| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright
editThe CorenSearchBot is in error in relation to purported copyright violation. The site from which the alleged copyright infringement has taken place, http://vtcucc.org/annual_meeting_2013.html, was not consulted or known of during the writing of this article. Rather, the site used the same sources as were used in the creation of the article without attribution. Material from the Wikipedia article is appropriately sourced and predates the website named above. In any case, I do not believe that the Vermont Conference of the UCC actually does own the copyright to this text and I am in the process of verifying this with the organisation. Paul J Heritage (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
- Paul J Heritage , CorenSearchBot's role is to find duplicated text. It doesn't really matter if it correctly identifies the original site on which the text was published; what matters is that by finding duplicated text, the bot has verified that it wasn't published on Wikipedia first. If content was not published on Wikipedia first, the source of copying must be explicitly acknowledged in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Moreoever, you need to demonstrate that content is compatibly licensed or public domain. In its original incarnation, this article included some content that followed closely on other publications. For instance:
| Press release | Article text |
|---|---|
| Meyers is a member of the Jesus Seminar, and a frequent preacher and speaker at church conferences and communication workshops across the country. 'He was twice a finalist for the pulpit of The Riverside Church, the Earl Preacher at the Earl Lectures in Berkeley in 2000, and winner of the Angie Debo Civil Libertarian of the Year Award from the ACLU.' | Dr Meyers is a fellow of the Westar Institute (home of the Jesus Seminar), and a frequent preacher and speaker at church conferences and communication workshops across the United States. ... He was twice a finalist for the pulpit of The Riverside Church, the Earl Preacher at the Earl Lectures in Berkeley in 2000, winner of the Angie Debo Civil Libertarian of the Year Award from the ACLU. |
- To make the issues in this example more clear, I have bolded precise duplication.
- I believe these issues have been fully addressed, but in order to comply with site policies please just be carefully to fully paraphrase information you take from your sources, except where using explicit quotations, unless you do demonstrate at the time the content is placed on Wikipedia that the sources are public domain or compatibly licensed. Wikipedia:Copy-paste talks about more. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback Moonriddengirl; I appreciate it. I get the message... and since posting my comments almost a month ago I have rewritten the article, which is my first on Wikipedia, so that it conforms to the guidelines you mention and a few others that resulted in tags being placed on it. Thanks again for the time you have taken, Paul J Heritage (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage.
Re:The neutrality of this article is disputed... and removing the tag.
editHello. As the user who submitted the original article I am surprised that someone is disputing its neutrality. I believe it is a fair and accurate representation of Dr Meyers and his work, free of editorializing or misrepresentation.
I am also surprised that the user who placed the tag did not list any reasons here in the "Talk" tab.
I am new to Wikipedia however I note that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F clearly states:
"If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. If you believe that material or a particular viewpoint is missing, then you should try to give examples of published, independent, reliable sources that contain this missing material or point of view. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time."
No note was left here on the talk page. In the interests of fairness, I think it appropriate to give anyone who feels this article is not neutral a few days to list their grievances in accordance with the paragraph cited above. However, in the absence of any such evidence emerging by the week's end I do intend to delete the tag because it contravenes the above-mentioned policy. Is this not what is referred to as "drive-by tagging"? If so, a strong argument exists for it to be deleted in principle.
Now, let's have a conversation about the article in question if need be. Let's talk, discuss and resolve. We can work it out. Peace be with us.
Paul J Heritage (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
- Please do not remove the tag. The article certainly needs to be made more neutral and the tag is a help for other editors who might otherwise not find it in order to improve it. It is almost always a bad idea for an article's creator to remove neutrality related maintenance tags. The recommendation to post particulars on the talk page is not a policy; note that the page you quote states very clearly that it is merely an essay expressing an opinion, and not policy. Tags are placed when somebody has no time to fix an issue themselves. Please allow uninvolved editors to address the issues and remember that there is no deadline here. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 06:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback and your thoughts. Could you please help by explaining exactly what you think the article needs? Could you please give some specifics? What exactly are "the issues"? As a newcomer I am finding it a little vague and confusing. What do you think needs to be removed? What needs to be added? Thank you so much. Kind regards, Paul J Heritage (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
Re: This article relies too much on references to primary sources... and: Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable.
editHello.
As the user who submitted the original article I see that some of the citations were deemed unreliable and removed by a bot. This led to quotations from sources being unattributed, which in turn has today led to the above tags. Please bear with me while I find better sources from published works to improve this article. Peace be with us.
Paul J Heritage (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
- I have now deleted a paragraph in "Key issues" containing unattributed quotations so that it does not appear to be primary research. Paul J Heritage (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage
- Today I have removed unreliable sources, added reliable sources and secondary sources and also put links to two other Wikipedia articles in which his name appears: Wanda Jean Allenand Living the Questions. Paul J Heritage (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Paul J Heritage