User talk:Neelix/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Neelix. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Couth redirect

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but why did you redirect couth to List of English irregular verbs? It doesn't make any sense to me. Loganberry (Talk) 01:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cindery

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cindery, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. ninety:one 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Couth

Hi; thanks for the reply. Okay, that seems fine, then. I wasn't aware of that meaning of "couth", and was associating it with the Scottish English word "couthy", meaning agreeable, comfortable etc. Loganberry (Talk) 18:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's a problem - Matt Yeager removed "couth" from that list August, and so I deleted that redirect (before seeing your explanation to Loganberry or checking the verb-list's history, oops!) as 'factually incorrect redirect with no correct target'. Normally, I'd just restore the redirect and think nothing more of it, but in this case there's clearly a difference of opinion between you and Matt about whether "couth" should be included in the list. Get that settled first, okay? DS (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cindery

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cindery, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. ninety:one 19:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it get deleted, by AfD if necessary, then we have something solid to go on. ninety:one 19:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Mike.JPG

Image:Mike.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Michael J. Fox Hand Prints.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Michael J. Fox Hand Prints.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cindery

I have nominated Cindery, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ninety:one 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Enemies in Doom

It was deleted, but after someone recreated it, another admin restored the deleted history. Unlike the old version, the recreated one has third party refs. You can try AfDing it again if you really want. Spellcast (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think...

this discussion would be best done on the article's talk page. I appreciate the notice, though. See you there. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Flagellation

I was gob-smacked to see your edit summary on this! The Flagellation of Christ (the correct title) is a standard component of the Passion of Christ, the Life of Christ, and one of the Stations of the Cross. There have been thousands of paintings of it. I will move to the correct disambiguated title. Johnbod (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I ballsed up my first attempt with a typo, & there is a redirect in place, So I've added it to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#25_September_2008. I'll tidy the incoming links when that has gone through. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Portauxchoix.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Portauxchoix.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Sermonically

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sermonically, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sermonically is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sermonically, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maler

Hi Excirial,

I noticed that you added the qualifier "(disambiguation)" to the Maler disambiguation page, stating that you were "Properly labelling as disambiguation page." Actually, the Manual of Style states that, if there is no primary topic, "the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". I reverted your move, but I just wanted to drop you a note to explain why.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about this. The page was originally a redirect to Teoberto Maler when a new user created the second page about Maler (musician). I designated the page it redirected to as the primary topic; because of that i moved the page to a disambiguation subpage, forgetting that no article actually used the name maler. Thanks for fixing this :)! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your redirects

Are you making up these words? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they unlikely redirects? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Shock-and-awer"

A page you created, Shock-and-awer, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Mww113 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Shock-and-awer

What is the purpose of this redirect? Redirects are for plausible mispellings, alternate names, etc. Among the billions of pages indexed by Google, this appears with the hyphens zero times, and appears extremely implausible. The same can be said of some of the other numerous redirects you have created to shock and awe. As a phrase which includes two common English words, it's not as if people are going to be guessing at the correct words, as is true of some titles. I see you placed a hangon on the article, and I skipped passed it based on that, but you realize you're expected to provide an explanation on the talk page. The placing of a hangon is to indicate your going to give a reason imminently not to perform the deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Anti-homelessness

On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anti-homelessness, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just Visiting (album series)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Just Visiting (album series), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Just Visiting Part Two. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuses for Bad Behavior

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Excuses for Bad Behavior, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Excuses for Bad Behavior (Part One). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Torrents of Greed

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Torrents of Greed, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: The Torrents of Greed (Part 1). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Volumes 1 and II

I've commented on your proposal regarding the Heliocentric Worlds of Sun Ra Vols I and II at Talk:The Heliocentric Worlds of Sun Ra. I notice you have been creating singular articles and proposing consolidations of a wide variety of Vol 1 & 2 works. While often appropriate, I don't think this should be approached as if generally so. See my note on that particular work, and especially the cited article. But happy to read and be persuaded by your views on the specific albums in question?

In general though, rather than create a singular X article and propose merges of X Vol 1 & X Vol 2 articles, would it not be better to commence by proposing this course of action on the Talk pages of the existing articles first? That saves creating unnecessary additional articles if the consensus turns out to be not to do so. AllyD (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal made me look again at the two Heliocentric Worlds articles and their need for improvement. There's some solid published analysis on these, so it's an opportunity to cite that. We can see how things look after that, with regards to the role of the article over the Vol 1 and II articles. AllyD (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Homeless Rabi

TFA Director

Hi Lai,

In response to my suggestion of an image for yesterday's featured article, you mentioned the "TFA Director". I was just wondering: who is the TFA Director? and are there other types of "directors" on Wikipedia?

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Neelix. I don't know of other "Directors", but I suspect various wikiprojects would have different people in charge with different titles. For TFA on MainPage, the big boss is User:Raul654. Hope this helps. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

admin nomination.

Do you mind if I nominate you to be an administrator?--Ted-m (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Homelessness in the United States article

Hi Neelix. What you added -- the section on Women -- in the Homelessness in the United States article needs to have citations. It almost seems POV but I'll go with the flow. It seems to have been lifted and copied from the other shaky article Homeless women in the United States which has been criticized for POV and poor writing and no real citations. See its talk page. I made some edits and raised some citation flags, so if you will provide the citations, it would be great. I'll check it out too and find some backing evidence and citations if they're out there. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Neelix, for your kindest reply. It's really a troubled section in the source WP article. Well, I agree that it needs to be said but as you wisely say it needs corroboration and citations or modification. The Homeless women in the United States article is very shaky at best. We'll work together on these matters. Best wishes and many thanks. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. You did an excellent job on the Women section of the Homelessness in the United States article. Thanks ! I was gathering information. What should be done about the Homeless women in the United States article, one wonders ? Here is what I was looking at for the Women section of the Homelessness in the United States:

1. http://www.jhsph.edu/WCHPC/Publications/homeless.PDF
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/30homeless.html U.S. Reports Drop in Homeless Population. New York Times, July 30, 2008, by RACHEL L. SWARNS
3. (Encyclopedia of Homelessness at Google Books) - p.544
4. http://www.wsmv.com/news/17317717/detail.html
5. http://www.tprojects.org/pdfs/synopsis.pdf
6. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Whois.pdf
7. http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/homelessness_up_among_women_and_children/mbb7711987/
8. "Braving the Street: An Anthropology of Homelessness" by Irene Glasser. p.20 (Google books)

Best wishes and many thanks for your excellent work. More to come. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix ! Well, the kudos are deserved since you did a great job on it. I just finished editing it dome more and am presently reading scholarly papers and books to add citations and material. I'd totally agree with what you said about the subsidiary article. Something does need to be done about it. It's almost vitriolic. Merging or replacement at the right time would be prudent. Well, on to reading and adding. Let's be in touch on this and please have a look at what I'm adding to it. Anything that you can improve on, and have the time to do so, I thank you in advance. Best wishes, ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Collection (album series)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Collection (album series), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Redundant article with nothing to merge—both albums have their own articles.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Three Stooges

FYI, I'm supporting the merging of the volume articles to The Three Stooges Collection. Wasn't sure if you were still interested in going through with it! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Best of Led Zeppelin

There is a prexisting article with the correct title at Early Days and Latter Days. The contents at Best of Led Zeppelin should be moved/merged to the correct article. If not I intend nominating Best of Led Zeppelin for deletion as an article duplicate with an incorrect title. MegX (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such title as Best of Led Zeppelin. The 2-disc box set package is known as Early Days and Latter Days. The article you've created is simply a copy of the existing Early Days and Latter Days page. MegX (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for new album type

Hi, about the infobox "Type" field on the article O3:_A_Trilogy. I've been trying to find a way to add the "concept album series" to the infobox template, and I ended up on this article Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Proposal for new album type.

I think you should explain there, why the "concept album series" must be added to the infobox. Iamthejustice (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible you overlooked...

Is it possible you overlooked that the List of television stations in Serbia and Montenegro predates the split of Serbia and Montenegro by two years? Geo Swan (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Graduation Day (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Graduation Day (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://buffyverseratings.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/b321-graduation-day-part-one. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bargaining (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bargaining (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Bargaining, Part One. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merged Past Masters by The Beatles article.

After reviewing the merged Past Masters (album series) article, I decided to revert the redirects in the old articles due to problems with the merged article which is the deletion of significant info such as the tracks on the side selections of the double LP as well as the label photos which is a significant part of the double LP article. If the issued I've raised are addressed and incorporated in the revised merged article, then I can favor a merger. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The new revisions have rectified the issues raised above. Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Drawn Together episodes

Allow me to apologize for the tone of my argument in this AfD, which may have been a bit harsh considering your willlingness to listen to reason in the last episode AfD. It mostly came from built-up frustration in dealing with people who aren't so willing to listen to any argument which conflicts with their own POV, and bring things to AfD as a way to avoid working collaboratively with editors, rather than working with them. Thankfully, your response was civil, calm, and rational, and the AfD was closed pretty much the way I expected it to.

I hope, however, that you will consider the substance of my argument before nominating further episodes for AfD. I read the guideline a bit differently than you, as I read the words "completely unverifiable and original research" to mean an article which contains no facts whatsoever which could be verified by a reliable source. To me, any episode of a TV series which is contained in a readily available DVD collection is inherently verifiable, though whether it is notable enough for a separate article is a valid discussion which I believe should be happening on talk pages and not AfD.

As DGG said in a recent AfD, which was about a fictional element but the comment applies equally well to TV episode articles, "bringing these here [to AfD] ... will have the effect of deleting random articles on t[h]e basis of how much patience people have in dealing with them, which is not [a] rational approach., Tags can be put on any number of a[r]ticles in a few minutes, that take hours for proper defense and judgment. That's what talk pages are for."

The ArbCom case was filed because of the, as you called called it, "lack of professionalism and respect present in the meta-discussions previously mentioned". But I don't believe the solution is to bring everything to AfD that would have otherwise gone through these pointless unprofessional discussions, but to improve the quality of the discussion. I really don't believe this can be done by randomly nominating episode articles for deletion, and having them rubberstamped by random participants, but by having a wide discussion, including the editors which generally work on these articles (who seem to rarely present themselves at AfD, possibly because it is generally perceived to be a hostile environment), about how episode articles which people judge to be non-notable should be dealt with in general. That's why we have an WP:EPISODE guideline, and I believe its words (such as "completely") were carefully chosen to manage conflicts in ways which might avoid "long-drawn and indecisive" discussions.

On the other hand, since there no longer seems to be anyone stepping up to defend and/or improve these particular episode articles, perhaps being bold and redirecting all which you feel are not notable is the best solution, citing the two AfDs as precedent. You may end up avoiding any discussion at all if no one reverts them. DHowell (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your reply here. DHowell (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Elenkine

I highly suggest you to add the soordinates of that town in WIKI GK tramrunner (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Carabane

The article itself doesn't state the people on the island created the kayendo. Could you reword the article, assuming it is correct? (You could also reword the hook, but I think this is too interesting to drop) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we have an article or list about people who were buried in a standing position. About the new hooks, I like both. Drop whichever one(s) you like best on the hook page. "... that Captain Aristide Protet was shot with a poisoned arrow on the island of Carabane, where he was also buried standing up? (grave pictured)" I'd add 'also' (as I did here) to get a better flow. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, without an article about Aristide Protet, not many people may get the second hook. Any chance of bashing out a quick entry and make it a double nom? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Settlement location map

Hi Neelix,

FYI: Infobox Settlement in most cases will give you a location map for most countries. See my diffs to two of your last few edits: Samatit and Nianing. Just add the country's name to |pushpin_map = field. Good luck. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

happy 2009!

Hellsing (disambiguation)

Hi there. I tried to speedy this "unneeded" dab with {{db-disambig}} but someone else thought it was valid and decline it. I wouldn't say it's on par with pages like Rinku or Death Note (disambiguation) anymore. So, what is your opinion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ethnic groups in Senegal

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ethnic groups in Senegal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Carabane

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carabane, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Monotype

I appreciate that the problems listed and fixed here were not caused by you, but since you were involved in the page moves, I thought you should be aware of the current situation jimfbleak (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

your suggestion makes sense, go ahead jimfbleak (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving the images you uploaded into Commons

Hey Neelix! I just wanted to tell you that I am so amazed to see the pictures of David Cook and David Archuleta that you took at the Idols LIVE! Tour, and since you released them into the public domain, I have moved them to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be accessed in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Kudos again on the pictures. =) Signed, kotak kasut 14:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Particularism

I do not think you should have merged this article with "particularism" especially with no discussion. Only Harris characterizes Boas and his students as particularists, and what Harris meant is not the same thing as the description of "particularism" in the title. The merge is misleading and inappropriate. The article on historical materialism only makes sense within a particular argument about the history of anthropology, one not universally shared although notable. The contents of HP could fit into other articles, but not the one on particularism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would just put links or "see also" links to the various articles in each article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hey Amigo, nice to see you around. Yes, I will look forward to reading your article during the day. I'll let you know what I think and if I have any suggestions, you can be sure that I will make them. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful article! You shouldn't have any problems, they may and they may not require some minor citations here and there, but that is no big problem.

Here is some advice:

Eliminate all "redlinks" ex. Baïnouks (History: "First inhabitants").

In "Recent history" merge the last sentence into the paragraph or a paragraph. There shouldn't be any lone sentences. This also goes for any other lone sentences.

Make sure that every inline reference "source" has a recent "Retrieved date" (With the exception of cited books)

Looks good. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Browning

I answered your question at the Ref Desk - Praxedes is the saint you seek. DuncanHill (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, now I will have to read the poem! DuncanHill (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Plumber snake

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Plumber snake, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Plumber's snake. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

taxon redirects

hi neelix,

i see you're doing a lot of redirects :) as you tend to work in huge batches, i wanted to tell you that it's generally not a good idea to redirect species to higher levels (genus, family). this leads to "false" blue links. i sometimes encounter a genus page with all species in blue, only to find that they all redirect to the very page i'm on right now. it's very frustrating to have to check out which single one is a real page, and to see which ones need to be created. i only found out about you when clicking on Cryphoeca nivalis like a child awaiting a present, only to find an empty box ;) if you have any questions regarding species work, just leave me a note! cheers --Sarefo (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Environment of Thailand listed at RfD

I've requested discussion of the Environment of Thailand redirect, which you created. The discussion is here. Sorry for not notifying you earlier. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)