User talk:Sharonroselaw

Welcome!

Hi Sharonroselaw! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Ltwin (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{U|Ltwin}}

Hi Ltwin! Thank you for the early welcome. I am just learning how to talk with other editors. I see you are an editor of charismatic topics. I have similar topical interest. I appreciate your earlier comments and edits to my Draft:Emanuele Cannistraci. Feel free to keep feedback coming! Sharonroselaw (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 06:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 14:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Sharonrose[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sharonroselaw, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Ted Engstrom have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dianna. Diannaa Thank you for the feedback. Still trying to acquaint myself with the Wikipedia standards. Would you please review my draft of Emanuele Cannistraci and give me any feedback relevant to your editing expertise? I have disclosed my conflict of interest. Sharonroselaw (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Sharonrose[reply]

Hello Sharonroselaw. I don't see any copyright issues in the current version of the draft.— Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dianna for reviewing my draft on Emanuele Cannitraci for copyright issues. Diannaa Much appreciated! Sharonroselaw (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia manual of style

It is probably well worth the time and effort to review the Wikipedia manual of style which sets out the accepted norms for the structure and formatting of articles. For example headings in capital letters are deprecated as are title case headings which use capital letters at the start of each new word. Have a look too at the guidance on images - each image should support a relevant piece of encyclopaedic text, not just dotted around. It is also worth looking at referencing - References for significant issues need to be reliable and, most importantly, independent sources i.e those not associated with the Church or evangelical thinking. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Thank you Velella! I appreciate your input and invite more of same! I want to get this right. I will review the wiki style manual and revise format and references accordingly. Many published references, given the nature of this topic, will be evangelical points of view, supporting or opposing. I will also use Billy Graham's bio page for format and references as a rough template. Please keep the comments coming! I'm learning as I write. Sharonroselaw (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are flagging up to Ltwin a query and a request. To ensure that the user receives a notification it is simpler to use {{u|username}} as I have done earlier in this sentence and be certain to sign your post with four tides. Without the sign, the notification doesn't work. Without that, the user may not be aware of your post. The other thing to be aware of is that canvassing is generally frowned on. Probably OK here with a request to a single user but it is best to avoid seeking support from elsewhere, especially in contentious areas such as deletion discussions. In many case there may be a suitable project page such as Project Evangelical Christianity where you can engage with others interested in related topics. There may be a better project, but as a non-Christian, I am not best placed to advise. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VelellaThank you for the feedback. Ltwin had reached out to welcome me and made some early edits to the draft as did others. It's a work in progress. I didn't know how to communicate a substantive reply to their edits. I thought with Ltwin's topical editing experience and subject knowledge interest perhaps he intended to further comment or edit on the draft but my lack of knowledge as to how to respond to him might have been perceived as disinterest in or discouragement of feedback. Thank you again for your Wiki coaching! I'm putting it to good use. Sharonroselaw (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be bugging your talk page yet again. I have watched the development of the Draft article you are writing with interest. There are still quite several issues which I am sure that you will address. The one issue that concerns me particularly is in the choice of photographs. There are several where family members are present, sometimes many family members. Publishing such images on Wikipedia may have some legal issues unless each and every person has given their explicit consent . See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people for more advice. It is usually better to restrict images to the subject of the article or people no longer alive, particularly as the text of your draft does not depend on these images to establish encyclopaedic facts. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VelellaThank you for your welcome feedback. I have permission for the immediate black and white family photos. In addition those photos were published in newspapers and revival notices back in the 50s- 60's. I will delete extended family photos as these do not relate to encyclopedia facts. The subject of this bio is 88 years old, 70 years of which were ministry career. I'm challenged as to what facts to include and what facts to exclude. I see some minister bios with lenghty bios and others with almost no information when I know they had amazing careers. If you have any other thoughts please let me know. Sharonroselaw (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

It is well worth while taking some time to review the sources your are using to support the Draft article you are wiring. WP:GNG emphases that sources must be independent and reliable where they are used to establish notability. Lesser standards may be acceptable for corroborating minor facts. Looking at your draft and taking just the first three references in the opening paragraph I believe that none of the first three references meet the required standard. They are clearly affiliated or from an unreliable source - one individual compiling a list of largest churches for example. When it comes to claims about health and healing, much more stringent standards apply and these can be seen at WP:MEDRS. This requirement applies to "miracle" healing just as it does to any other form of healing. Unless the sources meet the required standards, the article is most unlikely to be accepted, so it is worth getting these sorted early on. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Thank you for the feedback. I have an independent source citation for a list of global megachurches that includes the two churches I cite. I will add the independent citation that cites a list of megachurches. Also I'll review your references about the healing. The quote is an eye witness account from Eddie Villanueva who is a Filippino politician and preacher who 'testified' (in the Christian meaning) to his eye witness account. I appreciate all editor input as I want to get this page accurate and correctly sourced. Sharonroselaw (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great about the other potential sources. Unfortunately issues that relate to personal experiences such as witnessing a healing, doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for verification. Even in the Pope had said it it wouldn't qualify unless it had been reported by an independent reliable source. If, for example, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported the quote, then that would be usable but only as a quote and not as an assertion that the healing actually occurred. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Got it! Thanks for the clarification. I understand the distinction between an eye witness testimony of observing a healing versus an assertion of a healing reported by a news agency. There are a lot of faith healing evangelists with Wiki pages. I'll check those out. Appreciate your editing guidance. Sharonroselaw (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velella I have improved my key source citations. The references to healings are quoted from newspapers. I have reduced and provides sources for a reduced mentorship list. I really appreciate your editing coaching.````

Emanuele Cannistraci

You will probably be disappointed that I have moved Emanuele Cannistraci back to Draft:Emanuele Cannistraci. Although you are able to move a Draft directly to Mainspace, this is rarely a good idea as the article may be at risk of deletion. Instead I have tagged it for review which will alert experienced editors to the need to carefully review the article against the notability criteria and decide whether to accept it as an article into Mainspace. It is a very long and complicated article with very many references and is about a subject area where I have no expertise being neither Christian nor American which means that because of European Laws and US Server providers policies, I am unable to see many of the references used. From what I can see, I am unsure about how well the notability criteria are satisfied. It may take some time for the article to be reviewed so please be patient. Please do not move it back to Mainspace yourself. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Thanks for the feedback. When I submitted the draft I thought it was going to be moved into review like another draft I did but it went live. I am going to add a WikiProject tag for biography of living persons and evangelical. Any help always appreciated! Sharonroselaw (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emanuele Cannistraci (August 11)

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:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

This draft is hagiographic, and is being declined for reasons of tone.

The subject is notable.

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:Emanuele Cannistraci 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:Emanuele Cannistraci, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Velella! 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) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) Velella Thank you for your feedback. I truly want to get this article in the encyclopedic tone that is consistent with Wiki style. And thanks Robert for teaching me a new word, hagiographic! :) I have made edits that I believe satisfy Wiki criterion. I am prepared to resubmit for review Emanuele Cannistraci. Sharonroselaw (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emanuele Cannistraci (December 6)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please rewrite the article as a biography. It reads like a fan page. Kindly improve and resubmit. if not improved, it will be nominated for deletion as suggested by the previous reviewer.

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:Emanuele Cannistraci 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:Emanuele Cannistraci, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jeromeenriquez (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Network of Christian Ministries

Hello, Sharonroselaw. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Network of Christian Ministries".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Emanuele Cannistraci

Hello, Sharonroselaw. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emanuele Cannistraci, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]