User talk:Neelix/Archive 5

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.

I am concerned that the move to List of school districts in Ontario violates WP:ENGVAR. The proper term in Ontario is school board. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We are indeed dealing with a language variation. "School board" in Ontario means what the term "school district" means elsewhere. The "groups of people who are in charge of education" are not called the board, they are the trustees. The organisation having authority over schools in an area in Ontario is a school board. Since the proper and used term in Ontario is "school board", that is where people would and should expect to find the article and how it should be titled. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not exactly correct nor the term used in Ontario. Boards overlap and are responsible for schools in the same area. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You state that the area is called the school district. I assert that this is not so in Ontario and challenge you to provide a reliable source for that. That the name of many boards take on the the geographical area where they are situated means as little as any organisation that takes the name of an area; it's a convenient and useful name. It does not mean that they are solely responsible for the area nor that there is such a thing as a school district. That other jurisdictions use the term "school district" does not mean it's used by all jurisdictions. You surely also recognise that, in Ontario, multiple school boards have schools in the same geographic area. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I discount the published studies as they use the term district to simply explain the idea to an international audience without having to explain the different meaning of "school board" in Ontario. The MinEd's mention of Avis Glaze's work in two school districts is the most persuasive for me (though very weak as a reference). I will leave it for now but I strongly dispute that "school district" is a proper term in Ontario and reserve the right to raise a RFC when I feel the energy to do so. You never answered my question if you recognise that multiple school boards have schools in the same geographic area (sometimes even in the same building). DoubleBlue (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are still not understanding. There are no "district" boundaries. The boundaries of the public school boards do not match the boundaries of the separate school boards. In addition, there are French-language public school boards, French-language separate school boards, and special school authorities that also overlap these areas with different boundaries. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are simply trying to invent districts where none exist in order to have consistency with other provinces and states. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"The plural form of personal titles should not be capitalized." Says who? List of Presidents of the United States was, until recently, a featured list. I would appreciate it if you brought up this move request on its talk page to see if there is consensus for any of these moves. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to political lists, I say we only need, at this point, to be consistent within the country in question. So if all of them are presently lowercase, leave them. If a request move comes up later, then that can be done. But definitely bring this up first before doing mass moves. :) --Golbez (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

wp:bb

A tag has been placed on Dobber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 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.    SIS  13:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No I have no objections to re-creating the page. I apologize for not checking the history before I deleted. ... discospinster _talk 20:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This disambiguation page has been nominated for deletion. Please see the page and WP:MOSDAB for more information. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "Canada topics" template offers a way to fix this or not, but there's a bit of a problem with using it to autogenerate links to "Deputy Premier of Province" pages: not all provinces have any office of deputy premier at all, so some of the red links can never actually be filled in. Do you know if there's any way for the template to force-hide some of the links? If there isn't a way to either do that or add a new function like that, we might have to create a standalone template for the deputy premiers instead of using the autogenerated one... Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of professional sports teams in the United States, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Talk:Index of Professional Sports teams in the United States and Canada. 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) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I object. All sources, especially legal documentation, capitalize both terms; look at any BCGNIS or CGNDB reference, look at any Indian Band [sic) webpage; the non-capitalization of "reserve" is a wiki-ism, perhaps borrowed from journalism styleguides that do not reference the sources, which is what Wikipedia should be doing. It's no more correct to un-capitalize the r than it is to uncapitalize the i. On all maps, on all sources, whether locational references or even in StatsCan, the r is capitalized.Skookum1 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article you want to include to your Europe topic template has not been written, yet. The article you moved, Regions of Latvia, is about historic boundries that never were administrative in their form. I consider it unwise to include this article to the Europe topic-template, since other editors might get the idea they have to make a list out of it. If you don't mind I can write a more updated list using the List of regions of Latvia that you created? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not know, but this template is quite similar to the one you're adding to many moved articles. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in your assessment. Regions of Latvia currently redirects, but could be used for a proper article at a later point. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Before adding Template:Regions of Europe to many articles, could you first please consider the comments raised at Template_talk:Regions of Europe?

This template you are adding is at best highly confusing, and at worst completely misleading. These articles have practically nothing in common with each other. Knepflerle (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have nominated Template:Regions of Europe for deletion; if it is deleted, it is a very strong indication that Template:Europe topic should not be used with the "regions of" option, as doing so creates an dangerously misleading impression of unity, coherence and comparability over a set of completely unrelated and incoherent "set" of articles. Knepflerle (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Neelix. You have new messages at Caspian blue's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Caspian blue 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you just created List of parks in British Columbia. Right now I changed it to a redirect as it seemed to duplicate List of British Columbia Provincial Parks. Another option would be to move List of British Columbia Provincial Parks to List of parks in British Columbia and add in the National Parks. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Changing it back is fine. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Demure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

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. ZooFari 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My reply: Hello, you created the page and inserted information in it. How could it have been a redirect at the time I placed the tag? You made it into a redirect after I placed the tag. You may recreate the redirect. I'm so sorry, I don't know how that happened. Hope you accept my apology :( ZooFari 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ZooFari 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I identify my images just by using my researching skills. Sometimes I use AllExperts.com in a category of identifying species. I mostly just describe the animal/plant on the google search bar and narrow my results until I get there. If you would like, I'll try to identify them for you. Just upload to Wikipedia (not Commons) and share the files with me. Then you can upload the images under the correct name at Commons. Let me know what you think. ZooFari 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work with your great translations! I kept meaning to get around to it but never had the energy... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your move: 20:22, March 17, 2009 Neelix (talk | contribs) (43 bytes) (moved Protected areas of Tamil Nadu to Protected areas in Tamil Nadu: Naming convention). of Tamil Nadu is terminology used in the article's primary reference 1. Also terminology would have to be changed in the many Pages that link to "Protected areas in Tamil Nadu". Thank You.--Marcus (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your move. of is the standard naming convention. Go to Category:Protected areas by country, including Category:Protected areas of India and Category:Protected areas of the United States for examples.--Marcus (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

-You said, ""Protected areas of x is the standard; it is employed in the category names, not the article titles"

In fact, of is used in most of the Protected areas of India articles, including Biosphere reserves of India, Communal forests of India, Conservation areas of India, List of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries of Gujarat, India, National parks of India, Private protected areas of India, Protected areas of Kerala, Protected areas of West Bengal, Reserved forests and protected forests of India and virtually all of the Protected areas of the United States categories.

Also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) Guideline is:

"In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country). This will usually hold true in other geography-specific topics, such as for cities, continents, provinces, states, etc.

Accordingly, please revert your move. Thank You.--Marcus (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

-You said, I freely accept "Protected areas of India" as a valid title.

I appreciate your effort at title standardization, however in light of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) Guideline referred to above, you should have moved the few Protected areas of India articles using in to of.

I do feel strongly that you should revert to "Protected areas of x" as they were before your undiscussed moves to "Protected areas in x".

Because you are the one who made these moves to in, it is incumbent upon you to start a discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves as you suggested, which you should have done before you made the moves.--Marcus (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What naming convention are you claiming to follow? The main page of the Wikiproject:Protected Areas does not mention it nor in the active talk page. You claim that the U.S. protected area category now follows it but I see:

• Protected areas of the United States by state

• National Battlefields and Military Parks of the United States (0)
• Bird sanctuaries of the United States (0)
• National Conservation Areas of the United States (0)
• National Estuarine Research Reserves of the United States (0)
• National Forests of the United States (42)
• National Grasslands of the United States (0)
• National Heritage Areas of the United States (0)
• National Historic Landmarks of the United States (55)
• National Historic Sites of the United States (39)
• National Historical Parks of the United States (2) H cont.
• National Historical Reserves of the United States (0)
• National Lakeshores of the United States (1)
• National Marine Sanctuaries of the United States (0)
• National Memorials of the United States (0)
• United States military memorials and cemeteries (5)
• National Monuments of the United States (30)
• National Natural Landmarks of the United States (52)
• National parks of the United States (5)
• Parks in the United States (7)
• National Preserves of the United States (0)
• Protected areas of Puerto Rico (0)
• National Recreation Areas of the United States (1) R cont.
• National Reserves of the United States
• National Scenic Byways (5)
• National Seashores of the United States (0)
• State forests in the United States (40)
• Protected areas templates (0)
• National Trails of the United States (5)
• Protected areas of the United States Virgin Islands (1)
• Wild and Scenic Rivers of the United States (0)

Wilderness Areas of the United States (33) National Wildlife Refuges of the United States (55) Wildlife sanctuaries of the United States

Rmhermen (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment: ". To say something is a naming convention is just to say that most articles on the subject employ that title format." No. To say it is a naming convention means that it is described and accepted as a WP:Naming convention (a policy page) or a WikiProject naming convention. The way you did it seems to be a false "appeal to authority". Rmhermen (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Neelix, hi. Do you have any estimate of how many "protected areas" articles you're thinking of moving? I work in Requested Moves, and I was just looking at the discussion at Talk:Protected areas in Tamil Nadu. I'm trying to get a sense of just what's happening with these titles. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I got your reply; thanks. I think it's clear that your page moves were made in good faith. We'll see how the one discussion closes, and then if you need any admin assistance moving those articles, please feel free to let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those two pages are moved, and all the redirects fixed. Regarding the general question...

I don't think it's very consequential. I mean, no real harm would result from either choice, but I do agree that consistency is desired. Let's see... have we got a Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists? Oh, cool, it exists. That might be a good place to run the idea by a suitably broad audience before diving in perhaps.

Another option would be to select one of the largest "List of protected areas in..." pages, and post a multi-page move request there, adding pointers to all the pages involved. You'd still probably want to notify the lists project. The whole multi-move thing is explained at WP:RM, but it's totally optional: you can use RM or you can just have the discussion somewhere relevant. Lots of people assume that RM is required, but it really isn't. Anyway, I guess that's my suggestion. I think I might like "of" more, personally, but I don't feet at all strongly about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We could use you on board at Wikipedia:WikiProject Senegal. I need somebody to help with Senegalese geo articles! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep there is a great deal to transwiki. IN some areas they have articles on all the villages. Given that we have population data for all of them theres no reason why we shouldn't aim to cover them all but first priority now I've started all the arrondisements is to list the communes under each articles and build department templates which have a detailed guide oneach area, like the communes and villages and any notable topics etc. I've already started off Mali in this way and will aim at improving Senegal. At present I'm pretty tied with Vietnam on here but I will be gradually developing it when I have time. When certain other taks are done I will concentrate on getting all the communes of Senegal onto here for sure. Welcome aboard! Look forward to working with you. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Take It & Break It, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable pair of remix albums. Fails WP:NALBUMS.

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. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You recently moved Lighthouses in Jamaica to List of lighthouses in Jamaica without prior discussion. This is an incorrect move as the article contains much more information than is expected in "List of" articles. It was written in this way because there is not enough information available to justify an individual article for each lighthouse but plenty to provide a decent summary article (names, photos, dates of construction, short histories, etc).

Your action seems to have been driven by attempting to make the article's name fit the template that you wanted to add to it; a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. A better approach would be to alter Template:List of lighthouses in North America to display the heading "Lighthouses in North America" instead of the current "List of lighthouses in North America". This would allow it to accommodate both "list" and "regular" articles.

Please revert your mistake.

-Arb. (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please add a location for this sculpture? Freedom of panorama depends on the country in which the sculpture is situated. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice you moved the Australian shopping centres list and were reverted; just to let you know that the word "mall" is rarely used in Australian English. A "shopping mall" in US English is referred to as a "shopping centre" here - hence the usage in the article. Rebecca (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

...I think that lead must have been written by an American. Heh. I'm not sure what that sentence is doing there. Rebecca (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd one as not only is malls not used in Australian English in that way, but the word actually has a different meaning. Here it's a paved street (closed to traffic) with shops on either side, e.g. the Hay and Murray Street Malls in Perth, Fremantle Mall, Rundle Mall in Adelaide, Swanston and Bourke Street Malls in Melbourne, Pitt Street Mall, Sydney (which confusingly contains at least three shopping centres!), Hunter Street Mall in Newcastle and Queen Street Mall in Brisbane. Whereas a shopping centre is an enclosed, singly-owned-and-managed enterprise such as Karrinyup Shopping Centre, Chadstone Shopping Centre, Broadway Shopping Centre etc. If you say "I'm going down to the mall", people here think the first (paved street with crazy street vendors) rather than the second. I think the person who wrote the original lede had no idea - it reads much better now, actually, with your simplification of it. Orderinchaos 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your move as the article wasn't just about the oil industry, but rather petroleum generally. If you wish to discuss further, suggest the article talk page. Djanga 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I keep tha article on the List/timeline of the United States Military Operations, I had no idea that this was being suggested. That being said, I would of course supported that action and still do. If anyone gives you grief on the move, just know that you have one person who supports the move. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have renamed all the DMBC articles. While they may appear as lists, many articles have developed to include content discussing each country's particular diplomatic network, its history and development. They previously used your naming convention before "List of" was dropped.

Please revert your changes, or discuss.

Kransky (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted an answer to your note on the talk page (a year later) but the more I investigate these two stubs, the more I ask myself-is this notable? The map of the Great Barrier Reef does not even show an island with this name (PDF map from the Marine Park Authority link) Google maps did show it, but again, where is the notability of one of many, many islands in the GBR? I need your opinion on my thought of speedy-del these two stubs.Thank you in advance. Marcia Wright (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like you have established the notability quite well. I did the right thing by asking here first. Thank you. Unfortunately, I have all I can do in my own "wikiarea"-protected areas in California, so cannot volunteer to expand this article as yet, but will keep it on my list. Should the merge still be done, and do you have the time to do the merge, if so? Marcia Wright (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks again for taking the time to do the expansions.Marcia Wright (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You recently added {{Europe topic}} with "List of law enforcement agencies in" to the above page - but I don't think there are going to be any of those articles created anytime soon - if ever. The vast majority of European countries have national police forces (and if they have local ones then they wouldn't meet the notability criteria) meaning that there is nothing to list. Italy is the only exception I can think of, and (supposing List of law enforcement agencies in Italy was created) using the template with just two blue links seems a little silly. Thoughts? ninety:one 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically they fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability (law enforcement agencies) (which whilst not yet a guideline is basically a subject-specific version of WP:ORG, and more generous too). All of these would fail to meet that criteria as well. ninety:one 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because that list is not just a list of single entries, but includes extra information about each episode. Writing a list of just the names of municipal LEAs for any European country would be hard enough, but to include any more information would be impossible. Such a list would therefore be pointless. ninety:one 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the US lists include state and county-level agencies, all of which are inherently notable... Having checked the countries listed in that template, I'm certain that the only two others with sub-national LEAs of a notable nature (and therefore the only two others worth having lists for) are Germany and Italy. ninety:one 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I wrote them all :) They are all national-level. ninety:one 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fairly good idea. I'll have a crack. OK to remove the one on List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom? ninety:one 22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done: Template:Lists of law enforcement agencies by country. Thanks for the idea! ninety:one 00:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting your edit there. All I can say is that you've witnessed a good example of why edit wars can be a bad thing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. I appreciate you are keen to apply {{Template:Oceania topic}} wherever appropriate, but I think that that Oceania aquaculture articles are not ready for that yet. Like Vanuatu, many Oceania countries have at most minuscule aquaculture, if any. Currently there are only two country articles written, worldwide, for aquaculture; the one I wrote, and the one you wrote to promote your template. For now, nearly all the links on your template will remain red (unless you write the articles yourself). If, of course, you do write the articles, then the template would be a good one. Regards --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Shags, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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. — Ched :  ?  03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Royalbroil went ahead and restored the page, I converted into a dab. You want to take a look at Shags and let me know what you think? You had some really good points on this, and hopefully it's better now, and more in line with what you thought would be better. Thanks ;) — Ched :  ?  02:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Neelix

My name is Jeff Atkins. I live in Chelsea, Quebec and I am the author of the article on the Diffusion of Technology in Canada.

With respect, you missed the boat when you retitled the article.

The article is about the diffusion of technology in Canada as seen through a wide range of applications, including transportation, communication, energy, materials, public works and engineering, medicine, domestic life, defence and industry. The article deals with all of these spheres of application but the new title gives the impression that the article has a particular fucus on industry, when clearly it does not. Using your approach it could just as well have been renamed, the technological and consumer history of Canada or the technological, medical and defence history of Canada. You get the idea. While the concept of the "diffusion of technology" is not familiar to most, it is the term used by professional historians specializing in this field.

For this reason I recommend that you change the title back to the original form.

Jeff Atkins

Chelsea, Quebec

1 May 2009

Therefore the removal of the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.165.36 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

I moved the article from Diffusion of technology in Canada to Technological and industrial history of Canada primarily because, as you stated, "diffusion of technology" is not a familiar term to most users. This guideline recommends against such titles, and suggests that the most common name for the subject of the article should be employed instead. "Technological history" and "industrial history" are both commonly understood terms. The new title covers the entirity of the article's subject. I included "industrial" in the title because the article is largely about industry; industry, as defined on the industry article, is the manufacturing of a good or service within a category. Essentially, much more of the article deals with industry than just the sections named "industry"; it encompasses much of the information in the energy, medicine, and other categories you have suggested could have made for equally valid alternate adjectives in the title. Of the information presented in the article, everything is either technological history or industrial history or both. If you still feel that the current title is not acceptable, I recommend that you suggest a move back to the original title here. Thanks for contributing so much to this article! It looks like you've done quite a thorough job.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Juat a heads up. Can you please recategorise your articles as e.g Category:Agriculture in Indonesia rather than Category:INdonesia? Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Most countries have Agriculture categories, see Category:Agriculture by country. Thanks for your work on this series. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

HI. I'd put it as Diembéring (rural community). Most people would be clueless about what a CR is and it is a French anyway Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Profusion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Brightflower6.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Note: This is only because I transferred the image to the Wikimedia Commons. You did nothing wrong. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here I will show my progress to you as I identify your images. ZooFari 03:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Wadester16 created a subpage, and shared the massive images, to make our lives easier :) So I will post identified images there. I think some other users are willing to participate in transferring identified image to Commons. ZooFari 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I created User:Neelix/Images/Unknown so members of WikiProject Plants could come by and ID your many wonderful photographs. I created the new subpage so they can strike out the ones that were IDed. Then I can transfer them to Commons under filenames that incorporate their ID. Thank you for this great group of images; some of them are fantastic! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone please sort them into groups: butterflies, other insects, flowers, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he did it! wadester16 | Talk→ 03:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, One of your photos came up for ID. If possible, the location would be useful to know. First impression is Dicrurus. [1]--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Purple4.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the contents in a disambiguation looks overwhelming kind of. Especially since the page isn't that long. Also, shouldn't it be "Red Eye (disambiguation)" rather than "Red Eye" & shouldn't the "Red Eye" page have a re-direction to the disambig?

Thanks, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC), Bye!

HOW DID YOU TYPE ALL THAT!!! Good to know!

Thanks 4 the Tip, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be elided to Identify all (or at least most) of you pictures. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Spider2.jpg - Araneus diadematus
• File:Spider7.jpg - Salticidae, not sure on species...yet
• File:Spider6.jpg - Another Jumping spider, Female Maevia sp.
• File:Spider5.jpg - Lycosa, Hogna sp.
• File:Spider3.jpg - Cellar Spider
• File:Spider8.jpg - Another Wolf Spider
• File:Spider9.jpg - Araneus cavaticus
• File:Brownspider.jpg
• File:Blackspider.jpg - At a bad angle, but probably Araneus diadematus
• File:Blackspider.jpg

Though this isn't exactly wonderfully specific, it is the best I can do using pictures.

• File:Browninsect.jpg - camouflage Grasshopper nymph
• File:Ladybug2.jpg - possibly the Fourteen spotted ladybug (Propylaea quatuordecimpunctata)

Get back to me on this (I am not done, but for today)

{{Move jewel album survey}} I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your renaming of that article which removed universities from the list. Secondary education in Canada is provincially regulated, so including universities in that list is probably more appropriate than removing them. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see you created this redirect. Please see the discussion I've begun at Talk:Willy nilly. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your redirect of "Faultless" to Andrea del Sarto was inappropriate. Such a broad application is far from Wikipedia editing policy and is particularly so given that, had you bothered to look, it linked to an appropriate name. Handicapper (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"It" is the name Faultless that had red links to a dozen related sites. 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Neelix. I've been moving many of the images at User:Neelix/Images/Unknown to Commons, as you've probably noticed. Someone there asked me if I knew anything more about the locations where the unidentified plants and animals came from, to help with identification. So I have some questions for you, and any help you can provide would be appreciated.

• Do you remember where any of the flora came from? (link to many)
• Where in Canada was File:Bird2.jpg taken?
• Where did you see File:Reptile4.jpg, File:Reptile2.jpg, File:Reptile3.jpg, and File:Snake6.jpg?
• Where were File:Mushroom4.jpg, File:Mushroom5.jpg, and File:Mushroom6.jpg growing?
• How about File:Snail2.jpg or File:Snail3.jpg? Or File:Yellow lichen.jpg?

Thanks for any help. Feel free to edit the image description pages directly on Commons, if you like, for this information. Thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those locations! They were helpful. I've set up a temporary subpage at User talk:Quadell/From where that shows all the still-unidentified plants that you have uploaded. If you could list the country of origin for any that you remember, that would be a big help. (They're terrific images, by the way!) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,
your image File:Cattle2.jpg was recently copied or moved to Commons. However, the description of the image is rather incomplete: "I am the originator of this photo. I hold the copyright. I release it to the public domain. This photo depicts a cow." The first three sentences do not belong in the description. And everybody can see it's a cow ;-). Couldn't you add any information what type of cow it is (if you know) and where you took this image (location). Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Erotolepsy 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. Jamie Shaw (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, in case you are not aware, some of your recent edits have come under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. Cheers. Maias (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)