- If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)
Sir; while I appreciate that you are trying to improve the articles in question, there is a concern that some of the editors involved may have a conflict of interest with the articles. This means that they have opinions one way or the other about the article subject, and as such are strongly discouraged from editing said articles. I'm an administrator on this site, with the tools to block users and protect pages and the responsibility to do so when I feel that policies are being broken.
As such, I must ask that you have a read of WP:COI (just so you know the reasons the tags are up, as I don't know who has added personal information to the article). I'm very wary about any additions or retractions from the GGWO article, as Wikipedia has faced legal action from similar religious organisations in the past (Church of Scientology, anyone?) I'm vaguely against cult-ish churches as a rule (or rather, wary about articles on them), so I keep an eye on them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- The tags are there to suggest that there might be a conflict of interest, not that the articles may be unbalanced. You can write a perfectly balanced article, but the fact that you write (or used to write) for religious journals means that there is a chance that you could be biased. As such (I've read your work and it seems very neutral, but then again I'm not unbiased either), the article needs to be read by people who have no interest or knowledge of the subject matter. The tag is there to alert those users that the article may need to be looked at - I'm sure you understand (no hard feelings meant!) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I recently performed some BOLD edits to Greater Grace World Outreach in hopes to help clarify and bring neutrality to the article, however there is still some major work that needs to be done since I do not have enough background information. I am simply coming in as an edit to help clean-up the mess. :) Please see my comments on the article talk page, along with some in-line comments in the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your involvement with editing this page and your interest in having a consensus reached in this article so the block can be lifted and the article to be brought to some sort of consensus. I was brought in by a request on the Christianity Project page to have someone review the article. I have absolutely no former knowledge of GGWO, nor any particular bias. All I can tell you it in its current state, it looks like an absolute disaster (both the article, and the organization as a whole). My hopes is to help bring the interested editors to the table on the talk page to resolve the conflicts and have the page properly created/edited. Please take a moment to go over to the talk page and review my most recent postings. Also do no be alarmed as your earlier comments/posts were refactored and archived (there is a link available on the page to the archive). My post is only one of several which will hopefully help guide this page towards something everybody can agree is appropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Tyster: It appears that you are also IP User: 188.8.131.52 when not logged on. For the sake of the dispute/edit war at GGWO, may I recommend that you always be logged on so it shows you edits as Tryster instead of 184.108.40.206. If an edit war develops again (I hope not), then you might get flagged or thought of to be a sockpuppet or using your IP address to hide your real identity. Again, this is simply a friendly suggestion. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize I tend to have a lot of windows open and I often forget that I am not logged in. I will try to make a better effort of making sure I am.
Your recent edits
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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Tryster: Lets try to work on consensus among the gruop before you begin interjecting your ideas on what the article should look like. I moved your edits to the archive section for now. For the moment, lets concentrate on getting everybody on the same "goals" before we talk details and symantecs. Give it 24 hours and hopefully the editors will have responded by then. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be a bit more careful before you create redirects for common names. Carl Stevens has already been linked from other pages which are in regards to other people. As such, it is best to leave Carl Stevens as a disambiguation page. Additionally, realize that you left a broken link between GGWO and Carl H. Stevens Jr. since you omitted the Jr. portion, as such I created a Carl H. Stevens redirect for you. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please take a moment while on your break to contribute to non-religious / non-christian / non-GGWO (or even related to GGWO) while you're on break. Spend your time contributing to anything else that interests you... It would be a great break and give you an opportunity to work on editing an article with like minded contributors. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Tryster, I was intrigued by your edit here  which really added no information to the article except to define what GGWO might or might not be? Such as humanitarian efforts, if they aren't involved in any and/or you don't know, what is the purposes of stating this? Additionally the "3 or more" for the schools would be considered unreliable, since there is no accurate, reliable source for this information. However, instead of reverting your edit, I decided to post this question on your talk page first. Respectfully, Tiggerjay (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you note the polity was changed. Its very well known they are not congregational. It is obvious they have at least 3 of each of these kinds of schools. For as the rest it might make sense to hide those catagories. Tryster (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
deletion of Neil Carrick
Why was this article deleted? It is obvious to me and others the article and the person meets the requirements of notability. I believe that the request to delete was by somebody who was at war with multiple individuals with the cult Greater Grace World Outreach
I would apprecitate if you would recover it, and also look at the same with the edits currently going on with the Greater Grace World Outreach page. None of the editors of the Neil Carrick article were notified, and as one of the original editors of the article I would be glad to over the course of time make the article better, but please for the time being restore it. I asked one of the editors of one of the books he is mentioned to help me with material and articles.
- While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
- Neil Patrick Carrick was deleted based on the consensus of the Wikipedia community as established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patrick Carrick. If you feel that I did not follow the deletion process correctly, please open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unsure Deletion Review
I worked hard to have this article published and it is very doscouraging to see a cult member suggest the press and others are not telling the truth. I have no care for their feelings but on merits Neil deserves to be in wikipedia.
I am not a wiki specialist and its hard to follow this. But I read the review and much if not all of the information is incorrect.
The person "Neil Carrick" has a personal vendetta again a church? I don't care if he does or doesn't his notability is mainly he contacted The Baltimore Sun, The IRS, The FBI, and other government groups, newspapers including The Berkshire Eagle about the sexual and financial abuses. IF you read the Greater Grace World Outreach article it uses the same references. THose references including things that happened prior to Neil being at the new church which include a multi-million bankruptcy for abuses against a well known family. Neil didn't go after a church he lost his family to a group all well known groups consider a cult.
The person who asked for the review seems to be very misinformed. Also it is obvious he is not a contributor but just mad at Neil. HE did not sign it. He states Neil has a vendetta, but Neil didn't write this article and that is pretty obvious. It also states he is a lawyer in the same paragraph, which he isn't. Neil never finished at JHU. HE holds no degree. I think he is confused because Neil when this whistle blowing took place help the attorney General of several states in a legal brief to the courts and he prepared other documents via a group of lawyers he hired after loosing his family when on the run.
The Baltimore Sun ran a front page story, then a few years later the Berkshire Eagle ran a story, there are lot of corresponding articles that information that shows that Neil was in front of others who achieved the whistleblowing on the organization.
The google book is a well published book by a prof. at U of Maryland, that is found in many library's across the US. He was also at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins University. While the book only mentions Neil by name a handful of times, it mentions his organization almost throughout 1/2 the chapters.
The groups that Neil either started or was involved in at their infancy created lasting change and created intense press. THey also help create lasting change in schools in Baltimore.
TO underscore it is obvious that GGWO as organization lost most of its affiliations, missionaries, and a large portion of members is an understatement. Its top leader all but 3 of 12 would resign and oppose the church. Neil lost his family and to this day lives in fear of being hurt by members of the church.
If you read the transcript of George Robertson formally the Vice President of Maryland Bible College and Seminary, now the head of Scientology's Cult Awareness Network discussing the death of a scientologist you can see Neil has been historically correct on the church, and the press including 60 minutes has a well. Again I don't think this is a vendataa but based upon fact and realistic understanding of what he did to end their abuses.
I DOn't know what to do, and frankly if every time somebody writes an article for wikipedia, if somebody with opposing views who will lie to have it deleted is accepted out of hand than what is the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
- As I explained to you previously, if you feel that I did not follow the deletion process correctly, you may make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm happy with my closure of the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Neil Patrick Carrick, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/neil-patrick-carrick.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)