User talk:GeoW

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Critical geography which you created is almost entirily redundant with Critical geopolitics. I suggest you try to merge your content into that article, which by the way could use some improvement if this is a topic you are knowledgable about. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical geography is not critical geopolitics although as you have said it has similarities, if it were it wouldn't be used in academia and because it is a widely used phrase and the very phrase has alot of history attached to it, it should have its own article. Sheesh, hundreds if not thousands of books are probably written on this topic, it should be included in an encylopedia. Do you suppose critical geographies are actually critical geopoliticies?Supposed 08:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Geography Wikiproject
I thought you might be interested in helping WikiProject_Geography If so, just add your name to the page. Thanks AlexD 11:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regional Science
Hi GeoW, just wanting to learn more about why you removed the "Human Geogr template." Usual procedure is to mention ones reasons on the talk page when making a significant deletion. I will revert if I don't hear back from you. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 21:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Find the response on your talk page. GeoW 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Geo-stub
Hi - your changes to the geography-stub redirect have been reverted. please, in future, if you have any proposals to make as to the working of a stub template or redirect, address them to WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. As it is, is primarily for specific locations, as noted on the long-established geo-stub template and its country-specific subtypes. other items relating to geography are handled by other templates such as geo-term-stub (for terminology), map-stub (for cartography), and topography-stub (for topography). Grutness...wha?  00:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thakur Sher Singh Parmar
Thanks for your note at. I trust you noticed this article is currently part of an AfD. You don't, by any chance, have access to any published works by this person, do you? Thanks for your help! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, never heard of him. I tried a search on internet but there's nothing. It seems that this person does not exist. Creator(s) of that page should put there some reliable sources - at least the page of university where he teaches or something that can be verified.GeoW 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested
I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions to fit his own understanding of the term - . Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community -. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on | this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. Am I doing the right thing? SilkTork 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) SilkTork 11:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability - Places
As a member of WP:GEOGRAPHY, I would appreciate your views on the discussion I've started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations) Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 13:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)