User talk:Maryah12

Welcome!

Hello, Maryah12, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hello. I reverted your addition to Tinder (app). The source you cited, Expandedramblings.com, looks like it's the blog of a marketer named Craig Smith, so it doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources (WP:RS). Blogs are seldom usable sources, since they are self-published (WP:SPS). If disagree, or have questions, Talk:Tinder (app) or my talk page would be good choices. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an overdue training assignment.

Please complete the assigned training modules. --LABotelho (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sex trafficking (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Sex trafficking instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

We already have an article on Sex trafficking. This appears to be a very short essay for a class.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sex trafficking and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sex trafficking, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maryah12! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Sex trafficking

Draft:Sex trafficking, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sex trafficking and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Sex trafficking during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to drop a note about this and another topic. Firstly, the draft you have for sex trafficking was declined because there's already an existing article on this. If this was meant to be added to the article, it wasn't clear about where it should be added. A larger issue with it, however, is that it comes across as more of an essay on the topic than an encyclopedia article in that it contains some original research (ie, conclusions, opinions, and data you came up via your own research) and some of the content comes across as an opinion and/or is written persuasively. Sex trafficking is a horrible thing, but the article still needs to be written neutrally and shouldn't be written in order to persuade the reader to see a certain point. These are things that are fairly natural for student and academic papers, so it can take a while sometimes to get used to the difference.

The second thing I wanted to make a note of is that when you made this edit to the DACA article, you marked it as a minor edit. Only mark things as minor edits for small things, like fixing a spelling or grammatical error. Adding content is seen as a non-minor edit. The content also has some issues with tone, as it's written as more of a response/reaction to the DACA deadline. I'm also not entirely sure that the controversy section is the best place for this since it's more of an update. Rather than writing something like this:

March 5th 2018 was supposed to be the deadline for DACA. The date has came and went with no foreseeable resolution. There has not been a clear conscience on if DACA recipients should continue to renew their paperwork. The white house administration asked the Supreme Court if they would intervene, they declined the offer to join in this week. This does not mean that DACA recipients are in the clear,when asked if daca recipients have nothing to panic about, immigrant rights advocates answer with a stern, "No." Although DACA recipients can renew their paperwork, some lives and status are still up in the air.

It could maybe be rephrased to something like this in the Recission#Legal challenges section, at the very end:

The date given by President Trump for the end of DACA passed on March 5 with no foreseeable resolution over DACA.

This is a bit short, but a lot of this content is already in the article, but in other places like the one I mentioned above. The date passing isn't a controversy in and of itself, as it's a part of the entire thing as a whole. This may change over time, but this is more of a facet of an overall controversial issue rather than something that would be identified as a specific controversial event in itself.

I've removed the addition from the article's page for the time being. I definitely recommend continuing to look into the article to see what you can add, though. Just be careful in how it's written and sourced. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]