User talk:Gillyweed

This is Gillyweed's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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 [1], 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]