User talk:JamieBrown2011

This is JamieBrown2011's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Welcome!

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. 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 to International Churches of Christ 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,User:Cordless Larry I added a picture and a description of HOPEww, a benevolent organization started by the ICOC. Please explain how that violates a NPV? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your addition of the photo. Drmies had previously removed the material about that initiative as overly promotional and based too much on primary and non-independent sources. A list of "achievements" like you tried to re-add isn't encyclopedic content; instead, what we need is (ideally prose) text based summarising what independent, secondary sources say about the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So User:Cordless Larry if I use the information supplied by HOPEww themselves and Charity Navigator describing HOPEww you would have no further objection? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Navigator is a primary source, so it would be better to cite a secondary source reporting on what Charity Navigator has said about the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cordless Larry This is what Wikipedia says about "WP:PRIMARY"

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. - So according to this Charity Navigator can be used, but not extensively in describing HOPEww. JamieBrown2011 (talk)

• You cannot write a promotional section like this one using that kind of sourcing. It's real simple--the material is used to shine a good light on the subject, there is no doubt about that. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you re-added this material based on primary sources, despite being told you can't do this by me and Drmies here? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it is a 3rd party source, charity navigator is an independent evaluator of charities. 2ndly, WP:ABOUTSELF is clear that you can use this kind of material on the Wikipage. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have two questions:

- One of the templates I removed was almost a decade old and claimed that the article relied on a single source. I counted 10 separate sources for the article. Are 10 sources regarded as insufficient for such a short article?

- Secondly, are you following me around on Wikipedia? If you are, I would imagine this could constitute as harassment. Please stop. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your first question, you can check what I reverted here - it wasn't the removal of a single-source template. On the second, I clicked on your contribution history to see what changes you'd made to the ICOC article and spotted this template removal. If you think that's harassment, you can report me at

WP:AN/I. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As mentioned above, the 2nd tag I removed literally says “This article relies largely or entirely on a single source.” Which according to your edit link highlighted above you reversed. The article has 10 different sources, is that not enough for Wikipedia? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at your edit and my revert again. The template you removed was

Template:single source (which you left in place). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thanks. So you are happy for me to remove the single source template?

- 2ndly, you have shown through this interaction that as an Admin you can use your authority in a way that is not heavy handed. Thank you 🙏. Can you do the same over at the ICOC page, where it comes across like you have an axe to grind? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it myself. On your other point, I've not been using my admin powers here - any editor can contest the removal of a maintenance template. My only agenda in relation to the ICOC article is to try to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's sourcing policies and to ensure its contents are not dictated by the wishes of editors with conflicts of interest. If you believe otherwise, you'll need to take it up on the appropriate user conduct noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]