Jump to content

User talk:DomoniqueL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, I'd like to introduce myself to you. My name is Latrice Tate. Latriceetheresa (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DomoniqueL, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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.

Handouts
Additional Resources
  • You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i'm Teresa. Nice to meet you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresachiyannebeamon (talkcontribs) 20:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted content[edit]

Hi! I wanted to explain a little about why your edit at Slavery in the United States by North Shoreman was reverted with the edit summary "The exception is mentioned elsewhere in the article -- material added is improperly formated, poorly placed, and written in a non-encyclopedic manner. "

What happened is that the content was already in the article, further down in the timeline. The section on convict leasing is the most specific section on this. The content was slightly non-encyclopedic in that readers would be able to pick up on your viewpoints towards slavery and the prison system. Too often prisons are places where prisoners are treated inhumanely and little to no work is done to try to better prepare inmates for release (or to even qualify for release), but we have to be careful to keep the writing neutral. I think that in this case it was more of a case of where it was placed, since its placement seems like more of a rebuttal to the prior content, rather than how it was written. It was eloquently written, but it wasn't really the best place for it. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]