Doubleg

Welcome!

Hello Doubleg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
• Experiment in the sandbox.
• Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
• Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
• Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
• Be bold in updating pages.
• Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
• And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

Esata

Someone has nominated your article on Esata for speedy deletion. I've written an explanation on its talk page why I think that's not a good idea. It would be nice if you could add some info regarding the language's notability there. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Gabriel. You created the article about that fake language. Thing is, there had been a deletion before, in fact, four times - someone repeatedly posted it again and again, and a vote had taken place. I had zapped it as soon as I saw it: it's called a speedy deletion, per policy WP:CSD, criterion G4 (reposted material). Howvever, IJJ above convinced me to undelete and it and open one more discussion, since two years had passed and since there was continued interest in the subject - from you. :) There's now a discussion on which you already commented. Based on what happens there it'll be either deleted once more, or retained. Finally, I am sorry your first article landed in the thick of all this procedural BS - it is bad luck. Your next article should hopefully have a brighter future. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources are everything. Go add another comment to the deletion discussion page (don't vote twice though) with as many links giving as much info that indicates this is a real established thing - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add here that I wasn't aware of the fact that it had been reposted a couple of times. I'm sure you weren't either! It's a pity those don't show up in the editing history. From this point of view, CrazyRussian acted properly. However, it's obvious that your article is not just a repost of deleted material. Therefore, and also because two years have passed since the discussion that led to its deletion, I think a new discussion is warranted. Let me add that I'm not yet convinced of the language's notability myself. I'd be grateful for some neutral references to the language (Google is not very helpful in this case). Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Science WikiProject

Doubleg, you might be interested in WikiProject History of Science. Despite the name, it coordinates all kinds of STS work (and history of medicine as well). What STS topics are you interested in/knowledgeable about?

Regarding your suggestion about the portal, it is organized the way it is for several related reasons. First, no one has created an STS portal. In part, this is because STS is primarily an academic discipline, rather than a coherent collection of encyclopedic topics. If such a portal existed, its subject would probably be the discipline itself; for readers unfamiliar with the discipline, the name would not make sense if it was simply a combined portal for all the different philosophical, historical, and sociological topics related to science and technology that it might include. History of science is a discipline as well (and arguably a subfield of STS), but it is also a (relatively) well-defined historical topic, and the latter is primarily the subject of the portal.--ragesoss 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)