User talk:Catsluvplants745

Welcome!
Hello, Catsluvplants745, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Movies, Shows, and Books: Accurate predictions of technology functions and themes of the future"
Hi, I've moved your essay back to User:Catsluvplants745/Movies, Shows, and Books: Accurate predictions of technology functions and themes of the future. It's not suitable for Wikipedia as written. First of all, it's written as an essay, rather than as an encyclopedia article. Second, it's vague; I have trouble pinning down its scope despite reading through it a few times. Third, its references are basically just a list of works of fiction, indicating that the essay as written almost certainly constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

You should do the following for your work to be suitable for Wikipedia:
 * Tighten the scope
 * Restructure the work as an encyclopedia article
 * Back up the assertions in the article with references to reliable sources that do the "interpretive" steps for you

Without those tweaks, your article would likely be deleted from Wikipedia if in the article namespace. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 19:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I wanted to second what Nihiltres said. Academic papers aren't considered to be appropriate for Wikipedia, so any article that is written like this will be deleted from Wikipedia. What I would recommend is that you pick one aspect from what you've written and look to see what you can do to improve that topic on Wikipedia. For example, I would recommend looking at the article Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. The page needs citations to back up the claims in the article and it looks like there's a section in the page on apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction in society that needs to be expanded. One of the most important things to remember though, when editing the page is that you cannot include your own original research in the article - on Wikipedia content and claims should all be explicitly stated in the resource material. By this I mean that in order to say "Garfield is a cat" we would have to cite a source that specifically says "The titular character of Garfield is an orange and black tabby cat". (Even then the source would have to be considered to be a reliable source like Jim Davis himself or something like an academic journal article or article in a well trusted newspaper.) We couldn't claim that Garfield was a cat based on our own visual identification of the character in the strip, as appearances could be deceiving. IE, what if the character only has the form of a cat but is actually a shapeshifter? I know that this example may seem a little silly, but this is how restrictive it can be on Wikipedia as far as writing goes. Something can seem very obvious to you or I, but it has to be backed up with a reliable source and it must be written in an encyclopedic tone, no persuasive writing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)