Talk:Gary Thomas (author)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary Thomas (author) → Gary Thomas – There are 4 Gary Thomas's. An author. A musician. A cricketer. And an Academic. Gary Thomas (author) since it's creation on midday 7/18/2013 has already had 854 viewsin the past 3 days, while Gary Thomas (musician) has only had 65 views in the past 3 days. Gary Thomas (academic) is just an article stub and has had 114 views in the past 30 DAYS, only 19 in the past 3 days, and Gary Thomas (cricketer) has had 26 views in the last 30 DAYS. This means that Gary Thomas (author) has over 10 times more traffic on his article than any other of the Gary Thomas's. Upon a Google search Gary Thomas (the author) is the most prevalent--including owning the domain name which is at the top of Google. Upon a google book search Gary Thomas author has all the books on the first page when his name is searched. Judging from his having 10 times more article traffic, and his prevalence on google and google books, I think it would be wisest if people searching for him wouldn't have to go through the disambiguation page and could go straight to his article. Then a small disambiguation link could be added to the top of his article. Thank you guys so much for your help. Brookspowell629 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: You're probably right, but it seems rather irregular to consider an article as primary over several others when the article has only existed for three days and there are no apparent current events generating a sudden rise in popularity. It is possible that the relatively high number of page visits is simply to come check out the new article and clean it up, rather than an indication of long-term noteworthiness – although my impression is that the article is surprisingly well written and the author seems highly notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – come back in a year if you think you have a primarytopic case. 854 views is diddly-squat. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral - He probably is edging towards WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in GoogleBooks from 2010 onwards, however Gary Thomas (exorcist), the Peabody Jazz professor and other random Gary Thomas also come up. It won't harm anyone for the article to stay at (author) for the article's first year on en.wp In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to Oppose and restore Gary Thomas (musician) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per 76.65.128.222 below... large amount of incoming links disrupted. Move dab list to Gary Thomas (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose restore Gary Thomas (musician) back to the primary location, as it was, before you moved it to make way for this article. Since you did move the musician article, and then redirected the plain "Gary Thomas" to this article, how many of those hits are completely spurious, and about the musician? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to make the musician primary, but it does seem that Brookspowell629 owes us some cleanup work for the moves he did. But he probably won't, so it leaves it for the rest of us. I'll start. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I fixed 13. Anyone else want to help? Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – 854 isn't much either. --Article editor (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://familylifetoday.com/guest/gary-thomas/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lemnaminor (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I have no idea about how to prove this, but you couldn't be more wrong about this copyright. I wrote, 2 years ago, all of that Wikipedia page word for word, on my own. Unless it is a quote and then it is quotationed. Other areas are paraphrased in concordance with standard academic rules. The Family Life Today author bio which you have mentioned was taken directly FROM the Wikipedia page. They copied the Wikipedia page, not the other way around. I can contact them and ask them to remove it if necessary. I have no idea how to prove when their article was published, but I can guarantee that the Wikipedia article is the original and their's is a copy. Can you please inspect the time of published on their site. Can you also please remove the tag from the Gary Thomas page? I respect you, but please do more DUE DILIGENCE before making these accusations and drastic edits. 140.180.255.175 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629

conversation above was continued here. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I looked at the article before I looked at this page (and at the continuation of this discussion); my last edit summary there was, I think, based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and I apologise for it. I've now looked at the history in more detail, and I'm convinced that Family Life Today did indeed, as Brookspowell629 maintains, take their content, without acknowledgement, from us. Here's why: their page has the text "In 2010, he started serving as a Writer ..."; that was not in the initial version of our article, which read "He is currently serving as a Writer ...", but was added in response to a {{when?}} tag with this edit. That convinces me that the content of our article pre-dates that of the Family Life Today page. I can of course see why one might think, as I did myself, that the copying was the other way round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

COI tags

per COIN discussion. Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

tag was removed here with edit note "COI seems legitimate, but article remains objective in tone and content. Good catch, but tag no longer seems necessary." I restored it; subject needs fresh searching to ensure that description is truly NPOV based on what reliable sources say about Thomas. All I do was remove puffery. Did not do NPOV review (meaning, read what reliable sources say and make sure article catches everything) and somebody needs to do that, before the tag comes off. for instance, article used to have a "criticism" section that was no criticism at all. is there no mainstream criticism, really? this is what happens when articles are created for pay - even when cleaned up they still are not necessarily NPOV. hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Thomas (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202004906/http://service.saddleback.com/resources/recommendedreading/kaywarren/ to http://service.saddleback.com/resources/recommendedreading/kaywarren/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)