User talk:VAPaco

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Fredericksburg Baptist Church

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.fredericksburgbaptistchurch.org/history.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fredericksburg Baptist Church

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fredericksburg Baptist Church requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.fredericksburgbaptistchurch.org/history. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Defer Deletion

I have permission to use the language from the church. Still, I want to make it more encyclopedic. I am working with the church historian to make it better. So, I ask that you be patient and allow us some time to get it up to speed.

Well It Would Seem...

There's no reason to give people the false hope that they can come in make modifications in due time. I was updating the information with the church's consent. And the totalizing approach that the overzealous people of Wikipedia don't seem to care about accuracy of information or inclusion. There was no conversation. This was a unilateral decision. So, even if this was premature, perhaps you could have migrated the information to a different space where I could have continued tweaking it. Instead, you wiped it all out.

In the case of copyright, we always have to err on the side of caution, even if it is a draft. This is why I deleted this article, and it is consistent with Wikipedias policies (e.g. WP:G12). While I was the one who proverbially "pulled the trigger", the rationale behind it was far from unilateral. In response to your request to work on it, it would be best to start over again WITHOUT starting from a copy paste from another location. If you are the original copyright holder, you can go through WP:OTRS to verify this, but in the absence of that, I am going to decline the request to undelete the article. I will however help you get started on a version that is compliant with Wikipedia. Here is what I suggest.

Start writing the article at User:VAPaco/draft
Start with a list of reliable sources (note, your church's website is not a reliable 3rd party source)
Take the content from these sources and write an article based on the citable information
Ask me (or another editor if you desire) to review it, make sure it is up to par.

What you should avoid

copying/pasting content from any location directly into Wikipedia. This is a copyright violation, and we have a variety of tools that are designed to detect this (this is how your first article got deleted)
Citing your church's website: It is not a reliable 3rd party source

Hope this helps! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the patronizing tone quite humorous

Congratulations on your achievement. While I appreciate your advice, it does me no good. And certainly the patronizing tone does nothing in making this an environment that invites intellectual exchange. While I could accept that you would have wiped most of it out. The parts that I tailored were definitely original and a starting point, which I could have repurposed. A warning would have helped. But I get it, you were showing me your omnipotence. I get it. And congratulations once more.

If my candor doesn't result in getting me banned, I will attempt again to write the article. And I will not be basing it on the flimsy and reductive advice you have provided--as this is hardly a scholarly approach. If I'm going to start from scratch, then I prefer to do it well. Collegially yours.

First of all, I have no intention of banning you. Frankly, I think the article you are trying to write is notable, and I am glad that you are pursuing it. I delete thousands of articles and make no personal offer of assistance as I did above. This is my way of saying "What you did broke the rules. I know you did not do it on purpose, let me help you do it right. In the wikipedia community, this is called assuming good faith, not an act of patronization. On the other side of that, the way that you have written this out has been an Ad Hominem attack. Not once do you address any of the issues presented above about the content of your article and why it was deleted, and instead, have decided to attack me as an individual.

To again clarify, I cite policy that has been agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. If you have an issue with this, you are welcome to take it up at the WP:Village Pump, a place for discussion on topics such as this. As the old saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger". None of what I have said above, or say here is an act of "omnipotence" as you assert, but in fact the result of almost 10 years of experience with the policies that govern and define Wikipedia.

Secondly, the advice I provided you on writing a Wikipedia article was not designed to be a template for an article written in the "scholarly approach" (I have several peer reviewed publications to my name, so I understand the difference). In this case, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you were to write an first class scholarly paper that was WP:OR, it would be deleted, not because I feel like it, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not a place for that. I again offer my assistance in your re-write, and I again STRONGLY encourage you follow the advice above. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional act of good faith, I re-reviewed this deletion 1 more time, running it through a program that compares the content of your article to determine the likelihood of it being a copyright violation. If your changes had fixed the issue, I would have moved what I could into a draft for you, but the tool found an > 93% overlap, with entire blocks of text being copied word-for-word. Less than 7% of the content was original, and it was just a bullet list of items. In the "scholarly approach" you seek, this is called plagiarism. Additionally, in the "scholarly approach", even if you are the original author of a paper, when you cite it, you are expected to re synthesize the text, and cite the original source. I encourage you to read the following community agreed upon guidelines and policies that have guided my response. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYVIO - Why the content you provided is considered a copyright violation
WP:OR - Why original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia
WP:RS - Why your article should be based on "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,"
WP:GNG - Why your sources need to be external from the organization that you are writing about.

If you have issues with any of the above as a whole, please take it up with the WIkipedia community as a whole. If you believe that I have mis-interpreted these policies within the context of your article, I am open to discussion and debate on the topic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VAPaco, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi VAPaco!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again, pedantic talking at

Don't presume to know my thinking. Calling me a plagiarist for taking a different approach to yours is hardly an olive branch. But, hey, you're the hall monitor. Cheers.

Regardless of your thinking User:VAPaco, or who performed the action, the bulk copying of content from another source without attribution is plagiarism in the "scholarly approach". Your response is an example of a Straw man argument. I went to significant effort above to explain what you could do, and why it needed to be done to make your article appropriate for Wikipedia. I additionally on multiple occasions have gone above and beyond to provide you reference to the appropriate policies to help guide you in this process. I assure you I have gone to far more effort than most administrators would on this project. If you are interested in writing a Wikipedia article that is consistent with the community agreed upon guidelines, I will gladly help. If this is not what you are interested in, please let me know, and I will direct my resources elsewhere. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed up on my offer of assistance multiple times now and you have not replied. My offer still stands, but you may need to contact me via email or my user talk page User talk:Chrislk02 if you would like to take me up on this offer. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my olive branch

Chris, I know we got off to a rough start. But I hope we can put that behind us. Clearly, I need help. The church is steeped in history, not just regional. My very cursory research and conversations with church members tells me that this is the origin of separation of church and state. What I wanted to do and would like to do is publish this as a stub so that then the greater Wikipedia community can help make this an article. I think word needs to get out sooner than later. I'm not trying to get it out there just because it's my church. I really believe that too many people don't quite understand "separation of church and state" and they don't quite get that the Baptists were the pioneers of this movement. This church is quite progressive, in many ways. And I believe it would be nice for it to enjoy a greater Web presence. It would be easier for me to enlist folks from church to help populate the various sections of the article if it were published--instead of it continuing as a draft document. I added pictures from the Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Online Catalog to the wikicommons, as these are from 1864. But I need help in reformatting the image. I take back all acrimony and hope you will help me.

I will be glad to help you, but it may need to wait until Tuesday, as I am not heavily active on the weekends. On a side note, I am actually from Virginia, I grew up in Franklin, Virginia, have a sister who attends University of Mary Washington, and am a Christian. I have written several articles on here about historic events and other things that meet the general notability requirements for inclusion about things in Virginia, here are a few: Joint Expedition against Franklin, Franklin Municipal–John Beverly Rose Airport, Skirmish at Waters Creek. I agree that the church seems to be notable, and there seems to be a variety of references that support this, and there is an appropriate way to go about writing it. Honestly, I get burnt out working through the CAT:CSD and will appreciate an opportunity to work on a new article. I will be in touch sometime next week. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fredericksburg Baptist Church concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Fredericksburg Baptist Church, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Fredericksburg Baptist Church

Hello, VAPaco. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Fredericksburg Baptist Church".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]