User talk:R.J.Rowell

Welcome!
Hello, R.J.Rowell, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Editing of the Bible, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of The Editing of the Bible


A tag has been placed on The Editing of the Bible, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your article
Hi. Sorry to have deleted your work so soon, but I wanted to save yourself from posting more until we got a few things sorted out. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we don't allow 'original research' (WP:OR). That means anything that is based on your own research and opinions. You can't use your own work as a reference. It's mainly scientific things that OR comes into - people try to get their work published here for the first time instead of using a scientific journal. We aren't happy about people who have had their work published already referring to it themselves, either. What we want is people to write articles based on (and referring to) other people's published work. Unpublished work can be referred to in academic circles, but not here. This is for reasons of verifiability. There must be some access to works for checking. Another point is that we don't 'discuss' topics. We 'write about' them. There is a difference. Discussion means putting forward your arguments. 'Writing about' means putting forward a balanced view of other people's works. I would advise having a close look at the style used in articles, too. We have articles Historical criticism and Biblical criticism on the one hand, and Criticism of the Bible on the other - and which may already cover some of your intended article's range. We normally only have one article on a subject (but sometimes there is unavoidable overlap). Have a look at those articles and their referencing, and then tell me (here) what you think. I'm not trying to put you off, just to save effort that could very well go to waste. Peridon (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that BoxOfChickens should have found a better tag than G11 ("promotional"), but Peridon's comments here are correct: what you wrote up, and what you seem to be writing up again in User:R.J.Rowell/sandbox, is looking like original research, and that's not what we do here. Alternately, see WP:NOTESSAY, which links to a section on the page What Wikipedia is not, and I think that applies also to the now-deleted version of your comments. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you Drmies please go here and read this then tell me your option [] Wiki people seem to be VERY quick to judge !
 * That may be so, R.J. Rowell, but we get a lot of submissions that don't meet our guidelines; 's lengthy answer is, in my opinion, quite courteous, and I think a careful reading (or re-reading) of them would be very beneficial. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The other version
I've put it at User:R.J.Rowell/Deleted for now. I'll ping and  to have a look at what you were trying to do. They both, as I said at my talk page (pingees please see), have an interest in religious matters. They will probably be able to say if we already have something on this topic (better than I can - we have over 5,000,000 articles now and it takes a bit of specialised expertise to pin these things down) and may be able to offer advice (or know of someone else who can). Peridon (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
If they can just have them look at the draft page, I have started removing things per your suggestions and editing what I had. As I have time, I will and more info. R.J.Rowell (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by YoPienso
Hello! Peridon pinged me, so I'll put in my 2¢'s worth. He was trying to help you avoid frustration, which you will likely experience if you invest time writing an article on the editing of the Bible.

First, I'll offer some general comments:
 * It would be a very good idea to read through the pages BoxOfChickens posted at the top of this page when s/he welcomed you to Wikipedia. "Reading the directions" can prevent a lot of trouble.
 * Re-reading the kind and helpful tips Peridon shared with you would also be a good idea.
 * Please be aware that once an article is created, anyone may edit it. That means your article could soon become unrecognizable as other users edit it. It could even be deleted!

Now for some comments specific to your intended discussion:
 * Please notice, as Peridon said, that Wikipedia articles aren't the place for discussions. Your draft doesn't read like something I would find in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it should.
 * Wikipedia isn't the place to "right great wrongs," either, like people's perceptions of how the Bible came to be in its present form(s).
 * We already have an article called "Development of the Christian biblical canon," which is basically what your article would be. That article has links to what we call "daughter articles": Development of the Hebrew Bible canon, Development of the Old Testament canon, and Development of the New Testament canon. Any encyclopedic information your proposed article might contain would more properly be found in--or inserted into--one of those already-existing articles. Personal opinions, biased material, original research, exposés, and persuasive arguments are disallowed.
 * The writing mechanics and grammar in your draft are not at the level expected at Wikipedia. That means your spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar would need to be revised.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, as time allows. Very best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not my option
What I was writing about IS historical fact ! My information comes from many sources. These facts have been proven by Bill Warren New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Thomas Linacre an Oxford professor, Emanuel Tov Dead Seas Scrolls Publication Project, Israel Antiquities Authority, Judith H. Newman Society of Biblical Literature and 6 other university professors and resources that I have gathered together. I understand that it isn't at the moment "in the correct format", but I have decided to take my information somewhere else. Some people here on Wiki try to help others while others just discourage, and repress people to invest in this site for whatever reasons, those people seem to be very closed minded and quick to judge. So Wiki and it's admin doesn't need to worry about me writing or donating anything.R.J.Rowell (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes; it's just the matter of how Wikipedia is designed and operated. I think most of your frustration results from not understanding that. The very first time I played Monopoly as a little girl, I left the game crying because I thought the big kids were stealing my money. Thankfully, I was encouraged to go back and learn the rules, and thereafter spent many happy hours monopolizing properties and incidentally learning my number facts up through 12, how to make change, what a mortgage is, etc.
 * It would indeed be a good idea to have your discussion published elsewhere. I was going to suggest that, but didn't wish to seem unwelcoming. But you may want to keep your account and learn the ropes here. I had a rocky start myself, but am glad I stayed and learned. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did you know that if you click on the blue-linked user name you can find the user's page and learn a little of how they edit here?