User talk:DLindsley

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, DLindsley! Thank you for your contributions. I am Davey2010 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi DLindsley! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page re-creation

Hey, I did find where the page took phrases word for word from this website and so closely paraphrased other parts to where it'd still be considered somewhat copyvio when placed next to the more direct statements. Even if the church were to give up the content as fair use, we'd still need to re-write it substantially to make it less casual and more like a neutral entry. This is pretty much the only true thing standing in the way of the article's re-creation at this point in time.

Now that said, the idea of the church article getting re-created in some format isn't an impossibility. We just need to have coverage for the church in reliable sources (WP:RS) to show notability. This can be somewhat difficult for local churches, as most aren't out to become one of the huge, huge Joel Osteen-esque megachurches, but it's not completely impossible. I notice that the building was constructed in the mid/late 1800s, which could make it likely that the church is registered at the National Register of Historic Places. For example, a Cathedral in my area was built in the early 1900s and is registered, so it's possible that your church is? If so, then I believe that it would pass notability guidelines on that basis. If not, then we'd have to show notability via coverage in RS. I'm assuming that you're a member of the church, so I do have to warn you about editing with a conflict of interest (WP:COI), but this could potentially make finding sources slightly easier in this instance since you would be able to ask the church Father(s) or some of the church's elders directly about this. The building does have to be on the historic register and we'd have to be able to show this via something like a link to the NRHP website, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Thanks. I was angry that the article got deleted because there was an article about Sacred Heart Church in Dayton, Ohio. I was clearly told that a church is an organization. If their page was not removed, why mine? -Signed by DLindsley — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLindsley (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is natural for a new editor to check existing articles to see what sort of thing is acceptable, and model their own articles on what they have seen. However, unfortunately that is not an entirely reliable guide. It may be that Sacred Heart Church in Dayton is for some reason more notable than the church you wrote about, but it is also perfectly possible that it isn't, and one day someone will notice the article about it and nominate it for deletion. Thousands of articles get written that do not satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and while many of them get deleted very soon after being created, some of them don't get noticed for quite a while.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Thanks for the information. By the way, can tagging a page for deletion be done only by an administrator? DLindsley (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Hi. Thank you very much for telling me how to get that to work. That is something I will need to remember when posting comments. Thank you very much. --DLindsley (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add your signature you need to actually type ~~~~ not all that stuff with &#126 repeated several times. The message above used the &#126 stuff because that shows up as ~~~~, whereas if it had included ~~~~ then that would have been automatically converted into a signature, which is not what was wanted in that message. I hope that makes sense, but in any case the point is that you should type ~~~~ to give a signature.

I have also answered your message on my talk page. I hope what I have written tells you what you want to know, but let me know if it doesn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nut Ridge, New York

Hello DLindsley,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nut Ridge, New York for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Fylbecatulous talk 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I've reverted a couple of your recent edits to Chartres Cathedral and Kalahari Resorts. At the article on Chartres you inserted unsourced speculation in an informal tone: please remember that you need a source for your edits, and that the language should be precise, clear and formal, avoiding the use of the first and second person. At Kalahari Resorts you mistook a standard Wikipedia convention in which both the locale and the state are linked separately for a double link. I've restored the original separate links. Additionally, please remember that Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising or promotion of any kind: the now-deleted Nut Ridge, New York article was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We don't see language like "Nut Ridge is one of THE vacation sites to visit. We are easily able to tell you why" in an encyclopedia, for good reason.

We appreciate your enthusiasm, but please familiarize yourself with the rules (there are lots of them), starting with WP:5P. We can help with the others, just take it slowly, and remember that Wikipedia is fairly mature now, and there are reasons why most of the content is in its present form. For help in understanding the important issues with advertising (very much frowned upon) see WP:SPAM. For help in understanding the reasons why some things are included and others aren't, see the guidelines on notability. Many organizations are inherently notable, but many more aren't, just as particularly prominent buildings may be notable for their own sake, but most buildings aren't. Please feel free to ask for help. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hi DLindsley. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Wikia, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Fylbecatulous talk 23:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to understand Wikipedia's inclusion and deletion criteria. Tagging Wikia "because it is a company" defies understanding. The word notable is vital here: notable company, notable business, notable person. Notable topics are what appear on Wikipedia. If you continue to place inappropriate deletion tags, your editing privileges may be suspended. Additionally, you appear to be adding content based on your own personal observations: this contravenes Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verifiability. Acroterion (talk)' 23:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dom497. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kings Island seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dom497 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: @all Sorry for the late response. I just did not get around to it for a while.

Anyway:

Thanks for the information. I have autism and am good at catching mistakes and catching violations of policies and stuff. The reason I tagged some of the pages for deletion was because they were about companies or organizations. You didn't permit articles about companies or organizations. Since you secretly changed the policy about that on me, I now know what I have done.

To Dom497: I see what you are saying now. We may need an article that describes the fates of the Kings Island attractions that are now gone. The reason I put the fate of the Son of Beast on the 2000 section was because there was no section describing it's fate. It was a very troublesome coaster, if you look at some YouTube videos about it. DLindsley (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]