User talk:HollowGannet

Replaceable non-free use File:Joe Palazzolo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Joe Palazzolo.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inboboxes

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are not required under policy. If you would like to add one where there is opposition, you must get a consensus on the talk page. See BRD. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Ironically, it was actually you that deleted the infobox. Remember WP:OWN, you do not own the article. It achieved good article status with the infobox. You can't really go round asking other people to ask in talk first, when you removed the infobox from a biography article (where it is very much standard practice to have one). Frankly I couldn't care less whether some dead guy has an infobox, you very much did exactly what you're complaining about me doing when you got rid of it in the first place with a very vague edit summary and no real justification. There are 410,000 live infoboxes on biographies, it is very much the standard thing to do. And helps a reader quickly summarise the individuals life. HollowGannet (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting your bold addition of an optional template. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not actually true, is it now. Remember that as an admin you have a higher standard to hold than that. HollowGannet (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest

Just checking, but you don't have a conflict of interest in regards to Plymouth Brethren Christian Church do you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Hello! I don’t have any conflict of interest regarding the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church article. While I live in an area where members are present and have come across a few in my line or work, I have no organisational affiliation. My edits have been aimed at improving clarity and neutrality per WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Happy to discuss any specific concerns you may have. Genuinely just wanting to get a NPOV to an article that was previously very messy and a bit like a patchwork quilt of different edits added on at different times.HollowGannet (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see major COI and NPOV concerns before your editing, what do you mean per COI and NPOV? Who are the COI editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through the talk page? Its a whole back and forth with people saying its COI from both angles. There were two specific COI that hadn't been called out on the talk page, one which hadn't edited for ages and the other which was raised privately as a COI so as not to 'out'. Either way without splitting hairs over terminology, you'd have to admit the article was a mess.HollowGannet (talk)

The article was overall more of a mess when you were done than when you started, but you did a decent job in some areas... But it did have the effect of unbalancing the article in favor of the cult like organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this edit[1]? The edit summary reads "Rewrote section for clarity, neutrality, and structure. Divided content into thematic subsections (beliefs, worship, family life, gender roles, lifestyle) and rephrased loaded or vague language. Retained sourced claims and added balance where needed." but this sourced claim "Former members report a culture of heavy alcohol use but this is disputed by the Church." was removed... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for raising this. From memory, the removal was because the RNZ source is a single individual describing their own experience of alcohol use, rather than evidence of a widespread organisational culture. Per WP:V and WP:UNDUE, one anecdotal source is not sufficient to characterise the practices of a global organisation. If multiple high-quality, independent sources show the same pattern, it would be appropriate to include; as it stands, the claim overstates what the cited source supports. HollowGannet (talk)

Why does the edit summary say the opposite of that then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - I could have worded the summary better. HollowGannet (talk)

And this edit to the related page Rapid Relief Team [2] with the summary "copy editing" which seems to have done much more than copy editing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: I do have a habit of doing lots of edits and forgetting what exactly I have done since I last hit save. Any errors are likely due to this rather than nefarious intentions. Having said that, a podcast on youtube is clearly not RS.HollowGannet (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed "a religious group with separatist doctrines, including a long-standing rule that members must have no contact with former members." which seems like it could have been easily sourced even if you didn't like the primary source used... And its not BLP so should have been left without a source even if the source was no good. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]