User talk:Gillyweed

Homebirth safety absurdity

Hey there - Amazing how one difficult person can be such a thorn in an otherwise well-working group of editors. I'll get my hands on some homebirth books in the coming months and try to build the content of the article. I don't think anyone wins when the emphasis is so heavily on safety - women who choose a homebirth don't do so because of safety issues (except perhaps when thinking of their own abdominal integrity), but because of the many other benefits a homebirth offers. I know there are studies that investigate how well a woman liked her birth experience, but these seem so subjective and may not add much value. I imagine the safety section will continue to be a difficult section, but it needn't eclipse the article. Thank you for your commitment to this page. Lcwilsie (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It's cheering to deal with a sane editor. I'm quite amazed at the vituperative responses given by the anon. Safety is of course important but there is ample evidence to show that for non-high risk women, home birth is just as safe (if not safer) than hospital birth. One area the statistics fail to cover are re-admittances to hospital after intervention (eg infection after caesarean scar, after episiotomy etc). The statistics do not capture these as re-admittances as the same episode of maternity care but rather as a separate incident. To take an extreme example, if a woman is readmitted 10 days after a caesarean with an infection and this infection (caused by the caesarean) leads to her death, then this does not register as a maternal death caused by the caesarean, but as caused by infection because the woman has been absent from the hospital for a period. You only need a couple of these per year and the maternal death rate in Australia is significantly higher than that reported. I was reading an evaluation of the St George Home Birth Service last night and it had a good section on maternal satisfaction. I look forward to working with you over the coming months. Gillyweed (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up - I noticed some of my homebirth edits reverted without explanation by our beloved anonymous editor. I've been doing a lot of reading lately and hope to have more to add in the coming weeks, and will probably need a team of editors to make sure it isn't all summarily deleted. Thanks. Lcwilsie (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

thankyou

Thankyou Gillyweed for giving me this chance i will try to remove all things that make it look like a promotion, i put this page up because i am proud of this club, and i would like information about swimming in the ACT to be on wikipedia. thankyou very much.

sorry about all the bad grammar, i am really tired.

Housewp (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Yer welcome, not a problem. For most conspiracy and general nutter theories, the fringe theories noticeboard is a great place to assemble expertise and get some not-just-single purpose accounts contributors. Mastcell is excellent and should be more than capable of keeping the page under wraps all by himself. Incidentally, I've made some minor tweaks to your archive linking above (mostly the {{archivebox}} really) to pretty it up, hope you don't mind. Also, have a look at this, it's some standard changes to a stub I made - if you're interested in ships, the infobox is pretty standard and I've always liked the {{reflist}} rather than <references/>. I got to the page by randomly clicking on one of the links on your user page. And because I can't resist meddling, I made changes. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 11:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this link. I wasn't aware of this noticeboard before. I am sure it will be very useful. Thank you too for your 'meddling' on various other pages. A grand improvement! Catch you around the suspect articles. Gillyweed (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Moffatt Oxenbould & IBC

The only reason I used the International Who's Who in Music by the International Biographical Centre in the Moffatt Oxenbould article was to provide a source for his complete date of birth — I could find no other source. Whatever shady practices the IBC may be accused of, this seems uncontroversial. Of course, I will not re-add that reference. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I am investigating Water Ionizer Research (talk · contribs) for possible disruptive editing. I noticed that you have unblanked their talk page a few times. This was probably just a misunderstanding on your part. Users are normally allowed to remove talk page comments and warnings. This confirms that they have seen them. Please don't revert such blankings in general. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 10:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. This was a misunderstanding. It had been my view that the user page was free for the user to do what they wanted with, but the talk page was for the use of all editors - particularly as a record of the editor's behaviour. Can you point me to any policy document saying that blanking of talk is okay? Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:BLANKING and WP:TALK, though I am not exactly sure where it is documented. Water Ionizer Research has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The policy is found at the bottom of WP:TALK. I shall now pull my head in! Oh, and good news about Water Ionizer Research! Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Roller-compacted concrete

You have a problem with the ref, fix it, don't just bitch about it. In particular, don't revert other editor's changes within seconds while they're busy doing the edit that you ought to have done already. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I spend enough time removing linkspam and self-promotional links to websites that I don't need to spend further time looking up people's poorly referenced works. Gillyweed (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been reading some of your "contributions": deleting whole sections on the grounds of, "lots of good info, but uncited" in particular. I suggest you take a look at WP:FIXIT et al. and the general policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Of course there's a lot of cruft out there, but it's a lot better to improve things rather than just starting edit wars or killing whole chunks. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I seem to manage okay. Gillyweed (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Source for value ranges in "Mullard-Philips tube designation"

Hi Gillyweed, I saw your edits on Mullard-Philips tube designation. Can you help to solve the mystery of this? Do you know a source to check? --BEG (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but my last edit on this article was in 2007. I've looked and I can't help further. Good luck! Gillyweed (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch's built; better late than never

Hey there. In 2007 you asked how many Tetrarch tanks had been built. I realize it was eighteen months ago, but I thought a reply might be better late than never; I just finished expanding the article! Between 100 and 177 of the Mark VII's were built; 177 is the most commonly quoted number, but new research by Keith Flint shows that only about 100 were built before production came to an end. Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for answering the question! Great bit of research. Cheers! Gillyweed (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing redlink names in Indian poets list

I'm concerned about your removing redlinks on the List of Indian poets for two reasons: (1) It seems like a rather short list for such a big country (I know, there are other lists for individual languages), and I assume there are loads of articles on individual poets yet to be written. One of the strengths of having a list, as opposed to a category page, is that redlinks can be included, and readers can see that there just isn't an article on that poet yet. I don't know anything about Indian poetry, so I can't tell whether or not some poet's name who is redlinked on that list or whom you've removed is a notable topic for an article. If the poet would make a fit article topic, the name should be there, redlinked or not, following Wikipedia style at WP:REDLINK. (2) I'm not at all sure that there is standard English spelling for a lot of these names. If we can list notable poets along with the various alternative spellings of their names, we can help the reader, redlink or not. If we only have one spelling, it's entirely possible that there's a link to a writer who wasn't listed as a poet or put in a poet category when that should have been done (I've seen instances of this with other writers who wrote some poetry.) In that case, the redlink can at least tell the reader that there's neither an article nor a redirect for that spelling, and the reader can search under alternative spellings, if known (or guessed). That's my thinking, anyway. Please tell me what you think. The bottom line is that we should have redlinks for articles that we can expect will eventually be written. I think that makes the lists more helpful to the readers, even if we don't now have articles for each poet on the list. Reconsideration (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. I have been patrolling this list for quite sometime and it seems to attract an inordinate amount of vandalism and vanity. It appears to me that very few of the poets added are capable of sustaining WP:Bio but the only way of telling is for the article to be written first and then a link created in this list. Otherwise, tomorrow I can create a poet called Albert Gillyweed and it will sit there with nobody creating the article but I can have a good giggle to my mates about vandalizing WP! (2) As you state, there are few poets listed for such a large country as India. I agree, but because India is such a large country then we need to be certain that the poets listed are in fact notable and the only way we can tell that is if a proper article is written... (3) Spelling. I think spelling issues are best handled by redirects. So if someone searchers for Albert Gilllyweed with three 'Ls' then it is the redirect that puts them on the right direction rather than having many alternative spellings in a list. (4) How can we tell if articles will eventually be written about these poets? I appreciate your concern but I'm not convinced that leaving the article alone will fix the problem! I'd like to continue pruning the list but if you think that this is wrong then why don't I leave it alone for a month or so and see what happens. I am pretty sure it will soon become unreadable and significantly full of vandalism and vanity. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to leave it alone. Please see the changes I've just made to it. I found some books via Google Books and Amazon.co that give us a good idea of poets that are prominent enough to eventually get articles, and I've only added poets with footnotes that link to those books (parts of which are online). I think that solves the vanity/redlink problem. All we need to do is insist on either a similar footnote or a blue link. It is useful to have a list of prominent poets, even with some red links. I agree that patrolling the article is a good idea, and thank you for doing it. I might create some articles on some of these poets. -- Reconsideration (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! And a great solution. Thanks. See you around the Indian Poetry page! Gillyweed (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tetrarch ACR

Hi there! I know it might be a bit of a longshot, but I was wondering f you might want to comment on the A-Class Review of Tetrarch (tank) as you asked a question on the talkpage last year? The ACR is [[1]] if you're curious! Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Fantastic work on the article. I am very impressed. I'd be happy to review the ACR but the lin you provided doesn't work. I've looked around but can't find it! Can you revise the link please? Gillyweed (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for not fixing that link, I forgot all about the review until it passed. If you're interested, I'd welcome any comments you have on the article as it's now a Featured Article Candidate. The FAC can be found here: [2] Skinny87 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Janus

Hi, I noticed you created an article about Samuel Janus. Do you know if it's possible to contact this man? I have some questions about a study he did. Does he have an email, phone number, any form of contact info? Overshoes (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no further information about him. Gillyweed (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Childbirth picture

Hi. Credits where already removed. Image is preety sized, the mother's incision and the baby look pretty visible for me, bad lightning on the incision but that's not the point here but childbirth. It's a Caesarean section but still a childbirth. Don't get the country specific part.-Pediboi (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hazard to suggest that over 95% of the world's population are not born by caesarean section. Therefore it is not a representative picture of childbirth. Gillyweed (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to "hazard" a guess. In the US, in 2006, 31.1% of all childbirths were by c-section. In (eastern) China, as of 2002, over 20% of all births were by C-section, and the rate was rising. Rates in the UK and Canada are likewise over 20%, and even in the developing world there are countries where the rates are well beyond the WHO's recommended overall rate of 15%. Playing statistical games to minimize the prevalence of this extremely common procedure does a great disservice to women everywhere. It's perfectly appropriate for us to have photos of both vaginal and caesarian births. Nandesuka (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Making this image the first one in an article about childbirth does a great disservice to women everywhere wbo have natural births. There is a concerted effort by government health bodies across the world to reduce c-sections, so why place an abnormal and not-recommended way of birthing (except for around 15% of women) as the first photo in the article? Is there a photo of a leg in a cast in an article about femurs? Why show a medical procedure as the first image? As you point out above, the WHO recommends a C-rate of 15% and yet the indication of a c-birth in the first paragraph of the article suggests that this is the predominent way of giving birth. If the photo must remain then it should be placed further down the article. C-sections are not normal, they are the exception. Gillyweed (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscarriage Association

I know that a load of links is to much but this just happens to be the OFFICIAL UK organisation dealing with miscarriage and you kicked the link off the page for miscarriage.Seems you have gone over the top in removing links.This site is the most comprehensive there is in the UK on miscarriage.Rosenthalenglish (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many official organizations related to various health issues. Imagine if every OFFICIAL country organisation was listed. Anyway, it doesn't fit with WP policy. See WP:EL. Gillyweed (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Invite to Canberra Meetup #2

--.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 13:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Lynch and Somme Mud

Remember that article you started a year back on Edward Lynch. Have a look at it now ! (I know this sounds like gloating but I don't write much outside of Rugby Union/Rugby League and I'm pretty happy with how this one is progressing) I was so pleased when went to start to see you'd made a start. Rgds-Sticks66 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What a lot of work. Thank you so much and thank you too for letting me know. I haven't been as diligent as I should be about keeping an eye on everything on my watchlist. Best wishes Gillyweed (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ginninderra article

are u intending to add anymore content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfromcanberra (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't touched the article in two years! It's not on my list of priorities. Why? Gillyweed (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to expand it somewhat, add some photos etc. include details of buildings etc. Given you started the article are you happy for me to proceed? Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Utterly delighted! Please go ahead and expand. I've liked the work you have done on other articles. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ginninderra

Thanks. I stay have bit of work to do. Am attempting to get a few more photos. I will fix up the typos and links as I go —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfromcanberra (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EnePaul225 Mods to enema.....

I keep adding relevant links and posts to this article..........Then it gets called vandalism......It is not and the links I provided for discussion groups I feel add a great deal to the article. Being active in the enema community I know such things as how people modify the douche nozzle for enema use and how much wine people use. Please Reconsider keeping on pulling down my productive mods. I am quickly loosing Respect for wikipedia and its members. EnePaul225 EnePaul225 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This user's edits, although in need of copyediting (something you're welcome to do; I have to get back to work), shouldn't be called vandalism. Bushytails (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)