User talk:WilliamColeEdwards

Rhoda (biblical figure)

I have reverted your major overhaul of Rhoda (biblical figure) for a number of reasons. The text you added appears to be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. It is also almost exclusively based on a single published work. Wikipedia articles should try to be balanced and based on a variety of sources. Please discuss any future significant changes on the article talk page and gain consensus before re-adding. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, WilliamColeEdwards, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do have a read of the links above. There is a learning curve to working in Wikipedia; you cannot treat a WP like a space to write an essay, as you would for school. The genre genre of WP pages is not "essay" but rather "enycyclopedia". There also bunch of norms you need to follow with regard to style, the kinds of sources that are OK to use, etc; these are explained in the links. In case it is usefuk, here is an all-in-one explanation of WP, that I created to help people understand this place: User:Jytdog/How

There is also a training set up especially for students: Wikipedia:Training/For_students Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematical edits

Please read the comments above. Your recent re-addition includes such phrases as "I do not believe that Rhoda was written to be a comic relief ......". This is a phrase that might be odd even in an essay and is certainly wholly wrong for an encyclopaedia. May I invite you to revert your own addition and then please do, as I suggested above, and discuss on the talk page. Another alternative is to construct your version of the article in your personal sandbox and then provide a link from the article talk page to your suggested version and invite other editors to comment. I shall be reverting your edit very shortly if you have not already done so as the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rhoda compared to Mary Madeleine

Hello, WilliamColeEdwards. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Rhoda compared to Mary Madeleine, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

GMG ^talk 16:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Feminist perspective of Rhoda

Hello, WilliamColeEdwards. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Feminist perspective of Rhoda, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

GMG ^talk 16:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book that you quoted is already cited in the article Rhoda (biblical figure). That's probably sufficient already from that source. However, if you want to look again at what you wrote to see if more could usefully be incorporated into that existing article, let me know (or use WP:REFUND). – Fayenatic London 18:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education

Hi! Can you get your professor to contact Wiki Education at contactwikiedu.org? We're an educational non-profit that assists college student and professors with editing Wikipedia. In the meantime, these training modules may be helpful.

As far as general advice goes, the general gist of Wikipedia is that the writing must be neutral and we can only summarize what has already been stated in existing sourcing. It shouldn't be a reflection or reaction to Rhoda or contain original research. Original research are things like opinions, claims, or conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in source material. To give an example of how limited Wikipedia is, even if someone describes something in a way that gives off the strong impression it's a cat, we can't summarize this by saying that they're talking about a cat or even theorize on our own that it's likely a cat. We can state that other people have opined that it's likely a cat, but that's about the extent of it. I think that your best bet with this would be to work on the main article on Rhoda. Summarize your content into the main facts that the source material covers and then write any new work based on that. Just make sure that it's neutrally written, well sourced, and isn't written like a persuasive or reflective essay. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]