User talk:JamesLappeman

New account

Your account has been renamed (15 May 2013 WilliamH (talk | contribs) moved page User talk:JamesLappeman to User talk:THATSIT). You should select one of the accounts and only edit from that one. WP:SOCK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom thanks for all the help - will do (getting used to this)

You do realize that you are still editing from this duplicate account and not from the one that was renamed at your request? You will need to log out from this account and log in using the new account name. (It is preferable that you log back into this account, explain that you have gone to a new account and then scramble the password and never use this account again.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, just wanted to get this Yeakley thing sorted out and felt that mixing the name up wasn't reasonable right in the middle. I will do so as soon as there is an appropriate gap. thanks again for the help. Any further thoughts on the Yeakley reliability thing? JamesLappeman (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#next_steps -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Yeakley's Research on the Boston Church of Christ". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits on the ICOC page

Although I've just skimmed over the recent changes you made to the article, I must say that at first glance I think that you improved the article. Nice work! I did undo one recent edit of yours, though, regarding the ICOC on college campuses. I don't see where on the talk page anyone has responded to my reasons for thinking that undue weight has been placed on any bit of content in that section. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Churches of Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Campbell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about user JamieBrown2011 and JamieBrown2011's picture and JamieBrown11's Neutrality

JamieBrown2011 posted the following photo in the ICOC main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Campus_Conference.JPG The photo is listed as JamieBrown2011's own work: Description English: Chicago Campus Conference Date 30 July 2010 Source Own work Author JamieBrown2011

JamieBrown2011 is listed as the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Church.JPG

JamieBrown2011 is also listed as the person who inserted this picture into the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Garden_church_service.jpg

JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jakarta_Church.JPG

JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johannesburg_Church_choir.JPG

Now, if these pictures are taken by JamieBrown2011, then it would appear that JamieBrown2011 is a member of the International Churches of Christ as, usually, only members attend ICOC meetings and conferences. If JamieBrown2011 is a member of the ICOC, then JameBrown2011 is not a neutral editor. In fact, JamieBrown2011 might be trying to skew the article to paint a false and rosy picture of the ICOC.

JamieBrown2011 has criticized me for not having a neutral point of view on many occasions. But these pictures and the fact that JamieBrown2011 took them seems to hint that JamieBrown2011 does not have a neutral point of view. JamieBrown2011 may be a current ICOC member. If JamieBrown2011 is a current ICOC member, then this would explain the fact that JamieBrown2011 tries to delete anything at all negative about the ICOC from the main ICOC article.

In the same way that TransylvanianKarl seemed to be an ICOC member without a neutral view of the ICOC; JamieBrown2011 seems to be the same.

Qewr4231 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kriete Letter

"It’s been over ten years since ‘Honest to God’, also known as the ‘HKL’, hit the Internet and turned the ICOC churches inside out. To say the letter had a huge impact on members and congregations around the world is no exaggeration: it’s an understatement. Henry and I still hear about how the letter affected leaders and members and how it changed lives, both positively and negatively.

The letter’s publication had a profound impact on our lives, too. One thing I’ve learned about myself over the years is that I’m very slow at processing emotional events. So I’ve decided to write about that time and the letter’s context from my perspective today. I think hearing the background story from someone very near the epicenter might interest others: to know why, when and how the letter was written (and distributed), and about our personal journey since February 2003. This is my account. It’s not my intention to stir up old pain, point fingers or air grievances, but to shed some light on a “series of (un)fortunate events” — my side of a momentous true story. I plan to post an installment every week until the story’s been told. Not sure how many installments there will be – but I invite you to join me for as long as it takes!"http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesLappeman, I thought you might like to know, that what JamieBrown2011 went against WP:RS. He kept reverting my posts about the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter even though I used Henry and Marilyn Kriete as my source.

JamieBrown2011, you reverted my insertion of information about the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter because you said the source I used was not valid. The source I used were Henry and Marilyn themselves on their own website: http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/

This is Marilyn and Henry Kriete's continuing nine part series on the letter that they wrote in their own words. Henry and Marilyn Kriete are the most valid source on the letter that they wrote.

" 07:28, 23 January 2014‎ JamieBrown2011 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,327 bytes) (-2,467)‎ . . (Removed material from Self Published sources. Will try and find RS for the Henry Kreite letter and discuss on Talk Page before including)"

This revert makes me think that (1) you didn't even check the source I used or (2) you are trying to keep any criticism of the ICOC out of the main article.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

          the piece of work itself (the article, book);
          the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
          and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University  Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.

Qewr4231 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]