User talk:Archnoir

Hey there
Hello, you've had quite a productive start to editing at wikipedia. Unfortunately both Ecomorphism and the other article you created will have to be deleted. I've added a welcome paragraph to your talk page which explains, amongst other things, What wikipedia is not, and it's not for promoting oneself. We would however, greatly appreciate the contributions of anyone writing about architecture at the Wikiproject architecture. You might also be interested in the Architecture portal. And, for good measure, here's the architecture bulletin (If you don't like it just delete it from your talk page.) Kind regards, and sorry your efforts look unlikely to stick, but there's plenty more to write about - blobitecture is the collaboration of the month until Maggie's centres takes over. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Rion Wight, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mcginnly | Natter 14:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecomorphism
Has been listed for deletion - please comment, here. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there again. It would be nice if you would engage in some dialogue about Ecomorphism. Can I assume this edit is a result of my comments at the AfD? My concerns here are in no way an attack on your writing or person but born out of concern that the encyclopedia does not carry false or unverifiable information within its pages. If you've written a nice essay and posted it up to wikipedia, please come clean (you can still save it on your user page - this is what userfy means), but we can't have the article here masquerading as a genuine discussion of Ecomorphic design (which appears to be a term used by a few academics to describe a variety of different architectural approaches - contrast A Turners symbotic design generator here concerned, not least with the movements and circulation of people, with Sim Van der Ryn's approach here. Neither of these people seem to be mentioned in your article - are they covered in your rather broad definition? My view is the term is not yet notable enough (ie. in widespread usage) to sustain itself as a useful article. You do write rather well on architectural topics and it would be nice if you could employ your skills on articles that are less 'fringe' - to whet your whistle a little see Constructivist architecture nice article that needs some work to bring it up to GA/FA standard, or the Bauhaus which is still in terrible shape, or are you a fan of Enric Miralles, or Rogers, IM Pei, Alvar Aalto, Walter Gropius, Mies, Corb, Louis Kahn etc. etc. etc.????


 * The peculiar thing about wikipedia is we do not report what is 'true' or 'false' we report what others have written on the subject - to coin a neologism on wikipedia (for whatever reason you may have had) falls outside of policy because we do not allow Original research so if the article represents your own thoughts on the subject, it needs to go onto your user page, if not - and you can put your hand on heart and defend it with Reliable sources then great. So in summary, perhaps you might comment on the origins of your article so we might save some time and effort and either improve it or move onto something more useful. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)