Hello, Spicynugget, 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:Questions, 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! Sophia 07:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can help me out here. I have found no evidence that this fellow Mark Andrew Ritchie is an anthropologist, and so I keep reverting you when you add him to List of anthropologists. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you provide some sort of evidence that he is an anthropologist? I notice that he's written books on subjects that anthropologists write about as well, but that alone an anthropologist does not make, I think.--Birdmessenger 18:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are not aware of him being an anthropologist does not negate his anthropological contributions. Here are is a reference [1] Texas A&M University Department of Anthropology.
Well, again maybe I'm missing something, but nowhere on that page does Mark Andrew Ritchie identify himself as an anthropologist.--Birdmessenger 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His book states that he lived among the Yanomamo people and scientifically documented their cultural behaviors.
It does not state that he was an anthropologist.
Also, I noticed that the article you wrote on Ritchie (the bulk of which is a quote from some reviewer on Amazon) misidentifies him as an anthropologist.--Birdmessenger 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Do you have some sources for the information in the God in the Pits article? Such as who has banned and what? And why are the Bible, Communist China, and drug smuggling involved in the discussion? Thanks! Weregerbil 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those links were discussed on the talk page of the article and deemed by consensus to be inappropriate for the article. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added myself to that category, after being awarded the Rouge Admin banner by another editor. Why don't you read WP:ROUGE. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Spicy! I have my own problems with Killer C, but in this case he is correct. Don't get me wrong, I like a good prayer as much as the next man but you have been spamming the links. Here is an example.
So chill out, and if you need help, ask for it. --Wing Nut 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you added a link to Kangalert.com in the Virginia Tech massacre article? It looks suspiciously like an advertisement and appears to have nothing to do with the article's topic. --ElKevbo 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ElKevbo,
i just came accross the link a few days ago in the news and thought it was pertinent there. I know it could appear as linkspam, but i figure people's lives could be at stake in the future if we DON'T include it.
spicy
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Dynaflow 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
