User talk:GeneralBelly

; Archives
	Sept 2008; ;

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|GeneralBelly}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sandifer syndrome

Hi! There was a missing / in the <ref name="Orpha"/> instance immediately before the BMJ reference was first defined ... which made the software become confused :) Happy editing THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RealDVD

Ive added a section on the RealNetworks article page, I hope you like it since you said it would be interesting to add such material. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert?

why did you revert my edits? Stopkommernism (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced the CWFA official site link with a link to a website that appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the article in question. GeneralBelly (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which group do you like better? Just want to know. Stopkommernism (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, please do so in a constructive manner. Cheers. GeneralBelly (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you revert the tag that I deleted on the Sandi Toksvig talk page? The expanded tag reads...

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia."

Your edits to List of drag queens

Please do not add unsourced information to an article which explicitly states at the top "All entries must be sourced." Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaldari. The way I read it, articles linked to on the list must have references in them - I added links to articles about drag queens, not just names. If that is not what is meant, then clearer language should be used. Why must a source be added to a listing page anyway? Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that this particular list was deleted a few days ago per WP:BLP concerns, and then recreated on the condition that all entries would be explicitly referenced to a source. By adding entries without explicit sources, you are helping the case of those arguing to redelete the list. There is a undeletion discussion about the list currently ongoing. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, but I'm asking why the list page entry needs to be sourced, as opposed to the articles linked having sources within them. We don't source every internal link on WP, e.g. [[1]]. Surely if I add a drag queen to the list, I only need to add a source if there is no reference on his/her article's page? GeneralBelly (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles must conform to policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP on their own. We cannot rely on linked articles to supply the proper citations. Plus, without putting the citations directly in the article, how would we know at any given time that all of the people listed were properly cited in their articles. It would be a maintenance nightmare. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as to why we need citations for this list when most lists I've seen have no references whatsoever... but I'll find sources and then add the names back. Cheers anyway, GeneralBelly (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Toksvig

Since when has Sandi Toksvig been a LGBT issue? She may be lesbian but so are many people. She may have a child or two by artificial insemination and THAT for some (artifical insemination of lesbians) may be an issue. But SHE per se is not surely. Or is that you believe that she is an issue just because of her celebrity? If so, that is a very poor (and may I say not very encyclopaedic) reason for so marking the article's talk page thus. I am going to revert your reversion for this reason.--Tom (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. No-one is suggesting that Toksvig herself is an "LGBT issue". You are correct that there are many lesbians in the world and for that Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies includes prominent LGBT People, i.e. notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people. WP:LGBT states that "[f]amous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed." Toksvig can be included in that list of notable, out LGBT people; hence the tag on her article's discussion page. My revision was not based on my own feelings about Toksvig, but rather done as part of a Wikiproject. If you have a problem with the criteria for such tagging, please direct questions or suggestions to the LGBT noticeboard, where more qualified editors can help you. Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is appropriately tagged at the bottom with a fair and accurate category.That is not the issue. My point is (and you have not disputed it) is that she herself is NOT an issue. But THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TAG SAYS! Which is why is if she is NOT an issue, that particular tag should be removed. I ask you politely to think again.--Tom (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here. GeneralBelly (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Peer Review of Homosexual transsexual

There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything.

This exact term has been used in various psychological theories that deal with transsexuality. The latest one is quite contfoversial. I don't desire to drag you into the controversy. I simply want to know if the article is good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. Does the article effectively communicate the issues? And an overall impression of the article it self.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hfarmer, I will certainly take a look, although it will have to be after the Christmas holidays. With just a quick peek, I think the cleanup tag can safely be removed. I'll write on the discussion board soon. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, General Belly

Dear General,

Okay. Thanks for your editorial help on this one.

I was in the process of adding the references, when you first encountered the article.

I did it right away, and am continuing right after we talk here.

I will place the refernces in-line - though that will take me a little longer, because I never did it before -- please be patient and thanks!

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MBernal615 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your assistance, if possible

Dear General,

I just saw the Weasel Word tag again.

In addition to completing the piece (photos, etc.) I am still adding even More Documentation.

I've added 18 references to the piece, and I will add the on-line annotations this weekend.

The link to the New York State Assembly Website (also supplied in the article) provides complete access to every piece of legislation sponsored by the Assemblyman...the entirety of every bill.

I will also add specific Legislative Bill numbers to each piece of legislation cited.

Is there any area(s) that you wish to see Particularly Annotated?

Please let me know, and I will do it.

In the meantime, I will remove the Weasel Word tag and go to sleep (I work in 4 hours).

If you re-instate the tag (as is your complete right) I will be in a three-revert situation, even though I am documenting this article with great care and appreciation for your comments.

Will you allow me to work on this throughout the weekend, without the Weasel tag?

I will do it responsibly and thoroughly, as I have been doing.

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in either case.

MBernal615 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need your assistance

Dear General,

I just saw the Weasel Word tag again.

In addition to completing the piece (photos, etc.) I am still adding even More Documentation.

I've added 18 references to the piece, and I will add the on-line annotations this weekend.

The link to the New York State Assembly Website (also supplied in the article) provides complete access to every piece of legislation sponsored by the Assemblyman...the entirety of every bill.

I will also add specific Legislative Bill numbers to each piece of legislation cited.

Is there any area(s) that you wish to see Particularly Annotated?

Please let me know, and I will do it.

In the meantime, I will remove the Weasel Word tag and go to sleep (I work in 4 hours).

If you re-instate the tag (as is your complete right) I will be in a three-revert situation, even though I am documenting this article with great care and appreciation for your comments.

Will you allow me to work on this throughout the weekend, without the Weasel tag?

I will do it responsibly and thoroughly, as I have been doing.

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in either case.

MBernal615 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC) MBernal615 (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...Issues will be addressed

Dear General,

Thank you for specifying your instances of weasel words.

They will all be addressed...annotated, substantiated and/or modified where necessary and appropriate.

Your specific enumeration of these was helpful, since it now allows for direct editorial action on them.

As I indicated, I will perform these over the weekend, in addition to an overall and continuing review of the article.

I am sorry you did not remove the Tag you placed again, but that will be addressed and resolved in due time.

I am confident that this article will not present the issues and editorial history of Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Thank you again for providing specifics.

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MBernal615 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...Issues will be addressed

Dear General,

Thank you for specifying your instances of weasel words.

They will all be addressed...annotated, substantiated and/or modified where necessary and appropriate.

Your specific enumeration of these was helpful, since it now allows for direct editorial action on them.

As I indicated, I will perform these over the weekend, in addition to an overall and continuing review of the article.

I am sorry you did not remove the Tag you placed again, but that will be addressed and resolved in due time.

I am confident that this article will not present the issues and editorial history of Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Thank you again for providing specifics.

Sincerely, MBernal615 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MBernal615 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralBelly...please review the Ruben Diaz Jr. article (Thank you)

Dear General,

I documented the Ruben Diaz Jr. article with complete in-line references.

I also reviewed the language, for any ambiguity or bias.

Please review the article in its current form.

If it meets your standards, I ask (with utmost respect) that you remove the Weasel Tag which you placed.

If there is still any area of concern, please let me know and I will work hard to resolve it.

Thank you for your time and attention to the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

Without editors and fact-checking, a lot of writing does not become as rigorous as it should be!

Thanks again,

MBernal615 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GeneralBelly

Dear General,

Thank you for removing the Weasel Tag.

I understand your point about press releases, and I agree with you. However, the State Assembly materials used in the Diaz Jr. article were not press releases. They were 1) legislative bill summaries and 2) State Assembly Newsletters. A press release is sent by anyone to the press, in hopes of getting press. A New York State Assembly Newsletter is generated, edited, and mailed by the State of New York. It undergoes a strict editorial and fact-checking protocol because it is promulgated by, and bears the authority and responsibility, of a government-issued publication.

I am not writing this to be argumentative, but merely to contextualize the usefulness of a government newsletter, as compared to a mere press release.

Regarding copying and pasting: I cited the Assemblyman's legislation in key areas with my own language, then provided footnote citations to that legislation. I don't see where this constitutes copying and pasting, but perhaps I missed something.

General, thank you for helping with the hyperlinks. I worked hard on the footnotes and references, but could not get the hyperlinks to work. I will devote some time to learning this process...but as with the in-line footnotes, it will take me a little time.

Thank you again for your interest and assistance with this article.

MBernal615 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Government Publications

Dear General,

You’re right about specious civility. The Diaz talk page is growing long, so I’ll post to your own page…and extend my apology for the length of this and previous notes. I believe your concern regarding sources, and the time and attention you’ve spent on the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, deserve nothing less.

For information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

New York State Assembly Newsletters are edited, vetted, typeset, printed, and mailed by the government of the State of New York.

Every time a State Assembly Newsletter is cited in the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, it is to reference a fact – not a viewpoint or opinion.

With respect to the particular New York State Assembly Newsletter which you quoted:

In the area of Brownfield Cleanup Legislation the Assembly Newsletter provides the bill number (A. 11768) and this bill summary: “will provide more than double the current tax incentives for actual site cleanup – up to 50 percent of the costs of remediation; limit the redevelopment credits on non-manufacturing sites to $35 million or three times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; limit the redevelopment credits on manufacturing sites to $45 million or six times the cost of site cleanup, whichever is less; allow any project application that has been received and approved by the DEC to continue to be eligible for current-law tax credits; and increase by 2 percent the redevelopment credit for sites developed in conformance with the Brownfield Opportunity Area Plan.”

In the area of Green Roof Property Tax Abatement, that same Assembly Newsletter provides the bill numbers (A.10234 and A.11226) and the following bill summary: “This tax abatement will offset 35% of the costs of installing a green roof on a standard roof.”

This level of detail and precision, applies to every instance in which a New York State Assembly Newsletter was cited (as a footnote) for the purpose of supplying a legislative fact, and a credible source for that fact.

Precedent exists in Wikipedia, for using a government publication in this manner. You don’t need to look very far.

Please review Reference #87 in the Wikipedia article of David Paterson, the current Governor of New York State. Here is a direct link to the text of this Reference: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0729081.html

If you have time, please review Reference #106 in that same Wikipedia article. Here is the direct link to its content: http://www.patersonforny.com/main.cfm?s=dap

The Ruben Diaz Jr. citations are specifically selected. They supply the direct facts, regarding legislation as it appears, in the body of the Wikipedia article.

This use was more carefully and narrowly drawn, than Reference #106 as shown above.

Again I must affirm, that for information (not conjecture) about New York State legislation, the official publications of the New York State Legislature are a primary resource.

General, thank you for your time, and for your help with the overall article.

MBernal615

68.173.125.102 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

From GeneralBelly:

Hi MBernal615 - I notice you have uploaded photos for which you do not seem to have copyrights. If you do not own the copyrights you should remove the photos until you have fixed the issue. Wikipedia is very strict about this and if you leave them up they will be removed by another editor. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Dear General:

I am coordinating with the office of Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. and the Assembly Office of Communication and Information. Photos were uploaded and licenses obtained, in conformity with the copyright information that pertains to each photo.

It's certainly not incumbent upon you to know this, so it's understandable if you didn't: newsletter photos are taken by the individual legislators. They take their own photos; they own the copyright to their own photos.

They provide these photos to the Office of Communication and Information (retaining their personal copyright), and allow the OCI to publish them in their Assembly Newsletters.

The copyright of all photos taken by the legislators (Assembly and Senate) remains with the legislators. They never relinquished it. The subsequent publication (in newsletter form or otherwise) does not vitiate or modify the underlying copyright.

The upload information is accurate and manifestly disclosed, on the Summary Form as provided. If there is evidence to the contrary, please provide it so that I may act properly and expeditiously.

If there is some protocol I have missed, please inform me (I would greatly appreciate it!) so that I may complete this article, and proceed with other matters.

Thanks as always,

MBernal615 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you review my theory please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_unnatural_selection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameiselder (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page as WP:OR, if you still want to see it, I moved it to the user page for now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Iftikhar

Thank you for your interest in Arsalan Iftikhar's page. He is not Iranian-American, so I have edited it to leave it as "human rights lawyer."

Thank you,

Taiyyaba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tth3mis (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Taiyyaba> I've amended it to just "American", per his bio. GeneralBelly (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh

why hello thar! im on a dynamic IP so i just thought this was an oportune time to inform you that you're still quite the loser wikipedian with to much free time and that im just going to keep reediting this until the end of time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.155.239 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Foy

Hi,

I noticed your declared interest in LGBT/gay/same-sex topics, and wondered if you'd be good enough to look at Lydia Foy.

Thanks,

-- Chzz ► 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

why change the borris stuff i live there i think i know about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.216.159 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately the edit you made had no citations and appeared to contradict verified information elsewhere. GeneralBelly (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Ahern

Hi, WP:BLP is pretty strict on sourcing, and there was no reference for your addition of teh Category "Honorary Fellows of the College of Surgeons", so I've had to remove it; pease feel free to re-add, with source; thanks. Rodhull andemu 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

casino at marino

Why did you revert my edit on this article? Casino does not mean "small house" and Marino does not mean "by the sea". Check any Italian dictionary....unlike English, grammar, endings and gender are important in Italian and can change meanings of words if used incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.99.191 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry, your edit appeared to be vandalism (anonymous user, spelling errors, mentioning brothel, no sources). I'd suggest you add the information back in with a reference to back it up. Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casino

Sorry general....I'm an anonymous user only because I know very little about how to use wikipedia. My sources are simple...knowledge of the Italian language (any dictionary will tell you that casino spelled with an o can never be translated as "small house"), being from Marino in Dublin means that I always had an interest in the Casino and having lived in Marino in Lazio for a number of years furthered my interest. You quote my edit as vandalism, when all I was trying to do was correct an obvious error. You allow the "Casino in Marino" to be translated as "small house by the sea", when even a cursory knowledge of Italian tells you that can't be correct, without any correction or challenge on sources?? Whoever wrote that could not have supported it with sources, as they don't exist! Why is my interpretation considered vandalism when the "small house by the sea" interpretation is allowed stand without challenge? Check any Italian dictionary....a casino is a brothel (today's definition). In old Italian it was any place where men gathered to have fun. Check an atlas of italy... Marino is a town in Lazio, no where near the sea. Check your Irish history...Caulfield lived in italy (specifically in Marino and Genova) and brought many Italian names back to ireland, including Marino (and rialto and most of the roads around the dalkey area...all Italian names. His town house is now the present Rotonda[oops..more Italian]Hospital.)

I don't mean to sound tetchy and I'm sorry if I come across that way, but I'm baffled that you allow an obvious error, with no sources to back it up, to stand, when you keep deleting my correction which has both linguistic and historical backing that would take you five minutes to check out and see that I'm correct. All you need is an Italian dictionary, an understanding of 18th Century Italian culture and to google James Caulfield. Fine if you don't trust my interpretation, bu why let "small house by the sea" to stand unchallenged? Colm Kenny (real name...not some user name like general, as I'm sure your parents dindn't call you that!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.99.191 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colm. Thanks for your message. Since you're new to Wikipedia, let me extend you a warm welcome. No-one was suggesting that you're a vandal; as explained, your edits were reverted as they appeared to have the hallmarks of vandalism. Apologies if you were offended. Remember the caveat displayed on every edit page before submission: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." It is highly beneficial to create your own account (see the top right corner of the page) to make it easier to communicate with other editors and to allow you to edit and monitor articles more efficiently. It also allows you to build a reputation as an editor and to avoid further confusion over the intentions behind edits.

One of the core points to keep in mind when writing an article is sourcing/referencing. Reverting your edits was not done because there is reason to believe that your edit in particular was faulty - however there was no reason to believe it to be superior to the original version either, which in its defence had been unchallenged for a significant period of time. Your edits also made reference to brothels, etc., and had spelling errors. This heightened the suspicion that they were not serious edits. As you become more acquainted with Wikipedia you will (unfortunately) discover that not all editors are as genuine and enthusiastic as yourself.

You mention your knowledge of the Italian language and of Irish history - those are good resources for you to use here, however Wikipedia cannot depend on editors writing "what we know", but rather "what we can show". The onus is on you to provide evidence (typically by linking to a verifiable online source) to back up what you are writing. It is not the responsibility of other editors to find and add references for you.

You say: "[it] would take you five minutes to check out and see that I'm correct. All you need is an Italian dictionary, an understanding of 18th Century Italian culture and to google James Caulfield. Fine if you don't trust my interpretation, bu why let "small house by the sea" to stand unchallenged?" If you read the points made above and explore some of Wikipedia's guides to editing, you will recognise that it is you who should have taken the few minutes out of your time to add references, rather than spend it adding comments such as "Colm Kenny (real name...not some user name like general, as I'm sure your parents dindn't call you that!!!)". Let's put it down to a caustic Dublin sense of humour. ;-)

Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your comments. Good luck with your editing. GeneralBelly (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touche...you are correct, of course...I was being over sensitive about the vandal thing and now realise it's just one of those wiki words used. I just didn't want you to think I was editing an article just for the fun of it, or that I was trying to hide my identity mischievously. I did it because I know it to be true and because the subject is close to my heart (but can't point to online references...yet). I'll have to study how to use Wiki properly before I make any further contributions. The only citation I can provide at the moment is the 1985 edition of The Collins Italian Concise Dictionary, edited by Catherine Love, ISBN 0 00 433443 4, which clearly gives the definition of Casino as a brothel. Unfortunately, I haven't worked out how to edit that reference into the page :)

Anyway, apart from the dictionary definition, I can't prove any of the rest of it, so feel free to delete my edits once again. I won't be offended. After all, it's only an article about a building and given it's written in English, it's unlikely any Italians will stumble across it or take offence at their language being distorted. Sorry for causing a casino (other definition...a mess) LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.99.191 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast

Comment The Full Armor of God Broadcast is facing deletion. Any advice, assistance or help would be much appreciated!173.88.28.69 (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

I have nominated Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iona Institute

Hi BellyAche,

I notice that you keep reversing a correction I have made on the Iona Institute page. I have been deleting "Catholic" in "conservative Catholic think tank" and stating that it "promotes marriage and religion in society". It is not specific to Catholicism or any particular religion.

Why do you keep putting "Catholic" back into the description? Do you know something I don't know? If so, what's your source?

Regards,

Tallrite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallrite (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I meant "GeneralBelly", not "BellyAche". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallrite (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. The source is cited in the article. Regards, GeneralBelly (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GeneralBelly. You have new messages at WP:AIV.
Message added 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Foozie

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Miss Foozie. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Miss Foozie/archive1 for work done to the article, and feel free to re-assess its quality class on the article talk page. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Iona Institute

Why did you undo my edit on Iona Institute They arent a conservative catholic think tank. They're simply a catholic think tank? Isn't your revert contrary to NPOV?--92.251.255.13 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a conservative catholic is specific sub division of catholicism: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Catholics--92.251.255.13 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your revert was because you feel that catholics have a particularly conservative view of the world then that would be NPOV --92.251.255.13 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert your revert. I'd like to hear you view on the above points but you dont seem to want to comment--92.251.255.13 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for the comments. The II positions are conservative in the sense of general conservative values, e.g. nuclear family, against divorce, against sex before marriage, against same-sex marriage, etc. It should be read as a Catholic group which is conservative, not labelling them as a Traditionalist/Conservative Catholic group. I think if we add a comma to make it conservative, Catholic think tank, that should be clear enough. It's not NPOV to classify them as liberal/conservative, any more than it is to describe a political party as same, or a dress as red/black/blue, or a film as horror/comedy, etc. It's not pejorative or controversial. GeneralBelly (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just wonder is there a clearer way of phrasing it, so it can't be miss read as conservative catholic. In the catholic world conservative catholic has a very specific meaning. My reasoning was that the term "catholic" would be sufficient to convey its world view with out any chance of Traditionalist/Conservative Catholic mis-understaning.--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the article's talk page, I just wanted to clarify my revert of your revert. I didn't want to end up getting my IP blocked. I didn't mean to citizie you. Sorry.--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the average reader will read it as conservative in the sense of "not liberal"; the comma and the wikilink to conservatism will hopefully help avoid confusion. I was almost a priest once(!), so I know what you mean about the term Conservative Catholic, but to be honest I think that only a small number of readers would think that way. No worries re: criticism, that's how wikipedia gets better. Have you considered registering? The whole IP thing can be a hassle. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GeneralBelly. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GeneralBelly. You have new messages at Ialsoagree's talk page.
Message added 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Louth Meath Hospital Group

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Louth Meath Hospital Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I took a look, and since it asserts being composed of notable hospitals, it indicates some importance. But without more information, I really do not see it as a separate article, so I changed it to a redirect to the one hospital in the group that has an article. Feel free to edit it, but what's the point without some material? What might work very well is to move the material on the constituent hospital there, and redirect from that name, adding sections for the other hospitals. If you do this and it requires me to delete anything to permit the move, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for your note. The hospital group seems notable - in fact it was mentioned today in Ireland's paper of record with no need for definition or explanation [2]. I am currently working my way through the list of Irish hospitals without articles. I would suggest it be left in place and I will hopefully have it filled out soon. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed information from the entry on Nell Greenfieldboyce. The information - her high school history, her parents high school and work history and so forth - is not of general interest for a very minor public figure. If you feel that some of the information I removed is truly relevant, please add back only those specific parts of the article.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbun (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiProject Hospitals

If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here).

You seem to be doing a lot of work on hospitals in Ireland, which is a great thing! Check out the updated hospital infobox as well. Ng.j (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review on Integrative Medicine

Hello General. I noticed your name in the peer reviewers list for medicine articles and was wondering whether you might be interested in looking at Integrative Medicine (WP:Peer review/Integrative Medicine/archive1). The article was recently submitted through Articles for Creation by a brand new contributor and I was immediately struck by its length, breadth and number of citations. I worked with the author to resolve a few issues and moved it into the mainspace, where I have done a decent amount of cleanup and polish, but I was hoping to get some feedback on the article's quality and where we should go from here. If you can't do ir or you're not interested, no worries. Thanks! Zachlipton (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P Casey

Hi, have you accessed this external http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/0310/1204843733113.html ? Off2riorob (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Off2riorob - yes, I did when writing the original article. GeneralBelly (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email me the content from the article that relates to the supported content. It seems the whole criticism section which is quite accusatory is all cited to this one pay per view location which troubles me a bit when I can't investigate it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't access it any more either - they put up a paywall recently, like the NYT. The link was freely available at the time the article was written and of course the hard copy newspaper archives remain as a permanent record. The criticism section reflects what appeared in the source referenced, which is the paper of record. I've removed the heading "Criticism" and merged the subsections into the previous section. GeneralBelly (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that might help. I didn't like the section/subs.. headings - I am logging of soon and will have a little look tomorrow, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]