| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Charismatic Christianity and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
| |
|---|---|
| Project |
|
| |
| Workgroups |
|
| Subprojects |
|
 | Christianity: Charismatic Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Hello everyone, I am reviving this project since it has been dormant for about a year. Keep an eye out for updates on the to do lists, etc. and add yourself as a member if you want to help out. Callsignpink (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've made some good strides on the Toronto Blessing article and I will be nominating it for Good Article status in the next few days after a bit more rudimentary cleanup. Thanks to all who helped! DoctorG (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I archived the old talk page content since it was several years old. You can find it using the archive links.Callsignpink (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My focus right now is on getting the Toronto Blessing article up to GA quality since so many o today's charismatic leaders spent time at TACF during the early parts of this revival. I'm hoping to link out to other BLP's of Bill Johnson, etc. from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorG (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for any major impacts that have occurred (good or bad) as a result of the Toronto Blessing. My current line of thought is to look at IRIS ministries, Global Awakening, and a few others to show worldwide impact. If you have any ideas please add them in. DoctorG (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, |
In seeking a wikilink to the title concept of Signs and wonders I turned to that article, and found it a morass of non-encyclopedic content.
So bad was it, in form and substance, that unsympathetic editors had inserted pseudo-citations—to P.G. Wodehouse, Peter Jackson and The Hobbitt. and to Richard Dawkins, and no one had noticed the vandalism!
I have made bold, hard edits, in support of this continuing as an article—it had been tagged as potentially non-notable—and after doing so, I have removed the edit questioning the notability of the concept (which may also have been a subtle act of further vandalism), because there is no question of a need for an article on this oft-mentioned expression and concept.
However, the notion of that article continuing as a place where people edit and add information without sources—that "progress" is, I hope, forever ended.
Likewise, I have removed all the pseudo scholarship, of listing books as a component of article content (rather than making clear what the contributions were, from those books).
Books have points, and if they are important, scholars extract those points and present them. It is only in the well informed, and casual conversation, that scholars might way, "Well, there is always Sarles in '88." to which another might reply, "Well of course, but he was answered by Bond in '90." But this is not encyclopedic writing, and could not be left to stand here: Mentions of authors and titles is pseudo-scholarship, and is not, in any case, encyclopedic content.
FInally, one paragraph I lost hope and patience for, and simply moved to the Talk section. Please, feel free and move it back, but not before:
For as you can see in the tag, the article is still in awful shape, and needs work. But if you are not going to bother to bring the sort of effort that you would put forth for a graded senior undergraduate or graduate seminary paper—please, do not bother. The poor work is already there, and does not need more added.
Cheers, Le Prof. (Feel free and look in on who I am, and my priorities here.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Don't know how to fix this one: On the TP:Daniel S. Warner there are lots of links to a dubious site all over the page, namely
http://www.dswarnerlibrary.com
.
Maybe this site is hacked, hijacked or simply obsolete. It is in chinese characters(!), and perhaps may even be malicious... Would please someone look into it. - Thank you --89.15.236.195 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An Request For Comments is asking whether faith healing should be categorised as a pseudoscience. Good arguments have been made by both sides, which you of course can consider before casting a vote, if interested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see these two articles and share your opinions on notability:
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
