User talk:Ascrimge

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template, so you can find some resources
Welcome!

Hello, Ascrimge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

New article
I noticed you tried to create the new article Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism, however the same content was already at Nitrogen cycle and articles like Nitrogen assimilation. If you would like to use your research to improve that page or similar related pages, I would suggest Being Bold and helping improve them, however, currently it appears like the content at Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism is not actually an independent topic. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them here, Sadads (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism was converted to a redirect. If you are inexperienced here, you are encouraged to check with editors or projects before creating articles.  We welcome your help.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved the content of your article to here, which is a sub page in your user space. The discussion that was one the Talk Page is here. I agree with the comments above in that it would have been better to improve the existing articles, but as this seems to be a student project, I have preserved your work, for the time being, on these two sub pages, which are not part of the main encyclopedia. If you need any help, please contact me here here. Graham Colm (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article on Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism was part of an educational assignment in a first year undergraduate course. I am the instructor of that course, and I suggested this subject because it is significantly different from nitrogen fixation, nitrification and denitrification and therefore will, to the extent of my knowledge have filled a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Nitrogen fixation, nitrification and denitrification encompass processes involved in the interconversion of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) to biologically assimilable forms of nitrogen such as ammonium and nitrate. In contrast, nitrogen flow through metabolism is the integrated process by which nitrogen from the ammonium or nitrate taken up by a cell is converted to nitrogen-containing metabolites such as amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids and secondary metabolites such as anthocyanins, caffeine and pharmaceuticals. To the extent of my knowledge, Wikipedia lacks an article that covers all this information in one place. I looked at Nitrogen assimilation, which is currently a stub (or close to one even if it does not have stub status). Even Nitrogen is not very informative in this respect. Additionally, metabolic processes geared toward conserving nitrogen, such as those orchestrated by trees during senescence in Fall (again, not covered in Wikipedia as far as I could see) would be very appropriate in a separate article on nitrogen flow through metabolism.


 * I do agree that the student group that created and wrote the article on Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism did not exactly cover what I intended (and described above). However, this is an ongoing project (due in mid-May) and the group should have been given a fair chance to fix what was lacking. However, what is apparent from the above comments is that the group was informed about the similarity in coverage at a certain time, and within a couple of hours after this, the article they wrote was moved to the user space and converted to a redirect. This may be Wikipedia policy, but it is discouraging to student groups contributing to Wikipedia for the first time and to instructors who are exploring Wikipedia contributions as a project idea. Additionally, I am concerned by the following merger- and deletion-related comments (that were associated with the original article, were lost? during the merger and were emailed to me by a student in the group). Sadads, what is your justification for this topic (Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism) not being sufficiently encyclopedic? I hope my description of the topic convinces you otherwise. Secondly, was the deletion/redirection/merger based only upon the opinion of the 3-4 users above or was any kind of review conducted for this? UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Suggestion to merge: Unfortunately, I the same content was already covered in the Nitrogen cycle and in articles like Nitrogen assimilation. I don't think that this topic is sufficiently WP:Encyclopedic to be an independent subject, currently it is just an aggregate of information often repeated in other places. Perhaps it would be best to merge this into other articles, where the titles are more precise, Sadads (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)"


 * "I agree, all of this is already covered (and better) in the other articles. As this seems to be a student project, it would be sad to have to delete it. I suggest moving this article and this talk page into user space for the duration of the project. Graham Colm (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)"


 * "I have copied the article and discussion to the editor's user space. The earlier discussion has been move to here, and the original article is here. Graham Colm (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)"
 * The work on Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism" is a student essay and I would hope that it stays that way. It would be unfortunate if the instructor inflicted this student essay on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia does not exist as a site for drafts by students who are learning to write about complicated subjects, despite the good intentions of the students and their instructor.  Perhaps the instructor, who is an authority, could insert section or two from the student report into the current article on Nitrogen assimilation.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * , could you explain how your statement “Wikipedia does not exist as a site for drafts by students who are learning to write about complicated subjects ...” is consistent with School_and_university_projects? I hope I have been able to convince you about the appropriateness of Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism as a standalone article (see my comments above). Furthermore, as explained in my response to you on my talk page this article has yet to go through two more drafts, student-initiated peer reviews and final instructor approval. If there is an explicit Wikipedia policy that student-initiated articles be uploaded only after instructor approval, please point it out to me and get it incorporated into School_and_university_projects. UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can explain. Editors here do not add material knowing that it is flawed. We make our edits to our best ability and we do so incrementally, so that others can contribute.  We do not ask to be held to a low standard because we are part of a classroom.  Etc.  So when the student finish the semester, regular editors are often stuck repairing a mass.  This problem would not exist if the instructors did some editing of their students' work, but instructors rarely do so.  So in short, better ways exist to serve both the student and Wikipedia, but these methods require the faculty member to do more. And they are reluctant to do so, hence my complaint.  --Smokefoot (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am moving this discussion, including my response to the previous message by Smokefoot, to my talk page. Please continue the discussion there. UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Clicking on “ this edit” in your post above clearly reveals that I did not make the edit (although I have been defending the place of Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism as a standalone article -- see my edits on this above and on User_talk:Ascrimge). So why did you post the above comment without even checking who made the edit? UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, never mind, I wrote the previous comment thinking that the first one was posted on my talk page. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Nevertheless, my stand on Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism (see discussion above) remains unaltered. UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)