User talk:Johnwjenkins3

Welcome!
Hello, Johnwjenkins3, 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 Biblical relationism, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Blackguard 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Biblical relationism


A tag has been placed on Biblical relationism 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.donehealth.com/new-best-biblical-relationism.html. 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 Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see 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. Blackguard 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Neologisms and Wikipedia
I've deleted the page because ultimately it's still considered to be a copyright violation of the other article. Even if you claim that you are the creator of the term, we still cannot accept copyright violations on Wikipedia unless you file a ticket through WP:ORTS that gives permission.

However that said, even if you had done this or it hadn't been a copyright violation, the article still would have been deleted because this is ultimately a term that you came up with one day- a WP:NEOLOGISM. Wikipedia is not a place to post things that you came up with WP:ONEDAY, nor is it a place to legitimize or popularize a term. Terms or concepts like this must have a lot of coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS to not only show that this is the first time someone has come up with this concept but that the concept/term has been covered by others in reliable sources. A side issue is that very often it'll end up that the term is already in use (albeit under a slightly different name) or that the concept itself is already in use and that the person claiming to be the originator of the term or concept is not the first person to come up with this. Copyrighting the term via the government does not automatically prove that you are the first to come up with the idea, just that you are the first to copyright the term. I've seen cases where people copyright terms and concepts, only for people to prove that they were already previously used. (Most of the time academics and religious figures will not copyright terms for various reasons.) Basically what I'm saying here is that you'll need coverage in reliable sources (other than yourself) to show notability and usage. I'd like to formally ask that you not re-create this article before this coverage becomes available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)