User talk:Neelix/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
"a passionate sensual desire and longing which is more violent and urgently felt than erotomania."
It's good that "erotolepsy" is no longer being redirected to erotomania (see redirects for discussion: erotolepsy), but erotomania is not really a feeling of love; rather it's a delusion that someone else is in love with you. Most of those afflicted with erotomania end falling in love with their perceived secret admirers, but others do not, and are only aware that someone else secretly loves them. The latter case would still be considered erotomania, no? If so, erotomania is not a feeling, per se. It is only a type of delusion that may or may not actually produce feelings of love.
Also, why is erotolepsy in the medicine and psychology project? It does not seem to be a medical term at all. --Roastporkbun (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Snaking
A tag has been placed on Snaking, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Homelessness in Asia infobox
I appreciate your diligence in creating articles on Asian homelessness, but is it really necessary to have a full infobox of about 80 links just to cover three countries? It's a darned bulky template, and it would seem a better idea to hold off on it until it has at least 10% coverage. I think it would be a good idea to apply the same rule to the European and North American articles.
Peter Isotalo 08:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Social programs in Canada
Under what naming convetion was this page moved? In Canadian English "welfare" refers only to income support payments (aka "the dole", "relief", "pogey") not to other government services which are almost universally refered to as "social programs" or "the social safety net". --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Dupe linking
Please stop posting dupe links to articles that have nothing to do with computer screens.(edit: what was I thinking? I meant nothing to do with the subject)Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Erm...no. I'm not falling for that. If you really care about that article, why aren't you adding the info yourself, instead of misleading people into reading a page that has nothing to do with the subject? light-on-dark color scheme is way too much of a niche term to be of any interest to many people. OK, just link it in articles that are pertinent to the subject then.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Black on white means a whole lot of things in English, and the context in which it is mentioned in the camo article is not the one meant in light-on-dark color scheme. How is light-on-dark equivalent to black-on-white?Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You have won my deepest respect.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Charles Bernard (figure skater) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charles Bernard (figure skater) . Since you had some involvement with the Charles Bernard (figure skater) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kolindigo (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Black-Derman-Toy model, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Black-Derman-Toy. 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) 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black markets, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Black market. 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) 23:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black-markets, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Black market. 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) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black-fingered, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Black fingered mud crab. 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) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black fingered, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Black fingered mud crab. 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) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Black-foot, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Black foot. 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) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Sessility (limnology)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sessility (limnology), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- only a dictionary definition
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. PamD (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Grey- disambiguation pages
Hello--I've expressed some concern that some disambiguation pages you've created over the last few days may not meet the criteria for inclusion set forth at Wikipedia:Disambiguation because they don't contain links to pages that are referred to as the phrase in question. That is, it seems unlikely that the Grey-flanked Thrush would be referred to as "the Grey-flanked", etc.
Can you let me know your feelings on the matter by responding to the thread Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Valid dabs? I apologize for not contacting you directly when I first became aware of the pages, but I didn't notice that they were all new and created by the same editor. Dekimasuよ! 13:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Squalidness
A tag has been placed on Squalidness requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Neelix, I noticed you started merger discussions into one article but they were never completed. I was wondering if you were interested in starting up the merger proposal again as there is some merit in doing so. The articles at present are nothing more than tracklists with no hope of expansion. Zyteng (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Prithee listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prithee. Since you had some involvement with the Prithee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (also Pray thee)
NowCommons: File:Amanda.jpg
File:Amanda.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Amanda Falk.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: [[File:Amanda Falk.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:Hall.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Regent Hall entrance.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
G&S good topic
I don't remember, sorry. See User:Shoemaker's Holiday. He initiated the Featured/Good topic review on both occasions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
GTN for G&S
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Gilbert and Sullivan/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Gilbert and Sullivan/archive3
They were, frankly, sunk by idiocy, and I'm not inclined to try again, if at all, until all 14 operas are GAs. At which point they'll use their non-existent reading comprehension to demand The Martyr of Antioch, The Distant Shore, Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, and Rutland Barrington be added. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 202 FCs served 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder, when merging please remember to include the title of the article being merged to/from in your edit summaries for GFDL compliance, and use the {{R from merge}} tag for proper categorization. More info at Help:Merging. Thanks. -- Ϫ 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Replied :)
A tag has been placed on Singlesource publishes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. iPatrickQuinn (Talk) 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as an experienced editor; however, in my personal opinion, we do not need a redirect to every article title from every conceivable grammatical variant of the title which might theoretically be used in a sentence. That's what piped links are for. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Naming convention
Hi Neelix,
In March, you moved "Theatre in Canada" to "Theatre of Canada" to conform to a naming convention (as you said in the edit summary), leaving a redirect at "T in C". Could you point me to the statement of the convention (which I don't find in WP:NC or other related pages, e.g. Geographic names)? I'm having trouble understanding this convention because "T of C" doesn't sound correct to me.
Thanks. Epanalepsis (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Self/Real self merge suggestion removed
I wanted to let you know that I've removed the merge suggestion from these pages. It has been over 1 year with no substantive discussion of this idea. Also, I don't think that these 2 articles are actually a similar topic, though real self clearly needs to be expanded. Shanata (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles
I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. You have received this notice because you have regularly contributed to either kind of article, or have had dealings with editors concerning the conduct of this dispute. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservatism in North America
You revived the article Conservatism in North America, which had been broken up, since it only mentioned the United States and Canada, into Conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in Canada. Since there is nothing in Conservatism in the United States that isn't already in one of the other two articles, and since you are the only person who has edited that article since it was broken up, do you really want to keep it as a separate article? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you think there should be such an article you need a reliable source that writes about the subject. As someone from Canada you are no doubt aware that Canadian conservatism shares no common origin with American conservatism. Also the term "North America" includes Mexico and often other countries so it is wrong to include only 2 countries. Mexican conservatism is also very different from US conservatism although it shares some aspects with Quebec conservatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conservatism in North America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Robertweide.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Robertweide.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Oceania topic
I came across this this edit to Template:Culture of Oceania which changed Dance of Kiribati to Dance in Kiribati. Evidently you moved the page, and another editor followed up by updating the Culture of Oceania template.
Unfortunately, Template:Oceania topic relies on the ' "Topic" of "X" ' naming topology to function. In other words, for that template to work on a page, the page must not be named, for example, "Dance in Kiribati," but instead "Dance of Kiribati". It does not satisfy the template to employ it thus: [[Template:Oceania topic|Dance in]]. Take a look, everywhere the template has been deployed (on the "Dance in" pages), there are almost all red links.
If editors are intent on propagating this naming topology change throughout Oceania-related articles, some homework needs to be addressed first on the Oceania topic navigation template; or return it to its former condition. Thank you! –Newportm (talk • contribs) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Message added 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Insulated glazing redirects
Hey, there. I've noticed you've been making a lot of redirects to the page Insulated glazing, and some of them make sense, but I think you might be going a little bit overboard at this point. I honestly cannot imagine anyone ever looking up Sextuplepaned glasses, or Quintuplepaned, or anything like this. Just wanted to let you know that you probably have already made redirects for all of the plausible searches, and you can probably stop. :-) Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Headed
I ask purely out of interest - at what number of heads are you going to stop creating redirects to polycephaly? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Ranunculus nivalis
I have nominated Ranunculus nivalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Plant naming convention
It's at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Although there are a few editors (otherwise completely uninvolved with editing plant articles) who have made it a goal to get plant articles to English names, they have yet (after two years of pointless arguing) to gather much support from editors at large. Circeus (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Discussion about bibliography articles
I have seen and appreciate your note. Right now there is not much left for me to add to that discussion, but I am keeping an eye on it. Thanks! Rl (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Google Books
If you want to provide a hyperlink to Google Books, you should click on "Link" in the top right corner of the page you want and copy the link under "Paste link". When the hyperlink is clicked in the article it will then go directly to the page. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Red-billed
I have nominated Red-billed, an article that 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/Red-billed. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Template for speedy deletion
A {{db-t3}} speedy deletion template has been placed on a template you appear to have created, the African topic template, because it is a near-duplicate of Africa topic.
— .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hiya, Neelix. I saw your edit summary, and, while I don't understand it, I take it to mean that the template serves a very useful purpose. So maybe, to keep other editors from tagging for deletion or discussion, perhaps you should place an explanatory note (for those like me you could explain it as if I were a six-year-old) on the doc page?
- — .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- PS. I also tagged the European topic template for speedy deletion. I see you caught that one, too.
Articles for deletion nomination of Conservatism in North America
I have nominated Conservatism in North America, an article that 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/Conservatism in North America. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
File:McEntire.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:McEntire.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead, I have unprotected the page. (I had protected the page after it was created several times by vandals.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you make a redirect from this to French conjugation#Pouvoir? It does not appear anywhere there, and as far as I know is a Spanish but not a French word; and in any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The article Bed dance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not an encyclopaedic page
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Prithee
Hi Wolfkeeper,
I noticed that you removed the article I created called Prithee and turned it into a soft redirect to Wiktionary, stating that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have reverted the edit because the article located at that title is not a dictionary definition. The information contained in that article about the word goes far beyond what should be found in a dictionary. There are many valid Wikipedia articles which deal with individual words; see for example Truthiness and Thou. If you have additional concerns regarding the Prithee article, feel free to contact me. In the future, you come across articles which you feel should be removed from Wikipedia, it is always polite to notify the initial creator of the article.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually if you read them carefully, the 'articles on the word' are about the topic, not the word.
- You've written the article to be about the word, the history of the word, and the use of the word. That's wrong; that's not what encyclopedias do.
- Encyclopedias are about a meaning, (sometimes called the 'signified'), which can be associated with one or multiple words ('signifier').
- You've written the article to be all about the signifier. You can do that... in a dictionary. You could try rewriting it to be about the meaning instead, but I'm not sure that's even possible, and would doubtless overlap with other articles.
- Basically, if people want to know what prithee means and it's history they're supposed to look it up in a dictionary, encyclopedias are not for that.- Wolfkeeper 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Neelix. The prithee article looks good to me: interesting and informative. Opinions differ I suppose, but I wanted to thank you for your good work on it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Flannagan
I have nominated Flannagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Fattonyni (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, could you take a look at the short article about Kajandu that I just wrote, and see if I got it right? I found Carabane just after I finished writing and noticed it has a part about the kayendo. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right, categories, how could I forget that? I had Kajandu on my articles to write list on my user page for some time. I think I read the word somewhere and there was no article. I didn't find Carabane until I searched for the other spellings. It's a surprising coincidence that you just submitted it at FAC. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Tallit
Thank you for sourcing the pronounciations. Believe me that those sources are wrong, because these pronounciations are simply non-existent (or should be). But the main thing is that it is sourced. At least the title is correct.
Another thing is a question I raised some time ago in Talk:Tallit#Various_prayers. Perhaps you want to do some research and sourcing on that as well? Debresser (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Dallas
Hi, Neelix. From the Edit History, it looks like my initial edit was an error on my part (sorry about that), but that I then reversed that error (and fixed another appearance of the word "spinoff" elsewhere in the article) in the edit right after that. Sorry about that initial screwup on my part; I don't know how that happened. Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The dictionary definitions of Pied and Piebald are not identical, so per this AfD I have reinstated the soft redirect to Wiktionary, and put a "see also" link to Piebald in place of your redirect. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your photos on Commons
Hi Neelix! I see that User:Quadell has transferred a lot of your plant photos to Commons, without renaming them (so they are still called unhelpful things such as "Bright" and ""Yellowplant"). He's created a category for 62 of them, Flora of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, but I have suggested there, and on his talkpage, that most of the plants are not appropriate for such a category, as they are largely garden cultivars, summer bedding plants etc. Could you possibly confirm whether any of the photos that I have put in a gallery there were of wild plants, and that most if not all of the others are garden subjects? Thanks. SiGarb | (Talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was pretty sure those were taken in the wild. Although I can't pin them down as to exact species, they are a knapweed (Centaurea species), possibly a Rubus of some kind (though without any foliage, flowers or other clues it's hard to be sure) and probably a plantain, Plantago species (again, with no foliage or anything to show the scale, it's hard to tell). SiGarb | (Talk) 19:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Spin-Off
You're right, neither of the two links I inserted mentions "spin-off". But having just disambiguated over a thousand "spin-off" (and the various redirects to spin-off), I can assure you the term is used for both Schism and Brand Extension. Granted, only a few were Schism, Brand Extension was much more popular (as in, "Mars-bar muffins are a spin-off of the Mars bar"). Josh Parris 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Mediation (biology)
Hi Neelix,
Just letting you know I've proposed Mediation (biology) for deletion, since I see you've de-orphaned it. You're welcome to comment, of course.
Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- From Mediator (coactivator): Mediator is a multiprotein complex that functions as a transcriptional coactivator. It was discovered by Roger D. Kornberg, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Could it be that your textbooks are too old? Josh Parris 04:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I know what the mediator involved in eukaryotic transcription initiation is, and "mediator" was in the index of one of the textbooks. So Mediator (coactivator) is a legitimate article. But I'm not convinced that "mediation" has any special meaning – as far as I can tell, it's an ordinary English word being used to describe what the mediator does. In any case, the articles that link to Mediation (biology) aren't necessarily talking about transcription (eg Fungus). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've redirected the page to Mediator (coactivator) as that seems to be the only possible meaning of "Mediator" in biology which is specific to biology. I have also removed all incoming links from other articles. I hope everyone finds this solution acceptable. Neelix (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks Neelix. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)