RenanIL96

 

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.sdbwf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WF-Historical-Booklet-The-First-50-years.pdf. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Seventh Day Baptist World Federation may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mottezen (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello RenanIL96. I see you have added some historical material to the article on Alfred University. I am in process of revising the entire article so that it conforms with Wikipedia's criteria. Do you plan to include more material, or are you finished with your current work on the article. If you want to continue working on the article, I would ask that you give me a chance to finish my revisions, which may take a couple months.

Best wishes, Mindemoyawikieditor 12:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)~

  Hello, RenanIL96. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Seventh Day Baptist World Federation, 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) 14:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I see that you have edited several articles with edit summaries such as "Removed non-existing hyperlinks." This can often be useful, but please take care to keep useful links, even if they do not yet have an article. In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Thanks, Certes (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you. RenanIL96 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw your request for help on the Christianity notice board about the Baptist draft that keeps being declined. If you are still interested, I am willing to help you. I see that you are now in grad school, so you may no longer have time - or interest - but if you do, just ping me, and I will do my best to help in any way I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:Jenhawk777, I saw your willingness to help me in the article. Sorry I was absent from wikipedia these days. In my sandbox is the article the way I tried to publish it and I think that with this link, you will be able to see the problems that were indicated by the reviewers as I made the submissions for publication. It got to a point where I didn't know what to do so I posted help on that thread. This article exists on the Spanish and Portuguese language wikipedia, so I was trying to reach 500 edits on the English wikipedia to release the article translation feature in my account, I think it would be better accepted and not rejected by the reviewers. I greatly appreciate your help and am willing to contemplate your directions. RenanIL96 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help in any way I can. I will take a look at it as soon as I am able. I will try later tonight, but this weekend is a holiday weekend (The fourth of July) in the states and I am having company, so it may be a couple days. No worries! We will get it worked out together.   Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have read through and made some changes already that you may or may not like. Your first section was not a proper Wikipedia lead, so I have now retitled it "Description". A lead is not like an introduction; it's a summary of what's in the article. There should be a sentence in it describing each section. Because of that, it is often easier to write the lead when the rest of the article is finished. Please take a little time and read this: [[1]] It explains. that The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

Also, you have done too much "close paraphrasing" - copying a sentence and changing one word will get you in trouble on WP for plagiarism. Failure to quote and attribute the quote to whoever said it will also get you in trouble. Plagiarism automatically fails an article. I screw this up every now and then myself so I know whereof I speak. So far they'v e been real nice about it. If you keep doing this, the great copyright-vio fairy in the WP sky will come along and blank everything you've been working on - and then hide it from you. If you copy something to work on it, which you are not supposed to do, quote it, or change it to a proper paraphrase before saving it. I apologize if I'm being too abrupt. I'm very tired. I'll be back in the next couple of days. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your changes, it was more coherent, I liked it. By no means are you being abrupt. I'm glad you're willing to help, God bless you for that. About the "description" I read and saved in my favorites, it's good to learn more every day to use wikipedia as an editor. As for the paraphrase, I understand exactly what you say. For me it is a little more difficult to work with this, because my native language is not English and I know very little to speak in English, I use Google Translate to help me, but it is good to have a native English speaker to support me in this. Finally, don't worry about the frequency of your changes and only do it when you're really not busy and you're rested, I also have my chores and work so I take a few days to answer you too, what you're doing is already something surprising. Thanks again. RenanIL96 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm into "history" now and am finding a few more sources, but I have a question for you. This sentence In 1986 the third meeting was held once again in Westerly, Rhode Island, where for the first time all representatives were able to participate in the meeting, given that because of the distance and financial resources many conferences are unable to send representatives to the meetings has no source listed that I can check and it reads wrong, but I can't tell which way is right. Did all the representatives participate? That's what it says right now. If that's so, then why is there an explanation for why they couldn't? Those two things together don't work. And the sentence needs a source at the end of it - even if it's at the end of the paragraph.

When I started school as a young child, I lived in Argentina. We did all our lessons in Spanish in the morning then in English in the afternoon. Word order in sentence structure in the one language is virtually the opposite to the other. I remember! English is a very difficult language to learn - at least partly because it has absorbed so many aspects of other languages. It is flexible, but that also means there are very few consistent rules. I don't know, but I think learning to write it is probably even harder than speaking it. I admire you! Don't worry about any of that. English was one of my three college majors, and I know the rules and will fix any problems I find. I will try to explain what and why in "reasons" but if you ever have any questions about any of it, just ask. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

RenanIL96 Please, I need to know about that sentence on the third meeting that says two opposite things that can't both be correct: In 1986 the third meeting was held once again in Westerly, Rhode Island, where for the first time all representatives were able to participate in the meeting, given that because of the distance and financial resources many conferences are unable to send representatives to the meetings. Was it former meetings - meetings 1 and 2 - that weren't attended and this one was? Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm sorry for the delay, I enter WP on weekends, but I'll try to enter during the week so I can respond faster. Exactly! My native language is Portuguese and the word order is unlike English, among other different structures, this makes it very difficult.

As for the sentence: Yes! In meetings 1 and 2 not all conference representatives were present, however, in meeting 3 they were all present. And the text (...given that...) then explains why not everyone was present at meeting 1 and 2. When I wrote this article in Portuguese, there is no such confusion. However, in view of your note, I realize that when translating this paragraph into English, I translated it wrong and it got confused!

Okay, if I have any doubts I'll point them out to you, but for now, it's getting better, thank you! RenanIL96 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that clears it up completely. It's okay if you can only respond on weekends, I just didn't know that, so now I do, and I can wait more patiently. It's coming along fine I think. I am searching for as many sources as I can find since part of the criticism you got was about sources. I ha ve found a few I think. We'll get it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I left on an "unplugged" vacation for awhile and had no computer!!! It was actually good.   I am back as of yesterday, and will finish this tonight I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you're done - at least as far as it goes. The article has no lead, and it must have one before being submitted. The lead must be a short summary of what is in the article. Write a sentence (or two) that describes/summarizes what's in each section. Put those sentences together into a paragraph or two at the top. The lead is not an introduction as much as it is a summary of content. When you have completed that, ping me. Do you know how? Just copy and paste my user name here (including the brackets) and tell me it's done and the system will notify me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Vacation is always good!!! Okay, I'll do it, thank you very much! RenanIL96 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have added a short lead. Since I invested in this with you, I did not like seeing it just sit there! I cannot pass this for publication myself since I was involved in its writing, but I think you can present it now, and I believe it will pass. I hope you will give that a try. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK!!!! thanks for everythin!!!!! even though I'm busy and out you still didn't stop. I really appreciate the work, I had already tried and I was not successful and I didn't know what to do. I'm going to submit it, I wanted to ask you: do I modify that old draft and submit it or do I start a new publication? RenanIL96 (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, after a long time away from Wikipedia I've picked up where I left off. I took the liberty of creating another draft and published it exactly as you left it. It has already been sent for review, let's wait for the next chapters. Thanks for everything Jenhawk. RenanIL96 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, RenanIL96. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Seventh Day Baptist World Federation".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, RenanIL96. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Seventh Day Baptist World Federation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply