User talk:Dustcube

A tag has been placed on Metasemiotics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

nonsense

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page 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. Crusio (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Metasemiotics
As a journal editor myself, I often hear complaints from authors whose articles were rejected that "the reviewer did not understand what we were writing". The answer is simple: this usually means that the article was not written intelligibly. I have nothing against metasemiotics, but an article that cannot be understood by the average reader will not be of much use to Wikipedia. Honestly, I could make head nor tail of that article. Material published in my own journal could not be placed in Wikipedia without heavy editing either. So my proposal for speedy deletion of your article is no reflection on the quality of the academic journals that you listed. It's just a reflection of the fact that you did not succeed in conveying what metasemiotics is about in generally understandable words. Apparently I was not the only one feeling this way, as the article was deleted by an admin who apparently agreed with me (I am not an admin and therefore cannot delete articles myself). In any case, it was only a speedy delete, so nothing prevents you from trying again. Please keep in mind in that case the public or which you are writing. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Agave nectar— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 14:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)