Talk:Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 7 June 2018 by reviewer Jjjjjjdddddd (talk · contribs).

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello![edit]

Help![edit]

@Jjjjjjdddddd: Okay, so what would you suggest first? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Jenhawk777:, the first thing I would add would be a lead section. An overview of your topic, you know, the gist of it. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some things around, broke it up into sections, and added a lead section. The idea is to bring it into line with how articles are usually structured. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow--you are wonderful! Thank you so much--really! I am looking at it and I think I see the difference you are intending--that is great--it is better, I can see that. I am learning from this! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to say--it looks really good now! I am totally blown away by what a difference those few changes make. I know I keep saying thank you--but I just keep feeling it! Thank you! I love this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's really no problem! Thanks! I really haven't done all that much yet though - Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's more? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some, but I would say it's more likely to be an article now. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't thank you enough. I get it now I think. Tell me what's left and when I should resubmit. I am forever in your debt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's really no problem! I think it should be fine if you resubmitted. If it gets declined again, I'll keep up the effort to get it into articlespace. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall have to invent new ways to say thank you. How about a singing telegram? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha you're welcome! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjjjjjdddddd: My last reviewer says I need fewer and shorter quotes, that I am at risk for deletion from copyright violation, so I need to go back through and do more paraphrasing. I will; and I will do whatever the next reviewer says and the one after that and however many it takes to get this right. I didn't know long quotes were un-good--so more learning. I just haven't felt like rewriting yet. I wasn't emotionally prepared for multiple rejections, but the reviewer was very kind and encouraging, so hopefully this next rewrite will do it, but if not, I will hang in there with it. I wanted you to know that I took what you taught me here and went back and rechecked everything I had worked on here! All 5 articles! It really helped me be a better Wikipedean I think. This will too--in the end. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Honestly, that last decline seemed a little bit excessive if you ask me. This is not a copyvio. Of course you need to indicate where you quote from people, but this is fine. Further, you have a more positive attitude than most people who write to AfC. Best, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That inspires me to get on with making the changes. I'm glad we met! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I have resubmitted--again! I am assuming that since you have already participated in getting the article ship-shape that you can't review it again--so that's cool--but it seemed like you care, so I thought I would keep in touch and let you know what's happening with it. Wish me luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, best of luck! I've not been as active the past few days, but now I can help out a little more. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's been long enough and this article is well-written enough, that it was overdue to be accepted, @Jenhawk777:. Promoted to mainspace. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!! This is so awesome! Thank you thank you!! Now I need to work an article about the author. I was amazed to find there is none here--part of the missing articles on women that I am determined to work on. Thank you again. This means a great deal to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Yes! It's really no problem, we need more content creators on this wiki, and those like you make it possible, especially with your perseverance. Thanks! -- Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know absolutely nothing about writing on a living person so I will probably be back here at some point saying, "That's wrong? That's wrong too?" Or some equally intelligent remark! :-) Perseverance is definitely a requirement for writing on Wikipedia--and generally--a thick skin too I have found. You made it easy for me. I wish everyone was more like you, this would be a better environment. I am learning! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]