ProfMurphy

Men and Feminism

A tag has been placed on Men and Feminism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to create such articles like Men and Feminism. You can't just do whatever you want, like myspace or other similar site. We have guidelines that we follow. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My class and students are not "just doing anything they want." The prospective Wikipedia entry will be produced under the strictest supervision and according to the guidelines available on Wikipedia itself. Moreover, this will not be the first time a Wikipedia entry has resulted from a class project. See for other examples: Wikipedia: School and University Projects http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:School_and_University_projects&redirect=no.

No, there is no content yet. But there will be next week. Patience please!! ProfMurphy 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you follow the guidelines then there will be nothing wrong with it. But the originaly problem of it being a "blank" article with no content about it's subject is what got it deleted. Until you have put at least some content together, then don't create the article. Once some content is put together then you are very welcome to create the article. The reason we keep a close eye on these things is because there are literally thousands of articles created every day and we try to keep Wikipedia clean and tidy. The speedy deletion was not meant to be anything against you personal. Good luck with your project. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Was just trying to create an anchorhold for the students. Content should be appearing in the next few days.ProfMurphy 22:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

This is a reasonably well-developed article that has good article (GA) status. A student dropping a large amount of text into it is unlikely to work out well, and the tutor restoring it when someone reverts doesn't make a lot of sense. The added material was (sorry to say) not well-written, some of it wasn't well-sourced, and much of it is already in the article. Bear in mind that our articles have to be policy-compliant, and that includes paying attention to issues such as due weight, which a new student editor won't be familiar with.

If you want to use Wikipedia for student assignments, it would be more helpful to find articles that clearly need to be improved (C, start or stub class). You can find the classes at the top of most article talk pages. Sometimes they're hidden, but if you see "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details," and you click, you'll see the class. If you look at Talk:Female genital mutilation, you'll see it is a GA. In the case of articles with GA or FA (featured-article) status, the best thing is not to make them part of a student assignment, and if you want to edit them as a regular editor to make suggestions first on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I've opened a discussion about this at Talk:Female genital mutilation. If you or your students would like to propose changes to the article, that's the place to do it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I've reverted the wholesale deletion to my student's contribution on this entry. If you feel there are redundancies or insufficient sourcing, please call them out without removing huge chunks of new material. This would seem to violate the spirit of Wikipedia: that all are experts on something and all can make a contribution. I've reviewed the added material and find that they DO NOT repeat material already present in the entry; sources are scholarly and substantive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfMurphy (talk • contribs)

Join the discussion on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ProfMurphy, please see WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). You've been reverted, so we're now on the discuss part of the cycle, preferably on Talk:Female genital mutilation. This is a very complex subject. I've been reading the literature for over two years now, first to get the article to GA, with a view to taking it to featured-article status. It's extremely difficult to find sources that are accurate, much harder than it appears, and it's just not something that an undergraduate can be expected to do without a great deal of work. Primary sources have been used, the material is wordy and repetitive, and there are problems with the writing.

I'd appreciate it if you would go to the talk page to propose changes, rather than adding such a large amount of text at once. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents

Just to let you know that a discussion has been opened about this here. I pinged you via the notification system, but I'm leaving this too in case that didn't work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

There are a number of us who bring our students to Wikipedia. The most successful projects have had profs who themselves are "experts" in Wikipedia. One gets experienced in Wikipedia primarily just by spending a great deal of time editing and reading and interacting with other Wikipedians. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anal sex page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Left Bank Books (St. Louis)

I'm working on a new entry for Left Bank Books (St. Louis). The owners previously attempted to create an entry but were unfamiliar with the conventions of Wikipedia and the entry was deleted. I've worked through the store's archive to identify secondary source material that will support a more neutral and objective entry that I'm confident will satisfy the requirements of notability etc. Before wholesale deleting the new entry, please talk with me about any issues or concerns. 11 January 2018: I've finished writing the entry and submitted it for review.

January 2018

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Left Bank Books, from its old location at User:ProfMurphy/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: This is very frustrating. The entry I've written is far more complete and better sourced than other (apparently perfectly fine?) articles on bookstores already on Wikipedia (The Strand Bookstore, Left Bank Books in Seattle, etc.)

On notability: Left Bank Books is the oldest independent bookstore in St. Louis and the first to sell leftist/counter-cultural/anti-war/feminist/LGBT books, magazines and other print material in the St. Louis region. It was the original exhibition space of famed children's book illustrator Mary Engelbreit, who also illustrated some of the store's early promotional material. (This, alone, makes the store notable in the history of American graphic arts, design, and visual and literary culture. Given that I hold three degrees in this subject area, I would ask that you accept my judgment on this). Over its 50 years of existence it's become a cultural touchstone in the city, due to activities that range far beyond commercial activities. It's deeply embedded in progressive politics in the wider St. Louis region. All this helps account for its recognition by local governments, national media, and professional associations--as my cited sources indicate. LBB is "notable" (if only because it has been "noted") at the local, regional, and national level.

On sources: the entry cites 35 sources of mostly secondary material, mostly local St. Louis newspapers and magazines, local and national television (PBS, C-SPAN), and other national newspapers and magazines. I hope you will agree that The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Review of Books, Huffington Post, the American Booksellers Association, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (founded by Joseph Pulitzer) constitute "independent, reliable, and published" sources from which the entry might be "verified." More specifics on the unacceptability of these sources would be appreciated. If the problem is the handful of cites to the store's own website, those are easily deleted and/or replaced with secondary sources.

Regarding tone: if you would be specific about which passages you find to not have the desired tone, I will consider revising.

• Update*: I have now made a number of changes to neutralize the language of the entry, removed most references to sources created by the subject of the entry, and added additional secondary sources. I have also added a handful of modifiers that should help make notability more obvious.

ProfMurphy (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Left Bank Books (January 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Left Bank Books and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Left Bank Books, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! ProfMurphy, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Left Bank Books (St. Louis) has been accepted

Left Bank Books (St. Louis), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ravenswing 07:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ProfMurphy. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to have a talk page archive?

Hi

If you like to, I'll set up a talk page archive for you, based on the code I'm currently using on my talk page. I would set the archival timer to "1 year", for example, to automatically archive messages that are older than one year. If you are interested, feel free to respond here with {{reply|ToBeFree}}, or on my talk page, to make me receive a notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ProfMurphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)