![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this page smells strongly to the odor of biased... the refernce to the capitalized Gospel of Jesus Christ seems to refer to an ambiguous non-existant book of the bible? i think this page should be partially redone. (i got here looking for uncle charlie... of helter skelter noteriety, and ened up with this?) ==== antip8ri8 i use wikipedia from a phone and dont have a tilde so bear with me. and maybe i jumped to soon to say this article's fishy (although let me point out im not the first to do so), but the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be clarified because this is an encyclopedia. at least link it to something. isnt there a Gospel of Jesus Christ article? however, i motion:
====antip8ri8
Where do you see "Gospels of Jesus Christ" in the article?
This is only the first version of the article. I'm the writer. If you reference the original stub, it was just that, a stub with outdated links. I wrote the editor and asked if they would like assistance, and she granted me enthusiastic permission to use info from their website... I don't know about biased, most of it's just objective history of the organization with a little bit of candor. I understand your unhappiness that you came expecting to find juicy gossip on Charlie Manson (as if you're really going to find that in a title "Children's Bible Hour" but I digress. I'm new at this. Take it easy on me. In the meantime, care to help guide me how to get rid of the warnings?
23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleflo ( talk • contribs)
Okay, thanks, I appreciate it. First off, nothing was copied directly from the source. I rewrote and rearranged pre-existing material off the CBH timeline at the direct request of the organization's editor, who is an assistant to the founder. I am not an employee of CBH, but she gave me direct permission to use any information off of the site freely, either word-for-word or rephrased. I've scanned the articles on notability, verification and citing sources, and just don't have the experience needed to be able to make this look correct. Should I list secondary sources that contain the same exact info so that it's not just the company's website? And if so, how many are sufficient? And why am I doing this if I already listed the source accessed?
Also, another question, I removed a paragraph on donations (as it may have been what led to the flag as an "advertisement"). Do I have the ability to remove the flags myself, or do I have to wait for someone else to "approve" the changes?
Uncleflo ( talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo
Okay, so what classifies as a website that classifies as an objective source on the history of a company... sorry about the delete to the talk page, should I undelete them? And is the reference to Charlie Manson, and the validity of capitalizing the word "Gospel" relevant to the issues at hand?
I spent an hour writing this article, making sure to get my facts pristine from the source, it was not any attempt to "advertise" but rather chronicle history and let their own websites take care of advertising.
The Ministrywatch website has much of the same information as I'm trying to prove notable, are you saying that I have to find sources that confirm the data yet original? I don't know how much press there is on CBH. Uncleflo ( talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this page smells strongly to the odor of biased... the refernce to the capitalized Gospel of Jesus Christ seems to refer to an ambiguous non-existant book of the bible? i think this page should be partially redone. (i got here looking for uncle charlie... of helter skelter noteriety, and ened up with this?) ==== antip8ri8 i use wikipedia from a phone and dont have a tilde so bear with me. and maybe i jumped to soon to say this article's fishy (although let me point out im not the first to do so), but the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be clarified because this is an encyclopedia. at least link it to something. isnt there a Gospel of Jesus Christ article? however, i motion:
====antip8ri8
Where do you see "Gospels of Jesus Christ" in the article?
This is only the first version of the article. I'm the writer. If you reference the original stub, it was just that, a stub with outdated links. I wrote the editor and asked if they would like assistance, and she granted me enthusiastic permission to use info from their website... I don't know about biased, most of it's just objective history of the organization with a little bit of candor. I understand your unhappiness that you came expecting to find juicy gossip on Charlie Manson (as if you're really going to find that in a title "Children's Bible Hour" but I digress. I'm new at this. Take it easy on me. In the meantime, care to help guide me how to get rid of the warnings?
23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleflo ( talk • contribs)
Okay, thanks, I appreciate it. First off, nothing was copied directly from the source. I rewrote and rearranged pre-existing material off the CBH timeline at the direct request of the organization's editor, who is an assistant to the founder. I am not an employee of CBH, but she gave me direct permission to use any information off of the site freely, either word-for-word or rephrased. I've scanned the articles on notability, verification and citing sources, and just don't have the experience needed to be able to make this look correct. Should I list secondary sources that contain the same exact info so that it's not just the company's website? And if so, how many are sufficient? And why am I doing this if I already listed the source accessed?
Also, another question, I removed a paragraph on donations (as it may have been what led to the flag as an "advertisement"). Do I have the ability to remove the flags myself, or do I have to wait for someone else to "approve" the changes?
Uncleflo ( talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo
Okay, so what classifies as a website that classifies as an objective source on the history of a company... sorry about the delete to the talk page, should I undelete them? And is the reference to Charlie Manson, and the validity of capitalizing the word "Gospel" relevant to the issues at hand?
I spent an hour writing this article, making sure to get my facts pristine from the source, it was not any attempt to "advertise" but rather chronicle history and let their own websites take care of advertising.
The Ministrywatch website has much of the same information as I'm trying to prove notable, are you saying that I have to find sources that confirm the data yet original? I don't know how much press there is on CBH. Uncleflo ( talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)uncleflo