarbernacle and talking about his pastoral teachings but be sure to note section 1199-63 where he states: "And now to the pastor, to our Brother Neville, at this time. Remember, he is the full head of the church." clearing indicating branham is not considering himself the pastor of the tabernacle.
Thanks, but I have photos of the current building. I would like to see the photo saying "The Tabernacle". Could you email it to me at kod7@bigpond.com? The main point I was trying to clarify is one we agree on, and is already referenced in the article: the building was named 'Branham Tabernacle' by the congregation. I think this point was lost in the edit by Cool10191 (you?)on 26 Feb 2008. The oldest photos I can access are at Branham tabernacle and JCP - Branham Tabernacle William Branham's comments about the name of the tabernacle are more easily located using this source: The Unpardonable Sin The question of pastorship is probably most clearly shown in this statement on August 1, 1965Rev107 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, you re more than welcome to alter my edit. I will go dig out that photo and scan it for you. In reply to the pastoral question though, while I do understand that the tabernacle considered him their pastor, by my understanding he did not consider himself their pastor, but rather a minister that just so happened to attend and preach in their church regularly. Which I admit I always thought to be odd, but it often sounds as if he trying to avoid any pastoral commitment to the tabernacle in his own sermons. But again, I don't see this as a very important point, he did preach there regularly and attend there for several years and was a "member" in that respect so he was a minister there. I see no reason to let the word or definition of "pastor" become a issue. :) Charles Edward11:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attitude on the BT name issue ... you may be aware that some critics have used the name of BT for an accusation of egotism against William Branham. As for "pastor", I agree, not an important issue, as it does come down to how the role is defined, and that is up to each individual congregation. Rev107 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, what don't the critic say about him. And looking at the photos you directed me to on the link I think I can show you what I mean using those. On the oldest ones, before the building was painted, you notice there is no branham tabernacle sign it is just like a poster above the door, that is what I am refering to that only said "The Tabernacle". Also on the photo where it gives you an angle looking at the right side of the building, if you look closely on the lower left hand of the wall you will notice that there is not engraving on the bricks. If you look at a newer photo from today you will see the bricks have been carved with "The Branham Tabernacle". Charles Edward03:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cool, thanks for your nice comments on my talk page. It's pretty amazing how fast the History of Indiana article filled out, isn't it? There are some gaps that still need to be filled in, but you've done a great job with it. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is turning out really great! I don't have alot of sources on post 1900 indiana, so I have just been adding lately as I come across things. I'd like to find a little more about WW2 and the great depression but haven't been able to turn much up. After that though, i pretty well draw a blank, somethign exciting must have happened in indiana after 1940, but i sure don't know what it was!Cool10191 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I took a look at this article after reading your post on my talk page, and it's vastly improved since I last saw it. You were entirely right to remove the template I added. Thanks a lot for all the good work you've done on that article! Terraxos (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Allen Prosser
I'd be interested to know why you have removed the correct Wikilinks that I added to your article and then reverted some of grammatical changes I made back to the original incorrect ones?Paste (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing the article and had added in several paragraphs. It was a save conflict, so I copied the article and re-pasted it back in rather than loose my additions. I apologize, i though you were a bot doing spelling or something.Cool10191 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my revision you had three in-line citations in which I could verify the information while directly reading the article. I realize the article is a work in progress, you can notify me whenever you want another assessment. I've been working on assessing the 400+ unassessed articles apart of WP:Indiana, I remember reading this article fully because of the large body content and wanted to review the key areas that needed attention. Editors often rely on external links alone, which is a mistake that happens way too often, I encourage editors to improve on accuracy and quality of articles to move towards a Good Article status. In line citations is (superscript hell) a big part of a review when an article is being scrutinized for Good Article status.
As you have expanded the in line citations I thank you for you effort in the improvement of this Indiana article, for myself live in Clark County, next to Floyd County and appreciate reading things close to my home. As for references 2 and 3, they need to be clearified, perhaps you were citing a book and forgot to finish referencing it. As of right now they provide no information to perform a google search to return any significant information. As for the namesake for Floyd County, maybe you can find out if John Floyd is related to Davis Floyd. Don't assume that he can still be a namesake of Floyd County when you have a very reliable source.
Another point of concern is working on the articles introduction paragraph. It should sum up the article, so don't just say he was a Indiana politician. Tell the readers what type of politics he was involved in briefly. Also was he a Whig? Democrat? Republican? What Month and Day was he born? What Month and Day did he die?
The conspiracy is covered well, however his political career needs to be covered, perhaps more information on his early life too could be added.
Oh yeah I forgot! I have also discovered the Floyd was one of the 43 delegates at the state's constitutional convention. I think that really raises his importance.Cool10191 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And thanks for the pointers Jahnx. I have another book that might have some info more on his political career. There is nothing really on him specifically anywhere I have looked, he is usually just a side note in other stories. I simply love history. I have a huge library of books in my house, mostly history, and I have read them all! So as I am writing I am doing pretty much from memory and then I am going back into these books to find my sources afterwards. :) . I will see what I can come up with. Cool10191 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For excellent work on Harrison County topics, and on other Indiana articles I started, meaning I could concentrate on other things, I hearby make you the first to attain the Indiana Barnstar. Enjoy.--Bedford15:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it, as it looks like you were the first one ever awarded this particular barnstar. It was only introduced today. You've definitely earned it.--Bedford20:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jahnx, the article looks good. I will have some time monday to do some editing and will check some of my books for info on him. Cool10191 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Corydon Intermediate, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
{{{2}}}
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
they are not covered by the above, But they are however covered by the following:
Corydon Intermediate
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Corydon Intermediate, 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 Corydon Intermediate. DGG (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good idea! I am going this weekend to the New Amsterdam Festival. I am gonna take some pictures and read some books in there general store about the town history. I've wanted to go the carnegie center for some time, I think I will try to go next week sometime. I have lots of spare time these days! I've found all kinds of stuff on slavery in Indiana. It kind of startling to see just how close it was to being fully legalized. Plus I am finding lots of info on early Hoosiers I can add to their Bios. Charles Edward01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It is a very interesting article! I had always heard of the lost river, but never really knew what it was. Then I was reading some stuff on Harrison Spring and it led me that article. Then I got to looking around and found some info the Lost River, so added it! Charles Edward03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
