User talk:Churchofgod

License tagging for Image:COG PIC.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:COG PIC.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

And by the way, if you want to do tests, please use the sandbox rather than actual articles in the encyclopedia. Thanks for editing!

Again, welcome! delldot | talk 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm glad to help. What do you need help with, tagging images?  (I'm actually not the one that posted that message, I only posted the welcome message, but that's fine).  Did you have a look at the pages linked to in the message with the top link?     Do you happen to know the copyright status of the image you uploaded (e.g. whether it's in the public domain, or who holds the copyright?) Let me have a look at the image in question, and I'll see if I can figure out what needs to be done.  If you have a specific thing you need help with let me know.  THanks for contributing!  Don't worry, it'll get worked out soon.   Peace, delldot | talk 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you took the picture yourself, you can agree to release it under the GFDL which would allow pretty much anyone to use and distribute it so there's not a copyright problem.


 * Also, not to bring in another issue to hassle you with, but I'm not sure about the notability of the subject. Is the church somewhat famous?  Wikipedia doesn't have the server space for every church, etc, so it has certain notability guidelines that subjects of articles can adhere to.  We can worry about that a little later, but I just wanted to give you the heads up before you put a lot more work into the article.  Sorry. :(  Anyway, let me know what you need. Peace, delldot | talk 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if you know the person who took the picture, you can ask them to agree to release it into the GFDL, which would allow anyone to use it, and then wikipedia can use it. But let me get other wikipedians involved in the discussion about the article to determine whether it meets the notability criteria there.  Peace,  delldot | talk 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm sorry, I have some bad news. I asked other wikipedia editors about the church article and they said it needs to be deleted because it doesn't meet inclusion criteria for notability listed at WP:NOTE.  I'm sorry, I hate to see it deleted after you worked so hard on it! :(  delldot | talk 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Sure, I can try to explain. The best would be to read WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV, though of course that can be tedious. One concern about the article is that it may not be notable enough for inclusion, according to WP:NOTE, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I think that's the most important thing. Because if you can show that the article is verifiable, you have good support for the idea that it's notable. That means finding sources like newspaper articles or other reliable sources that discuss the church in a non trivial manner. Non trivial means things like announcements about fundraisers and that sort of thing probably don't count; it has to be about the church itself. If sources like that don't exist, it probably can't be included. Another page to look at is Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). THough it's still just a proposed guideline, rather than an actual policy, it's a good way to get an idea of what editors agree should be deleted. You can also look at Deletion policy if you have time. Hope this helps, feel free to ask more questions if you need to. Peace, delldot | talk 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)