User talk:Cordless Larry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cordless Larry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights[edit]

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at KarenBrittworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Merging articles[edit]

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at Blackknight12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pending changes[edit]

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at William Avery's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at Praxis Icosahedron's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

To help you keep up the good work[edit]

/* September 2019 */[edit]

Hello, Cordless Larry. You have new messages at Cyrano125's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent edit of List of People Who Have Walked Across Australia[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why you have removed my edit on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked_across_Australia ? I thought that I had updated it as I had been requested to, so if you could point out what I have done incorrectly I would appreciate it. Thanks Sharif Sowadally (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article lede, it states "The extremes of Australia for the purpose of this definition are considered to be Steep Point to the (west), Cape Byron (east), Cape York Peninsula (north), and South East Cape (south)", and it didn't appear to me that the addition met those criteria. Furthermore, you really need properly secondary sources here, such as newspaper coverage of the walk, not the walker's own accounts of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Perth to Sydney route is considered a recognised route. I didn't think this would be an issue considering most of the other entries are not between these points. There are a couple of articles relating to Tom's walk and the link to his own site is actually to show the GPS route that was recorded, which is similar to another of the references that have been used. Perhaps I should have labelled that reference better.
I hope this explanation is sufficient and I will re-add my entry when I get the chance. Sowadally (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the article lede might need revising then. You could do the article a service by raising this on the article talk page (I'm not much interested in the article myself, to be honest, and just keep an eye on it because of previous instances of vandalism and unsourced additions). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Postings on WP Noticeboards[edit]

While acknowledging your long history as an administrator and editor, I am perplexed by your recent challenges to editors on the International Churches of Christ Talk page. In my case, you violated the guidance on the COI Noticeboard that says, “This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period” There was no attempt on your part to resolve any issue that you had with my only edit to the article, a minor edit of repositioning a single sentence in the article, prior to suggesting that I had a conflict of interest on the COI Noticeboard.  Further guidance from the COI Noticeboard states, “The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a ‘trump card’ in disputes over article content.”  I have been diligent in honoring WP policies by only posting substantive comments on the Talk page. Please consider this outreach as my attempt to resolve directly with you my concern about your conduct as a WP Administrator as required by WP:ADMIN. During the past 8 months, you have become a frequent editor on the International Churches of Christ article making substantive comments in the article and on the Talk page about the character of the church. At the same time, it appears to me you are wielding the powers afforded you as an Administrator to squelch the input of other editors, like me, who are wanting to debate WP policies to challenge your position on the subject matter of the article. I believe your inclusion of me in a post on the COI Noticeboard for making a minor, non-substantive edit is one example of your questionable conduct and I have appealed to you to remove that posting, so far to no effect. However, you also referenced in the COI Noticeboard post another of your archived COI Noticeboard postings about another editor where you proposed blocking the editing privileges of that editor. Is that your ultimate intention with me?  According to WP:INVOLVED, “In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings.” An explanation of such curious behavior on your part may be offered by your archived comments in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ. You entered the following comment on the “about-self” sourcing of a book written by a church member that was published by an entity with a connection to the church, "Given that the group has been described as a cult, I'm not sure there are such things as non-controversial about-self details! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)," To me, this statement reflects a lack of objectivity about one of the issues at hand – the allegations about the cult status of the church. You appear to have already reached a conclusion on the matter. In my view, such bias has no place in the actions of an Administrator. I welcome your reply as we attempt to resolve this issue. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. There's been a very long-running issue with COI editing of the International Churches of Christ article, so while I accept that you've not played a significant part in that and are a new editor, the issue in general needs dealing with and unfortunately new editors with COIs are inevitably going to face some additional scrutiny. If you feel that I've acted improperly, you can raise that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. It's a disappointment that trust is in such short supply among those who are choosing to edit the International Churches of Christ article with the hopes of making it better. If we dialed down the suspicion for a moment, I suspect we would find that we have common goals although probably for very different reasons. In my case, I have read enough of your comments and edits to know that you think there are many aspects of the article that need significant revision or elimination due to lack of independent sourcing. I have a similar view of needed changes, but my reasons are that details about the church's rendition of its history can now be found in other ways and that current portrayals of the church in the article are not accurate nor reflect the efforts at reform that have taken place within the church over the last 20 years. My fear is that if you continue to attack efforts at "about-self" editing, the article will fail its intended purpose of contributing through volunteer editing to global knowledge about the International Churches of Christ. Are you open to a dialogue on what are the acceptable pathways to considering revisions to the article that will not trigger the trip wires that are producing repeated stalemates in the current environment? While you describe a long-running issue with COI editing, I do not share that history and would benefit from a fresh start. I have some thoughts about how that might happen in compliance with WP policies accompanied by some questions but think it best for now to pause for your consideration of this idea. Meta Voyager (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to dialogue with good-faith editors, but I'll continue to call out COI editing when new editors with links to the church show up making the same argument that's already been tried by others about softening what they see as criticism of the church that's based on reliable, secondary sources and seek to add false "balance". Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK and fair enough. It seems that the discussion on the talk page has picked up again with lively debate. I'll give further thought to an approach for a more substantive rewrite of the article and, in the meantime, trust that the specific issues under discussion will make progress with consensus in a positive direction. Until then, I'll shift my comments back to the article's Talk page. Thank you for the opportunity to engage directly. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011 and CoachBriceWilliams and Meta Voyager[edit]

I believe that all three of these wikipedians are current leaders in the ICOC or the ICC. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of that, it would be good to present it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]