User talk:Gillyweed/Archives2

Griffith University "vandalism"

I'm assuming good faith in your actions, but I am wondering how you define the contributions I made to the Griffith University page as "vandalism".

I added Andrew Fraser as a noteable Griffith alumnus (now the Treasurer of Queensland) and I removed the "gossip column" style union section, which was a point of bother for many contributors and had been removed previously. 220.245.189.169 08:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've gone back through my edits and I can't find that I did revert Andrew Fraser, but if I did, then I apologise. It was an accident on my behalf. I have no real issue about the union. Quite happy for you to remove it. I suggest that you log on and you will find that your edits will be taken more seriously. Good luck. Gillyweed 10:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender for ships

Hi, I respect your views for whether a ship should be referred to as 'she' or 'it', but in actual fact the case to be made is ambiguous. It is not old fashioned, it is a practice still in use today in the Royal Navy and the United States Navy. The basic rule of thumb is to go with the first written usage of the pronoun within the article, which in this case, was made by User:Toddy1 here. I'm part of Wikiproject ships, a project where this has been batted about and argued about quite a lot. If you feel you'd like to change this consensus, then please feel free to open the debate there. Kind regards,Benea 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I also present the outcome from one of the suggestions from that debate - 'In articles about a specific US or UK ship, feminine is preferable.' Benea 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. As I was the one who first started the article, I thought I had used 'it'. But as you clearly point out, it was Toddy1, so I shall bow to the inevitable. Thank you for the additional information. It is most interesting. I guess I cannot expect the armed forces to be at the head of social change! Cheers, Gillyweed 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something about those years of tradition I suppose. Can kinda get stuck in their ways. Not a problem. Benea 22:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation for titles

Hi, I notice that you've changed capitalisation on some of the bibliography for Kenneth McIntyre. Just thought I'd let you know that sentence case is common ISBD practice and you will find it used in most library catalogues. This is not one of my articles - just thought I'd let you know as I have had my articles edited for this same reason. My understanding in Wiki is that it is OK to use any accepted style as long as it is consistent within the article? No biggie - just a bit of information sharing and a question from a sort of newbie. (PS I love your moniker!) Sterry2607 08:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sterry2607 (that wouldn't be your postcode would it?  : ) ) I haven't come across book titles NOT being capitalized before. What is ISBD? I didn't actually know that I was changing a style - I thought I was changing an error! However, I am now enlightened. And yes, you are correct. Most accepted styles SHOULD not be changed. It should simply be consistent - usually with the first author. Cheers Gillyweed 09:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gillyweed. How nice of you to reply so nicely. I didn't get that last time I raised this issue - when someone did in fact change an article of mine which had many references ... he (and I know it was a he from his user page) simply ignored me so I decided to go quietly ... and in fact have been mostly trying to adhere to the maximum capitalisation style most people know. The article you changed, as I said, wasn't mine, so I thought, well, there's someone else out there who does it the other way. ISBD is the International Standard for Bibliographic Description ... and is followed by most libraries well, internationally (LOL). (There, not only to you now know my postcode but you know I am/was a librarian!). There is also a citation system - the Vancouver System - which follows the minimal capitalisation route. I believe it is mainly used in medical writing. I like it because you don't have to make a decision about what to capitalise - you just capitalise the first letter and any proper nouns. No decisons about whether to capitalise little words like 'with', 'for', 'over', 'under' etc that seem to trap people in the traditional maximum capitalisation way we were taught in schools etc. Now you know a third thing about me, I tend to ramble! Cheers Sterry2607 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Thanks for your last comment at the pregnancy article.  :)

It's peculiar that many of the images at that article don't seem to be loading now, at least on my computer. Any idea why?Ferrylodge 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It works okay now.Ferrylodge 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy new entry

Can you help with advice on procedure to deal with a dodgy new entry that has popped into WP? It is Cheryl Craig: created, I suspect, by Cheryl herself, and linked in to the Indig Aust Art page. I tend to the inclusionist end of the WP spectrum, but this looks a bridge way too far to say the least. I know there are policies on such things as deletion, and processes etc, but not sure I'd get them right and don't want to step on toes. Any suggestions? Cheers hamiltonstone 12:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was quicker to do it myself. It was a clear copyright infringement from her own website. So I tagged it with copyvio tag. If it comes back, we can then look to see if it breaches WP:CSD or WP:Notability. Cheers Gillyweed 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a copyvio and unreferenced? Poorly referenced maybe, but a gallery is selling her work. Perhaps, I'm too gentle for this place, I left them some helpful links. regards, Cygnis insignis 04:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copyvio because it was a copy of her website. I put a copyvio note on the page. The page was then blanked. You then put a one line description in the article and questioned its notability. I returned with a PROD. You cannot reference an article with material from the subject's own website. Given the name of the person putting the material up and then blanking the page, I suspect it is the subject herself. Gillyweed 04:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to edit their own articles, there are references, but I have no objection to you taking it to AfD. It was just a passing comment, I undid their second attempt. regards, Cygnis insignis 05:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people can edit their own articles. But I don't consider blanking or removing copyvio messages as editing. I consider that vandalism. I suspect that the author wishes to remove the material from WP. I have therefore put a note on their talk page suggesting that if that's the case, I'll put a suitable CSD tag for them. Do you think AfD is necessary? Gillyweed 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not. What you have assumed is a possible, perhaps I should have anticipated that, and offered an email link for privacy. If it is someone trying to boost the value of an art collection, they will recreate it with references ;-) No objection to CSD. Cygnis insignis 05:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I only noticed when the link turned up elsewhere, I didn't check the history :o 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - enjoy your Saturday! Gillyweed 05:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and MSCI EAFE

two problems with this August 23 copyvio tagging:

• don't subst: the {{copyvio}} tag. It creates a mess.
• the URL you cited, [1], doesn't seem to contain any material that relates to MSCI EAFE.

did this come out as something different from what you were trying to do? --Alvestrand 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. This is an utter mystery to me. I have no idea what I was trying to do? Bizarre. Could it be a technical error of some sort??? You've done the right thing to revert my edit. Gillyweed 05:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Electronic Press was NOT advertising!!

Hi-- Andrew Applegate tells me you nominated the Berkeley Electronic Press page for deletion, as 'advertising'. It was NOT advertising. It was a factual article about an important new publisher (at least, important in the academic field I am familiar with, which is economics). I just wanted to let you know that I added some comments defending the page to the AfD discussion page, in case you want to discuss this. --Rinconsoleao 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know it went to AfD. From my perspective it looked like advertising, it reads like advertising and had no third party independent sources supporting what was written. Therefore it didn't meet WP:verify and so I suggested it was spam. Gillyweed 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Batson article

I have now added some references to the article on Daniel Batson,so wonder whether you would be happy if I were to remove the tag about the article having no references? Perhaps you still feel that there need to be some references for Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis. If so, please let me know. What ever you feel, just leave a note on my userpage [[ACEOREVIVED).Good for you for seeking out unreferenced articles, I had a similar problem in reading some of the claims in the article on ageing. ACEOREVIVED 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Adam-Smith

Hi Gillyweed. We meet again. I notice that you de-linked the dates for the above article. I'm not offended - I didn't link them! - but I am (and have been for some time) confused about the whole date issue, when to link, when to not? I thought there was something about linking them to ensure correct display according to user preferences, but I haven't read thoroughly in this area so would love some advice from a practitioner on this. Dates have always seemed "over-linked" to me but I've hesitated to change what I see, and I have to say that my own practice has been pretty variable. Cheers Sterry2607 06:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Sterry2607, you have forced me to go and find the answer. I de-linked the dates because I had been chastized early on in my WP career for linking them. I was told that dates are overlinked (as are some articles) and so delink them. BUT I have now checked the policy at you can see it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Autoformatting_and_linking So you are right and I am wrong and I'm off to revert my change to dear ol' Patsy. Cheers Gillyweed 07:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, you are going to hate me soon aren't you? But thankyou for doing that research - it's explained two things. As well as confirming my understanding re the linking for preference display, it also explains why were were both concerned about overlinking. This statement: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" is probably the one that we need to be conscious of. Seeing this has helped me understand a bit more ... so, thankyou! Sterry2607 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can never hate librarians! Salt of the earth. See you around at another Aussie article! Gillyweed 10:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for leaving the message on my userpage, that is good of you. I have not tried inline referencing yet, so please forgive me if stick rather slavishly to American Psychological Association style of referencing (no prizes for guessing that I am a Psychology lecturer!) ACEOREVIVED 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congrats

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Kudos to you for your contributions to, and watchful eye over, Omaha Beach. FactotEm 10:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --FactotEm 10:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factotem (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I haven't edited ANY pages on this website, I merely READ the articles. Don't mail me again unless you can PROVE I've edited pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.35.91 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this bit of vandalism? [2] ? Gillyweed 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wongar

The data about author B Wongar is referenced and proven to be correct, please read the references before you make any changes to the article. B Wongar is the authors adapted name and as well as legal name. Its his right as the author to write about his family and relatives. Wongar 1:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a right to include material that meets Wikipedia policies. Particularly WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Your edits, appear not to meet these policies. For example, stating that you are a 'daring' writer. Who says? Further, the references I included were from 3rd parties and you have deleted them without reason. Gillyweed 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water Ionizer

I saw your comment on my talk page only after making an edit to the water ionizer article. Even so, I hope you'll notice my comment in the history about one serious inaccuracy in the short article. That is merely one of several inaccuracies; indeed, the short article overall gives the wrong impression of how a consumer-grade ionizer operates. I believe the longer article, despite its flaws, gives a casual reader information that's much more accurate and useful. --Cmallett 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other false and misleading statements in the short version -- examples include:

• "Some well waters may have sufficient salt content to allow electrolysis" -> Implies that alkaline water can't be derived from ordinary tap water (false).
• "otherwise, the water can be rendered conductive by adding some ordinary table salt" -> Implies that table salt must be added to most sources of drinking water to allow electrolysis (false)
• "These devices ...are now being widely promoted to the North American alternative health market" -> Casts doubt water ionizers merely because they're promoted. After all, just about every product is promoted/advertised in some way.
• "despite the fact that hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ions are oxidizing agents" -> False and extremely misleading.
• Also, the overall tone of the article makes it seem like its primary purpose is to debunk water ionizers. At the very least, water ionizers are easily proven (via an ORP meter) to produce water with a negative Oxidation Reduction Potential, which by definition qualifies it as an antioxidant.

Although there's a lot of hype and misinformation about water ionizers on the Internet, I don't think Wikipedia should take on a debunking tone. I think it's likely the devices do have some merit (though far less than the hypsters claim). Finally, although you said the longer article is inaccurate, I don't see anything overtly false. If there aren't any major inaccuracies, I can try to tweak the large article to give it a more professional style. -Cmallett 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop adding external links to Water ionizer that does not meet the requirements of WP:EL. Please also make yourself aware of WP:COI. The external link to http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html contains, self serving, misleading information. Please stop adding links to your own site or sites in which you have vested interest. Water Ionizer Research is not the owner of http://heartspring.net/water_clinical_studies.html In contrast this page contains relevant and significant peer reviewed information about the electrolysis/ionization of water. Water Ionizer Research 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midwifery

Hey Gillyweed, what is your problem with midwifes, everything we put down is FACT which is backed up by references. So stop being an idiot thinking that you are so cool, being part of CVU - you have too much time - do so something constructive with your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.130.167 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with your edit to midwifery is it is done for the purpose of WP:attack and is also WP:OR via a synthesis of research. On top of that it gives undue weight to a minority point of view to disparage the subject. From your edits on other articles it is clear you are doing this to push a particular POV. Gillyweed 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article that anyone writes is obviously their point of view, as an obstetrician I know much more than anyone else about midwifes (especially you) so go get a life out of wikipedia and stop unediting my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.130.167 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I will continue to edit the article until until it is written in a manner that meets WP standards and policies. Gillyweed 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. See: Franks' publications.

Gillyweed you seriously have too much time on your hands. Why do you spend so much time on wikipedia, does editing articles on wikipedia turn you on? No one is gonna thank you for editing articles, you're wasting your time and you are just a pain in the ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.33.183 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you provide evidence for your claims, I shall continue to revert them. May I suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, WP:OR. WP:Ref and WP:Hoax Gillyweed 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doula Programs

Hello, I'm wondering why would certain doula certification programs be allowed and others not? I have several times tried to place MaternityWise on the list, but it has been removed everytime and the reason is advertising? I didn't know we must pay to place a link as a reference on a page. Can you please explain how to legtimately place links and references on Wikipedia, because I thought we were following the rules. Thank you. Chris Anne Johnson, Director of MaternityWise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donojane (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. Welcome to WP. I can't specifically remember why I removed your links but it was probably on the basis that it didn't meet WP:EL. I would have looked at your website and made the determination that it doesn't add to the article about doulas but rather is there to advertise your certification service. Viz it is advertising. I know it appears confusing that some certification programs seem to be 'allowed' and others not. I guess the others should go to, unless they meet WP:EL. I am regularly cleaning out the Doula external links as it seems to be a magnet for individual doula services to advertise. As you are trying to insert info about your own organization, can I draw your attention to WP:COI. Oh, you never put a link on a page. You just need to meet WP policies. Cheers Gillyweed 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Hi Gillyweed. In view of this, I thought you might like to know about this. Your participation would be much appreciated. Thanks.Ferrylodge 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labour vs Labor

Hi, Gillyweed. There was a good reason for my edits. It was "Labour" up until 1912, when King O'Malley had it changed to "Labor" (he was from North America and thought the American spelling was more modern and fresh). So, any references to the party prior to then should be spelled "Labour", otherwise the point of referring to the change of spelling at that particular time is lost. This is seen elsewhere - see Andrew Fisher, for example. -- JackofOz 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you reckon that perhaps we are being a bit too clever by doing this in the articles? Unless the reader knows that O'Malley changed the spelling, then the articles look as though they have inconsistent spelling. I believe we should perhaps simply use the spelling that is in use today. But happy to be overridden by consensus. Cheers Gillyweed 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I am keenly aware that this issue is likely to recur, unless there’s some strategy to prevent it. I made that very suggestion recently at Timeshift9's talk page (go to the 2nd-last thread because there are 2 titled "Andrew Fisher") - but it's gone nowhere so far. Whether it’s a consensus as such, I don’t know because I’ve never seen a debate on it. It just seems to have become a practice. But I think it’s very defensible, as long as it’s made very clear why any particular article suddenly changes from Labour to Labor mid-stream. Otherwise, as you point out, it just looks like amateurish inconsistency. In King O’Malley’s case we change from Labour to Labor, and only later explain why. That could do with some tweaking, because unless they read the whole article, good-faith editors like yourself are bound to come along, see an apparent spelling error, change it, and we’re going to have the same problem all over again. It’s already led to a great deal of frustration on the part of at least one editor, and I think it works better for all concerned if we edit in a frustration-free environment.

Do you have any ideas about how to bring the issue to the attention of editors generally, particularly those likely to edit Australian articles where the spelling change appears? -- JackofOz 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, having read the Timeshift conversation it does appear to make some people hot under the collar. I'm not sure I have a solution to this, although as you have done with O'Malley, mentioning it on the Talk page is a good start. I'll think about this further. Gillyweed 04:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous Combustion

Hi Gillyweed:

I enjoyed your edit summary on removing an anime example from Spontaneous Combustion "This is becoming trivial". I agree and I appreciate your vigilance, but I think that battle was lost a while back, both in that article and in general. Wikipedia seems to me to embrace trivia.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go for a slash'n'burn of the SHC trivia section soon. I haven't yet given up the fight! Thanks for the comment. Gillyweed 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

This is the only change I made to John Byrne's Wikipedia page: "Publisher IDW announced[citation needed] in September 2007 that Byrne is working on the final issue of the miniseries Star Trek Alien Spotlight, scheduled to be published in February 2008, and FX, written by Wayne Osborne, scheduled to be published in March 2008. A five-issue arc on JLA Classified with writer Roger Stern begins in January 2008."

How is that vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.223.91 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, or someone using your computer made this edit [3] to Pregnancy. I consider it vandalism, Gillyweed 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On No Peace Without Justice Page

Hello, I would like to ask your assistance on the drafting of the NPWJ page. I tried to write a comprehensive and neutral description of the organisation, but there are still some warnings on sources, neutralism and conflict. What do you suggest to do? Thank you, --Antonella S.D. 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. I have reviewed the No Peace Without Justice page and it reads much better than when I first came across it. Well done. I have removed two of the tags. I think the page could be improved considerably by adding some inline references, particularly from third parties. There must be others who have written about NPWJ who can be cited? Cheers, Gillyweed 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease adding external links to Water Ionizer

Please stop adding external links to Water ionizer that does not meet the requirements of WP:EL. Please also make yourself aware of WP:COI. The external link to http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html contains, self serving, misleading information. Please stop adding links to your own site or sites in which you have vested interest. Water Ionizer Research is not the owner of http://heartspring.net/water_clinical_studies.html In contrast this page contains relevant and significant peer reviewed information about the electrolysis/ionization of water.

I'm not adding external links to this page. You are. I consider this vandalism. Gillyweed (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion: gleep

Just out of curiosity, what qualified my article (entitled "gleep") for speedy deletion?

Notnerb (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fact that it was nonsense and had no supporting references. Gillyweed (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

general notability guideline : Wolf Hilbertz entry

Please take a look at the Wolf Hilbertz article which you tagged with a general notability guideline notice and see if the article is beginning to be complete enough to suit you. Please also note that the most recent set of updates were done by Kai Hilbertz, Wolf's eldest son. I put out a call for the people who had worked with Wolf over the years who knew of his published work better than I do to start filling out the article that I did a bare bones start to. I'd appreciate feedback and pointers. Plaasjaapie (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you have done a good job. I have made some minor changes to the article and deleted the notability tag. I removed the patent abstracts as they are not really required. They could be an external link if you really think necessary. Any further questions drop me a note. Gillyweed (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for helping with the Wolf Hilbertz article. I really do appreciate it. Plaasjaapie (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs at all. Always wonderful to welcome a good new article! Gillyweed 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith University

I am rather concerned about the guy who under several user names has been vandalising this site and its talk page. He seems disturbed and may be in danger of doing something unfortunate to himself or others. Do you have a connection to Griffith? Perhaps you could e-mail me. As for the article itself, I am wondering about protecting it fully for a while. What do you think? --Bduke (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. He has been doing this for some time now. Indeed, he does seem to have a gripe with the Uni which hasn't been fixed to his satisfaction. I would have no objection to protecting it fully for a few weeks or so. It might give him a chance to calm down and see things in a bit of perspective. He's better off using proper channels for his gripes that WP! My only connection to the Uni is that I am a graduate of it but have nothing to do with it any more. Thanks for your interest in protecting both GU and the poor disturbed sod! Gillyweed (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll wait until he attacks again. Then I'll block him and protect the page for a a while. He might calm down. --Bduke (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butterkist

Before sticking tags on new articles, can up please read the references first - Thank You! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the references and they were nearly all from the company producing the product. Hardly independent third party references! I see you have now greatly improved the reference list since I put the tag on the article. Thank you. Gillyweed (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2007_Korea_oil_spill#.22May_produce_cancer.22_.3F

I was explaining why on the talk page when you reverted my sentence. Please read the note on the talkpage. Anonyme 140.122.97.11 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the talk page and whilst I understand where you are coming from, WP does not give advice. We simply record what others have said. If you have a citation for "volunteers are to be careful when touching oily objects" then it should be included. Gillyweed (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokimeki Memorial Online

No notability asserted?
It's a video game developed by one of the largest video game companies, for one of Japan's most popular series, and has an anime adaptation.
Even without anything else mentioned, its notability is pretty well established.--SeizureDog (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why doesn't the article say that? Notability is implied not asserted. My case stands. Gillyweed (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished AryaVysyas

Hello Gillyweed, It would be great if you could please explain why this article is being marked for deletion. I will try to improve it. If you do not leave an explanation for your remarks, how can I make any improvement to it. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SriVaasaviKanyakaParameswariAalayamu Penugonda (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in my original PROD proposal that you deleted and also in the AfD. The list is seriously subjective and therefore non-encyclopaedic. The material can better be handled by categories Gillyweed (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gillyweed, Thank you for the comments. Please keep following my article as it will be updated with more improvements. I have also listed it under the Lists of Indian people. Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SriVaasaviKanyakaParameswariAalayamu Penugonda (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Heydrich

What is your reason to insist on keeping completely un-notable decorations in this list??? Is a medal like the Sudetenland Medal that was thrown around 1,162,617 times notable? I don't think so. What is notable about the NSDAP Long Service Ribbon, which was handed over to some million people? There is no encyclopedic value for this. --noclador (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it paints a picture of a regime that existed on pomp, circumstance, bread, circuses and other sundry trinkets (as well as fear). I think deleting this frippery detracts from demonstrating the shallowness of the Nazi ideology and thus I believe it remains a useful list to keep. Gillyweed (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heydrich

Hi, first: Happy Holidays Gillyweed

re. Heydrich - I just checked my books about World War II and Heydrich did indeed order his driver to stop the car, as he probably thought that Kubis was alone and he wanted to kill him on the spot as an example of his "power". so, the addition by the IP is actually correct. --noclador (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And same to you my friend. Too much good food and good drink eh? I'm sorry I reverted an accurate statement. Could you please add it back in with a cite from your book? Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

Hi Gillyweed. You are doing some great work. Hope you don't mind that I did a little work on the categories for the ACT awards article. Categories have been my 'thing' lately - though I don't call myself an expert yet. Funnily enough I nearly did an article on these awards a couple of weeks ago - glad you've done it. I also made a couple of minor changes to your Marie Tulip article. Change it back if you like but I renamed the section 'Bibliography' to 'Works' because my sense is that 'Bibliography' is used by some people for References. My practice therefore is to use Works for listing an author's works and References for listing the books etc I've consulted/cited. However, change it back if you like! Cheers and a happy Wiki 2008 to you. Sterry2607 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a soon to be Happy New Year to you my friend. Thank you for your recategorizing of some of my articles. I don't object in the slightest. I guess my 'thing' is getting the articles written and hoping that others will tidy up my mess. It sounds rather awful that I don't aim to get all my cats correct straight away, but really because cats aren't my thing it would take me ages to get things right and I'd get bored and then do nothing... so there you are. From your explanation above, I assume that you wouldn't use 'Bibliography' for anything? Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correctly - mainly to avoid ambiguity, if that makes sense. I understand that for "some" people (particularly out there in the academic world) References means the list of works you cite, and Bibliography the bigger list of works you consult. In Wikiland I tend the avoid this issue by using References for the list of things I cite and, if I've used other sources, I use Further reading. I'm glad you are cool about the recategorising...I do quite a lot of it for the Uncategorised WP:UNCAT project but am better in some areas than others ie in the subject areas I know! (The important thing is that you put a useful category or two in as that provides a great start - hundreds and hundreds of articles are written a month without any categories at all). I think it's great that we can all work only on aspects we like/are suited to - if only all of our lives were like that - but then, who would clean the toilets! Cheers Sterry2607 (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you

I can now go out on the town feeling I deserve a treat!! Off to see a movie and then, je ne sais quoi... BTW I gather from the Safari user box that you are a mac user too? Sterry2607 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. Enjoy the film - no doubt a quality one! And all the best Wikipedians use Macs!  : ) Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Childbirth" external link

Hello, I was wondering why you deleted an external link I added to the childbirth page. The site (bornyesterday) contains numerous childbirth stories from mothers who recently gave birth. Is that not relevant? I actually tried to add the link about a month ago, as well, and it was deleted then, too. I posted it while I was at work and realized afterward that the IP address there is associated with many other Wikipedia postings, and may have indicated to you that this was spam. Anyway, I'm pretty new at this and would appreciate any additional info about your decision to delete the link. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdunn400 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to WP. I removed the link on the basis that it doesn't appear to meet WP's policy regarding external links. See: WP:EL. The site added little that the article didn't contain and the personal stories, whilst valuable in their own way, are not encyclopaedic. The Google Adverts on the site didn't help either. I hope that explains my decison. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate it. One more question: Do you try to avoid all sites with ads, or just those with Google ads? And if so, why? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.202.25 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Erection

An editor has nominated Erection, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wingroe

Hi there, Thanks for keeping up with User:Wingroe and his many attempts to introduce copyrighted material. I'll keep an eye out, but you are probably in a better position to monitor. If you could just let me know... Thanks again--DO11.10 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am amazed at his persistence. Thank you too for your help. It's great to have an Admin keeping an eye on his shenanigans. I'll let you know if he gets out of hand again. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Nolan

As a veteran editor of articles about diploma mills, I feel compelled to tell you that International Biographical Centre and American Biographical Institute are not diploma mills as that term is defined here. Call them frauds, confidence tricks, etc., but they are a different type of fraud from diploma mills.

I do not see these links as adding value to that particular article. As explained on Wikipedia:Embedded list "See also" lists have specific uses:

See also lists, Compare lists, and Related topics lists are valuable navigational tools that assist users in finding related Wikipedia articles. When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. Typically this will include three types of links:

• Links to related topics - topics similar to that discussed in the article.
• Higher order (ie. more general) articles and lists - this might include lists of people, list of countries, etc. For example list of Indian language poets should link to both list of Indians and list of poets.
• Lower order (ie. more specific) articles and lists - For example, the Business page navigational list contains links to small business, list of accounting topics, etc.

Readers of the Colby Nolan article will not find these two articles to be informative regarding the general topics of famous cats or diploma mills (the type of article identified in the first bullet), nor will they find a list of similar incidents and institutions (second bullet), nor will they learn more about Colby Nolan or the specific diploma mill that issued his "degree". I am deleting those links and replacing them with a link to Who's Who scam, which deals generically with the type of scam those two articles document. --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I don't actually agree as I consider both ABI and IBC are diploma mills of the worst sort, but I'm not going to revert. Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you when you say they are "of the worst sort." However, diploma mills represent themselves as educational institutions and sell academic degrees. That's not what ABI and IBC do. They seem to be engaged a different type of scam. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:A7

Hi. :) I came across your speedy deletion tag on The Stone (Ashes Divide Song), and I just wanted to point out to you that {{db-a7}} is specifically for people (individually or grouped) and websites. There is currently no consensus for speedily deleting other articles types under this criterion. Other articles that fail to assert notability should go through proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to this. I think we need a speedy way of getting rid of some of this peripheral stuff too! Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article on Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala

The article Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala is a new and useful topic that is emerging in the area of decentralisation. It is an analysis of the mechanisms existing in Kerala and that can be replicated elsewhere. The listed suggestions are very unique and you cannot find such a list in many other sources. Setting accountability systems is the cornerstone of much acclaimed decentralisation in Kerala. So kindly withdraw from the proposed deletion of above said article. I don't know what will happen when I save this page. But I think that this message will reach you. Once I learn the nuances of editing I can edit and improve the article.

Rajankila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajankila (talk • contribs) 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the PROD has already been removed. Can you please use in-line references in your article otherwise it reads simply like an essay. Good luck with the editing of it. Gillyweed (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Hand picked domain

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hand picked domain, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand picked domain. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAHD page

Regarding including ParenTeam as an external link on the Stay-at-Home Dad page: You wrote, in September: "I have looked at the website and I have no objection to it being added as an external link. It contains little or no advertising (I couldn't find any) and does seem to add considerably to the info base for this article and thus it meets the requirements of WP:EL. Feel free to add it." The link has recently been deleted. It does have Google adsense on it, but many of the other external links in the SAHD page have that and much more advertising. I'd like to know why the link has been deleted. It is still relevant to that page's subject. Thanks. Ptmr (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea - did I delete it, or did someone else? If I deleted it, it was probably accidental - unless I thought there was too much advertising on it. Gillyweed (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Welcome to my new list of "friends" - for what it's worth.

I'm sure you know that a little word of encouragement goes a long way.

I understand that citations and references are all important but I think it could be plain to see that I'm not here to harm or damage, just trying to do my bit for something I repute to be important. Giving correct information to the general public is not often found; to the contrary many prefer to give partial information (reinforcing oneupmanship and the risky game of "playing God") creating insecurity and consequentially the need for remunerative check-ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted you have arrived and am most happy to help you in any way possible to find your time here enjoyable, fulfilling and informative. If you have any questions, drop me a line. I might be able to help. Gillyweed (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me please Gillyweed ?

Dear Gillyweed I have added the name of Sonnet Mondal to the list.He is an award winning National poet of India and I think his name should be in the list.Please cooperate. Thank you fo talking to me Roger Gravel (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Vandalism warning Do not remove tags from articles without following instructions. To do otherwise is considered vandalism. Gillyweed (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I am not aware of that! Roger Gravel (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tags make it quite apparent what you have to do if you disagree with them.Gillyweed (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to help me with this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Showers_List please. Roger Gravel (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger, it is apparent that the article you created was a copyright violation. To write a good article you need to write it in your own words, use third party citations and prove that the subject is notable. See: WP:Note for some hints. Good luck. Gillyweed (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comments

I really enjoyed reading this advice. It almost should be codified somewhere! Anyways, I'm stealing it for my User Page, which I've made into a bunch of Wikipedia rambles. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted. Having read your user page I am pleased to find a fellow WP who often thinks like I do. Gillyweed (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you support ScienceApologist's edits. He is being attacked by POV-warriors. But I think some admins and bureaucrats are noticing here. In medical and science articles SPOV = NPOV, because reliable and valid references are used to make claims. Anyways, I haven't run across you before, but I'm glad you're a part of the gang watching over some of this POV garbage. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dvaravati Sila

Thanks for the valuable suggestion to add 'context' to the article. I have added it a while ago. I hope the subject dealt is more clear now.--Nvvchar (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vastly better, thank you very much. Gillyweed (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from American Biographical Institute

Dear Gillyweed, thank you for your encouragement to put also the front page of the letter! You are right. The information is more complete this way.
Thank you. Have a nice day!
--Tom David (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking of Charlotte (disambiguation) and Dundee (disambiguation)

Hi, Gillyweed. Per the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages (MOS:DAB#Individual_entries), there should only be one navigable (blue) link per entry. So, I have changed your last edits to the pages Charlotte (disambiguation) and Dundee (disambiguation). Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'll watch that in future. Gillyweed (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happy editing. -Gwguffey (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congrats, Gillyweed, on reaching your 150th article... Good work! Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! Thanks very much - very kind. Having looked at your user page I suspect we have much in common. Gillyweed (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image

Thank you but I think I am going to upload a better pic that's more representive. But that one will stay for now. Bobisbob (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mcintyre

Thanks - I was confused. Thinking about two things at once always tires my brain. I will check properly next time. Stellar (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

buttocks pic

Hi,Can you please keep this pic on the page to represent to female buttocks and tell people to stop changing it. I'm lucky to get permission to post that one. Thank you Bobisbob (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Bobisbob. I've not had such a nice pair of buttocks placed on my discussion page before. Thank you. However, I'm not sure if it is the right one to illustrate Buttocks as it really is an 'ideal' photo (and probably photoshopped too) rather than just a natural pair (like the first image you uploaded). So in short, I can't support it as an illustration for the article. Sorry. Gillyweed (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oryoku Maru Hellship page

Hello,

I noticed that you changed the Oryoku Maru hellships page back to an earlier version. i was surprised to see the changes were listed as "apparent vandalism." In fact my changes were all factually correctly and I have edited the site to restore the corrected information. The errors include sailing dates, numbers of men killed, where the Enoura Maru was bombed (it was not sunk) and what happened to the men who arrived at Moji. The former YMCA camp you mentioned was Fukuoka camp #4. 50 men from the Brazil Maru were taken there and 13 died.

I am a POW historian whose father was an Oryoku Maru survivor. Before you change the page back you may want to check my credentials with Mr. Roger Mansell http://www.mansell.com/pow-index.html and Mr. John Lewis http://www.west-point.org/family/japanese-pow/ Best regards, Jim Erickson Kohlerdino (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Jim, my reversions of any previous edits you did was handling a problem with an external link. My examination of the changes don't indicate reversion of your factual changes, but if I did make any then I apologise. I'm delighted you have made the material more accurate, but could I suggest you make use of in-line citations to ensure that there are no questions about where the data comes from please? Thanks Gillyweed (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re impressed

Actually all I did was add a bio template to the talk page and a bio stub to the article page. Nice to see some Aussie historical figures being added here. By the way I'm impressed with your work. Interesting taking a look at some of the ship articles you have created. Some of my ancestors came out here on convict ships ;-) Sting au Buzz Me... 03:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it was the speed you did it sir! Thanks for the compliments. I am slowly trying to fill in some gaps in our history. Cheers! Gillyweed (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hello. Just a reminder that links to 'Newcastle will need to be disambiguated to the one of the many Newcastles being referred to. Cheers. The JPS^talk to me 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do. Thanks for fixing my mess! Gillyweed (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall PS

I deleted it as an expired proposed deletion - that is to say, I actioned a request. Looking at the former article, it seems that the matter would have been far better covered in Hall, Australian Capital Territory in a section under the school (which I note does not presently exist). Orderinchaos 04:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - restored history, made a redirect. This seems to be the revision with the most complete content out of the ones that are there. Orderinchaos 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I'll get to work on it shortly. Gillyweed (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes to the article (added infobox, some wikilinks and some cosmetic changes). If youre interested, theres a WikiProject Education in Australia, which you are more than welcome to join. Thanks. Twenty Years 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your changes. They are great. I'll drop by the Project Education lot soon. Gillyweed (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Lapa Church

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lapa Church, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapa Church. Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedies

Please read the definition of "nonsense" at WP:CSD. It is interpreted narrowly. It does not mean "poor quality article" DGG (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burton

The information posted is just a placeholder. Jonathan Burton was a well covered, controversial news event of 2000. I'll add more reference in my future updates. In light of what happened about a year later, it has a certain relevance to 9/11. The death of Burton got a media coverage about equal to the death of Carol Gotbaum. Pepso2 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Hello, Gillyweed. You have new messages at Ginkgo100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

International Surrey Company

Hi There! Thanks for tagging that new page as an "advert" - it certainly looked like it when you put the tag up! I have done a bunch of work to improve it, fixed copyright vios, referenced it, etc. I have taken the "advert" tag off it as I think it is mostly fixed, but I would appreciate it if you could have a look at it now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think the article looks much better now. I have made a couple of little tweaks but I agree that it no longer looks like an advert and it is informative and useful. Thanks for working on it. Gillyweed (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think it is improved! There is very little information about the company on the internet outside their own website and nothing critical anywhere. There are also no print references that I am aware of - all makes it hard to create a balanced article. I did tag the talk page as part of WikiProjects Cycling and Business and Economics, so hopefully that will attract more editors to work on it. I'll be keeping an eye on the article and see how it develops over time. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOT: Web of Trust

Hi Gillyweed:Please take a look at the revised version of WOT: Web of Trust. I tried to be more neutral on the second go-round. Please make any suggestions that might help me make it better. Best regards, Debsalmi (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I have looked at the changes you have made and they are much better. I have removed some more info that looked simply like advertising and also tagged a few bits that need third party citations. Enjoy your editing here. Gillyweed (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Wright

Hi, I noticed that you removed the prod template from the Derrick Wright article, but only added a reference to a review about his book. However, I don't believe a book review qualifies the author as notable enough for a biographical article, since the article is about his book, not the author himself. (see Wikipedia:Bio#Creative_professionals). It might qualify the book itself as notable, however. Can you find other sources supporting the notability of the author himself? If you can, that would be great. If not, then we should probably put it up for deletion. Your thoughts? --Aervanath (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is a very vexed area. I cannot help comparing authors with the vast number of footballers who grace WP, or Japanese cartoon characters etc. Writing a book is just as difficult as being a footballer. But I do know that this argument does not actually wash. The question does Wright meet the Creative Professional's bio? I would have thought that his level of output is high enough that he would be considered to have added much to the analysis of the Pacific War field. Certainly his books are in major libraries (which is a criterion). The other difficulty is that with the output he has, there would be many book reviews around, but just because we can't find them on Google, then that doesn't mean they haven't been written! And as for data about the man himself, a biography is rarely written until the bloke is dead. If you are still concerned about notability, why not whack a notability tag on it rather than going straight for deletion and then see what else turns up? Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly agree that it might be a while until an official biography comes out, I would think that notability would require at least one article about him as an author, no matter how many book reviews there may be out there, especially since we need to provide a reliable source for the biographical material that we do include, which is rarely included in book reviews. But I do agree with you that just because we can't google it, that doesn't mean it might not be out there. But we should be trying to find that reference and citing it in the article, Google-able or not. Anyway, I have added several tags to the article so that other editors might help improve it, if possible. Peace.--Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coup d'état conspiracy for the 27th October of 1982 (Spain)

Thanks for your assistance, a cleanup revision would be very helpful.--Paco ✉ 09:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== AOKW ==

AOKW (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (EST)

Hi Gillyweed, thank you for pointing out that my submission was not compatible with the requirements of WikiPedia. I have recreated the page for your perusal in terms that I hope comply with WikiPedia requirements. If you still feel that the information is inappropriate, please contact me and let me know first so that I may make the required changes as opposed to risking deletion.

Once again, much thanks!

Hi. I think you will find that RHaworth has told you what is necessary on your talk page. Good luck. Gillyweed (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Ross esq.

What the F#@% do you think you are playing at? How on EARTH is this a personal attack?!? It is an article about a notable magistrate, which if anything portrays him in a positive light. Stop being a dick Theasssss Christopher Nuddsssss (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. They have been appropriately dealt with. Gillyweed (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABI

Gillyweed, your refusal to allow even the date of the American Biographical Institutes's inception or even acknowledge the fact that the company has co-hosted multiple congresses fairly reeks of vendetta, not an objective "encyclopedia."

The company's own website claims it's dates and congresses, can that not be a source?

After all, most other sources on the page are based on conjecture and opinion, why can't the company's own factual statements be allowed?

Seems like opinion rules fact in this online source, eh, matey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelz (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are uncited. References are to be to third parties. There is a link from the ABI article to the company's website. Of course the ABI's inception date can be included with a relevant reference. I think the main problems with your changes were the adulatory tone used rather than a neutral one stating facts. Gillyweed (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, Gillyweed, I linked to a few different things, even one regarding Afewerk Tekle, from Ethiopia. I suggest, my friend, that if you choose to tout "facts" and not just wage a personal war hiding behind a veil of "neutrality," you give a good look to the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.131.32 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your sarcasm makes your communication unclear to me. Perhaps you might with to sign your posts in future. Gillyweed (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for contributions

Dear Gillyweed,

Recently, we attempted to make a contribution to Wikpedia's clitoris page but were deleted after a few hours. We are not certain why our contribution was deleted. What we tried to do was provide a video which had three key teaching points in it:

• The vast majority of the clitoris lies under the skin
• The clitoris has movement with respect to the clitoral hood
• The clitoris has erectile tissue and acts in a similar manner as the penis

The key to getting our teaching points across was motion under conditions of excitement. One guess we have is the lead-in picture may have appeared pornographic or misplaced. Just in case that was the problem, we are in the process of modifying it. We would appreciate any feedback that you could provide to keep us in alignment with the Wikipedia mission.

Thank you,

Robert L. Phillips, PhD, MBA
The Bio-Sim Corporation
--BioSim (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Robert, thanks for dropping me a note. I have to admit that I did not actually look at the video you provided! As you would appreciate, clitoris, like many sex related articles on WP is regularly vandalized and appears to be a magnet for pornographers. Sigh. Where you had placed your link made it very much look like embedded advertising. Mea culpa! I have replaced in a better position - in the external links section. Please accept my apologies. It is an excellent video. Gillyweed (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Michael Leunig

I am puzzled regarding your message about my edit of the Leunig article. You appear to have regarded it as a mere test edit, which needed immediately to be reverted.

So far as I am concerned, my edit comprised two elements:

1) I simplified a sentence including two "but" sub-clauses, a cumbersome style which I was taught to avoid at primary school, probably around the age of 9. As someone who has been writing, editing and publishing for many years, I am not aware of any development of the language that now renders such a usage best practice, which I understood Wikipedia to seek to encourage. In the course of my recasting the sentence I sought also to bring out the fact that, regardless of of Leunig's CO stance, he would never have been accepted by the military anyway, because of his irremediable aural disability.

2) I nevertheless took the view, in accordance with best practice within the worldwide CO movement and the literature relating thereto, that the ultimate determination of who is to be recorded for posterity as a conscientious objector depends upon the claimant, regardless of any ruling by a court or functionary. On that basis, I allocated Leunig to the category of Australian conscientious objectors - a category which, incidentally, is specifically flagged within Wikipedia as deserving of enlargement.

Where, please, in your view, did I go wrong, and how, now, can Michael Leunig receive the recording he deserves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountdrayton (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you look at this edit [4], it shows that you said that Michael Leunig served in the US army in WWII. I don't think so! Thus I assumed you were making a test edit rather than vandalizing the article. You also blanked one large paragraph. I have no objections to your recategorization of hims but given your other edits I wasn't sure you knew what you were doing. Any comments? Gillyweed (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gillyweed: I sometimes wonder whether the machines are really taking over. So far as I am aware, the putative reference to Leunig being in the US Army during WW2 was already there when I did my edit. I did not pay much attention to it, and certainly neither wrote nor edited it. Neither did I blank the pre-existing paragraph in which it was inappropriately inserted. Now that you have drawn my attention to it, I can see that the WW2 reference is complete nonsense, as Leunig had not even been born then. I propose to re-enter my original edits, on the basis that I do know what I am doing.and trust that no gremlins will insert irrelevant edits. Mountdrayton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountdrayton (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article was vandalized at the same time you were doing your edits. I guess it can happen! I have no objections to the changes you propose as long as they are properly referenced. Thanks for improving articles. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homebirth rate in Denmark not 80 %

Hi Gillyweed, I just looked at the history of the home birth article and as I understand it you have changed the percentage of Danish home births from 1 to 80 %. That number is not correct. I'm actually not sure what the rate is today but much closer to 1 than 80, anyway. (I live in Sweden and write about Swedish home births, and Denmark is next door.) I suggest you (or I) remove the sentence altogether, until we've found out what the true number is. I will do some research and try to get back to you asap. /Anna - Annaxt (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna, the text actually says that 80% of births are homebirths OR free standing birth centres. I too thought that 80% was a high number, but 1% seems inordinately low when including free-standing birth centres. In Australia the home birth rate is less than 1% but if we include birth centres, increases to around 6% I believe. If you can find some better data, properly cited, I'd be delighted. Thanks, Gillyweed (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gympie Pyramid

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Gympie Pyramid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi - delighted if you would provide more sources. I would like to see the article meet WP:FRINGE, as you can see from my prod notice I don't believe it does so but of course more sources may fix that issue. :-) Regards --Matilda ^talk 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep breath - yeah I suppose so. I like your referencing and appreciate your efforts. I think it is more relevant than just having an article about a crank theory that has been debunked. I would (in case you hadn't gathered) much rather it didn't get encyclopaedic status because some people don't read the caveats and might just say oooh a pyramid in Australia - wow! or whatever. Can you add a bit more about the 1421 Chinese stuff? - ie do you have the book? Regards --Matilda ^talk 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I do have the 1421 book - what a waste of money. What more information did you think was required? Gillyweed (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if we are going to have this article, what claims did the 1421 book make about the pyramid - at the moment it is just the assertion - not much detail just a sentence or two ... I don't have the book but I have heard of it. Regards --Matilda ^talk 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Okay? Gillyweed (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I think it helps! If one is going to be cranky .... Have you seen http://www.dightonrock.com/gavinsfantalyland.htm ? Regards Matilda ^talk 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now printed it and put it in my copy of 1421. Thanks for the reference. Catch you around! Gillyweed (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for contributions (2)

Good on Ya Gillyweed for accommodating us. (Actually my daughter had a Fulbright Fellowship at the University of Melbourne, and while visiting I learned a couple of things about the Land of Aus). Although we do appreciate being listed in the External links section, we feel these pages in this section are in need of further contribution, and that in a systematized fashion. Since we have already successfully edited approximately 25 pages in various anatomy sections we would like to take a stab at bolstering the content on these pages, as well as adding content to other pages we’ve identified to be nearly devoid of content. We have begun with a slight addition to the page, with two video links, one showing neural innervation of the clitoris and another showing vascularization of the same. As always, we will keep you apprised of our changes as they happen.

Best,

Bob--BioSim (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doula article

Hello,

I knew as soon as I posted my contribution that you would probably delete it the moment you had the chance. That is unfortunate, because as a physician, my colleagues and I at a large urban medical center have found that doulas are often an obstruction to delivering appropriate medical care. I believe this is important, because their presence and actions in the delivery room often lead to the delivery of sub-par medical care, especially to newborn infants. Therefore I have investigated this subject at length among physicians at our medical center. The medical community in general has not undertaken a study to examine the detrimental effects of having a doula in the delivery room, probably because there is more important medical research to be done. Therefore I am not likely to publish a paper on this subject (when I am in the midst of writing papers on far more important subjects), and cannot reference a scientific study. I only took the time and effort to write this contribution because I do not feel that women who come to this wikipedia page should get the one-sided story that it currently tells.

It is not necessarily true that a cited reference makes information valid, especially when the information is provided by people who have a narrow view of the topic they are writing about. I think you probably know that. So I'm surprised that you put so much importance on citing sources, especially when you must realize that some of those sources mean nothing.

I would appreciate any suggestions you have for citing an unpublished but extensive survey of physicians done by a fellow physician who has participated in scientific research and presented her findings in many valid academic settings. Please advise if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivangibhatt (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind

I am no longer interested in pursuing this subject. Though doulas do have negative effects on the birth process, apparently a biased but referenced article that leaves this information out is good enough to post on wikipedia. And I am not interested in spending the time it may take to provide information on the other side of the issue to wikipedia readers. Thank you for your feedback. I will deal with this issue by verbally counseling expectant mothers not to refer to this article for information, and inform them of the drawbacks of doulas myself. Shivangibhatt (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)S. Bhatt[reply]

As you would appreciate it is quite possible for me to write anything on WP. I have no proof that you are a physician and even if you are, that does not make your claims more valid than anyone elses. You have biases just as I have biases. That's why we rely on published research to support our claims. Gillyweed (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet Mondal

Dear Gillyweed,

I think that this list of Indian poets must contain the name of Sonnet Mondal.He won the National poet certification from the president of India in 2007.He has also won other International awards for poetries in his book "A Poetic Peep Into The Post Modern World". I have added his name.Please do the needful to have his name listed in the list of Indian poets who writes in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnetkajal (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hart

Thanks for helping watch the Kevin Hart article. I believe Bloom is seen as conservative by some/much of the literary establishment (though I don't have an academic citation for this). However, I don't believe that "arch conservative" is appropriate here: firstly, there are those (academics and intellectuals - perhaps conservative ones but this is not the point really here) who respect him and his canon, and secondly, the Hart reference is not the place to debate the value of the canon and its creator. "Arch conservative", properly cited, might be appropriate in the article on Bloom - and maybe is there. There are wikilinks to both Bloom and Western canon in the Hart article for those interested in investigating these. Anyhow, thanks again.Sterry2607 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm quite willing to accept that Bloom is conservative, but the use of the term by the vandal is put in simply to denigrate the subject, not to illuminate. I am sure the links are quite enough to Bloom without needing more description. Why does Hart come in for such a pasting? Gillyweed (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gillyweed, you are the vandal for continuing to delete the truth. It is YOUR opinion that Bloom's arch-conservative critical agenda is irrelevant. It is NOT necessarily an honor to be named along with Shakespeare as one of Western literature's great writers if Bloom is the one doing the naming. The citation of Stanford's McPheron is ample evidence that "arch-conservative" is correct. However, to gratify your whims, let's change it to "right-wing." Now please stop YOUR vandalising.

Please sign your posts. I know nothing about Bloom and know nothing of Hart. I do know opinion when it is inserted into an article without citation. You have improved what you have written but it still reads as though it is done purely to attack and denigrate the subject. If someone is right wing then let the citations show it. Don't assert it. Gillyweed (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written to denigrate. It's written to balance the praise this article has tried to heap on Hart with the truth. To say Hart is in Bloom's canon without stating the context for Bloom's canon is potentially to mislead readers--like yourself--who know nothing of Hart or Bloom. The McPheron citation DOES show that Bloom is right wing. I'm going to revert one more time here, because I genuinely believe I am right and you are wrong.

:Could you please sign your posts. If you wish to show some good faith you would follow WP policies. If people wish to find out if Bloom is a raving nutcase right wing authoritarian then they can go to his entry to find that out, it doesn't need to be put in every article that links to Bloom. This smacks of trying to attack someone. You have apparently attempted to balance what you perceive as over the top praise for Hart with suitable quotes - this is fine. But don't then paraphrase the quote with your interpretation. Leave it to the reader. Gillyweed (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or implied Bloom is a raving nutcase. He is right-wing and authoritarian, and this fact sheds light on his selection of Hart for the Western canon. BTW, I'm glad this discussion is a source of amusement to you and Sterry.

SNAP! (Or Jinx as I believe is said in the USA). I have just been making a similar point re balance on the Kevin Hart talk page - but your point here is laid out very clearly! Like you, I am committed to maintaining balance/NPOV. I have no particular interest in either praising or denigrating Kevin Hart.Sterry2607 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the agreement! One could speculate on what's behind this, but this is probably not the place to do it! CheersSterry2607 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Wiseman

While here at your Talk Page, I decided to have an up to date look at your main page and noticed that you had started an article on Solomon Wiseman. I have added a section to it on "The Secret River" which you may know was based, loosely, on his life. Let me know if you are not happy with what I've done. Cheers,Sterry2607 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your addition. It's perfect. Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of red links of Meiteilon poets

Hi, You had removed red links for Meitei-lon language poets in List of Indian poets page. Not much content is developed as of now for Meitei-lon language. Hence many of the entries in that section are red links. How about waiting sometime till someone tries to develop some pages of these red links. We can then delete the red links for Meitei-lon at a later date. Only my suggestion.

Townblight (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them as redlinks seem to be a magnet for vanity and vandalism. If these people are notable then they will have articles written about them. Then they should be listed there once they have a proper article written. But thanks for the comment. Gillyweed (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female buttocks pic

I made a To-do list that places the need for a new FB pic. Fine with you? Maybe you can add to what is required for the main image. Bobisbob (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Hey, I finally found a superior female buttocks picture but someone already tried to revert the previous one. I hope you'll make sure this one stays on. Bobisbob (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. See my comments on the talk page. I haven't yet decided if this photo is better than the old one. The towel is a problem as far as I am concerned. Keep hunting! Gillyweed (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We you can crop the towel out. How about letting the users vote on which one. Bobisbob (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm not going to revert it. Gillyweed (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel Theatre

Dear Gillyweed, Can you help me improve the Carousel Theatre entry? I am new to wikipedia and am a little confused as to how to use references... Cheers,Carole Higgins (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Carole[reply]

G'day Carole, no probs. Firstly, do you have references to the CT that back up the statements made in the article? If so, the follow the guideline here: WP:Cite#how. Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gillyweed, I thought I had improved my entry for Carousel Theatre, but now someone else has been marked for deletion again. Can you help me improve it? I did put one reference - The Jessie Richardson Theatre Awards website, which lists Carousel Theatre. Any other suggestions? Cheers, Carole Carole Higgins (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've now commented at the AfD page. We now need to let the process run its course. More references always help! Gillyweed (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gillyweed, I added a few more references and will hope for the best! Carole Higgins (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note Gillyweed. I am learning more and more about Wikipedia everyday! CheersCarole Higgins (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in helping the Natural Childbirth page?

Based on your comments on homebirth, you are more versed in the literature than I am. I'm currently trying to improve the natural childbirth page, but the only other contributor at the moment is ardently opposed to natural childbirth as a philosophy. I'm trying to appreciate his/her input as a means to improve the page, but progress is slow. I think a lot can be done (proper references for prevalence of intervention, incorporating WHO guidelines, perhaps some information on the historical dynamic between doctors and midwives, etc) and I intend to dig into some reading to do it well, but I'd appreciate some help. Thank you, Lcwilsie (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. Happy to help where I can. I note that the other contributor has some pretty strong views so I shall start quietly in the talk page. cheers Gillyweed (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echinacea

You are correct, I had my anti-spam filter set too high and just deleted that link for appearing like a blog. I updated the link to point to the actual article instead of the table of contents. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Gillyweed (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Edits

Hi. You recently un-did some additions that I made to the 'fish oil' article. I'm new to wikipedia and trying to understand why you stripped out my attributed contribution. Could you elaborate so that I can avoid future mistakes? Thanks. Annirodgers (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Annirodgers p.s. I may not have been logged in when I edited 'fish oil' yesterday - is that why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annirodgers (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. I've just gone back and looked at the revisions I made to fish oil and for the life of me I cannot understand why I removed your material. It was well written and referenced. I must have had a small brain explosion! I'm very sorry. I have replaced the material. Thanks for asking! I suspect I was in the middle of reverting vandalism and became accidentally overzealous when I saw that the change had been made my an IP... But really, that's a lousy excuse. It was an error and that's all I can say! Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the undo! And glad to hear I'm on the right track...--Annirodgers (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stradbroke galleon

Hi Gillyweed yes i will read them. No i am not trying to push a pet theory. The story of the Stradbroke Galleon and appears in written histories of the moreton Bay area as far back as 1907 and is mentioned in numerous written works since then. Apart from that there are numerous written and oral accounts of people who have seen and described the vessel, many more than the Mahogany ship for example. Likewise there is a significant body or araeological material which can be reasonably associated with teh galleon story, much more than the Mahogany ship. All I am trying to do is bring this information into the broader public/history domain. hence my book is a serious attempt to compile all the existing historic and archaeological information of the Strabdroke Island galleon story. Yes it opposes mainstream maritime history, in Australia but not in Spain or Portugal. Actually, whilst I accept there must be standards and conventions in WP I am pretty amazed by the boots and all attack this article has recieved and I guess, from the timing of the delete parties, that most of them are associates of Hesperian acting on his behest, whose real identity I am aware of so I am not surprised he has renewed the personal attacks he has previously launchedGregjay (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Greg, thanks for your comments. There is a convention used on WP which is "Don't bite the newbies." That is, we are supposed to cut new editors like you some slack. The problem is that many of us continually removed blatant linkspam from articles and we get rather sick of it. In addition, many people make edits without reading the extensive help sections on WP which would stop them getting into trouble in the first place. It would be helpful if you understand and implement the WP policies before making substantive edits to pages. Gillyweed (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the editor has not read any of the advice given - or grasped or had any understanding about WP:NOT and to translate simple reminders of what are the understanding the procedures for Wikipedia standards for notability and third party source to be translated into personal attack, associates of Hesperian is nothing short of incomprehendable lack of understanding of the processes that are required SatuSuro 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree with you. I am irritated by people who leap in without reading any of the guidelines. You wouldn't take up rock-climbing without some test clambers first and yet some people leap into entire articles without understanding how it all works. Oh, and I never have truck with conspiracy theories! Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hughes

Please do not continue to carry out persistent, intolerable vandalism on articles, as you did with Colin Hughes. Your edits constitute appalling vandalism and have been reverted. Thank you 88.111.70.117 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I ask you to create a disambiguation page for the new article than overwrite an existing article and you call me the vandal. C'est la vie. My edits stand as testament to my time here. Gillyweed (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Lead image.

Is yet again being debated, this time there's a survey being conducted, just a heads up in case you missed it.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home birth Re

No problems, I will add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it over the next couple of days.--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]