2009

I am posting on your page because I notice your interest in Galen on his article’s discussion page. I have myself written a dissertation and published a couple papers on him. I have made some additions to the web page, and have added a lot of comments on the discussion page that I hope will contribute to the communities’ understanding and the article’s quality. If you have any thoughts about this that you would like to share with me, feel free to post them on my talk page under the Galen category. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cosans (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)]] comment added by Cosans (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jacques Etienne Gay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was inappropriately deleted while I was working on it and linking it in to other Botanical authorities. I have recreated it. Mgoodyear (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references in the text like that is not from what I remember of WP:MOS - standard procedure - and it is not even relating to the text in the article - but is in effect further reading that should be at the bottom of thye article - any reason for this eccentric usage? SatuSuro 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways of adding references used including in-line, external links, and what you call additional reading. The way the page is set up by State, requires State specific references, and no i have got to adding the text yet! Mgoodyear (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SO far I beg to differ - the references look like an eccentric not to standard MOS - however I am not gonna look at till tommorrow anyways - if you gonna get defensive about eccentric referencing - there are plenty of other australian eds who will give you a hard time if they do not tie into the text - so best of luck and dont say I didnt warn you! SatuSuro 14:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their own opinion, and last time I looked I was on the prostitution task force - if someone wants to move the references that's their affair, the primary purpose is to improve the information provided. Mgoodyear (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - it might work in some areas but eccentric format picks up like a sore thumb - anyways I aint gonna touch any of it at the mo - I just noticed all the embedded external links - another big no no - so whatever you or I do there are issues as far as general format that are gonna get done - anyways if you are adding usefull extra info that has sources like them - get on with it - here in the west coast of oz it is sleep time - cheers and best of luck SatuSuro 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi –

I just wanted to turn your attention to the Prostitution in Rhode Island article. Its a stub right now and in serious need of expansion, especially given the recent legislative battle around prostution in that state. There's absolutely nothing in the article about this at all. I'd like to expand it, but I lack an overview of the legal history of prostitution in that state, or the timeline of the recent legislation. I'd be happy to help out with work on the article, though. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like GiselleRI got there first Mgoodyear (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got there and they are attacking me already! I don't know much about editing, but I am trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleRI (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point to a newly-created article, Feminist views on prostitution. (There's also one up on Feminist views on pornography that at least attempts to be more balanced, but still has many problems with accuracy and referencing.) While an article on this topic is clearly needed on Wikipedia, it is one of the most severely biased article's I've seen to date, basically presenting almost only the radical feminist view as "the feminist" view on prostitution as a whole, and giving very short shrift to pro-sex worker feminism. (I discuss this further over on the talk page for the article.) Help in cleaning up this article is always appreciated. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you could add your commentary over at Talk:Prostitution #RfC:_Views_on_prostitution_and_content_forking. The background for the dispute is given in the section above the one linked to. Basically, an editor (the same one GiselleRI was having issues with) is claiming that there is an "academic consensus" that prostitution is inherently non-consensual and that only a "small minority" of academics take a view contrary to this. This apparently justifies excluding pro-sex worker perspectives in articles on prostitution or at least making them marginal. Since this is one of the more prolific editors on the topic, and somebody who has caused problems in the past for editors who wish to include pro-sex worker perspectives, I think setting the record straight here is pretty important. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first few pages of this book may look familiar. Note that the book does not seem to credit Wikipedia anywhere and indeed seems to be claiming copyright over your writing. You may want to contact the publisher, although I received no reply when I tried myself. If you can confirm that you were indeed plagiarized, I would like to write up a story for the Signpost. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page (although I will be out of town until Wednesday). You may also want to join the discussion thread here. Kaldari (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!