User talk:Becks3uk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Science communication
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Science communication, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I was the one who redirected the article to Science journalism. I'm sorry that you've had so much trouble getting back to the page - there are a couple ways to do this. The first is clicking on the linked part of "Redirected from page x" notice on the page to which you are redirected, and the second is typing the URL directly and adding ?redirect=no to the end. Either way, the history of the article is intact and always has been. I thought at the time that science journalism and science communication were effectively the same thing, and the similarities in article content led me to believe that it might be more useful to redirect the page to an equivalent than let the page simply be deleted. Since you insist that these are different, I'll defer to your judgement, since you appear to know more about the subject. I recommend you add Science journalism to a "See also" section, though: the fields are clearly related. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Though additionally, I would not suggest simply reverting back to the previous text that existed at that namespace. I'm not trying to be overly critical here, but what existed there previously wasn't really an encyclopedia article and wasn't adequate for posting here per our notability requirements, manual of style, and wasn't cited and verified from reliable sources. If I could offer a suggestion, you should probably work on a version in your own userspace before posting it publicly at Science communication.--Isotope23 talk 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Creating pages in a userspace
No problem at all... I'm not even sure there are directions on this anywhere... If you click on this link you can make the new page at User:Becks3uk/temporary. You can work on it there and generally speaking nobody will move/delete it while you are working (or at least they shouldn't as long as you are not including copywritten text, etc). When the article is ready you can move it to the new article name. you can contact me at my talkpage when you are ready, or you can ask someone to help you at WP:VPA if I'm not around. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! --Isotope23 talk 12:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talkpages
When you are trying to contact another editor, please use their "User talk" page... not their "User" page.--Isotope23 talk 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
