Talk:Graham Baldwin

December 2023

Despite assurances that reliable sources would be used the bulk of this article depended on blogs. Sources claiming to be the BBC and Times Educational Supplement were actually blogs. Other sources claiming to be The Times were a Search Engine. What on earth is going on? Whole sentences claiming to know what was in the mind of the subject. Good grief. If you are a Paid Editor you must declare this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Offline-sources do not have any page numbers. On requesting from the main-contributor of this article to provide evidence of these articles I was confronted with avoidance and non-engagement with the query. I am concerned because this contributor labelled the subject a "Big Player" in the UK we have a conflict-of-interest or promotion. Offline articles are cited with no evidence the editor who added them has read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent removal of large portions of article and CoI

I find it interesting that large portions of this article were removed because of "unreliability" when, as far as I can see on WP:RSP, most (though admittedly not all) of the sources are generally reliable. Sources like Baldwin's YouTube are definitely not reliable, and I agree that it should no longer be in the article. But there were plenty of sources in the sections you deleted (@Nofoolie) that are reliable based on WP:RSP. I am going to readd most of that content and delete the portions that are not reliable based on WP:RSP.

Also, I find it interesting that as soon as this article is reduced down to mere lines of text from what it once was, I no longer have a conflict of interest with Graham Baldwin. I was never put on the WP:COIN (CoI noticeboard) to be investigated for my accused conflict of interest (see User talk:Jacquesparker0#Graham Baldwin & Ian Haworth). Either you (@Nofoolie) falsely accused me of CoI or somehow found that I was not in CoI with Baldwin (but still under "investigation" for Ian Haworth since that notice is still up on his page). I don't think it's the latter because I was never put on the WP:COIN, and I don't want to believe it was the former because I want to assume good faith. If you can please clarify this I would be very grateful. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Will you be providing page numbers for the books you have cited or are you refusing to do that? Nofoolie (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Like I said from the very beginning, you can find the page numbers of the book sources I used in the articles themselves. I don't see why I have to repeat that here. That's not refusal -- and I don't have to obey you're every command to prove I'm innocent of CoI. And do not call me avoidant like you have in the past when you have not elaborated on most of things I have asked you since March. Are you going to elaborate on your accusations of CoI to me or anyone else at WP? --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This page contains unreliable sources. It contains links back to material on the subject's own website. It contains links to the subject's own YouTube channel.

This is a poor wikipedia page.

Your excuse for not including page-numbers of offline sources is nonsense. You need to substantiate your sources. Provide page numbers please.

You are being avoidant and it is tiring. I will state you are being avoidant if you are ... avoidant. This is a poor article. Very poor. I will wait a week for you to clean up your contribution. Nofoolie (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nofoolie, if you're going to give people deadlines (which is not a thing we do here, by the way) it's probably a good idea to ping them. Jacquesparker0, the editor responded to your comment. Nofoolie, I encourage you to read through the ANI thread and to more thoroughly acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly on neutrality. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Thank you for notifying me. I agree that @Nofoolie should read through the noticeboard (WP:ANI#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie) and become acquainted with WP's guidelines. I am open to being collaborative despite Nofoolie's treatment of my articles and myself over the last few months. Some of Nofoolie's criticisms are fair (especially about citations, which I have made some action to correct), but I am still very eager to see what evidence of CoI they have against me, considering I haven't seen any since March of this year when it was first drawn to my attention. I don't feel it necessary to repeat my defense when I've already made it on my talk page. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits from User:Nofoolie

It is no surprise to me that after about 6 months, you, @Nofoolie still somehow find my work "suspicious", as you have written on multiple edit comments on this article recently. We have been through this before, accessible at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie, where you refused to provide evidence that I have a CoI. I understand you are not necessarily saying I have a CoI in your edit comments, but considering our history of going back and forth on this subject, I find it very disheartening that you have once again gutted the article because of a perceived "suspicion".

Most editors would go to the talk page to discuss finding better sources/better ways of accessing sources as opposed to essentially deleting an article. Again and again I have demonstrated that I am willing to work on the article to make it better, but I have my suspicions about whether you want this article to exist in the first place. It seems that if the article is not inherently negative to the subject, you find it "suspicious". Running a charity and being a chaplain are not necessarily positive things (some charities and some chaplains are not good), and at least some of the sources I read to write the article use the word "deprogrammer" to describe Baldwin, which I would definitely say is not a positive thing to be called.

I am going to revert these edits, and I would really appreciate you not starting an edit war (see WP:EW) over this and instead talk to me and other editors on the talk page about the specifics of the sources and details in the article that should be removed or changed, especially since there are some changes I agree with but the manner in which you are conducting yourself is not acceptable (per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie). I am once again asking you to work with me rather than against me. I will go to the Administrators' noticeboard (WP:ANI) if you choose to not work with me on this. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I improved sources, removed "Blog" sources, removed assertions not backed up by sources.

You claimed you were going to improve the article. How is it the Blogs were still cited?

Additionally, how on earth can you get a quote wrong?

Look through each commit and review instead of assuming this is a personal attack on you. Nofoolie (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have improved some of the sources on the article, and removed some of the unsourced claims. I didn't "get a quote wrong", I cut it off early for stylistic purposes when I wrote it, but I have added the rest of it. And I did review each edit comment, that's why I said there are things you did that I agree with.

Please feel free to review my changes. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)