User talk:Bcmurch

Welcome!
Hello, Bcmurch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leeza Meksin


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Leeza Meksin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mortee (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kathleen Treseder


The article Kathleen Treseder has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Chetsford (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jodie Mack


The article Jodie Mack has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Chetsford (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Blank articles
Please don't make articles consisting only of a name, as you did with Jodie Mack and Leeza Meksin. If you want to write an article, use draftspace or a sandbox, and consider using Articles for Creation when you're ready to publish (that step isn't required). The empty articles are likely to be deleted quickly. This is particularly true for biographies of living people, which have to have at least one source. Mortee (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Kimberly W. Anderson, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.


 * Really, please stop this. If you want to propose new topics for articles there are ways to do that, which people will be happy to show you. Making blank pages like this is just causing work for the administrators who will have to delete them. Mortee (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gail Brion


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Gail Brion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mortee (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kathleen Treseder


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kathleen Treseder 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — MRD2014 Talk 20:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Stop creating blank pages, even if you intend to expand them later. byteflush Talk 21:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.

I'm sure you are trying to help, Bcmurch, but you need to pay attention to the warnings you have received above. The articles you're creating have numerous problems. Most of them seem to be copied from drafts, which is not how we do things: it breaks the history of the page and its legally-required attribution. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve, and then we can work out what the proper way to do it is? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Publishing drafts and creating new articles
I do understand that the process for reviewing drafts is slow, and it's perfectly fine that you want to speed up their publication. The problem with the way you did it (by copying and pasting) is that the history of the page, which we legally need to maintain in order to conform with Wikipedia's licencing conditions, is lost. See Copying within Wikipedia for more information on that.

What you need to instead is to move the draft and change its "namespace" from Draft: to (Article). You can find instructions on how to do that at Help:How to move a page. As an example, I've just moved your Draft:Whitney Davis to Whitney Davis. If you click "View history" on that page, you will see that your attribution as the initial author is maintained. If I'd just copied and pasted it, it would look like I wrote it.

Creating blank pages for your editathon participants to add to is okay but not ideal. New pages are usually reviewed quickly (in 10–20 minutes) and if the reviewer sees a blank article or placeholder text, they are likely to delete it. It would be helpful if you started them with a minimal encyclopaedic description of the subject and at least one reference (we call this a stub, e.g. "Jane Smith is an American biologist known for discovering bigfoot"). Alternatively, have them create it as a draft and then move it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add that I love that you've organised an edit-a-thon, and I hope you've not been too put off by the reaction. I was alarmed to see the blank articles coming in, especially as some of them came after the messages on your talk page, but it's all resolvable. If you would like any help with reviewing some of the drafts or otherwise tidying up, I'm very happy to help if I can. Just message me here or on my talk page. Mortee (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Now I feel bad for the warning I left earlier today. :-( I agree with the others, your article creations were in good faith, just make sure to follow the rules and guidelines. Thank you for your contributions to the project. byteflush Talk 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I wanted to thank you all for taking the time to respond to the block on my account and the pages that were posted. It definitely works against many of the reactions I had while all of this was happening, but I do still have reservations about this process and doing future Edit-a-Thons. Part of what we talked about during this event was that Wikipedia is a community project filled with people who want to present reliable and factual information by working on things in different ways. We had people working on projects through the visual editor with little background in technology, and others working in the source editor creating really amazing things that turned out beautifully. When my account was blocked for the methods I was using for these people to create live pages and see those results immediately instead of being a number in the drafting process, I definitely had a negative reaction to what was happening. The things you have all pointed out are incredibly helpful to the process so we know for next year, but I would also like to reference one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars: Wikipedia has no firm rules. This was something we highlighted in our presentations and training to new editors, and there were many situations where that definitely popped up in the event. Part of this was recognizing that instead of enforcing firm rules on editors, there is room for working the system and being inventive with the process. In the moment, we did not have many options available for people who were entirely new to the process and were only being guided to drafts because of how fresh their accounts were. I see now there are better options for correcting that, but what felt particularly reductive to this process and the event was the fact other editors exercised immediate backlash to what we were doing and used their power as senior editors to enact punishment. Immediately, students were seeing their pages get flagged, disappear, and their hard work appear invalidated. Considering the theme of the event, providing pages for women artists without pages and editing those with extreme inaccuracies, seeing pages taken down so quickly worked against what we were trying to do as editors. We have addressed the issue directly with the students and provided them with the information to move their drafts in a more ideal way without raising flags for other editors. Additionally, we showed them these comments on my talk page so they realize it was not necessarily motivated by the material we were editing. We have learned quite a bit from this process, and plan to correct our approaches in training and editing. At the same time, as senior editors, considering the implications of actions taken in these kinds of situations before taking them is an equally good idea and something to take away from this. Thank you again for all your help and responses. Bcmurch (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April Events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging