User talk:Neiladri

Reversion of Anus[edit]

I've reversed your reversal of recent changes. The text you restored is only about the human anus. Many invertebrate species have an anus, and the topic is actually important in the evolution of the more complex animals, from insects and molluscs (protostomes) to humans and other vertebrates (deuterostomes). The change was made as I found that articles on evolution could not link to Anus as the article at that time dived (!?) almost immediately into sexuality - making trillions of innocent invertebrates blush. -- Philcha (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that from the point of view of biology and general and especially of evolution, there is an awful lot to be said about anuses. The quickie text that I put in was a just a high-level map of this. To give you one example:

Most complex organisms are built of repeated "modules". Arthropods and annelids are the most obvious example, but it's also true of vertebrates - fish have repeating vertebrae, ribs and lateral muscle bands. Repeated "modules" must include a through gut, open at both ends, otherwise the modules both starve and get poisoned by in their own waste. That implies that before modules started repeating (probably because a block of genes was copied too often during reproduction) the initial single module must have had a mouth and an anus. Since the most "primitive" true multi-celled animals, cnidarians, don't have separate mouths and anuses, the evolution of the anus was a very significant process in the history of evolution - in fact such a good thing that it occurred twice, in protostomes and deuterostomes.

Now imagine that written in the more formal style required for an article, and with refs. Then add a few more topics in the same formal style and with refs, e.g. summary of the differences in embryological development of the anus between protostomes and deuterostomes, summary of the anatomical differences between anuses in different parts of the animal kingdom (the current bit about cloacas is a very simple summary of just one branch of the animal kingdom, amniotes). The result is a fair-sized article, much too large to fit at all well into a medical article about the human anus. In particular writing an acceptably short lead section that adequately summmarises all the general biology / evolution material and the human material would be virtually impossible - and that means we can both kiss our GAs goodbye.

Compared with that, the penis is a minor issue - most of the animal kingdom gets by without one. -- Philcha (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth S. Radcliffe (March 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by StraussInTheHouse were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elizabeth S. Radcliffe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SITH (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neiladri! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SITH (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth S. Radcliffe (July 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elizabeth S. Radcliffe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mjs1991 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elizabeth S. Radcliffe concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth S. Radcliffe has been accepted[edit]

Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Fine-tuned universe, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. See also WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]