User talk:Dc 160
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] I hope you return
Hi Dc160,
I understand you're disappointed in seeing your work removed with Category:First Cathedral and the other category, but you have nothing to be ashamed of or embarassed about, and I'm sure no one thinks the worse of you. My assumption has been that you didn't realize your category was against policy. I hope you'll return and continue your fine contributions. Noroton (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your contributions were good for Wikipedia. I think you could help Wikipedia a lot more by sticking with it, but it depends on what you want to do. On the assumption that you want to promote the church as part of the broader goal of promoting Christ, you could do more of the same, and to good effect I think, by continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. But that only works if you understand what Wikipedia will allow and what it won't and accept that even your best contributions can be removed by another editor, and that can't be reversed if a consensus of editors is against you. Everything we do on Wikipedia will always be limited by that. Knowing the rules and understanding what normally happens would help you avoid wasting time in the long run. You should decide whether you want to put the time and effort into doing that -- if your interest in contributing to Wikipedia is limited, then you might not want to. It seems to me that there are plenty of other articles that could be created and more that can be added to, and you could do a good job with that. You should decide whether your goals (promoting the church? evangelization? spreading knowledge about what interests you?) are consistent with Wikipedia's goals of a fair, neutral, reliable encyclopedia. I think it's possible to follow both goals at the same time in all edits you make, but it's a question of (a) whether you want to invest the time and effort and/or (b) whether you're willing to accept that your edits may go up in smoke, which is always possible. Best wishes, Noroton (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Bishop Paul S Morton
A tag has been placed on Bishop Paul S Morton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just put a speedy-delete tag on your article Bishop Paul S Morton which consisted only of the name. If you were intending to expand it, I apologise; but an enormous number of silly and trivial articles get put in to Wikipedia, so the "Recent Changes Patrol" looks at them and tags for deletion those which seem to need it. To avoid this, if you recreate the article, it is best to prepare it off-line - a simple word-processor like Notepad is quite adequate - and not put it in as an article until there is enough of it there to make it clear it is a serious article. You can also put {{underconstruction}} at the top of it, which will protect it from deletion, though only for a few days. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] One Church-One Addict
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of One Church-One Addict, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=16110&topicid=1255. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
