Welcome!

Hello, J293339, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thanks for letting me know. A hangon tag isn't a requirement that the speedy tag be removed, but since it has been, I've gone to AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took it that way. I understand your intention, but please understand why I gave you the advice I did. I've spent a lot of time on Articles for Deletion and the various notability discussions. After a few hundred AFD participated in and several thousand read, I know how the policies are actually applied. If there's documented proof of one of the additional criteria being met the article is kept well over 90% of the time. I've never seen a documented Roman Catholic Bishop deleted, and added it to the Frequent Outcomes as a result. However, when somebody pushes the issue the religious figures additional criteria shows up, and a lot of time gets wasted. WP:N actually says that the article can meet either the general or specific. The argument I presented previously is that RC Bishops already meet one of the additional under political figures, so there's no need for any further additional criteria covering them. Since general is a nightmare to apply at AfD and lends itself to vote stacking, you'll find that people who frequent AfD as participants are not big fans of it. Unfortunately, a lot of the additional criteria submitted are horrible. The religious figures one is usually vague to the point where it's hard not to qualify if you have any interest in the field. Oddly, I'm one of the more likely historical regulars to vote in favor of a decently written standard for additional criteria for religious figures, I've just never seen one.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I am interested in hydronymy as it looks the language of prehistoric Europe is reflected therein. I left a message on the wikiproject rivers talkpage, just looking for editors with similar interests to exchange information. I have discovered the so called old european hydronymy is not limited to Europe but has many correspondences in Iran, India and furhter away so I think this disproves the current scholarly etymological interpretations. Presently I am trying to research Bengal and Burma. Thanks for reading.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]