User talk:Vscheer94

Welcome!

Hello, Vscheer94, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! LadyofShalott 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia

The article Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LadyofShalott 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to User talk:LadyofShalott has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Caltas ^(talk) 21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Talk:Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia

In regard to this edit, did you really mean to describe your own writing as "FANTASTIC", or did you mean something else? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to hear about this church it is doing good work in many areas and no one will take the credit for it. and yes it is fantastic, sorry if you are too blind to see that Vscheer94 (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~ Personally I think it's a waste of time, this going to AfD. If I'd caught it first, I would have speedy deleted again and blocked recreation. However, I'll let the discussion run its course now.

Your article did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines.
It was basically an advertisement, full of spammy claims without any reliable sources to verify them
A long article without wikilinks or sources looks as if it's cut-and-pasted possibly from a copyright source. However, I didn't check for that since the article is unacceptable anyway

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please don't vandalise articles, you may be blocked. I've seen your blanking of Lady Of Shallot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is a bunch of BS why do you think this article is adverstisement? if it was advertisement it would have a phone number and an address, it would have times of services and other opportunities for participation. this article has none of that it is simply telling this great church's rich history Vscheer94 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a school project page. Please read this and this. It's pure spam, you make all sorts of improbable claims with no proper references eg (just para 1)

The church is very influential and a large part of evangelism efforts in South Georgia and around the world. — independent ref needed, incidentally, do you mean South Georgia?
helps people of all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicities. — independent ref needed
With an average 430 people attending Sunday morning worship services — independent ref needed
Without the Central Avenue Church of Christ many people would not have found Christ or received the help they needed in other areas of life. — independent ref needed

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... if you would reed down there is a whole paragraph on missions that backs how it is influential go www.cacoc.com/missions and that is proof of the influece this church has on the world. also go to wwww.cacoc.com and pull up the bulletin and that is proof that the church has a large following....im getting sick of this. and yes i am aware this is not 'school project page" but the assignement was to post an article and that is what i intend to do...it is supposed to show us how easily wikipedia can change but how it can be a good source. i have very good sources. Vscheer94 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC) and no i mean South Georgia as in the state of Georgia in the United States Vscheer94 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the church's own website isn't really a reliable source. It can be used for some things, but not much. Surely, there's been coverage of the church's activities in local media. Try finding some of those. Is there something significant in the church's history that makes it notable? Is there a historical figure connected to the church? Did an important event take place there? Maybe some of those questions will help you find what you need. Henrymrx (t·c) 22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i will have to check up on the local sources..though im sure yall would frown upon those as well Vscheer94 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have been signing the,? --Vscheer94 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

You keep asking what can be done to stop the article on CACOC being deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and you may understand what is needed. Also you won't help your case by accusing others of harassing you or making comments about people's religious beliefs as you did here. I undertsand your passion for the subject but please don't let passion spill over into fury. NtheP (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have read that and i do not understand what i am required to do to make my article more notable? i have sources and they are very valid i have pictures to prove im not pulling this out of the sky...what else do i need? and im trying not to let the "passion spill over into fury" but when people are constantly deleting the article and making bashes against an article i have worked for weeks on...its kind of hard. so im sorry if i have offended you but it is irritating that i have worked so hard on this and no one is even the least be eager to help keep this up here on wiki Vscheer94 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vscheer. I'm sorry that this has made you frustrated. Wikipedia has certain policies that are used to determine what may be added here. It can be hard, but sometimes we have to accept that the community doesn't believe that a certain subject is covered by enough reliable sources to make it. I hope this helps. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other types of sources would you recomend to keep this up? Vscheer94 (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't offended me so don't worry about that. Let me ask you a question on notability. Who else says the church is notable? Who has written (on paper or online) about it saying it's doing a good/great/fanstastic job? And if this information exists, is it independent of the church i.e. not written by someone connected to the church? For example, the Lads to leaders programme, has it won any awards or featured in any press reviews beyond the local paper, anything that shows it's something out of the ordinary? You keep saying you have sources but you're not putting anything forward. What you are putting forward are statements about the activities of the church and its history, not sources that independently verify that information. Please take reliable at the quite narrow sense it is defined on Wikipedia - someone else has already said that it's not a question of doubting the honesty or integrity of the minister just that he (or she) is too closely connected with the church.

One final thing they aren't ridiculously high standards but something that ensures that what is published is objective and has veracity and isn't 100% bullshit. I'm not claiming that your article contains any bullshit but there is nothing to compare it against. NtheP (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a book such as Churches in Valdosta, Georgia or History of Churches of Christ or any such that mention the church and its significance? If so, referring to those would help your case. Others have already suggested mentions in the newspaper as a possibility. Also, if there is something like a Valdosta Magazine that has run an article on it, that would be useful. LadyofShalott 22:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i can check up on that...the problem is there are not many books about churches in valdosta. would a booklet made by the church be acceptable? im trying here Vscheer94 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a booklet by the church would be adequate to source the history, but the notability needs to be established from reliable external sources. If it really is "influential around the world" there must be newspaper reports, magazine articles, UN/Unesco reports etc. Otherwise, it's just another church. The tone also needs to be adjusted. It's an encyclopaedia article, not a leaflet promoting the church, so it should be factual and neutral, without claims of success and achievements unless they can be properly referenced to independent sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to User talk:LadyofShalott has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 17:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to User:MikeLynch constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Pi (Talk to me! ) 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jimfbleak. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Pi (Talk to me! ) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 31 hours because of your vandalism. LadyofShalott 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]