User talk:Robotforaday

John Roberts
John Roberts
Born	1575-6
Died	10 December 1610; Tyburn, London, England
Venerated in	Roman Catholicism
Major shrine	Downside and Erdington Abbeys
Feast	25 October

A belated welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Robotforaday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brendan 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Pennant

I have reverted your entry to Jermaine Pennant as information introduced into articles must be verifiable from reliable sources, and conform to a neutral point of view. Entries should not be speculative. If you have a source, please site it in the article. -- Alias Flood 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed given a reference, Sky Sports. This was offered in good faith, as I assumed it was a reliable source. I did not know that the BBC had the monopoly on such news.--Robotforaday 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. Your edit was one of many to Jermaine Pennant and Liverpool F.C. during the last 24 hours. From your edit summary, I wrongly interpreted that you had seen the information on Sky News TV. Again, my apologies to you. -- Alias Flood 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I understand. For future reference, what sources are deemed most appropriate for citation? I have now cited the BBC, which seems the most preferred, however, I also used the news on the Liverpool F.C. official website. Would that have been acceptable? I can understand why Sky Sports might not always be 100% trusted... --Robotforaday 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robotforaday and thank you for your understanding. As with most things on Wikipedia, there are few set rules but one of the core policies is verfiability which links in closely with the guideline on reliable sources. Reading these helps editors to understand that 'verifying sources' should have a degree of longevity and be held in high regard as being reputable. In the main, for Wikipedia, I tend to look for sources such as the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, etcetera and shy away from the tabloids (unless the article is linked to tabloids). For football articles, the official website can also be a good source for announcements — whereas forums, blogs, fansites and unofficial sites tend not to be reliable. It is very important, in my opinion and that of many other editors, that for Wikipedia not to reflect personal opinion or original research and to that end Wikipedia, along with most reputable enclopaedias, acts as a tertiary source summarising the secondary sources of such well reputed publications. Other links which you may find useful, and generally acceptable for football articles, are those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. I hope that this information helps you in some way and, also, helps to make up for my earlier mistake. Please let me know if I may be of any further help to you in this or any matter here on Wikipedia. Regards -- Alias Flood 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Robotforaday, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! —Mi ra 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. Reserves

Thank you for your kind words about the above article. I appreciate the point about changing links, but sometimes people get distracted. There is no reason to change back page just because links have not been corrected. These can always be changed later. Djln--Djln 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John Roberts

Hi Robotforaday! So glad to see someone's keeping such a close eye on the page. In tagging and classing so many of these saints articles, it's clear no one's bothered to look it over since its creation two or three years ago... The rating system is a bit fuzzy over on WikiProject Saints, but I think the only thing that prevents this article from being B-class for the project is its lack of an infobox. Would you mind if we put one up? It would look something like this:

I tend not to put them up for people who are well known outside of their sainthood (e.g. Constantine I), but as John Roberts is famous mostly for his martyrdom, I think the article could benefit from an infobox. From B-class, it's a matter of getting good article status, which will probably require a picture of some sort (a portrait, a picture of the fingers?? etc. etc.) as well as perhaps a few more sources? To be honest, I am new to this whole ranking thing, so I'm mostly tagging just to keep track of what needs to be done at minimum, not what could be done to make things awesome. Fortunately, you're here to see to that! :) Best wishes, --TurabianNights 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply! As far as I'm concerned, feel free to put in the infobox and anything else you think helpful. I'll get onto finding some pictures in the meantime. I know of other sources (in particular Bede Camm, who presented the causes for various Benedictine martyrs, and who I've used in making an article for Maurus Scott). There is also information in various books on the history of the English Benedictine Congregation, but I'd have to have a check of them before putting anything new in. I put what's there up in haste because I wanted to tidy up the Downside Abbey page with shorter bios of its martyrs and link to articles about the specific martyrs (still not done, actually). While John Roberts had an article it had very little in it, so I just raided the Catholic Encyc. It's been my intention to go back to it with other sources when I can. Robotforaday 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Honestly, this article is in much better shape than almost all in its class. Additional sources could be helpful to the very interested reader, but I think you've got a very fine article here even without them (not that I am an official voice of Wikipedia!) Congrats! --TurabianNights 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a good guy

Cheers for improving the Wayne Biggins page.

Tallboydoctorpepperthesecond

Liverpool F.C. Reserves

Sorry, but I never ever believed in notability of reserve teams, unless they take part to a first team division (e.g. Real Madrid Castilla). The article is very short, it is just a squad and a few information with questionable notability, so I don't understand why it cannot be merged to Liverpool F.C.. Therefore, I won't reconsider my vote. Good work. --Angelo 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said my part. The vote should really be thrown out in my opinion. We'll just have to see. Note that he also listed the LFC Academy article for deletion. aLii 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, more then willing to support your case. I think you will now find the debate is beginning swing your way Djln--Djln 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't answered your message, I'm feeling so tired by just looking at the discussion... I still do feel that the article should be merged into the main article. I hope we can reach a consensus on the Project after the AfD is closed, no matter how it ends. – Elisson • Talk 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prod tags

Yep. But in order for it to be removed via prod, it has to be very clearly non notable. I would suggest posting them on the regular articles for deletion list. Beware, though, that some people (I am not one of them) will never ever vote to remove a school article. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I know. And school articles are the worst, trust me. --Woohookitty^(meow) 20:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Dromore Castle

Hey, thanks for adding categories to the article I just created at Dromore Castle. Having written the article, I just went away to make a cup of tea. I was very pleased when I returned that the article had been categorised already, saving me a bit of a tedious job. (I spend a fair bit of time going through articles categorising marked "cat needed" myself, although I really can't pretend I enjoy it.) Anyway, once again, thanks, very efficient :) Robotforaday 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was browsing through Recentchanges, and figured I could help improve an article :). --Q Canuck 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So

What specifically do you have against skirts? --84.64.51.100 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the
Catholic Collaboration Effort.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.
Current nominations:

Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Liverpool F.C.

Hey.. I'm in the middle of compiling the reasons. I jumped at de-listing it before having my reasons ready to copy and paste. I did ask for a review and the people who answered agreed with de-listing. --ChrissMari 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Sporting League

Cheers for the clarifications on my talk page! ChrisTheDude 08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious poverty

I see that you moved it back. That makes sense in light of the other changes that have happened since then. I hope you will keep working with us on this project. Sorry if I was out of line!futurebird 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you very much. It's very nice to get recognition for something that I enjoy doing. ArtVandelay13 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice

I have created a brief article on Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice in response to your request. Loyola 12:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publically vs. publicly

Thanks for the shot across my bow. I was using the Live spellcheck feature, which uses the list in "Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/For machines". I have removed "publically" from it. It's not the first I've had to remove; I took "dukeship" out, as it seemed just vaguely familiar, at least it rang enough of a bell to look it up in a dictionary. If you see me doing something like that again, please let me know. Happy editing! Chris the speller 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Duffy

I would be keen to expand this section with you as you obviously have a keen insight into the man and his works.

Nephrolithiasis 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we ask Philip for his thoughts / references / publishers?

RE:Liverpool F.C.

In short, I'm not going to reprotect it. Ask another admin or at WP:RPP. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boudewijn Zenden

Hi, I'm not really very interested in football, but I have assessed this article because the WikiProject Biographies tries to reduce the immense number of unassessed articles. That said, I can see several points that should be improved:

The entire article needs a thorough copyedit. As a native Dutch-speaker (and non-native English speaker), I can see several errors and odd sentences, which appear to be written by a Dutchman trying to write English (e.g. and has recovering since undergoing surgery.). The Early Life section is indeed a disaster area.
There is too much detail in some places, e.g. the 6-0 win of the Netherlands over San Marino is totally irrelevant for this article, unless it can be demonstrated that Zenden played a crucial role in this victory.
The template of the 1998 Dutch squad is somewhat unnecessary. What makes this tournament so special that it is included, whereas the 2000 and 2004 championships are not present as a template?
Each and every football player has his shortcomings. What are Zendens shortcomings?
There was some criticism when Advocaat selected Zenden (and not Sneijder) for the start-up against Germany in Euro 2004 championship. I seem to remember more instances of criticism when Zenden was selected (or not selected). Maybe these can be included?

I hope this will help you. Er rab ee 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool

No problem, go ahead. When making a number of changes in one go there's always a fair chance that one of them will miss the mark slightly. Oldelpaso 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antwi

Notice you have just changed nationality to Ghanaian. Note I only copied from reserves page which shows him as Spanish as he was capped by Spain at U-19 level. he is free to choose Spain or Ghana I believe. Just think there needs to be some consistency... Steve-Ho 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already has changed it. No worries Steve-Ho 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville

Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Thanks for your comments regarding deleion of transfer sections. This comment led me to your user page and i couldn't help but notice that you last edited the Liverpool history section in the future (1/08/07). Slightly implausible? non? ;) Anyway thanks for your comments! Woodym555 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool FC task force

Hi, I noticed you have made a number of edits to Liverpool F.C. related articles. You might be interested in joining WP:LFC. John Hayes^talk 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Why thank you sir :-) I'd like to able to add more info to the county cup articles, but sources are very hard to find - most county FAs don't even have lists of winners on their websites....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from Start to B Class

If you look at the link here it will give you some very useful indicators of what you need to improve the article from "start" to the next level and above. Regards - Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments about Dromore Castle on Sarah's talk page. My opinion is that unless you have some additional extensive information, which is not copyright, it seems unlikely that the article can ever become totally comprehensive which is one of the main requirements for a B-class article. I would expect that a topic like this will remain a start-class article. Don't be discouraged by this, just make sure that you have done the best you can, with appropriate references and then move on to the next topic you have an interest in. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks - I have a wide variety of things I'm interested in, so it's not as though I'm short of things to work on on wikipedia! However, I am interested about what kind of coverage you feel is missing that would make it likely to be always less than comprehensive. What kind of areas do you feel it is (and always likely to be) short on? Robotforaday (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reply on the page I start the discussion. Assessments are not an exact science, basically Dromore Castle is just too short to become a B-class article. I cannot tell you what is missing because it is not a topic I have any deep interest in; this is your topic of interest. To get an idea of what constitutes a B-class article have a look at some of the Irish B-class articles; there are more than 300 classified as such. I am sure there are some topics that will give you better ideas of what is needed to improve Dromore Castle, if you think it possible, by studying some of those. Some articles are just too short on substance to ever become B-class. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the (1900/1904) Olympics

The trouble with the IOC is that horribly inconsistent with these things even within their own website. Absolutely true that the link you provided says it was an exhibition sport in 1900 but [1], is the search engine for medallists. Select football - 1900 or 1904 - and medallist and you get back full information of the teams - which you don't get for any of the demonstration/exhibition/unofficial events. Virtually all reference books accept them (Wallechinsky/Mallon/Greenberg), even the IOC-sanctioned series of "Official Companions" to the last few games accept they are full medal events. The RSSF has a bit of a hang-up about them because they're not FIFA sanctioned. FIFA lists them as demonstration events but demonstration sports weren't introduced to the Olympics until 1912. Cheers anyway. Topcardi (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I think it was "Ho, Gahna" Or somthing like that

Although I DON'T Have a citation,I heard about such acts from CNN news a few days ago, if you could find the citation form me, it would be great. If you'd rather I do it, Icould do that too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaji13 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Never Mind...I've got my citation, and it wasn't CNN, my mistake.....I'm pretty sure it's in in there, I just checked the article with Microsoft Page search, and I found the exact place, it's in the " Section II: social attitudes" part[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results

Hi, I have started to expand the page - perhaps you would be good enough to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results, please? TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable players in Liverpool F.C. article

Hey Robotforaday, thanks for your note about the above. The biggest problem is that of bias, point of view, whatever you'd like to call it. What makes the current selection any more significant than any other player? It's a subjective issue (for example, I might think that John Barnes and Bruce Grobelaar are equally as important Steve Macmanaman and Robbie Fowler). That's why I believe WP:FOOTBALL encourages a more objective set of criteria for their inclusion. I can see where you're coming from, it results in a dry list and nothing more, but it's NPOV. Perhaps this discussion should be continued at WP:FOOTBALL if you're keen? Although I think it's been done to death a few times there's no harm in bringing it up again! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd do that, you're not the only one to prefer prose but I fear the objective-ists will prevail! Good luck, I'll see you over at WP:FOOTBALL! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable players section in Liverpool F.C.

No worries, the section was good, and the only reason I deleted it was because of the other FA articles and the Peer Review, anyway really hope you can make the section which you should be able to do considering the amount of players to write about, Thanks for the shout-out about the work. NapHit (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laziest wiki award

The rubbish smiley award hereby awarded by Dweller to you, because I'm too lazy to do a proper barnstar today. You get it for this ([2]) edit. That was a nice thing to do and we should all do things like that more often. :-) --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all have bad days/nights. The trick is to make sure they don't become bad decades. Good on yer for swallowing pride. Says a lot about you. --Dweller (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing when you've made a mistake and being (wo)man enough to backtrack is a sign of a good potential admin. Have you ever considered becoming a mopster? --Dweller (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it needn't add to your workload; it can reduce it (as, for example, you can do your own speedying/blocking, rather than requesting) but that's fine. If / when you're interested, drop me a line and I'll recommend some steps you'll find useful to prepare yourself for RfA / adminship. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tristes Tropiques

Thanks for including the Tristes Tropiques article in the Anthropology Wiki Project. I hope to contribute more as time permits. I realise my contribution as it stands is little more than a summary, but I am at a bit of a loss as to how to 'raise' it beyond stub class to the level of a 'good' article. Any suggestions? Humphreyswill (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help

Can you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Robotforaday!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you comment

on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join us?

Hello there Robotforaday! Following a period of consulation, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside is now up and running. It is a user group dedicated to improving all content related to Merseyside, including the city of Liverpool.

As you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Merseyside, I extend this opportunity for you to join our project and get involved. Hope to see you there. :) --Jza84 | Talk 14:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incest taboo

Please consider helping to improve this article. It used to be long, then a few days ago all unsourced material was deleted leaving a bare stubb. I have been restoring some material with citations. This is a core topic in anthropology and deserves a good article. Can you help a bit? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This image has no source at which to verify its information, including the date, which would establish the license. Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eastmain (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. PhilKnight (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Scientist

Please check out this discussion here: Template_talk:Infobox_Scientist#Religion_field. Bletchley (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Science Deletion Issue

Check out this deletion discussion here: [3] Bletchley (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology Question

Have you read this book, Baldwin, John R.; Faulkner, Sandra L.; Hecht, Michael L.; Lindsley, Sheryl L.; Redefining Culture: Perspectives Across the Disciplines, 2006, Routledge, ISBN 0805842365, 9780805842364? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, the reason I ask is this: over the years I think the article on Culture turned into something of a train-wreck. It repeated a lot of things - it seemed as if any sutdent in a psychology course, and education course, or a sociology course that read a definition of "culture" in their textbook had to copy it into the article (without realizing that however different the wording the definitions all meant the same thing nd in fact all came from the same anthropology or two or thre anthropologists). There were fringe theories and tangents. A couple of weeks ago I did a conservative revision - deleting all unrelated material, consolidating any redundancies, and reorganizing what was left according to point of view. Since that time I have been trying to add to the article all the major debates concerning "culture," at last in anthropology, in the 20th century.

What I have been doing ought to provide a good framework for identifying in the future what is an old definition or new one, which definitions fal along the same POV, what is mainstream or majority or minority. That is my hope, to provide a framwewokr.

What I have been doing has two major flaws. First, it does not cover the really cutting-edge debates over culture. Second, it is all anthropoloy-centric.

It sounds like the book I mentioned overcomes these flaws by being very current and looking at other fields. But frankly I am whiped out from the research I have been doing. It is intirely up to you but if you are interested perhaps you could read that book with an eye to what in it can be used to up-date the article, and to add points of view that are currently absent? Or the book may help document how one definition ithin anthropology difuses to and becomes mainistream in another field. Well, that was my idea .... Slrubenstein | Talk 05:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks like an interesting book. If you find material that you think is relevant, significant, and valuable, can I encourage you just to edit the article directly? I have only two requests: consider wisely how to organize any additions (for example, is it a new debate among anthropologists? Or does it pertain to another academic discipline? Or is it a non-Academic view) and second, when adding new material emphasize continuities or discontinuities (e.g. "this contrasts with how anthropologists use the term" or "this marks a break in anthropological debates" or "Community organizers are using the definition of culture first introduced or popularized by X" or "Psychologists are relying on Y's definition of culture but using it a new way" or whatever) .... do you see my point? It is about clearly distinguishing points of view but also clearly identifying them, which means providing context including continuities with or influences from other points of view. Thanks for the complement on the revisions but I would be glad if you also edited/added to the article! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool meetup

Hello. I'm writing to invite you to the 12th Liverpool wikimeet, which is taking place on the 21st June - see meta:Meetup/Liverpool/12 for the full information. If you're in the area, please consider coming along to it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your privileges to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. tedder (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of Philip Duffy

The article Philip Duffy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mbdfar (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]