|
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "LectionaryLite", may not meet Wikipedia's
username policy because it implies group ownership. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a
change of username, or you may simply
create a new account for editing. Thank you. --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Thaddeus. I'm signed in now as "WarrenVitcenda" instead of as "LectionaryLite". I have rarely edited or commented on Wikipedia, and haven't exactly paid attention to "specifics" as far as some rules go. ;) I've used "LectionaryLite" in the past on other sites concerning "church issues." If it's better for me to use "WarrenVitcenda" on Wikipedia, then that's what I'll do! I'm looking forward to discussing "Desperate Preacher Site" concerning it's possible deletion, as well as other options. Thank you for the tips! -- WarrenVitcenda ( talk) 23:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great. "LectionaryLite" could be OK, but could also be seen as the name of a business (which is not allowed). Your new (or actually old, I guess) choice of name is better. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the Desperate Preacher's Site article has been restored. I took a look, it it looks like it is likely (barely) notable and thus has a decent chance of being kept if further deletion efforts are made. However, I think your suggestion of making an article on Sermon plagarism is also a good one. Let me know if you are interested in pursuing that and also if you'd like some help/advice. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi ThaddeusB, I'm going to make a few comments over on the discussion page that concerns deleting Desperate Preacher's Site. Right now, I'm leaning toward supporting the continuance of the the Desperate Preacher's Site page on Wikipedia based on its own merit, but also working on another page concerning sermon plagarism. The two pages would, I think, be able to "back each other up" regarding "notability." And to be honest, the Desperate Preacher's Site website is much more "notable" to "insiders" of church bureaucracy and management than it is to the general public. Yes, I would appreciate having someone to get help/advice from for fashioning a new Wikipedia page on sermon plagarism. (I know I need to read the page on making a "first" Wikipedia page. lol) Also, to be honest, I'm rather a "political hack" concerning "church," so my inclinations in writing a new Wikipedia page may need a few comments to keep me "on the straight and narrow." lol I'm still in process of editing/refining/fine-tuning my book "Clergy Secrets - They Don't Want You To Know!" as well as its website at www.ClergySecrets.com. Thanks again!! -- WarrenVitcenda ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct that reading WP:Your first article is a good place to start. I also recommend that new users such as yourself use draft space (e.g. Draft:Sermon plagarism instead of main space e.g. Sermon plagarism) to create an article. Articles by inexperienced users often are deleted very quickly in mainspace because they don't comply with one or more policies (and we have to be strict because many people set out to promote their business and don't care about our actual mission). In draft space, you can get help from experienced users (such as myself) without threat of rapid deletion.
- In regards to the actual subject at hand, I did some quick preliminary research and it does appear that the phrase "sermon plagarism" is reasonably widely used, although I'm not convinced that is the best possible title - anyway that is a minor concern. The main issue is whether to subject has enough coverage to warrant inclusion, and here the answer is clearly yes. Without much effort at all, I found plenty of mainstream newspaper articles on the subject. Thus, an article is warranted.
- As to setting up the article, it should start with a definition of the issue. Then give a history of it. Then cover the current situation (e.g. the debate over ethics). I didn't find a great comparison article, but something like Scientific misconduct or Medical ethics or even the Plagiarism article may give some idea about how to set it up. Naturally, I am happy to help. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi ThaddeusB, I did add a couple links to the "Desperate Preacher's Site" of newspaper articles that you perhaps found too, namely from the St. Petersburg Times and the Union-Tribune of San Diego, CA. Are such additions going to be enough to keep "Desperate Preacher Site" as a page on Wikipedia - or not?? There are numerous newspaper articles out there that make quick reference to DesperatePreacher.com, but they usually only do so "in passing" while going onto the subject of plagiarism instead of discussing actual "website details" about DesperatePreacher.com in particular.-- WarrenVitcenda ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have the gift of prophecy, so I can't predict how the AfD will end up. :) As you know, I believe the subject meets inclusion criteria, but other opinions may vary. We should know one way or another soon. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "LectionaryLite", may not meet Wikipedia's
username policy because it implies group ownership. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a
change of username, or you may simply
create a new account for editing. Thank you. --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Thaddeus. I'm signed in now as "WarrenVitcenda" instead of as "LectionaryLite". I have rarely edited or commented on Wikipedia, and haven't exactly paid attention to "specifics" as far as some rules go. ;) I've used "LectionaryLite" in the past on other sites concerning "church issues." If it's better for me to use "WarrenVitcenda" on Wikipedia, then that's what I'll do! I'm looking forward to discussing "Desperate Preacher Site" concerning it's possible deletion, as well as other options. Thank you for the tips! -- WarrenVitcenda ( talk) 23:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great. "LectionaryLite" could be OK, but could also be seen as the name of a business (which is not allowed). Your new (or actually old, I guess) choice of name is better. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the Desperate Preacher's Site article has been restored. I took a look, it it looks like it is likely (barely) notable and thus has a decent chance of being kept if further deletion efforts are made. However, I think your suggestion of making an article on Sermon plagarism is also a good one. Let me know if you are interested in pursuing that and also if you'd like some help/advice. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi ThaddeusB, I'm going to make a few comments over on the discussion page that concerns deleting Desperate Preacher's Site. Right now, I'm leaning toward supporting the continuance of the the Desperate Preacher's Site page on Wikipedia based on its own merit, but also working on another page concerning sermon plagarism. The two pages would, I think, be able to "back each other up" regarding "notability." And to be honest, the Desperate Preacher's Site website is much more "notable" to "insiders" of church bureaucracy and management than it is to the general public. Yes, I would appreciate having someone to get help/advice from for fashioning a new Wikipedia page on sermon plagarism. (I know I need to read the page on making a "first" Wikipedia page. lol) Also, to be honest, I'm rather a "political hack" concerning "church," so my inclinations in writing a new Wikipedia page may need a few comments to keep me "on the straight and narrow." lol I'm still in process of editing/refining/fine-tuning my book "Clergy Secrets - They Don't Want You To Know!" as well as its website at www.ClergySecrets.com. Thanks again!! -- WarrenVitcenda ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct that reading WP:Your first article is a good place to start. I also recommend that new users such as yourself use draft space (e.g. Draft:Sermon plagarism instead of main space e.g. Sermon plagarism) to create an article. Articles by inexperienced users often are deleted very quickly in mainspace because they don't comply with one or more policies (and we have to be strict because many people set out to promote their business and don't care about our actual mission). In draft space, you can get help from experienced users (such as myself) without threat of rapid deletion.
- In regards to the actual subject at hand, I did some quick preliminary research and it does appear that the phrase "sermon plagarism" is reasonably widely used, although I'm not convinced that is the best possible title - anyway that is a minor concern. The main issue is whether to subject has enough coverage to warrant inclusion, and here the answer is clearly yes. Without much effort at all, I found plenty of mainstream newspaper articles on the subject. Thus, an article is warranted.
- As to setting up the article, it should start with a definition of the issue. Then give a history of it. Then cover the current situation (e.g. the debate over ethics). I didn't find a great comparison article, but something like Scientific misconduct or Medical ethics or even the Plagiarism article may give some idea about how to set it up. Naturally, I am happy to help. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi ThaddeusB, I did add a couple links to the "Desperate Preacher's Site" of newspaper articles that you perhaps found too, namely from the St. Petersburg Times and the Union-Tribune of San Diego, CA. Are such additions going to be enough to keep "Desperate Preacher Site" as a page on Wikipedia - or not?? There are numerous newspaper articles out there that make quick reference to DesperatePreacher.com, but they usually only do so "in passing" while going onto the subject of plagiarism instead of discussing actual "website details" about DesperatePreacher.com in particular.-- WarrenVitcenda ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have the gift of prophecy, so I can't predict how the AfD will end up. :) As you know, I believe the subject meets inclusion criteria, but other opinions may vary. We should know one way or another soon. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)