User talk:MUW Fan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Copyright issue with United States v. Fordice

Hello. Concerning your contribution, United States v. Fordice, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/2474/_United_States_v_Fordice_ruled_on. As a copyright violation, United States v. Fordice appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. United States v. Fordice has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:United States v. Fordice. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at United States v. Fordice, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Glad to hear it was an accident and that a proper article will be contributed. Happy editing! -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hartford College for Women might be deleted

A tag has been placed on Hartford College for Women, 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 page 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. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for Discussion notice

--Djrobgordon 08:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also related to this issue

Thanks for the message, and for not taking my proposal the wrong way. I was having trouble thinking of how to rename it myself, and I think W1219's suggestion is better than mine. I agree that it's a valid category. Actually, the first thing I did when I saw that you'd added it to Sarah Lawrence College was make sure it wasn't a duplicated category, because I was shocked something similar didn't already exist.

I'd be glad to help you with any questions you might have about POV, but if you're just talking about this category, it wasn't an issue. The name wasn't biased. My only concern was that, taken literally, it implied that the schools were simultaneously women only and coeducational. It was a simple language issue.

I'm assuming you've already checked out WP:NPOV, but if you haven't, you should. Also, take a look at WP:CITE. Often, when another editor deletes text and argues that it doesn't adhere to NPOV, the real problem is that it's not attributed to a source. A couple of editors went back and forth recently about whether Sarah Lawrence should be called a "selective" college. It is, of course, but the statement was removed because there wasn't a citation to back it up. Editors sometimes adhere to this policy to the point of absurdity. If you want an example, check out any of the six archived discussions on Talk:Wayne Gretzky (one of which I naively inserted myself into) about whether he can be referred to as the "greatest hockey player of all-time." One more article you should take a look at is WP:WEASEL, as well as some of the "See also" links at the bottom of the page. There are plenty of legitimate uses for the words and phrases listed, but so many editors remove them on sight that I find it easier to avoid them altogether.

If you've been having your edits deleted for POV reasons and still can't figure out why, point me to the articles, and maybe I can figure out the specific issue. Probably, it's something small and easily fixable. I hope my long-winded answer was somewhat helpful. --Djrobgordon 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you've done a good job in putting together the list. I didn't know there were that many schools with the co-ed thing in common. In response to your message, I second just about everything Djrobgordon wrote above. As for how to improve the category and the template, I guess the schools on the template can be listed in some kind of order (alphabetical may be easiest, or chronological by date it went co-ed). Sorry the articles for St. Mary and Hartford got deleted, I can help you recreate them but I don't know anything about those schools offhand. Wl219 03:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Colleges that were once all female but now aren't

• Hey, MUW. Thanks for appreciating my input. I really like the category. Good job with that initiative. I see you've also worked a lot on Mississippi University for Women and such. I hope you learn more about Wikipedia through this little renaming process. Wikipedia is surprisingly deep and fun to delve into. If you ever need some help with anything, feel free to ask! But in the end, keep in mind that in this community your opinion is equal to all other contributors. Welcome and keep up the good work! Kushboy 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)