User talk:Cuttingedgethinking

Welcome!

Hello, Cuttingedgethinking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ecological Urbanism, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Ecological Urbanism


A tag has been placed on Ecological Urbanism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Still needs work
Your draft article had only 305 words, or which 209 were directly copied from other places. Not an acceptable ratio.

To your credit, you quoted them, rather than pretending they were your own words, but we want the bulk of the article to be written by Wikipedia editors. Direct pertinent quotes are highly desired, but like spices must be included in modest proportion.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Would the article be ok now? Thanks!!!

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
The recent edit you made to Talk:Ecological Urbanism constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Krashlandon (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ecological Urbanism for deletion
The article Ecological Urbanism is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ecological Urbanism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecological Urbanism
Let's start with some good news. The original deletion request was a speedy deletion request, which often results in deletion in minutes, rarely more than a few hours. This proposal is a different request, which will not be completed for seven days, sot here is plenty of time to respond.

On to other news. Do not assume that I am whole-hearted supportive of this article. I'm very interested in working with anyone (such as you, who shows good faith in improving an article, but there are some concerns. One concern is one I already noticed, hadn't gotten around to mentioning, but I see it in the deletion arguments. In short, is the article about the project or the book? There no rule you can't include both, but it isn't clear.

More good news - the deletion decision will be based upon a consensus of those who weigh in at the discussion. So far, only one person has expressed a clear opinion, and that is to Keep. It is early, you are permitted to weigh in, but be careful. My advice is to hold off weighing in at the deletion discussion, work on improving it, and at some later time, weigh in at the deletion discussion with relevant arguments. If you are willing to hold off on that now, I'll help, because there's a list of argument for you to avoid, but there are other things to do first. Let's discuss that later.

Here's what you should do first: (to follow)
 * 1) Take a deep breath. There's plenty of time to address the issues
 * 2) Read Manual of Style (lead section). While a very short article can be a single paragraph, it isn't good form. You need a little more material to justify a lead and a section, but it is worth doing.
 * 3) Think about whether the article is about the project, with the book as supportive material, or about the books, with the project as related information. I'm indifferent at the moment, so you decide. The rewrite with that in mind.
 * 4) Ignore the ugly red on the references. You messed something up, I will fix it. I want to have a chat with the person proposing the deletion as well. The I'll come back and consider other ways to improve the article.--  SPhilbrick  T  20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like you already fixed some of the reference problems. There still are some, but I haven't yet tracked them down. Will do so, but will address some other issues first.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what the problem was with the references, and I've fixed it. I promised someone else I'd take a look at an article, so I need to return to that (plus, I have to get some work done, so I can keep my job.) I've done one of the things I promised, I want you to address the question I asked, and I'll be back later - as I mentioned we have plenty of time.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blogs as sources
One of your reviews is Domus. The page opens poorly, leading one to think it is an error. More importantly, the source is a blog. Blogs are acceptable under very limited circumstances, and this doesn't seem to fit the exceptions. I will remove it. If you think it qualifies, let me know, and I'll show you how to get it vetted. See WP:BLOGS.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You also cite, which is , of course, a blog. However, it MAY qualify for one of the exceptions. Not perfectly clear, but also not one of the priorities. I'm mentioning it now, but I'd like you to concentrate on whether the article is a bout the project or the book, and think about how to write it as a lede followed by a main section. We'll bring up the blog at Reliable sources/Noticeboard later.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I trust your edits and knowledge! I will do my best too!!!--Cuttingedgethinking (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible source
Would any of these be relevant?
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! Great. Thank you once again.--Cuttingedgethinking (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First use
Just while I'm being helpful, let me throw a small spanner into the works. You state that the first use of the term is in 2007, but here is a reference in 2006: Questions like this only help making the article stronger! I will look into the issue, thanks!!!--Cuttingedgethinking (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  12:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus one from 1998
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  14:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)